| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of threads on very specific rules questions and advice questions end up boiling down into a general debate around the D20 target numbers of PF2. We all knew going into the playtest that the math was going to be more balanced and difficult to control for players, but there is still a contingent of players that feel like the math is off and the balance is not fun for them.
Personally, I love where the math fell in PF2 and feel like I hit the jack pot with PF2 because die rolls feel like they matter and the difference between rolling a 9 and 11 is often a very big deal, while having a bad run of being able to roll higher than a 4or 5 is noticeable and often has serious consequences. Death feels like it is a real threat in any encounter with a couple of good rolls from the GM, even though the odds of it happing off of any one roll is very, very unlikely.
However, I think it would be a mistake to just try to tell those players who are feeling put off by math balance that this is just not the game for them, because very little about the structure of the game itself has to change to make them feel better about the game.
From various thread discussions these are the things I have noted that can be done relatively easily by GMs to shift the math expectations without just "reducing the difficulty" which makes a lot of players feel like you are suggesting they have to play with their training wheels on.
General notes:
Pay attention to your player's enthusiasm levels. Is anyone getting frustrated by a lack of accuracy? Do they seem to enjoy playing together like a swat team with careful tactical planning? Or do they want to embrace their characters individual personas over tactical play? You don't need to tell them they are wrong for playing one way or the other, you just need to get a sense of which kind of play your table as a whole prefers and if there is major differences between players, you have to talk about whether this is a good group to keep together or not. This also applies to what happens when a player goes down. If your players react badly to getting knocked down and the team complains about having to pick them back up, you are probably playing with a group that is more individually focused and less team driven. Once you know if you have individually driven players or team players you know whether you have a party to push to the limits of the system or back off some of the dials that are particularly punishing to individually driven play.
If you have a team driven party that likes a challenge, then the current published adventures are right where you want them to be and you are probably enjoying them. If you are homebrewing, keep the pressure on your players with a healthy balance of encounters at level +2,+3 and even +4, or pile multiple encounters up on your players at once, being sure to include just enough unintelligent opposition to let you back off just a touch in a believable manner if necessary. Afterall, the trolls had bilbo and the dwarves beat, but were not smart enough to capitalize on their victory. Give the PCs a couple of opportunities to make "clutch" salvation moves and they will remember those encounters forever, and if some or all of them die, then it is time to try out some new characters right? There are so many interesting combination of parties that work together well, team driven tables can have a lot of fun rebuilding after a total defeat to test out a new team strategy.
If you have more of an individually motivated party, you need to be careful with the published material. Your players are going to hate the encounters where they face higher level opposition and they are going hate it even more that the creatures are like to drop players regularly. But the situation is not hopeless, it will just take a little bit of work on your part. Most of the bosses in the published material will need to be given the "weak"template. This should bring them down to a reasonable challenge that won't feel like too much, but you will probably want to throw one or two addition level -1 or level -2 adversaries into the mix to keep things from feeling like playing with training wheels and to make sure the XP expectations stay about right. For out of combat stuff, you can probably just drop all the DCs by 2 without your players even realizing you are doing it and with the really hard stuff, make sure it is clear that there are other ways to get around the problem or that the party realizes this is not where they are supposed to be right now. Tell them up front the task looks nearly impossible and that the consequences for failure could be serious so they don't just try to pick the lock, just to see if they can and then get mad at you if they fail and get attacked by serious guards who notice their repeated efforts.
If you are not playing published materials, then you are in even better shape with the individually driven players. Build your encounters broad and shallow as far as level goes. They each want to be a hero. PF2 is built for heroes to shine. Don't be afraid to throw 4 more level -2 creatures into the encounter if the party is mopping things up too easily, those long fight scenes in marvel shows where the hero fights 10 enemies in succession build a lot of tension. DOn't throw them all at your players at once, but players can handle 3 or 4 moderate encounters of lower level enemies spread out by a couple of rounds pretty easily, and those lower level enemies will be much less likely to down a PC in a single shot, especially past 3rd level.
These are my first thoughts about this but I'd be happy to strategize more advice about helping players identify what their expectations for play are and how to GM PF2 to keep your table from deciding that the game itself is broken, when it can so easily be tweaked to so many different kinds of play.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how "its balanced now" justifies the arbitrariness of the 10 in "you gotta roll a 10+ to succeed!" "It makes every roll matter!"
That's literally not what that means. "Its balanced now" means that all the various systems use the same DCs, the same to-hit calculation, and have equivalent rates of progression. Nothing about that says that it has to be a 10+ (or any other number).
I think it would be a mistake to just try to tell those players who are feeling put off by math balance that this is just not the game for them, because very little about the structure of the game itself has to change to make them feel better about the game.
You already shot yourself in the foot in this regard with your previous paragraph.
these are the things I have noted that can be done relatively easily by GMs to shift the math expectations without just "reducing the difficulty"
Followed shortly by suggestions 1, 2, and 3 which are all "reducing (or, increasing) the difficulty."
