It's also worth mentioning that many encounters in 2e are mixed, with some higher level enemies and some lower level enemies. It's usually pretty easy as a player to tell which are which.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to think that every time the PCs face an enemy with a higher level, it's a boss encounter, and Assurance's weakness against those enemies doesn't matter because such enemies are infrequent. I'm telling, from Actual Play of an official adventure, those encounters are frequent.
How many times do people have to requote to you that the Devs said that adventure was overtuned?
I think your stumbling block is you keep thinking in terms of CR, which doesn't exist in 2E. 2E has XP Budgets, Party Level, and Encounter Threat Level. No CR.
Forgive me for using an antiquated term from PF1, but I am not confused about what Creature Level means.
If you rewrite all my "CR"s as "CL"s, it does not vary my intent or point.
In any case, I hate having to cite quotes from earlier in the discussion.
You and I can agree on that.
Build encounters your way, I'll build them the developer's way.
Glad to hear you'll start following the recommended guidelines for encounters. You might not hate Assurance all that much now.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going through Plaguestone and the first three volumes of AoA, the percentage of encounters involving enemies of higher than PC level is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2, never actually hitting either of those numbers (call it 35%-45%).
In all those books precisely one encounter (in Plaguestone) features multiple overleveled foes (two level 3 foes vs. a level 2 party). To be clear, that's significantly less than 1% of encounters (and only 4% even in Plaguestone itself).
There are lots of opportunities to fight things equal to or below your level. Indeed, given that many of those 35%-45% of encounters involving overleveled foes also involve lower level minions of some sort, such enemies are available the vast majority of the time (I'd say at least 80% of fights involve some on-level or below foes).
|
Going through Plaguestone and the first three volumes of AoA, the percentage of encounters involving enemies of higher than PC level is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2, never actually hitting either of those numbers (call it 35%-45%).
In all those books precisely one encounter (in Plaguestone) features multiple overleveled foes (two level 3 foes vs. a level 2 party). To be clear, that's significantly less than 1% of encounters (and only 4% even in Plaguestone itself).
There are lots of opportunities to fight things equal to or below your level. Indeed, given that many of those 35%-45% of encounters involving overleveled foes also involve lower level minions of some sort, such enemies are available the vast majority of the time (I'd say at least 80% of fights involve some on-level or below foes).
Thank you, DMW, for your analysis. You're a much more patient man than I.
Hopefully it's enough to put to bed the notion that players shouldn't expect to fight enemies of a higher level than their PCs, or that GMs are advised by the CRB not to use such enemies when building encounters.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully it's enough to put to bed the notion that players shouldn't expect to fight enemies of a higher level than their PCs
None of the people you were arguing with said that.
80% of combats across the first three books of AoA and the entirety of an admitted overturned adventure had CL or lower creatures, which means the common scenario is exactly what was stated previous and Assurance has plenty of opportunities to shine.
Certainly looks like case closed to me.
Here are the statistics for every encounter in the first book of AoA.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yAEwFamu4PnyaIHNKR_bJAZ3RWUBBbKs/view?usp= sharing
Assurance works to Grapple 14 out of 75 on level creatures, and to Trip 8 out of 75 on level creatures.
The numbers go up a bit if you compare the level you encounter the creatures at as opposed to on level.
Assurance works to Grapple 32 of 75 encountered creatures, and to Trip 15 of 75 encountered creatures.
However, 24 of the encountered creatures that you can Grapple, and 9 of the encountered creatures that you can Trip, are so far below party level that it would take a miracle for them to survive until your 3rd action.
Everyone can draw their own conclusions based on that raw actual play data.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, of the enemies that aren't so weak as to be borderline irrelevant...
8 of 51 are grapple-able (15%)
6 of 60 are trip-able (10%)
That...seems low. And completely an argument for "Assurance is bad at this thing people claim it is good at." A far cry from "70% of things you fight are your level and under and therefor good targets for Assurancing."
So, of the enemies that aren't so weak as to be borderline irrelevant...
