|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Build is not the Be all and end all of winning in PF2, where it mostly was in PF1. It is still an important component, but how you use your build tactically and how you work together with your buddies during combat is the most important thing. And then there is indeed the luck of the die. But if you build well and most of all use your actions wisely in combat, its impact is lessened.
I prefer it to PF1 where the ability to create monster builds based on an encyclopedic knowledge of all published material is paramount. YMMV.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It certainly feels like decisions in combat, in conjunction with party build, plays the largest role in determining the outcome of encounters in PF2.
The dice always matters, but I think it matters much less than teamwork, tactics, and build.
Unicore is right, though. Requiring teamwork and tactics from all of your players every time you sit down is a high bar that not every group will want to overcome. If that's the case, I think some alternate mechanics where more independently competent characters can pull more weight would be good to have. I'm not sure that's an easy thing to achieve within such a tightly balanced game system like PF2.
My first shot at it would be using the dual class system. With that in place, less coordination between the PCs will be necessary.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, it doesn't feel like there is a "build well" for most classes.
The class feats give you options, and some apply to more situations than others. Usually "building well" means selecting options that apply to more situations of things you would like to do with your character, but they almost never affect the chances of success of doing actions.
The first example I can think of is Gang Up feat for rogues. It affects under what conditions you can get flanking, and therefore sneak attack, but doesn't make you more accurate or deal more damage.
Combining with the fact that lots of things cause the flat-footed condition and it doesn't stack, it means it's easy to get sneak attack but even with flat footed enemies I have trouble hitting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combining with the fact that lots of things cause the flat-footed condition and it doesn't stack, it means it's easy to get sneak attack but even with flat footed enemies I have trouble hitting.
Also look for -
Status Bonus to hit (a Heroism spell is the most accessible, but Bard Song is the best.
These spells are better than they sound and well worth casting).
Status Penalty to targets AC (Frightened is the easiest to come by via Demoralize or Fear spells, but other sources of Sickened, clumsy, etc. also work. Note that many actions like Demoralize are not attacks and don't cause MAP)
Circumstance Bonus to Hit (aiding is better than attacking a third time, and against high ac targets is generally better than attacking a second time)
Combine all of those, and you should be hitting even level +3 or 4 targets more than you miss.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combining with the fact that lots of things cause the flat-footed condition and it doesn't stack, it means it's easy to get sneak attack but even with flat footed enemies I have trouble hitting.
About 42. I did a count during the playtest, haven't checked the final rules, but it's still a lot.
I don't mind crunching down the list of possible conditions to prevent excessive stacking, but man it feels like it went too far.
And on top of that, the balance math says "you need to do this" instead of it being a bonus its expected and being compelled that way Feels Bad.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combining with the fact that lots of things cause the flat-footed condition and it doesn't stack, it means it's easy to get sneak attack but even with flat footed enemies I have trouble hitting.Also look for -
Status Bonus to hit (a Heroism spell is the most accessible, but Bard Song is the best.
These spells are better than they sound and well worth casting).Status Penalty to targets AC (Frightened is the easiest to come by via Demoralize or Fear spells, but other sources of Sickened, clumsy, etc. also work. Note that many actions like Demoralize are not attacks and don't cause MAP)
Circumstance Bonus to Hit (aiding is better than attacking a third time, and against high ac targets is generally better than attacking a second time)
Combine all of those, and you should be hitting even level +3 or 4 targets more than you miss.
Combining with the fact that lots of things cause the flat-footed condition and it doesn't stack, it means it's easy to get sneak attack but even with flat footed enemies I have trouble hitting.About 42. I did a count during the playtest, haven't checked the final rules, but it's still a lot.
I don't mind crunching down the list of possible conditions to prevent excessive stacking, but man it feels like it went too far.
And on top of that, the balance math says "you need to do this" instead of it being a bonus its expected and being compelled that way Feels Bad.
This is my big problem. There are ways to get bonuses and apply penalties that can swing chance back in your favor, but they feel like they are required for success, rather than rewarding you with an easier fight for doing so. I agree that it feels like the system was designed with having those bonuses and penalties in combat already accounted for in the final math.
And I just don't like how that feels.
If you offered me a version of the game where none of those bonuses or penalties existed and everybody simply got a flat +4 to attack rolls, spell casting DCs, etc I believe I absolutely would enjoy that game more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combining with the fact that lots of things cause the flat-footed condition and it doesn't stack, it means it's easy to get sneak attack but even with flat footed enemies I have trouble hitting.Also look for -
Status Bonus to hit (a Heroism spell is the most accessible, but Bard Song is the best.