Interspersed with "you're playing the game wrong."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My strategy is pretty simple. Give all the players +2 levels over expected. It helps mitigates the issues a bit, and is easier than adjusting everything else, and players have more fun getting to start with some extra options.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been doing a lot of these things in my game and they really do work like a charm. However, I have to say, I'm still not a fan of this design choice at all, for one main reason: it puts the burden of change in the wrong people. You, I and other people who devour RPG books and frequent forums constantly, we can do whatever adjustments it takes to make the game more fun for our players. We can make it harder if necessary. But having the base difficulty of the game so high makes so that the guy who just bought the book and decided to pick a module and run for his friends because it looks cool has to (somehow) know that the base difficulty of the game is super hard and adjust accordingly. Doesn't that seem a little... backwards?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is I can't even put my finger to it, it may indeed be difficulty, but for unknown reasons many top level encounters or challenges that our group was up against so far neither did feel epic, nor fun, nor especially memorable. The only thing that is swingy in combat is character HP, which can drop from full to zero in just one initiative count, especially during boss fights. Nobody has had any interesting or glorious moment so far, perhaps apart our party Ranger, who managed to connect some very vital shots. All in all combat feels more like going to work and grittily grinding down mobs rather than being the hero in shining armor, doing cool and fun stuff.
Note that none of us is being especially upset when downed, none of us has any objections against tough fights or challenges, and none of us is at odds with his in-game character and yet, being one-and-a-half adventures into our path there already is growing concern if PF2 is the correct TTRPG for our group, just for how stale the system sometimes feels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not put words in my mouth. Especially saying that I am telling anyone they are playing the game wrong.
I am saying that if you, or especially your players (if you are a GM) are not having fun playing PF2 as it currently exists, that there are relatively easy ways to mod the game that will address the root of a lot of complaints that I see on these threads. Maybe they won't make the game more fun for you than another game, that is ok, play that other game.
These ideas are just suggestions and, as some folks have started doing, posting additional suggestions is a welcome way to help more people have fun with the new system.
As to why I am happy that the math balance is where it is at, I'd say that the symmetry and simplicity of an equal level enemy be an equal level threat to a PC (meaning it has a 50% chance of victory against a PC) makes modification a whole lot simpler than past versions of D&D. Starting with that equal balance makes design and development much more direct and straight forward. That would necessarily include things like having the target DCs for social and competitive skill tasks defaulting to around a 50/50 success ratio (with variance for strengths and weaknesses).
People need to remember that there is more than just the level of individual enemies that goes into over all game difficulty and balance.
The developers are present and listening in on these threads. Telling them the existing material feel too difficult as written and asking for some more options balanced around lower target numbers and more total threats is a pretty reasonable thing to do. In fact, I have a feeling that a 3rd party that decided to focus on adventure designed around that would do very well and be profitable for folks interested in pushing that, and it is possible that Paizo itself will start putting out some material centered around the more but lower level threats in future modules as well/maybe have APS built more like Society scenarios with multiple options for base encounters. Until that point, the game is where it is, and the existing modules are where they are.
QuidEst's suggestion might be the easiest one I have seen for GMs to implement, I would just urge caution pushing level 3 characters on brand new players to RPGs, especially players that want to play casters, because it pushes a fair bit of complexity on to the players which they might not be looking for when they first start. But for folks that have tried out PF2 and found it frustrating, and thinking about quitting on it, it might be a great thing to try out with a new adventure to see if it makes things more fun.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far I like the difficulty. My time spent modifying the mechanics of encounters is greatly reduced. I can spend more time working on story. I can run a module whether it be first or twentieth level out of the box and make the game interesting and fun. I no longer have to spend countless hours writing up NPCs, calculating insane damage, or developing spell strategies spread out over multiple casters with counters for various encounter ending spells by the PCs. Nor do I have to worry about fights being overly easy where it is just an exercise in rolling dice with no real tension or doubt about the outcome.
We have reached level 11. We've had plenty of spectacular moments. I'm finding narrating PF2 quite fun. It's as fluid to me as 5E, but with more player agency with skill feats and powers that the player can control and clearer adjudication of actions.
The three action system lends itself very well to narration. I find it makes the narrative and mechanics flow together nicely.
The game is much more complicated than 5E and requires more system mastery. A bunch of barely committed new players can't pick it up and run it easy without missing a lot of little rules. 5E is much easier to start and play quickly. Not sure why a PF1 player would be looking for that since PF2 is still much easier to play than PF1.
PF2 seems to address many of the issues I've seen PF1 players and DMs complain about.
1. Balance. It's very balanced. You can pull a Challenge 13 monster out of the book and make a hard combat against level 10 or 11 players.
2. Difficulty. It's not an easy game. You can't sleep walk or play badly and win.
3. It maintained the vast number of options and I would say offers far more variability in the PF2 core rulebook than the PF1 core rulebook had.
4. It's skill system is meaningful on many levels whether you're looking to move like a stealthy cat, wrestle a giant, or exorcise a haunt using advanced religious rites.
I've been able to creatively narrate all these actions. Much of PF2 rule set was written to make sense within a fantasy narrative. Even Hazards along with Disable checks make way more sense now than they ever did in PF1. I am happy for that. No more handwaving the hazards as the "Rogue just somehow does it." Now the Hazards are built with a clear idea of how they work and how to disable or defeat them.