8 of 51 are grapple-able (15%)
6 of 60 are trip-able (10%)That...seems low. And completely an argument for "Assurance is bad at this thing people claim it is good at." A far cry from "70% of things you fight are your level and under and therefor good targets for Assurancing."
"6 of 60 are trip-able (10%)" seems about right from what I've seen: by the time you can trip a significant number of foes of a level with assurance, you can usually just kill them instead of inconveniencing them with a skill action.
Haven't seen much voluntary grappling so I'm not sure on that but the number doesn't surprise me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be interested to see what the numbers are for book 2 - I feel like book one has more "party level or higher" creatures than book 2, largely because the low party level means there isn't much "down" to go.
I'd be interested to see what the numbers are for book 2 - I feel like book one has more "party level or higher" creatures than book 2, largely because the low party level means there isn't much "down" to go.
I didn't do book 2 because my group hasn't finished it yet and I don't want to read ahead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, of the enemies that aren't so weak as to be borderline irrelevant...
8 of 51 are grapple-able (15%)
6 of 60 are trip-able (10%)That...seems low. And completely an argument for "Assurance is bad at this thing people claim it is good at." A far cry from "70% of things you fight are your level and under and therefor good targets for Assurancing."
As MaxAstro points out, in book one you can’t be higher level than your opponents all that often and Assurance doesn’t even come online for most players until level 3.
I would also be curious to see these enemies that die to the two action DPR of PCs that have been declared “meaningless” but nonetheless saying Assurance to trip/grapple is “bad” just because you can’t use it against above level enemies isn’t really how you gauge it. PCs generally know when something is stronger than them.
If you have to frame everything to prove your point by saying “we’ll book one has nearly half of encounters with creatures you can trip, but 70% of them are irrelevant” without putting out any actual math on why these 70% are irrelevant, then I think the point holds less merit.
I don’t want to spoil the AP so I’m not going to peruse it, but I’m willing to wager just based on the HP of CL 2 creatures (above 30) that this “two actions kill the monster” argument isn’t really true. And if you missed your second attack and had a guaranteed assurance trip/grapple on your third action it would be optimal to take it.
I fail to see how a Skill Feat that allows the option to trip when the circumstances are right is “bad”. It has plenty of other applications outside of combat as well and has applications in combat when circumstances align. Most skill feats offer a +1 to combat related things for goodness sake, it’s not like it’s a Class Feat.
One thing about assurance athletics is it covers more than just combat and allows characters who would never normally be able to do things like climb or swim effectivly to do so. I mentioned earlier a Halfling Wizard with a str of 8. He has skills for days but normally athletics wouldn't be an option as the related att would always leave him behind but toss in assurance and wam you have a ton of options that just wouldn't be possable without it.
Anyone think of other cool uses of assurance like say for Thevery allowing you to pick easier locks with your fingers...lol no penelty for not using the correct tools.
Why would you do Assurance Athletics on each combat? Isn't that feat for mundane tasks and not fumble fail? Doing Assurance Maneuvers on 10% of enemies seems more than fine.
One thing about assurance athletics is it covers more than just combat and allows characters who would never normally be able to do things like climb or swim effectivly to do so. I mentioned earlier a Halfling Wizard with a str of 8. He has skills for days but normally athletics wouldn't be an option as the related att would always leave him behind but toss in assurance and wam you have a ton of options that just wouldn't be possable without it.
Anyone think of other cool uses of assurance like say for Thevery allowing you to pick easier locks with your fingers...lol no penelty for not using the correct tools.
Heck you can even do this for Intimidate with low CHA and then never take Intimidating Glare because you can avoid the -4 for not sharing a language. You'll basically be stuck with the Assurance number, but it might be useful OoC too.
If you have to frame everything to prove your point by saying “we’ll book one has nearly half of encounters with creatures you can trip, but 70% of them are irrelevant” without putting out any actual math on why these 70% are irrelevant, then I think the point holds less merit.
So, for one, I'm not going to go through the modules myself, having not played them yet.