These spells are better than they sound and well worth casting).Status Penalty to targets AC (Frightened is the easiest to come by via Demoralize or Fear spells, but other sources of Sickened, clumsy, etc. also work. Note that many actions like Demoralize are not attacks and don't cause MAP)
Circumstance Bonus to Hit (aiding is better than attacking a third time, and against high ac targets is generally better than attacking a second time)
Combine all of those, and you should be hitting even level +3 or 4 targets more than you miss.
Combining with the fact that lots of things cause the flat-footed condition and it doesn't stack, it means it's easy to get sneak attack but even with flat footed enemies I have trouble hitting.About 42. I did a count during the playtest, haven't checked the final rules, but it's still a lot.
I don't mind crunching down the list of possible conditions to prevent excessive stacking, but man it feels like it went too far.
And on top of that, the balance math says "you need to do this" instead of it being a bonus its expected and being compelled that way Feels Bad.
This is my big problem. There are ways to get bonuses and apply penalties that can swing chance back in your favor, but they feel like they are required for success, rather than rewarding you with an easier fight for doing so. I agree that it feels like the system was designed with having those bonuses and penalties in combat already accounted for in the final math.
And I just don't like how that feels.
If you offered me a version of the game where...
Thats definitely a different game. PF2E is built as a team tactics game, where the path to success is multiple characters working together to create situations that lead to success.
If you increased everyone's accuracy (and removed all the tactical options that normally provided those, so as to totally not break the math) you're creating a game where characters can stand on their own - and that is absolutely not the current intent.
PF2 is all about standing together or struggling on your own.
If you offered me a version of the game where none of those bonuses or penalties existed and everybody simply got a flat +4 to attack rolls, spell casting DCs, etc I believe I absolutely would enjoy that game more.
I almost think I would too.
I mean, yeah, there's something lost when flanking an opponent doesn't mean anything (a loss of tactics that people like, what situations does a rogue get sneak attack, etc)But yes. I think I would have liked it more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is all about standing together or struggling on your own.
Yeah, that's not the game I want.
You're right, that's the new paradigm.
But I'm just stating my preference for the old paradigm, wherein you could succeed on your own in combat and did not rely on others to succeed. If I was playing the whole party I might be okay with it, but since I don't want to tell other people how to play their characters but am dependent on their actions for success, it just puts you in a tough spot.
PF2 is all about standing together or struggling on your own.Yeah, that's not the game I want.
You're right, that's the new paradigm.
Weirdly, some of the most fun I had playing a character was a warlord (?) in D&D 4E due to the way in which the class interacted with the rest of the party. There were some rough edges (like the action that made someone else make an attack: the range was 5 feet and the target was an enemy creature, but the ally also had to be in range, and my thought was "wait, what's this even good for? If I can command someone adjacent to me to make a melee attack on a creature that's also adjacent to me, why would I do that instead of attacking it myself?" outside some rare circumstantial situations).
Of course, that was back when 4E was new, so it was "the most fun I'd had before then." Today, two PF1 characters have really stood out. My kobold unchained summoner and a tengu witch.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm just stating my preference for the old paradigm, wherein you could succeed on your own in combat and did not rely on others to succeed. If I was playing the whole party I might be okay with it, but since I don't want to tell other people how to play their characters but am dependent on their actions for success, it just puts you in a tough spot.
That paradigm was a significantly less collaborative version of the game that created silos for different styles of play, increased the barrier to entry to newer players with each successive book release, created this notion that there was an objectively correct way to play the game. It’s still there for you with two decades of material to support it, but that game wasn’t for everyone.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This is not the case. Specialization is really easy to do, it's true, but an actual, say, Bard Diplomacy specialist can manage a total of something like +41 Diplomacy (+28 Legendary +7 Cha +3 Item +3 Heroism) at level 20 and auto-succeed at on-level challenges (well, everyone fails on a 1), a thing he needed an 8 to succeed on at 1st level. Another Bard, who never cared about Diplomacy, and cared more about offensive casting than buff spells might easily have only a +29 from Trained Diplomacy and Cha 24 alone (and need an 11 to succeed at on-level stuff). That's a 12 point swing within the same Class and assuming Trained on the guy with the lower rating.
Now, specializing that way in combat is not so much a thing, but skills? You can specialize the hell out of those if you choose to, and it makes your odds much better. What it doesn't do is almost ever make them hit 100% vs. on level opposition...but your odds can get really good.
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.
I'd argue that in PF2 it's at least as much about tactics as the die roll. Your tactical choices in the moment matter at least as much as your build in many circumstances.
Now, none of that changes the fact that the game is much less about character building and greatly decreases how much you can stack the deck in your own favor on a specific thing. It absolutely reduces that a huge amount as compared to PF1...but you're exaggerating the degree quite a bit.
| 3 people 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...