I'm really liking it the more I read. About the only thing I wish they would have done is use 5Es spell preparation/repertoire system where the player picks what spells they want to know and uses whatever slot they want to use for a given spell. There are a few oversights here and there like magic fang not working on animal companions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am here to talk about ways to adjust settings that can make players feel like they are being challenged in the ways they want to be challenged without feeling like the game has been set to an easier setting. I made that very clear in my initial post and will continue to try to keep focused on that.
Having players focused on their individual characters is absolutely not the bad wrong fun way to play role playing games. I do not think that and I didn't make this thread to subtly dis players who enjoy it. In fact, I recognize that a lot of people get into role playing to develop a specific character and play out their story, and often get into that style of play myself. If that is your goal, then the tactically driven encounter mode of facing off against higher level monsters is likely to result in one or more character deaths, which can be extra upsetting to players invested that heavily in the individual growth of their character and not the general progression of the party through a specific, predefined narrative.
Do you just quit and walk away from PF2 if the general system feels really compelling and interesting to you? I hope not!
The suggestions above are ways to still have challenges that are absolutely equal in difficulty to solitary high level monster encounters, but without some of the specific pitfalls that can easily overwhelm players that are not focused on playing the game as a tactical combat simulator.
The current APs and modules for PF2 explore a wide range of encounter types and are testing out the boundaries of the new system. Testing things out means that it's not all going to work perfectly for everyone. That is ok and doesn't inherently mean the house is on fire.
Ubertron_X, it seems like your group is generally having fun playing PF2, but when encountering higher level opposition, the fun stops? (is that a correct read of your above post?) Have you tried talking to the GM about this and recommended that they consider some the options people have presented above to keep things at a level of fun that you and your table came to PF2 hoping to have?
If it turns out that many folks who might otherwise be turned away from PF2 as a whole because they feel like their characters are failing to succeed too often in the high level encounters (including social encounters, hazards, and other non-combat encounters), might be find the game perfect if there were some specific, easy to enact changes to encounter design, then that seems like a good thing to figure out and explore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am here to talk about ways to adjust settings that can make players feel like they are being challenged in the ways they want to be challenged without feeling like the game has been set to an easier setting. I made that very clear in my initial post and will continue to try to keep focused on that.
Except that those two things, "challenged without feeling like the game has been set to an easier setting" and "ways to adjust settings" are inherently at conflict with one another.
You can't tell me in one breath that the balance is fine and that if I find it too frustrating, to lower the difficulty and that having done so I did not in fact lower the difficulty.
Do you just quit and walk away from PF2 if the general system feels really compelling and interesting to you? I hope not!
No, I walked away because--like so many other attempts in the past (say, D&D 4E, Shadowrun 5, Shadowrun 6, Dungeon Defenders Eternity...)--things that looked and sounded great were not actually great.
"10 above is a crit!" is a great marketing term that makes players excited because they remember how often they'd roll 10-above.
Only the math has been rebalanced, so that basically doesn't happen any more, oh and also enemies get it, but enemies have higher numbers than players do, so they crit you more than you crit them.
In the end, this great marketing phrase ended up being a punishment not a boon.
I am here to talk about ways to adjust settings that can make players feel like they are being challenged in the ways they want to be challenged without feeling like the game has been set to an easier setting. I made that very clear in my initial post and will continue to try to keep focused on that.Except that those two things, "challenged without feeling like the game has been set to an easier setting" and "ways to adjust settings" are inherently at conflict with one another.
You can't tell me in one breath that the balance is fine and that if I find it too frustrating, to lower the difficulty and that having done so I did not in fact lower the difficulty.
Do you just quit and walk away from PF2 if the general system feels really compelling and interesting to you? I hope not!No, I walked away because--like so many other attempts in the past (say, D&D 4E, Shadowrun 5, Shadowrun 6, Dungeon Defenders Eternity...)--things that looked and sounded great were not actually great.
"10 above is a crit!" is a great marketing term that makes players excited because they remember how often they'd roll 10-above.
Only the math has been rebalanced, so that basically doesn't happen any more, oh and also enemies get it, but enemies have higher numbers than players do, so they crit you more than you crit them.
In the end, this great marketing phrase ended up being a punishment not a boon.
My players crit like crazy. So it's not much of a punishment if that was the intent. PCs have more ways to lower the enemies AC or enhance their hit rolls than what they are fighting 90% plus of the time. So they usually end up having about the same chance to crit against a +2 or 3 enemy as the enemy has of critting them. And they get more attacks as a group, which usually ends up meaning more crits. The mooks also have lower ACs which allow for more crits.
So not a great example in play of something that feels like a punishment. The players absolutely do wreck enemies. The rogue and ranger in my group deals tons of damage. The ranger just enhanced his weapon so he's averaging 75 to 95 point crits at lvl 12.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am here to talk about ways to adjust settings that can make players feel like they are being challenged in the ways they want to be challenged without feeling like the game has been set to an easier setting. I made that very clear in my initial post and will continue to try to keep focused on that.