For two, I was basing the "70% are irrelevant" on someone else's assessment:
However, 24 of the encountered creatures that you can Grapple, and 9 of the encountered creatures that you can Trip, are so far below party level that it would take a miracle for them to survive until your 3rd action.
For two, I was basing the "70% are irrelevant" on someone else's assessment:
However, 24 of the encountered creatures that you can Grapple, and 9 of the encountered creatures that you can Trip, are so far below party level that it would take a miracle for them to survive until your 3rd action.
Apologies, it wasn't necessarily directed at you, I was just stating that if this person is going to tote that 70% of the enemies are irrelevant, I would take that with a massive grain of salt.
I have yet in actual play, to see a creature be "irrelevant/meaningless", and there are literally no CL-1s that a PCs avg DPR for two actions can kill.
Even a level 2 Giant Totem Barbarian's average DPR on two actions isn't high enough to drop a Gnoll (29HP) with it's 17.325 (16.5*.65 + 16.5 * .4), and I believe this is one of the higher DPR martials.
So you get to your third action, and the creature is not dead, and Assurance Athletics to Trip/Grapple would be a success then why wouldn't you?
That's a condition applied, an action tax (potentially one with MAP or provokes an AoO), and a loss of your worst DPR action. Even in a solo fight with no ally in sight it's still the most optimal action to take.
I've actually seen Assurance shine for climbing a fair bit. AoA has a a bunch of fights that involve different elevations and climbing ropes or ladders. The party fighter failed a couple of times climbing up or down and wasted actions, even at low DCs, but the monk was able to use Assurance to make reach enemies without rolling.
I'm also find of it as a pairing with Sudden Leap, as it is extremely disappointing to spend two actions doing this cinematic thing and then fail to hit a jump DC.
My play expeirence is thus: Every single time my monk ends her turn next to an enemy, she's knocked out before she can act again.
I now pretty much exclusively Stride in, Flurry of Blows, Stride out. I can't imagine ending my turn next to a dangerous foe, my fate hinging on the off-chance that I will be able to knock him prone.
In this case, Assurance is something you'd use when you START your turn next to an enemy, not end it. Flurry> Trip > move away is extremely efficient. It leaves you within one move when you want to swing back in, and forcing an enemy prone not only makes it harder for them to come after you but the entire party.
Monk action economy makes them the best candidates IMO, save maybe rogues who dump strength and have skill increases to spare.
Monk action economy makes them the best candidates IMO, save maybe rogues who dump strength and have skill increases to spare.
I think the ones that the most value are definitely:
- Monk
- Fighter for AoO and doesn't want the manuever feats
- Ruffian Rogue (IMO the most valuable)
- Upcoming - Swashbuckler Gymnast
- Animal Totem Barbarian
The other Classes can certainly find value there, but these four will see excellent value in Combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, of the enemies that aren't so weak as to be borderline irrelevant...
8 of 51 are grapple-able (15%)
6 of 60 are trip-able (10%)That...seems low. And completely an argument for "Assurance is bad at this thing people claim it is good at." A far cry from "70% of things you fight are your level and under and therefor good targets for Assurancing."
As MaxAstro points out, in book one you can’t be higher level than your opponents all that often and Assurance doesn’t even come online for most players until level 3.
I would also be curious to see these enemies that die to the two action DPR of PCs that have been declared “meaningless” but nonetheless saying Assurance to trip/grapple is “bad” just because you can’t use it against above level enemies isn’t really how you gauge it. PCs generally know when something is stronger than them.
If you have to frame everything to prove your point by saying “we’ll book one has nearly half of encounters with creatures you can trip, but 70% of them are irrelevant” without putting out any actual math on why these 70% are irrelevant, then I think the point holds less merit.
I don’t want to spoil the AP so I’m not going to peruse it, but I’m willing to wager just based on the HP of CL 2 creatures (above 30) that this “two actions kill the monster” argument isn’t really true. And if you missed your second attack and had a guaranteed assurance trip/grapple on your third action it would be optimal to take it.