Explain to me how to make a game challenging if you can't fail? I don't get it. If you can't fail, then there is no tension and no challenge.
What exactly are you asking for because in a game that has always been a dice rolling game, I'm not sure what you're asking for other than to be able to build a character that is never challenged because they can't fail at what they're trying to do. Do you think that is fun to run for a DM at all? A bunch of characters that are able to make a dice rolling game where the dice simulate the random idea of variation in combat.
50% isn't terrible. Look at athletics. You have a group of athletes who are the best of the best in the world in supreme physical shape who train every day at what they do and yet in most sports they're doing well if they succeed 30 to 60% of the time.
Basketball: Great job if you make about 55% of your shots.
Baseball: Great job if you can get a hit 30% of the time.
Football: Amazing QB if 60% of your thrown passes get caught.
So why should you be able to hit or ensure your success any greater amount than professional athletes who are some of the best in the world training every day with some of the best trainers in the world? Sorry. This idea that you can remove RNG from combat is not at all in line with any reality out there.
PF2 is hitting way closer to the mark for how successful trained fighters and wizards would be against similarly trained enemies.
It certainly feels like decisions in combat, in conjunction with party build, plays the largest role in determining the outcome of encounters in PF2.
The dice always matters, but I think it matters much less than teamwork, tactics, and build.
Unicore is right, though. Requiring teamwork and tactics from all of your players every time you sit down is a high bar that not every group will want to overcome. If that's the case, I think some alternate mechanics where more independently competent characters can pull more weight would be good to have. I'm not sure that's an easy thing to achieve within such a tightly balanced game system like PF2.
My first shot at it would be using the dual class system. With that in place, less coordination between the PCs will be necessary.
PF2 no more requires teamwork than any other previous edition of the game. Each player does what it does. You can work together to improve your outcomes or just have the group attack each on their own. The main change is the monsters are challenging to higher levels and you can't build superheroes like you could in PF1. If you're still looking to build superheroes that run over encounters like PF1, then you will have a hard time getting used to PF2. It doesn't allow that type of gaming any longer. That is the main difference. No more players putting together combinations that vastly outclass what the DM can throw against them. And good riddance to that. I was so tired of that style of gaming.
I actually think PF2 lends itself very well to super heroic PCs, they just don't start there at level 1. By level 5 most PCs are easily succeeding at any task they specialize in, especially in comparison to what they could do at level 1. Level 5 challenges are challenging in PF2. Super Heroes get beat up by powerful foes as well. What PF2 does not have is extreme (or what I would call over) specialization. There is a very clear limit to how much of your character resources you can invest into one specific thing. In return, you also don't fall so far behind in the essential things that you don't specialize in that you are a massive liability to the party when even a relative weak monster grapples your wizard. You (usually) also get active abilities instead of passive ones that define what your character does in play and makes them feel different from the rest of party.
I think those things generally are exciting to players and a big part of why so many people like PF2 and many more want to like it. I do agree that , with limited published content to pull from, many of the introductory adventures skew to the harder side, especially for new players, and GMs (especially new ones) might not realize how lethal encounters can be if they really throw the monsters at the PCs. Talking about these specific issues and making suggestions to help GMs "read the room" will go a long way to helping more people have fun with this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 no more requires teamwork than any other previous edition of the game. Each player does what it does. You can work together to improve your outcomes or just have the group attack each on their own. The main change is the monsters are challenging to higher levels and you can't build superheroes like you could in PF1. If you're still looking to build superheroes that run over encounters like PF1, then you will have a hard time getting used to PF2. It doesn't allow that type of gaming any longer. That is the main difference. No more players putting together combinations that vastly outclass what the DM can throw against them. And good riddance to that. I was so tired of that style of gaming.It certainly feels like decisions in combat, in conjunction with party build, plays the largest role in determining the outcome of encounters in PF2.
The dice always matters, but I think it matters much less than teamwork, tactics, and build.
Unicore is right, though. Requiring teamwork and tactics from all of your players every time you sit down is a high bar that not every group will want to overcome. If that's the case, I think some alternate mechanics where more independently competent characters can pull more weight would be good to have. I'm not sure that's an easy thing to achieve within such a tightly balanced game system like PF2.
My first shot at it would be using the dual class system. With that in place, less coordination between the PCs will be necessary.
Teamwork is greatly rewarded in PF2. It's not required unless the GM pushes the difficulty enough to require it.
I agree that base PF2 doesn't let you build super characters that don't rely on other party members. We are trying to come up with a way to make PF2 play differently than baseline by not emphasizing teamwork as much. I think unrestricted dual classing would do that to some extent. Players could then stack 2 signature martial buffs to get the combat effectiveness they desire while other players could go for versatility. In many ways, this replicates the numbers difference of optimized builds from PF1.
| 2 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.