Having players focused on their individual characters is absolutely not the bad wrong fun way to play role playing games. I do not think that and I didn't make this thread to subtly dis players who enjoy it. In fact, I recognize that a lot of people get into role playing to develop a specific character and play out their story, and often get into that style of play myself. If that is your goal, then the tactically driven encounter mode of facing off against higher level monsters is likely to result in one or more character deaths, which can be extra upsetting to players invested that heavily in the individual growth of their character and not the general progression of the party through a specific, predefined narrative.
Do you just quit and walk away from PF2 if the general system feels really compelling and interesting to you? I hope not!
The suggestions above are ways to still have challenges that are absolutely equal in difficulty to solitary high level monster encounters, but without some of the specific pitfalls that can easily overwhelm players that are not focused on playing the game as a tactical combat simulator.
The current APs and modules for PF2 explore a wide range of encounter types and are testing out the boundaries of the new system. Testing things out means that it's not all going to work perfectly for everyone. That is ok and doesn't inherently mean the house is on fire.
Ubertron_X, it seems like your group is generally having fun playing PF2, but when encountering higher level opposition, the fun stops? (is that a correct read of your above post?) Have you tried talking to the GM about this and recommended that they consider some the options people have presented above to keep...
If you're not having fun with the system, why wouldn't you walk away? I walked away from 5E because it wasn't fun and I didn't feel like spending all this time fixing it to get the feel I wanted. I can't even say I hated it like 4E or it felt like a video game. It just bored me for a variety of reasons. My players figured out how to min/max it early on. After you gained advantage no matter how you went about getting advantage made everything feel like the same power with different names. All the powers could have been named "Get Advantage" or "Do some damage." Then cast [i]bless[/b] because this 1st level spell was basically the best buff spell in the game and not having it was handicapping yourself. Then do this over and over and over again against every monsters in every combat to get easy wins. I could have spent a bunch of time rewriting 5E in a preferable way, but what's the point? Might as well make a game at that point.
I feel if people aren't having fun in PF2, they should go play the game they enjoy with no regrets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My players crit like crazy. So it's not much of a punishment if that was the intent. PCs have more ways to lower the enemies AC or enhance their hit rolls than what they are fighting 90% plus of the time. So they usually end up having about the same chance to crit against a +2 or 3 enemy as the enemy has of critting them. And they get more attacks as a group, which usually ends up meaning more crits. The mooks also have lower ACs which allow for more crits.
So not a great example in play of something that feels like a...
Which just shows that personal experience might not be the best measure for comparisons. Because in our group we almost never crit ourselves, but get crits from the monsters all the time. And this is NOT due to player bad dice rolls verus GM good dice rolls, but fully due to hard stats, however which of course is also dependant our your group, your group's strategies and which types of enemy you fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Unicore
I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
The first one is often encountered in PC turn-based games as the early AI's that we do have and their governing algorythms are usually no match for a smart player. So you will usually see the PC units have better stats, magically rolling better or simply have the computer out-producing you while having access to the same set of ressources. Our gaming group is calling this "artificial difficulty" as there are no major changes to rules, behavior or complexity, just changes to the hard stats. So if you change from "normal" to "hard" the computer will usually have more and better units. Most of the upfront changes PF2 did fall in this category, though certainly many others fall into category two.
The second one is a little difficult to explain and even more difficult to implement in games, however just imagine chess, a certainly complex game. Playing against your little brother may not be a big deal, however playing against a grandmaster (or sufficiently advanced AI) is a whole different topic. So what has changed? The rules and pieces are still identical and everybody takes his turn. Of course the grandmaster simply plays better. Our kind of "natural difficulty".
So what is the difference in between those two? Psychology of course!
Changes to the first category can (!) have players feel cheated because their opponent (either AI or real person) did not outplay them in any way, the game was just loaded/unfair/rigged against them to begin with. Note that depending on your mindset it can also be very rewarding to overcome "loaded" challenges, which also seems to be supported by the often positive feedback about the epicness of PF2 bossfights from various players.
In comparison you would probably be less upset or feel cheeted if you lose to a grandmaster because you know that he beat you fair and square, just by being the better "player" respectively by having better system mastery, not because he has better or more units or because he rolled lucky and you did not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personal experience is that the math issues are overstated, especially once players start to get the system. There are so many ways to, in an encounter, shift the math in your favor that what starts at "Needs an 11 to hit" ends up more realistically being "Needs a 7 to hit or a 17 to crit on a first attack." Is the norm.
At mid levels, that's literally just flanking and a +2 status bonus or -2 status penalty on the targets AC from needing an 11. You can shift those even further pretty easily. There's an 8 point total shift available to most party comps at mid levels (2 from flanking, 2 positive from status via heroism if you don't have a bard, 2 negative via status via frightened or sickened, 2 or more circumstance from a 3rd action spent to aid).
My parties I'm running for rarely ever just "Hit on an 11" with their first attack - unless they forgot all strategy and just walked up and swung without coordinating with the party.