I fail to see how a Skill Feat that allows the option to trip when the circumstances are right is “bad”. It has plenty of other applications outside of combat as well and has applications in combat when circumstances align. Most skill feats offer a +1 to combat related things for goodness sake, it’s not like it’s a Class Feat.
The creatures that I flagged as far below level are all level 1 or less, and encountered at level 3 or more. I did put out actual math. You are choosing not to look at it.
Below are just numbers, no creature names or statistics, but I've spoilered them anyway.
9 of them are level 1 and encountered at level 3
1 of them is level 0 and encountered at level 3
10 of them are level 1 and encountered at level 4
I'll do books 1 and 2 of EC when I get a chance, but the numbers are going to just get worse at higher levels, as higher level enemies have higher ability scores, which drives up their DC faster than your Assurance, because Assurance doesn't include your ability mod. If Assurance included your ability mod, it would be fantastic, but leaving that out will always put you behind the curve.
Anyway, as a reminder, Assurance is a skill feat, skill feats on the first levels are pretty meh. My players are picking them just for trying out and most of the times they even forget about them. Yes there are "optimal" picks, like Assurance for Medicine, but is not the right pick every time. For example if everybody has Assurance Medicine, you are not improving your party that much, but having Assurance Athletics could do, because you open new tactics for your party.
I have to disagree. There are plenty of phenomenal Skill feats, even at low level.
Cat Fall
Steady Balance
Combat Climber
Quick Jump
Titan Wrestler
Powerful Leap
Alchemical Crafting
Quick Repair
Magical Crafting
Lengthy Diversion
Intimidating Glare
Intimidating Prowess
Experienced Professional
Battle Medicine
Continual Recovery
Mortal Healing
Robust Recovery
Ward Medic
Fascinating Performance
Virtuosic Performer
Juggle
Terrain Stalker, which you can take multiple times
Wary Disarmament
|
|
Hopefully it's enough to put to bed the notion that players shouldn't expect to fight enemies of a higher level than their PCs, or that GMs are advised by the CRB not to use such enemies when building encounters.None of the people you were arguing with said that.
I think the source of your confusion is that you cut off part of my post by accident.
Midnightoker and MaxAstro mistakenly believed (still believe?) that the CRB advised against challenging players with 'Level+' monsters. They had misinterpreted encounter-building guidelines in the 'Different Party Sizes' section on p. 489 to apply to all encounter, not just ones for larger parties.
I pointed out their mistake, and that Plagestone contains numerous encounters with such monsters. DMW added there were also many more such encounters in the Age of Ashes books, and that anywhere from one-third to one-half of encounters have 'Level+' enemies.
Honestly I don't care if people think Assurance is better than I think it is, or if they think it lets them pick locks without Theives' tool,n since there's no real harm. But I do care if otherwise thoughtful people get the wrong idea on how to build encounters and inadvertently spread misinformation.
If you're ever confused by what people have said on forums, it's helpful to look over their old comments ;>)
The creatures that I flagged as far below level are all level 1 or less. I did put out actual math. You are choosing not to look at it.
numbers:
6 of them are level -2 and encountered at level 3
9 of them are level 1 and encountered at level 3
1 of them is level 0 and encountered at level 3
And even on CL-2s, there's no guarantee you clear them in two actions, and on strike that misses it becomes optimal to trip on the third action anyways simply due to the drop in DPS on the third attack on average.
I guess we just have fundamental differences of opinion on "value" and "relevance"
Midnightoker and MaxAstro mistakenly believed (still believe?) that the CRB advised against challenging players with 'Level+' monsters. They had misinterpreted encounter-building guidelines in the 'Different Party Sizes' section on p. 489 to apply to all encounter, not just ones for larger parties.
You are putting words in our mouth.
Here is what I actually said:
I'd say facing a CR + 2 at level 1 should be unlikely.
Unlikely does not equal never.
here's another quote:
The rules aren't "never use CR + X" they are "CR + X is not the normal encounter".
See how I specifically state the rules aren't "never use CL+X".