I don't think this is terribly true.
Many power gamers might like it more, as it presents a challenge, which is what many (but not all) power gamers find fun.
It's also not impossible to do in this edition. It's just harder.
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 still get it in 2E as well. More easily in fact. The GM just needs to be aware of such a desire and build for it.
A single high level character can literally wade through 10,000 Bestiary orcs with absolute impunity. Not even natural 20s can touch him, unlike other editions and games. I'd be hard pressed to believe that isn't superhero enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Explain to me how to make a game challenging if you can't fail? I don't get it. If you can't fail, then there is no tension and no challenge.
So, one, just because there's no failure state doesn't mean that it can't be fun. Books, movies, and many games have no failure states and yet those are still fun. (No success state can also be fun, see: Dwarf Fortress). Hell, there's even a trope for it.
Two, you don't need randomness to produce failure outcomes. Chess has a failure state and yet is entirely deterministic and even starts from a fixed state.
Three, while its true that the success rate (when looked at as an objective value) for other games (e.g. baseball having a best-in-world at-bat percentage of 0.310 or so*) that does not mean that that success rate is applicable to other games. Imagine trying to play a game of bowling where your odds of knocking down at least one pin was only 30%.
Four, who said player success percentages had to model real world athletes? Like, why the duck does that even matter?
*Excluding Barry Bonds, who holds the all time high score in on base percentage, along with other great all stars like Barry Bonds, Barry Bonds, Barry Bonds, Barry Bonds, and Barry Bonds. Even if he didn't have a bat.
| 3 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.
As a routine optimizer and power gamer, I disagree. I don't find it to be very interesting to have a standard of increasing numbers to the point where you can casually roll over things.
In MTG terms, I probably fall under Johnny/Spike. One build I've been thinking on definitely has the power to be constantly effective, but it doesn't do that through pure numbers - it does it through the tricks it has access to and can pull out of its toolbox.
The fact that it's easier to optimize that than in PF1 is a big draw to me, because it lets me field a wider variety of characters without having to force certain standards to feel effective.
(I haven't consulted my two powergamer players, but I suspect they feel similarly. One, especially, loves to try convoluted tactics with his highly optimized character.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, one, just because there's no failure state doesn't mean that it can't be fun. Books, movies, and many games have no failure states and yet those are still fun.
Books and movies are narratives that one receives. A roleplaying game is a collaborative narrative that one attempts to shape by rolling dice to complete actions. The failure state is kind of the point.
Two, you don't need randomness to produce failure outcomes. Chess has a failure state and yet is entirely deterministic and even starts from a fixed state.
So does tiddly-winks, and it’s a total blast - but it’s not a Roleplaying game.
Four, who said player success percentages had to model real world athletes? Like, why the duck does that even matter?
He wasn’t saying that the success threshold has to model real world athletes, he was saying that the PF2 success threshold is already on par with peak performance examples in the real world. Why should player success percentages exceed that of modern real world athletes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore talked about team-driven parties and individually-motivated parties. I have a third type among my players. One player called it a "well-oiled precision mechanism." The hilarious part is that they achieve extreme teamwork through character-based roleplaying. The lovely grandmaster of this teamwork is my wife, who started roleplaying as a teenager in 1978 when her older brothers brough the Dungeons & Dragons home from college. Another player is her former college roommate who played since college. Two other players started a mere 25 years ago. And the single newbie is a natural at the game.
My attitude toward managing difficulty matches Deriven Firelion's comment #8 earlier in this thread. He said later (comment #43), "PF2 removed power gaming from the game." Well, the developers tried and they succeeded enough that the paradigm for victory changed. The powergaming paradigm was that the best characters had to be very good at their specialty. Their numbers were so good that their specialized combat ability was reliable, hitting 90% of the time.
My players prefer flexibility to specialization; therefore, the PF2 shift did not cripple their playstyle.
The effective paradigm my players use in PF2 encounters is adaptive tactics. Figure out the opponent's strength and negate it or figure out the opponent's weakness and exploit it. This makes the difficulty level of combat more swingy though, for the players do not alway figure out those strengths and weaknesses, or they do not have the means to exploit them.
The stabilized mathematics of PF2 favors adaptive tactics. If a character is trained in a technique, then they are reasonably good at it. That makes switching tactics plausible.