Also, its important for GMs to communicate Failure consequences for skill checks, and make sure that players understand that rules as written, Failure generally isn't the end of the road. In general, Failure allows for trying again, and therefore even if you need an 11-13 to succeed at a skill check (because you are "only" trained or it is very hard) you're still vastly more likely to eventually succeed than you are to critically fail. My players kept trying to Hero Point mediocre rolls on Skills checks until I pressured them to remember that in most cases, a non-critical failure just required them to spend the time to roll again... what older editions of "DnD" called failure is largely moved to what Critical Failure results now represent.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One small modification I plan on making in my campaign is to award more Hero Points to my players. 3 at the start of every act, one to everyone after each tough fight and heroic moment and 1 extra hp at the start of every session. First, it doesn't much change the difficulty and doesn't ask for adjustments on my part. Also, players use Hero Points on the meaningful rolls, so even if they don't succeed at much more rolls, they succeed at the most important ones. It should make them feel more heroic.
I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
And therein lies the rub.
Some people like difficulty by chance, some people don't.
You are never ever going to convince the latter into being the former without fundamentally changing the numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
And therein lies the rub.
Some people like difficulty by chance, some people don't.
You are never ever going to convince the latter into being the former without fundamentally changing the numbers.
I agree. This is why it is important for GMs to feel out their players and to design encounters with an understanding of their player expectations. One type of difficulty is not inherently better or more difficult. If your players hate the challenge of facing 1 higher level monster, but generally like everything else about PF2, then there is are many easy things that can be done to keep the players engaged.
Now if people dislike many other aspects of the game, then PF2 is probably not for them, but if your party just feels deflated after fighting higher level monsters, the game does not require that you fight higher level monsters to be challenging or engaging. That is not a fundamental game design issue, it is an encounter design issue, and building fun encounters that will be enjoyed by everyone is not ever going to be an exact science anyway. Having a personal preference about what feels best is perfectly natural.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
And therein lies the rub.
Some people like difficulty by chance, some people don't.
You are never ever going to convince the latter into being the former without fundamentally changing the numbers.
Agreed. Difficulty by chance is a thing I abhor. If despite my best efforts, the dice primarily determine the outcome, then what was the point of building the character?
Just hand me some dice and tell me what target I need to roll to achieve the desired outcome.
Currently I feel like my choices for my character have next to no meaning and it's completely unrewarding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personal experience is that the math issues are overstated, especially once players start to get the system. There are so many ways to, in an encounter, shift the math in your favor that what starts at "Needs an 11 to hit" ends up more realistically being "Needs a 7 to hit or a 17 to crit on a first attack." Is the norm.
I would not called it the norm, just because theory and practical application does match at your table(s). Note that I am not calling our "needs 14+ to hit" table the norm either.
At mid levels, that's literally just flanking and a +2 status bonus or -2 status penalty on the targets AC from needing an 11. You can shift those even further pretty easily. There's an 8 point total shift available to most party comps at mid levels (2 from flanking, 2 positive from status via heroism if you don't have a bard, 2 negative via status via frightened or sickened, 2 or more circumstance from a 3rd action spent to aid).
I don't doubt the math, however some party compositions and or skill & spell selection seem to have more natural synergy than others. For example, if your party of 4 only has one true melee you will find flanking and aiding quite difficult. Which leaves a +1 from heroism (low level) and a possible -1 frightened because bosses rarely fail saves.
My parties I'm running for rarely ever just "Hit on an 11" with their first attack - unless they forgot all strategy and just walked up and swung without coordinating with the party.
..unless they have system experience / mastery and not just build their characters as they imagined them. Again, I am not doubting that your parties are not experiencing trouble, however I can tell you that our "that feature sounds good, so I take it" approach has left us in the rain more than once.
The thing is, we did not build ours chars and group bad on purpose, however we also did not build them according to the new buffing & debuffing and melee meta and I can assure you every bossfight is a pain in the arm. It is a problem when the games numbers are based on using tricks but you (inadvertedly) don't have any tricks to begin with.
I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
And therein lies the rub.
Some people like difficulty by chance, some people don't.
You are never ever going to convince the latter into being the former without fundamentally changing the numbers.
But is it really difficulty by chance if the players have all the tools they need to heavily weight the dice in their favor?
Single (or limited number enemy) higher level monster encounters went for extremely challenging to my players in Age of Ashes book 1 (the notorious level +3 encounter) to extremely trivial at 4 books later.
The numbers advantage of swinging uphill 3 levels is almost entirely negated after one round of setup actions, and then the boss is just destroyed in a flurry of wholly satisfying (and generally extremely reliable) actions that my players know they put into existence through their direct actions.
Things certainly became more of a puzzle encounter for this kindof setup, but its nowhere even close to random.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
..unless they have system experience / mastery and not just build their characters as they imagined them. Again, I am not doubting that your parties are not experiencing trouble, however I can tell you that our "that feature sounds good, so I take it" approach has left us in the rain more than once.
The thing is, we did not build ours chars and group bad on purpose, however we also did not build them according to the new buffing & debuffing and melee meta and I can assure...
This is a totally fair set of statements - I just don't think its fair to criticize a system for requiring you to employ new strategies to be successful as opposed to those that worked in previous editions.
PF2E is definitely more demanding from a strategy and tactics standpoint - you really do need to look at your party composition and work as a group to succeed. You can't build a character in a vacuum and expect it to be equally successful in every party, as things have become intensely more team focused.
A character working alone definitely has trouble getting past needing a mid-high roll to hit, and similar issues - but the system in general isn't built to support a character operating alone, especially against anything over that characters level. They're supposed to be outmatched.