I think what you misunderstand is that the CRB qualifies anything of CL or higher as a "boss".
If you don't like that nomenclature, take it up with the devs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
I guess we just have fundamental differences of opinion on "value" and "relevance"
Just to double-check, when you said "10" did you actually mean "9"?
Either way, let me go back and adjust my math assuming those 9 aren't irrelevant. (I'm splitting these in half between the two categories, I don't know what those monsters are or their stats).
13 of 51 are grapple-able (25%)
10 of 60 are trip-able (16%)
Still doesn't look like "most things you fight are Assuranceable" to me.
Just to double-check, when you said "10" did you actually mean "9"?
The on level creature wasn't included either, so CL-1 + CL total.
But if you add in the CL-2s as well, which I do not think is "irrelevant", the numbers go up.
Still doesn't look like "most things you fight are Assuranceable" to me.
Was never stated that most things are. It was stated that most combats have the possibility to be and that generally the percentage of enemies you can trip/grapple is solid.
But again, this is book 1, when you don't even get Assurance Expert Athletics until level 3. Book 2 I would expect has opportunities in spades.
35% of the time being able to never fail a third attack action is fine with me.
I said it happens plenty enough to be worth it IMO, especially on the right builds (we're talking about Assurance max-prof Athletics in a vacuum, not with a Ruffian, Fighter, Monk, etc.).
Combats and creatures do not have to be tethered, and the quantity of CL-1/2 creatures in a combat grants more value. If there are 5 of them, you can't expect a party to drop all of them in a single round, so denying actions and stacking damage on prone/immobilized targets gets important.
I think there are just different perspectives on what is valuable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
35% of the time being able to never fail a third attack action is fine with me.
Its only 35% if you know which type of maneuver to use. This is not always true.
And while its true that a third attack will likely miss and not kill the creature, you also have to consider how many other players will have an opportunity to attack it before the enemy gets a turn, and if it gets a turn, how likely it is that the enemy will do anything to significantly harm your own position (i.e. hit and do damage, etc) and how you're tripping it (or whatever) will have a meaningful impact on those other factors.
If your ally is about to go and will definitely kill it on their first attack, how helpful will the enemy being prone be (compared to, say, flanking)?
So what it comes down to is that I'm multiplying 35% by 20% by 70%: just because I will auto-succeed doesn't mean that the bonus/penalty applied will actually make a difference is negligible. The end result is only about a 5% usefulness value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its only 35% if you know which type of maneuver to use. This is not always true.
You have a fifty fifty shot and that's if you have no clue (you can certainly make educated guesses). On the off chance you pick the wrong one, oh well, now you know their X save is greater than your Assurance value.
And while its true that a third attack will likely miss and not kill the creature, you also have to consider how many other players will have an opportunity to attack it before the enemy gets a turn
So? If my teammate has to attack something, he probably wouldn't mind that it's Flat-footed and takes penalties.
Or my teammate might think "I'll move on to someone that isn't basically dead or save my 3rd attack for them since now they are prone I have a good chance".
It literally allows teammates more options.
if it gets a turn, how likely it is that the enemy will do anything to significantly harm your own position (i.e. hit and do damage, etc) and how you're tripping it (or whatever) will have a meaningful impact on those other factors.
Plenty depending on the circumstances. For instance, if you third action tripped with a Whip to a target that wasn't your first two attacks, they literally can't even stand and attack you without a reach weapon or moving.
If you don't think it's going to give you value on your turn, no one is forcing you to use Assurance, it's an option.
But I'd wager most of the time if you know it is going to be a success, you'd want to do it.
If your ally is about to go and will definitely kill it on their first attack, how helpful will the enemy being prone be (compared to, say, flanking)?
You can still be Flanking a prone target for starters.
Second, "definitely" going to kill it on the first attack isn't a thing until you face CL-4 really. You can always miss.
Thirdly, it enhances a chance to Crit which could result in a Critical Specialization or enhance a low damage roll to be enough to drop a creature.