For example, my 3rd-level party of ranger, druid, champion, and three rogues (one was an NPC temporarily accompanying them) fought a 4th-level xulgath barbarian. The rogues depend on flat-footedness from flanking or surprise attack for half of their damage; therefore, the barbarian's Deny Advantage ability made their attacks half as effective as usual. Their special advantage in combat was negated. Upon surrounding the barbarian and discovering this, the players tried to adapt. The rogue with scoundrel racket used a Feint, but lacked the critical success that would make the barbarian flat-footed to everybody. Then the ranger made a trip attack with his +1 kukri. The trip worked, falling prone made the barbarian flat-footed, and the rogues delivered enough damage to win before a party member dropped unconscious. The barbarian started with an unanticipated advantage from Deny Advantage and one clever tactic negated it.
To have safely tripped the barbarian in PF1, the ranger would have had to taken Improved Trip, which has Combat Expertise as a feat tax. In PF2, training in Athletics helps, but is not required. PF2 goes for tactical generalists rather than tactics specialists.
They would have won that battle, regardless. The only question was how much damage they would have taken in the process, especially because other enemies awaited nearby and would prevent a rest for Treat Wounds.
Later in the campaign, I worried. The party was heavily injured by an encounter with a gelatinous cube and the remaining xulgath united to counterattack (yes, I run opponents strategically. My players like the challenge.) Three 1st-level, two 2nd-level, and one 4th-level xulgath added up to (4/6)(200 xp) = 133 xp, a severe threat. That could wipe out a damaged party. When scoundrel rogue, who spoke Draconic, listened at the next door, I let him overhear the xulgath plan to attack in 5 rounds to warn the party to retreat.
Instead, the party was still thinking tactically. They spent time to set up a trap, so their retreat took them only to the platform at the top of the ladder out of the cube's room. The xulgath warriors threw javelins at them, and the situation immediately dawned on them that they had a major tactical advantage. With their bows, they could deal twice as much ranged damage as the xulgath. The most injured party members could retreat out of sight of the gelatinous cube room's floor, but still in range to attack the top of the ladder. So long as they kept the xulgath from climbing up, they could win. They had reduced the xulgath threat to moderate rather than severe.
They had not planned the tactic of holding the top of the ladder to make the combat ranged, but they noticed it when it happened. That is adaptive.
I have not run The Fall of Plaguestone, but I own the PDF. The Mangy Wolves, Creature -1, in the first encounter are reasonable to throw at the party, but the Caustic Wolf, Creature 2, is poorly balanced and would operate more like a Creature 3 against a 1st-level party. It is Unique, so Recall Knowledge is crippled against it. It has two special attacks, which make it highly unpredictable. Those attacks are limited to once a battle, but that does not reduce their unpredictability nor their impact in 1st-level combat. And its regular attack is +11 to hit with 1d6+1d4+2 damage per hit plus Knockdown. Checking similar Creatures 2 in the PF2 Bestiary 1, the Boar's attack is Melee [one-action] tusk +10, Damage 2d6+4 piercing; the Leopard's attack is Melee [one-action] jaws +10 (finesse), Damage 1d10+3 piercing plus Grab; the Giant Monitor Lizard's attack is Melee [one-action] jaws +11, Damage 1d10+3 piercing plus Grab and monitor lizard venom; and the Slurk's attack is Melee [one-action] tusks +11 (deadly 1d10), Damage 1d8+4 piercing. The Caustic Wolf's attack is at the high end with the Giant Monitor Lizard and the Slurk.
That is probably why the module recommended delaying the arrival of the Caustic Wolf till after one Mangy Wolf was dead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the way Pathfinder 2e deals with the power scale. I like how things are basically level vs level with a bit of wiggle room for mastery in a certain domain. It really makes executing ideas and monsters far faster and more fluid as a GM and also signals to the players that there is danger on the table.
The idea that a monster that is way above their level is somewhere in front of them actually makes them play the game differently. There isn't a "just have a bigger number!" game of trying to brute force everything. It puts the fear back into players who know that if they fight something, one or several of them will die doing it. I love that.
On the flip side monsters that are below their level are pretty much dismissed with an almost always instant critical handwave. Players get a lot of satisfaction in having such power to basically dictate what happens- and I don't even need to roll dice in some situations, the outcome is immediately obvious.
Both these elements speed up play and make the game less about "I hope I roll good" and more along the lines of "I hope I pick my battles". I much prefer this type of play not only from a mechanical stand point but also from a storytelling stand point. Long gone is the era of "you will win if you -build- your character powerfully".
I hope more role playing games use this style of play, I think PF2e really is onto something with their new system.
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.I don't think this is terribly true.
Many power gamers might like it more, as it presents a challenge, which is what many (but not all) power gamers find fun.
It's also not impossible to do in this edition. It's just harder.
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 still get it in 2E as well. More easily in fact. The GM just needs to be aware of such a desire and build for it.
A single high level character can literally wade through 10,000 Bestiary orcs with absolute impunity. Not even natural 20s can touch him, unlike other editions and games. I'd be hard pressed to believe that isn't superhero enough.