I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
And therein lies the rub.
Some people like difficulty by chance, some people don't.
You are never ever going to convince the latter into being the former without fundamentally changing the numbers.
Isn't difficulty by chance sort of the defining characteristic of d20 systems though? Systems that are designed around consistent but still variable results usually use dice pools.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't difficulty by chance sort of the defining characteristic of d20 systems though? Systems that are designed around consistent but still variable results usually use dice pools.I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
And therein lies the rub.
Some people like difficulty by chance, some people don't.
You are never ever going to convince the latter into being the former without fundamentally changing the numbers.
I would say no. Or at least Pathfinder 1E wasn't primarily defined by chance, it was primarily defined by your characters attributes which strongly determined your chance of success, moreso than the die itself.
In PF2, the die represent a majority or at least relatively equal amount of influence on the outcome.
For me that has resulted in a feeling shift from "I primarily determine the outcome" to "Chance primarily determines the outcome".
I don't like chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't difficulty by chance sort of the defining characteristic of d20 systems though? Systems that are designed around consistent but still variable results usually use dice pools.
It is, but the important issue here is the point of break-even. Especially at low level specialists don't feel like specialists but like people who could as well do a coin flip (if chances are 50%/50% at all). The issue of should become less chancy the higher the level - at least that is what I am told - so I will wait and see. I think my cleric has failed the majority of memorable religion checks and he is supposed to be the partys dedicated specialist on religion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say no. Or at least Pathfinder 1E wasn't primarily defined by chance, it was primarily defined by your characters attributes which strongly determined your chance of success, moreso than the die itself.
In PF2, the die represent a majority or at least relatively equal amount of influence on the outcome.
In PF2, the system is rigged such that character choices put you at a baseline chance of success based on class and level, so long as you took the maximum in your accuracy stat and are at level in gear. Your feat choices mostly influence the effects when you succeed.
All of the "influence over outcome/chance of success" modification got moved to choices made in play, not out of play. The ability to modify your chance of success didn't disappear, it just got moved to an active, rather than passive, area of the game.
The net result is actually way more predictable, because your baseline chances of success can be reasonably predicted based on the relative level between two characters or a character or obstacle...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Single (or limited number enemy) higher level monster encounters went for extremely challenging to my players in Age of Ashes book 1 (the notorious level +3 encounter) to extremely trivial at 4 books later.
It's normal. Single bosses are deadly only at low level. At high level, it's low level spellcasters who become the deadliest challenges.
It's normal. Single bosses are deadly only at low level. At high level, it's low level spellcasters who become the deadliest challenges.
Single (or limited number enemy) higher level monster encounters went for extremely challenging to my players in Age of Ashes book 1 (the notorious level +3 encounter) to extremely trivial at 4 books later.
And there is the problem that most new players will only encounter higher level monsters at those lower levels, making it likely that they are particularly lethal, and thus newer players will get a bad taste for the game as a whole, especially if they walk away at the point of having only played Fall of Plaguestone, for example, but that is why I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread like this.
Some players, and GMs, do not want to play a role playing game as a tactical combat simulator, and many newer players will not be particularly good at doing so, especially at low level. PF2 is punishing on these players, especially at low level, if it includes having to face a lot of higher level monsters.
Again, I love how challenging those fights can be, but there needs to be easy to access advice to help GMs in particular figure out whether there players are going to enjoy those fights, and how to slowly warm the party up to them/ dial them back if they are just not what the players are looking for, without telling those players that they are just bad role players because they want their barbarian that rolled a natural 20 on initiative to charge into combat with the big solo monster, rather than choosing to delay and let the rest of the party buff them up before running ahead.
Luckily, The framework of PF2 can work great for both groups, as long as the GM knows how to cater the encounter to the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're not having fun with the system, why wouldn't you walk away?
If you hate everything about the system, I agree absolutely. If you were having a lot of fun playing PF2, until you ran into your first higher level monster fight, got destroyed, and stopped having fun, then it would be great for GMs to have a way to realize that the game is not dependent upon those kind of encounters, especially at lower levels, in order to be fun and rewarding for my particular party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Luckily, The framework of PF2 can work great for both groups, as long as the GM knows how to cater the encounter to the group.
I absolutely agree.
One thing I've heard from several parties (none first person, sadly) that many of these perceived issues are not actually experienced by new players to RPGs - they just roll with it and have fewer preconceptions.
I think the difficulty shock is most notable coming from other systems, where building your character had a lot more influence on how you performed when rolling, and the fact that complete attack avoidance is effectively impossible because you can only modify your defenses so far.
Which combines to make PF2E feel hard compares to other systems.
But you can totally make encounters that feel extremely heroic simply by choosing the involved creatures differently than you would a "boss" encounter. I love that its that flexible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2e is a DEEP AND STRUCTURED game. There are rules in place for MOST of the actions a PC can try. The rules are NOT complicated or math-intensive. There are just MANY rules and MUCH depth and plenty of fun! I believe that if we dilute the mix (by abandoning even part of the structure and detail) we destroy it's flavor.