Lastly, who said they need to use their first attack on that creature? Why not save it for their last attack now that the opponent is prone/grabbed?
In any case, they still suffer -2 penalties to attack (which applies to reactions) for Trip or cannot use manipulate/move actions on Grapple.
So what it comes down to is that I'm multiplying 35% by 20% by 70%: just because I will auto-succeed doesn't mean that the bonus/penalty applied will actually make a difference is negligible. The end result is only about a 5% usefulness value.
Idk why you'd be multiplying those numbers, because those aren't the numbers.
My 35% of the time was an approximation based on the percentage DMW provided of 80% of combats across an overtuned AP and 3 books of AoA contained a CL or lower creature.
Of the CL creatures, you can realistically do this 35% of creatures (not 35% of the time), with a 65% creatures total if they have a debuff of -1 to a Save.
And that didn't take into account CL-1 or CL-2 at all.
The overall effectiveness of Assurance to a save is often enough for it to be worth it.
Even if you want to go with 3 action DPR or 2 action DPR + 1 action DPR of an immediate next teammate who beat the monsters initiative, that's still a dubious hill to climb to reach "dead" category. Two Giant Totem Barbarians can't kill a Gnoll with average DPR across first 2 actions and 1 action of second Barbarian (total of 27~ damage and the Gnoll has 29HP)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So? If my teammate has to attack something, he probably wouldn't mind that it's Flat-footed and takes penalties.
Flanking is already flat-footed, doesn't require a check, and costs the same 1 action.
Again, how helpful will the enemy being prone be (compared to, say, flanking)?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, how helpful will the enemy being prone be (compared to, say, flanking)?
Being prone is marginally worse than being flanked. Prone imposes a penalty on attack rolls that flanked doesn’t, standing from prone is more likely to provoke than moving out of flanking, and standing from prone always leaves you in the same square, while getting out of flanking always moves you at least one square.
Again, how helpful will the enemy being prone be (compared to, say, flanking)?Being prone is marginally worse than being flanked. Prone imposes a penalty on attack rolls that flanked doesn’t, standing from prone is more likely to provoke than moving out of flanking, and standing from prone always leaves you in the same square, while getting out of flanking always moves you at least one square.
Precisely. And that's Prone.
And you can't really Flank with a ranged weapon, but you can attack a Prone character with a Ranged attack and still get Flatfooted condition.
It's not exclusive to melee combatants like Flanking is.
If someone is Grabbed, they can't even move out of the Flanked position, and if someone stands from Prone they are still Flanked.
Sure, FF doesn't stack, but that's two actions they need to take now, one to move out of flanked and one to stand from prone. And if they choose not to stand from Prone, they still take a -2 to attack rolls (which is a big loss in DPR).
Flanking also isn't always possible. Even if it is often the most reliable way to inflict flat footed, having alternatives is very nice.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it utterly hilarious that anyone thinks that enemies of level-2 or level-1 are so ineffective that they will die instantly and pose no threat to the party.
It suggests that they have never actually played a game in which those exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it utterly hilarious that anyone thinks that enemies of level-2 or level-1 are so ineffective that they will die instantly and pose no threat to the party.
It suggests that they have never actually played a game in which those exist.
I have a lot of experience with gnolls at this point and whew lad if they end up with a pack tactics situation...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it utterly hilarious that anyone thinks that enemies of level-2 or level-1 are so ineffective that they will die instantly and pose no threat to the party.
It suggests that they have never actually played a game in which those exist.
No one's actually said this about lv-1 and lv-2.
It has been said about lv-3 and lower.
I find it utterly hilarious that anyone thinks that enemies of level-2 or level-1 are so ineffective that they will die instantly and pose no threat to the party.
It suggests that they have never actually played a game in which those exist.
No one's actually said this about lv-1 and lv-2.
It has been said about lv-3 and lower.
Idk stating they’re “meaningless” and would die in three strikes is kinda calling them ineffective and that they die instantly (a single round practically is instant).
And some have definitely made those claims.