I like the challenge as well and not being forced into small boxes to be effective. Seems some don't like that style as their character doesn't feel awesome to them unless the are wrecking things wiht minimal chance of failure or by forcing the DM to write 20 pages of tactics to deal with some super-optimized party immune to nearly every type of damage and capable of reducing every enemy martial into some immobile drone by attacking weak saves.
PF1 was a DM bane game. I have such an easier time as a DM in PF2, while at the same time still enjoying making characters as a player. I will not miss the rocket tag-superhero fantasy of PF1 at higher levels.
But from what I learned so far about GMing, is that learning how to scare players without resorting to math or killing them is part of the fun....
...Not everything needs to be a long fight, or need luck, or have everyone take a perfect part. Because, giving the spotlight to different people, for different fight, under different conditions is what I think makes RPGs fun.
Quoted for truth.
At the moment I am less scared when a single monster appears and more annoyed because I know that it:
...probably has AE to deal with it's worse action economy.
...probably has actions that generate additional actions to deal with it's worse action economy.
...probably has AoO to deal with it's worse action economy and to provide extra difficulty (moving, spellcasting).
...certainly has killer stats (attack, defense, DC, saves)
Or all of the above.
The thing is, and this may not be true for everyone of course, the harder the fight and the tighter the math, the more I do not see the monster and it's cool style and fancy moves but the numbers and meta behind it. Just imagine Neo in the first Matrix movie, when he does not see the agents anymore but the underlying code.
GMs have more control over the type of gameplay than ever before.
Want a harrowing battle? Send the PCs against a higher level foe.
Want them to look like rock stars? Send them against a swarm of lower level foes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the moment I am less scared when a single monster appears and more annoyed because I know that it:
...probably has AE to deal with it's worse action economy.
...probably has actions that generate additional actions to deal with it's worse action economy.
...probably has AoO to deal with it's worse action economy and to provide extra difficulty (moving, spellcasting).
...certainly has killer stats (attack, defense, DC, saves)Or all of the above.
All of those things barring the fourth one can apply to any enemy, not just ones higher level than you. Because every monster in the game (or at least ones level 3 and higher) are designed to be a boss when you're two or more levels lower than them and then a minion or standard enemy three levels later. They might have AoEs, AoOs, and action economy boosters regardless of comparative level. And players will have many of those things too, depending on your build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of those things barring the fourth one can apply to any enemy, not just ones higher level than you. Because every monster in the game (or at least ones level 3 and higher) are designed to be a boss when you're two or more levels lower than them and then a minion or standard enemy three levels later. They might have AoEs, AoOs, and action economy boosters regardless of comparative level. And players will have many of those things too, depending on your build.
At the moment I am less scared when a single monster appears and more annoyed because I know that it:
...probably has AE to deal with it's worse action economy.
...probably has actions that generate additional actions to deal with it's worse action economy.
...probably has AoO to deal with it's worse action economy and to provide extra difficulty (moving, spellcasting).
...certainly has killer stats (attack, defense, DC, saves)Or all of the above.
I agree with Salamileg. Monsters aren't usually made to be bosses. They're just monsters, meant to be used at nearly all levels of play. They may have none or all of those things, or more likely, fall somewhere in between those two extremes.
All of those things barring the fourth one can apply to any enemy, not just ones higher level than you. Because every monster in the game (or at least ones level 3 and higher) are designed to be a boss when you're two or more levels lower than them and then a minion or standard enemy three levels later. They might have AoEs, AoOs, and action economy boosters regardless of comparative level. And players will have many of those things too, depending on your build.I agree with Salamileg. Monsters aren't usually made to be bosses. They're just monsters, meant to be used at nearly all levels of play. They may have none or all of those things, or more likely, fall somewhere in between those two extremes.
Yes, but at least in our current AP monsters are conveniently placed to have all 4. And lower level enemies do not seem to exist at low party levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having said that, I as both a player and a GM think that if a player happens to have the perfect character to beat a challenge they deserve the win. Balance is something that only matters for generics, and PCs are not generic.
I've had that happen in PF2. We were fighting 2 homebrew shadow giants (before the book came out) and a manticore was off screen but could be called in. I just so happen to hit the manticore owner with paranoia before they could call the manticore over. The other shadow giant then moved right towards the one with paranoia with weapon drawn in order to get by him. The GM ruled that the one with paranoia was sufficiently threatened to AOO when the other moved within 5 feet. From that point, the giants stayed apart from each other. The 3 enemies we were supposed to be fighting together ended up as basically 3 seperate encounter due to that one spell. It was pretty fantastic.