The heart of PF2 is it's remarkably intuitive, playable and FUN STRUCTURED DEPTH. It made me a PF player. PF has shed it's DNA and become its OWN game! I'm in!
My 2 coppers.
Peace and happy gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me it sounds like you've got some chip on your shoulder, if you've left this game behind then why are you lurking around its forums?
Because I don't hate the whole system. There are so many features about it that I really really like and think are absolute genius.
I want to LIKE playing it.
But I don't.
To me it sounds like you've got some chip on your shoulder, if you've left this game behind then why are you lurking around its forums?Because I don't hate the whole system. There are so many features about it that I really really like and think are absolute genius.
I want to LIKE playing it.
But I don't.
Have you tried talking to your GM about any of the suggestions above?
I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
And therein lies the rub.
Some people like difficulty by chance, some people don't.
You are never ever going to convince the latter into being the former without fundamentally changing the numbers.
Agreed. Difficulty by chance is a thing I abhor. If despite my best efforts, the dice primarily determine the outcome, then what was the point of building the character?
Just hand me some dice and tell me what target I need to roll to achieve the desired outcome.
Currently I feel like my choices for my character have next to no meaning and it's completely unrewarding.
If you don't like how your character visualizes in your mind over the hard numbers, PF2 may not be a game you like. Differences in power are almost non-existent. Damage is very tight. The main variation is in what you build your character to do. They will not do more damage than someone else, they will just do it differently as in a two-weapon fighter will do about the same damage as a 2-hander fighter with a few additional perks here and there like two-weapon defense versus say a cleave type of attack for a two-weapon fighter. Ultimately they will be equally effective in combat over the course of all your levels with relatively equal magic.
Have you tried talking to your GM about any of the suggestions above?
Considering that my preference for what we played was "Lets go back to Mummy's Mask which we put on hold for the Playtest" ever since we stopped doing the playtest, we're doing Mummy's Mask.
If PF2 ever gets floated again (no one enjoyed it), we'll see.
Have you tried talking to your GM about any of the suggestions above?Considering that my preference for what we played was "Lets go back to Mummy's Mask which we put on hold for the Playtest" ever since we stopped doing the playtest, we're doing Mummy's Mask.
If PF2 ever gets floated again (no one enjoyed it), we'll see.
Am I reading this right. You stopped a PF1 AP to play the Playtest, returned to that PF1 AP and are still playing it at this point?
That makes it sound like all of your issues and statements about how PF2 feels in play come from the playtest and not from having played the release version of PF2?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're not having fun with the system, why wouldn't you walk away?
Personally, I intend to.
I mean currently the campaign I'm a part of switch from PF1 to PF2. I don't care for it. Once this campaign has ended I wont play PF2 again, unless the math is significantly altered.
I don't think I can convince the group to switch back, but I also don't want to quit and disrupt the continuity of characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seems worth noting that - as years of tabletop gaming, wargaming and PC gaming have told us - there are at least two different types of difficulty.
One is the difficulty by chance / numbers, the other is the difficulty by complexity.
And therein lies the rub.
Some people like difficulty by chance, some people don't.
You are never ever going to convince the latter into being the former without fundamentally changing the numbers.
Agreed. Difficulty by chance is a thing I abhor. If despite my best efforts, the dice primarily determine the outcome, then what was the point of building the character?
Just hand me some dice and tell me what target I need to roll to achieve the desired outcome.
Currently I feel like my choices for my character have next to no meaning and it's completely unrewarding.
It's funny, but the balance for the game has me feeling the exact opposite. I like PF2 because it feels like the decisions I make for my character have more impact than in any other system. Always having a margin that can be used to improve just feels extremely rewarding for me.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 removed power gaming from the game. Anyone who prefers power gaming will not enjoy PF2. It works very hard to make optimizing and power gaming nearly impossible.
Most of us who DM asked for that specifically from D&D/PF for years. Now we got it. I can see how people who primarily play will feel put off because they can no longer build power beasts that rip games apart feeling the vicarious thrill of being a near superhero. Some people like that feel. You can still get that feel for a character in PF1 and 5E or any version of D&D.
You can't do it in PF2. My players are giving it their best shot, but they haven't figured out how to do it by lvl 12. 8 more levels to go to see if it can be done.
As a DM I am enjoying the hell out of these tough encounters at all levels with minimal work by me other than reading the encounter and tweaking a few tactics and responses. It is refreshing to be able to pick up an AP module or grab a creature out of the bestiary, toss it on the board, and make the PCs work for a win. Makes my job so much easier.
Am I reading this right. You stopped a PF1 AP to play the Playtest, returned to that PF1 AP and are still playing it at this point?
That makes it sound like all of your issues and statements about how PF2 feels in play come from the playtest and not from having played the release version of PF2?
You are reading incorrectly.
My comment was "this is what I've been wanting to do since the playtest" no "this is what the group did since the playtest." I wanted to go back because that's the game that was put on hold due to the playtest. I was enjoying that character and that adventure and that system.
We just didn't go back to it immediately.
Timeline:
- We played the playtest
- We stopped at chapter 6
- We played Shadowrun for a few weeks (we ended up playing three Missions from 4th and did not enjoy them at all).
- We played Plaguestone
- Now we're back to playing Mummy's Mask (we've had 1 actual session so far).