No one's actually said this about lv-1 and lv-2.It has been said about lv-3 and lower.
-3 and -4 enemies are still dangerous in numbers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it utterly hilarious that anyone thinks that enemies of level-2 or level-1 are so ineffective that they will die instantly and pose no threat to the party.
It suggests that they have never actually played a game in which those exist.
No one's actually said this about lv-1 and lv-2.
It has been said about lv-3 and lower.
Idk stating they’re “meaningless” and would die in three strikes is kinda calling them ineffective and that they die instantly (a single round practically is instant).
And some have definitely made those claims.
Ok, so now I feel like you are misunderstanding the numbers I posted.
The creatures I discounted were for the most part not 2 levels below the party. 6 of them were Creature Level -2. As in weaker than Level 0. You encounter them at party level 3. That's a 5 level difference. If you don't think that makes them insignificant, then yes, we must be playing different games.
11 of the others were 3 levels below a level 3 or 4 party.
Yes, I did include 9 level 1 creatures that were only 2 levels below the level 3 party, and yes, they were completely insignificant in both of my plays through book 1, with 2 different parties, neither of which had ever played PF2 before, except for the GM, including me for the 1st one.
There were several encounters where one of the PCs didn't even get to act, because the battle was over before they got their turn.
But even excluding those, that still leaves 17 creatures that are a minimum of 3 levels below the party when encountered.
If they're each eating up 3 Actions from the PCs I wouldn't exactly call that ineffective.
I think the intent was to say that if you can kill them in your round, why trip them: the thread is about assurance and tripping. If you can pick between a dead and a tripped foe, the choice it pretty clear. The fact that you CAN trip them with assurance is kind of beside the point.
Ok, so now I feel like you are misunderstanding the numbers I posted.The creatures I discounted were for the most part not 2 levels below the party. 6 of them were Creature Level -2. As in weaker than Level 0. You encounter them at party level 3. That's a 5 level difference. If you don't think that makes them insignificant, then yes, we must be playing different games.
Those numbers aren't right. I'm looking at my book of Hellknight Hill, and all those
Still easy for level 3, but not that easy.
Ok, so now I feel like you are misunderstanding the numbers I posted.The creatures I discounted were for the most part not 2 levels below the party. 6 of them were Creature Level -2. As in weaker than Level 0. You encounter them at party level 3. That's a 5 level difference. If you don't think that makes them insignificant, then yes, we must be playing different games.
Those numbers aren't right. I'm looking at my book of Hellknight Hill, and all those ** spoiler omitted **
Still easy for level 3, but not that easy.
You're correct. It appears I made a typo on the first one and copy/pasted it to the others. I'll update it. If you find any other errors please let me know. Thanks!
I've also removed the highlighting of the creatures that I consider to be so far below level as to be irrelevant. People can make that determination for themselves.
|
|
I find it utterly hilarious that anyone thinks that enemies of level-2 or level-1 are so ineffective that they will die instantly and pose no threat to the party.
It suggests that they have never actually played a game in which those exist.
I find amusing that people are mostly talking statisitcs and hypotheticals when the OP and the thread title asked for Actual Play.
I guess Actual Play experience that level- enemies are better killed than debuffed don't count as Actual Play...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually everyone that I’ve seen write positive things about Assurance thus far actually has a player using it at the table (MaxAstro, myself, CM) and I’m willing to bet the ones speaking negatively of it haven’t even seen it used for this purpose because you’re saying things like CL-1/2 are meaningless...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually everyone that I’ve seen write positive things about Assurance thus far actually has a player using it at the table (MaxAstro, myself, CM) and I’m willing to bet the ones speaking negatively of it haven’t even seen it used for this purpose because you’re saying things like CL-1/2 are meaningless...
I don't recall saying they're meaningless, just that debuffing such enemies makes less sense than damaging them. 'Dying' is a better condition to inflict that 'Prone' or 'Grabbed'.
IME, you fight level- enemies with pure damage and level+ enemies with debuff + damage. Assurance best used against level- enemies, so it still isn't a good strategy.