Books and movies are narratives that one receives. A roleplaying game is a collaborative narrative that one attempts to shape by rolling dice to complete actions. The failure state is kind of the point.
Collaborative narrative stories don't need dice or failure states. It is entirely possible to be freeform.
He wasn’t saying that the success threshold has to model real world athletes, he was saying that the PF2 success threshold is already on par with peak performance examples in the real world. Why should player success percentages exceed that of modern real world athletes?
So he didn't say "X -> Y, he said that X ~= Y, therefor why shouldn't X -> Y?"
Yeah. Ok.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you will only experience the system via adventures its the same thing.
It is if all the adventures are like that and you only play published adventures, yes. If it's only a particular adventure (or couple of adventures), that's another matter entirely.
Comparing Chapter 1 of Extinction Curse to Chapter 1 of Age of Ashes, for example, Age of Ashes has something less than 26% of its encounters featuring exclusively under-level opponents (lower than even Fall of Plaguestone, widely admitted to be overtuned...AoA is better balanced in general but not in this specific area) but Extinction Curse has more than 37%.
That's actually a pretty significant difference.
Yes, but at least in our current AP monsters are conveniently placed to have all 4. And lower level enemies do not seem to exist at low party levels.That's an adventure specific complaint rather than a system-based one, though, isn't it?
This may very well be the case, but this is the ingame experience I as a player will have to build my opinion on. As such I am always a little sceptical when I get told that theoretically all the math adds up (hint: it does) and that theoretically monsters for every opportunity do exist (hint: they do) but I can not find that to be true in the specific group in the specific official adventure I am currently playing.
If you will only experience the system via adventures its the same thing.That doesn't make any sense.
If you only ever order a cheeseburger from a restaurant you can't judge their entire menu, you can only judge their cheeseburger.
But you will often judge the restaurant by that one order. If I go to a new restaurant and the one order I have is bad I might never come back even if the rest of the menu may be fantastic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Collaborative narrative stories don't need dice or failure states. It is entirely possible to be freeform.
While a true statement, I'm not clear on the relevance to Dungeons and Dragons / Pathfinder.
Neither of these rulesets or their derivatives have ever been about, or portrayed themselves as being about, free form roleplay.
They are Role Playing Games, and those are almost always designed with challenges and failure states included.
If you want a narrative roleplaying system that doesn't have Game elements, those surely exist - but they are not and never have been Pathfinder/DND.
Collaborative narrative stories don't need dice or failure states. It is entirely possible to be freeform.
While a true statement, I'm not clear on the relevance to Dungeons and Dragons / Pathfinder.
Neither of these rulesets or their derivatives have ever been about, or portrayed themselves as being about, free form roleplay.
They are Role Playing Games, and those are almost always designed with challenges and failure states included.
If you want a narrative roleplaying system that doesn't have Game elements, those surely exist - but they are not and never have been Pathfinder/DND.
Yes, that's true.
But my point is that there's no point in defending the value "10+" for the tipping point of success or failure. It can be whatever value the designers want it to be.
And my opinion is that 10+ is too high.
I don't mind there being failure states, but I can't describe myself as some kind of epic adventurer out to do the things that no one else can do (think about it: why would NPCs hire an adventurer?) when I fail half the time.
And every time this point is made someone defends the value of 10 because "There has to be failure! It isn't fun if there's no failure! If the value isn't 10, there's no failure!"
Uh, yes there is. (1) Things can absolutely be fun without fail states and (2) fail states do not rely on a 10+. Having the value be (say) 5+ lets me be confident that I can accomplish the tasks I set out to do (even if I fail sometimes).
I don't need to be flawless, I just need to have confidence in my own skills, and failing as often as I succeed doesn't inspire confidence. Having to get Aid from another player while another provides Magic Bonus while a third provides moral support doesn't inspire confidence either. It took four people to accomplish a task that I'm supposed to be good at.
Also, Pathfinder, and pathfinder 2 have an incredible community of players. Even if you are less than thrilled with one specific AP (the first book of which was being developed while the game was still being tuned), all it takes is for one community member to post a list where they say:
"My players do not enjoy the kind of difficulty presented by higher level solo monsters. Here is how I tweaked the following encounters:"
And then we have the ability to make our games work best for our players. Will everyone who picks up the game see it? No, but then again, I'd be shocked if the conversations that have been happening for months on these forums will have had an impact on the beginner's box, and if that is filled with higher level monsters that inflict on going damage, I would be highly surprised.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Collaborative narrative stories don't need dice or failure states. It is entirely possible to be freeform.
While a true statement, I'm not clear on the relevance to Dungeons and Dragons / Pathfinder.
Neither of these rulesets or their derivatives have ever been about, or portrayed themselves as being about, free form roleplay.