Am I reading this right. You stopped a PF1 AP to play the Playtest, returned to that PF1 AP and are still playing it at this point?
That makes it sound like all of your issues and statements about how PF2 feels in play come from the playtest and not from having played the release version of PF2?
You are reading incorrectly.
My comment was "this is what I've been wanting to do since the playtest" no "this is what the group did since the playtest." I wanted to go back because that's the game that was put on hold due to the playtest. I was enjoying that character and that adventure and that system.
We just didn't go back to it immediately.
Timeline:
- We played the playtest
- We stopped at chapter 6
- We played Shadowrun for a few weeks (we ended up playing three Missions from 4th and did not enjoy them at all).
- We played Plaguestone
- Now we're back to playing Mummy's Mask (we've had 1 actual session so far).
Isn't Plaguestone notorious for being overly difficult and punishing, partially as a result of being the first published content of the new edition?
Early Age of Ashes also has a few badly balanced or overtuned encounters that feel like they were an issue because they were still missing a few of the challenging interactions - but that all felt like it smoothed out by the end of the 2nd book.
Maybe you should give it a longer try?
From my experience (most PFS adventure played and some DMed, Plaguestone played, Extinction Curse that I'm planning to DM as soon as the confinement is over), I have found Plaguestone to be way way harder than anything else. Extinction Curse is not especially hard, but there are big dungeons, so this is more a question of pace (I understand Zapp's questioning on that matter).
By playing PFS, I sometimes play adventures that are above my level or under my level. And the impact on my contribution is huge. Last adventure I made, I was hitting the monster on a 17 on my first attack despite being maxed in attack for my level with my Sorcerer. One or 2 levels of difference have an incredible impact.
Just wanted to chime in with my thoughts on chance based combat...
I personally am not a fan of RNG combat but isn't pretty much every TTRPG based around that? If there is a TTRPG without RNG combat while having fun combat and cool character choices I would be interested though.
We just started playing PF2e and had one player complain about missing too much. At the same time I feel at level 1-2 that is the same in every TTRPG.
The only difference that I seem to be able to tell is that PF2e seems to follow roughly the same hit chance while leveling. Which I feel overall is better since it doesn't lead to encounters being trivial.
I don't have the most experience but in both PF1 and D&D 5e I feel the system favors players and the higher level you are they easier it is to hit. PF1 was build dependent but D&D 5e I swear the game just gets easier every time players level since enemies AC doesn't seem to change but players get items.
Overall I am not really a huge fan of RNG but I feel PF2e is still a great game for me. It allows A LOT of character options and seems like the game will be challenging. 5e players don't even have to play smart and it seems easy. All my group does in our 5e group is nuke everything and enemies last at max 2 rounds. I do admit it can feel bad when a player has a bad day and only hits a couple times...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to chime in with my thoughts on chance based combat...
I personally am not a fan of RNG combat but isn't pretty much every TTRPG based around that? If there is a TTRPG without RNG combat while having fun combat and cool character choices I would be interested though.
Chance is a part of every game, but the difference between PF1 and PF2 was that in PF1 you could build to overcome chance for specific things. You could become a master of whatever you wanted to invest in.
In PF2 investment isn't hard, but there's not much to invest into. You can't become super specialized and you never become significantly better (in terms of chance of success) than anyone else, especially within a specific class.
In PF1 the outcome was primarily determined by your character build, with chance shifting things a bit. In PF2 the outcome is primarily determined by your dice roll, with your character influencing it a bit.
Personally, I really don't like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 the outcome was primarily determined by your character build, with chance shifting things a bit. In PF2 the outcome is primarily determined by your dice roll, with your character influencing it a bit.
Personally, I really don't like that.
Very much this. I feel way more "haha! Lookit me! I'm good at things!" and throwing a d20 to find out if I'm royally screwed or just mildly inconvenienced.
Isn't Plaguestone notorious for being overly difficult and punishing, partially as a result of being the first published content of the new edition?
As someone else mentioned somewhere else, they should have aimed to have the first adventure too easy even as the rules were being nailed into place, rather than trying to make it just right or moderately difficult.
As in the end they were trying to make something that was moderately difficult, the rules snapped together, and Plaguestone ended up with too many Severe encounters.
But here's the thing, every encounter that wasn't severe was basically a speed bump. They were over before they started, I think one fight ended before the last PC in initiative even had a turn. Another fight was so one sided the GM didn't even award us EXP for it (it was rats in a cage that we repeatedly hit with Electric Arc). The irony of that was that the reason I and another PC engaged the rats was because there was an entire other fight going on that we couldn't help with (one part "can't get close enough without getting too close" and one part "yeah, we can't take that kind of damage") and decided to kill the rats before they were let out of their cage.
So, every fight that wasn't curb stomping us was boring.
I am aware of Plaguestone's reputation, but the problem with Plaguestone isn't the number of encounters at Severe. Its the fact that fighting something 2 levels above you is flat deadly and at low level this matters more than at high level.
And the rules are OK with this.
I am not OK with that.
Oh, and I'll point out that we were a party of 6 running it as-written for a party of 4. No "extra PC" boosting of any numbers.