They are Role Playing Games, and those are almost always designed with challenges and failure states included.
If you want a narrative roleplaying system that doesn't have Game elements, those surely exist - but they are not and never have been Pathfinder/DND.
Yes, that's true.
But my point is that there's no point in defending the value "10+" for the tipping point of success or failure. It can be whatever value the designers want it to be.
And my opinion is that 10+ is too high.
I don't mind there being failure states, but I can't describe myself as some kind of epic adventurer out to do the things that no one else can do (think about it: why would NPCs hire an adventurer?) when I fail half the time.
And every time this point is made someone defends the value of 10 because "There has to be failure! It isn't fun if there's no failure! If the value isn't 10, there's no failure!"
Uh, yes there is. (1) Things can absolutely be fun without fail states and (2) fail states do not rely on a 10+. Having the value be (say) 5+ lets me be confident that I can accomplish the tasks I set out to do (even if I fail sometimes).
I don't need to be flawless, I just need to have confidence in my own skills, and failing as often as I succeed doesn't inspire confidence. Having to get Aid from another player while another provides Magic Bonus while a third provides moral support doesn't inspire confidence either. It took four people to accomplish a task that I'm supposed to be good at.
A baseline value of 10+ (or 9+, or 11+... anything close to 50%) allows for a fuller range of player determined modifiers and influence over the eventual results.
The net effect of the system as it exists is that when you push odds in your favor to the fullest extent, you are just then in the range of guaranteed success.
That means less wasted player "input" into rolls through status and circumstance, and prevents diminishing returns on player involvement during gameplay.
Maximizing player involvement during gameplay is a Good Thing. Ideally, everyone should be invested in not only their turn, but the turns of their friends and peers.
Rolling at a close to 50% success rate is a choice you are making as a player, by having chosen to pass by all the options you had to improve your odds of success.
As Unicore already proposed I think the intermediate solution for less versed groups or players would be to spend the XP buget on multiple enemies not the one BBEG (which is strange in itself, however 100% compliant with the existing rules).
Getting back to suggestions instead of analysis (since there is a parallel thread to this talking explicitly about chance)
I want to jump back to QuidEst suggestion about starting players at level 3. I think for players of PF1 who want to play more heroic and full characters than starting PF2 characters, even just one level boost will probably be enough to get those players there, although combining it with the dual class option from the GMG might be another good fit.
However, I don't think that solution will really work well for players new to role playing games, or who are coming to PF2 from a less robust character building system. It will probably just overwhelm the player with options.
In the instance where you are playing with newer players, it is probably better not to run Fall of Plaguestone as your introduction to the system and you might be much better off picking up a society scenario, or just homebrewing something light with less higher level monsters and less persistent damage. At least until the beginner box comes out, and then it is likely that you have the perfect product to throw at newer players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also mind that a baseline of 10 or 11 is necessary for the current ±10 and 4 degrees of sucess to work (at least I think it is). If you set the baseline lower than that I think that could potentially screw up how successes and failures are currently working (aka use a d20, target number is 10 or 11, crit fail on 1 and crit success on 20)
Also mind that a baseline of 10 or 11 is necessary for the current ±10 and 4 degrees of sucess to work (at least I think it is). If you set the baseline lower than that I think that could potentially screw up how successes and failures are currently working (aka use a d20, target number is 10 or 11, crit fail on 1 and crit success on 20)
Hence one of the reasons that I actually dislike the ±10 rule. Four degrees of success are awesome, but the ±10 thing is something I thought looked great on paper, then found out that (as a player) it meant b+%&$$*s because getting a result of 10-over without having also just rolled a nat-20 was rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back to suggestions instead of analysis (since there is a parallel thread to this talking explicitly about chance)
I want to jump back to QuidEst suggestion about starting players at level 3. I think for players of PF1 who want to play more heroic and full characters than starting PF2 characters, even just one level boost will probably be enough to get those players there, although combining it with the dual class option from the GMG might be another good fit.
However, I don't think that solution will really work well for players new to role playing games, or who are coming to PF2 from a less robust character building system. It will probably just overwhelm the player with options.
In the instance where you are playing with newer players, it is probably better not to run Fall of Plaguestone as your introduction to the system and you might be much better off picking up a society scenario, or just homebrewing something light with less higher level monsters and less persistent damage. At least until the beginner box comes out, and then it is likely that you have the perfect product to throw at newer players.
You're right, the dual classing is for legacy PF1 players more than new players.
For new players, I'd rather keep the system as is. If you find the players aren't adapting to the game well, then taking measures to lower the difficulty might be worth it. As a GM for a table like that, I would just decrease my encounter budget for encounters and lower DCs by 1 or so outside of combat.