This thread seems as good a place as any to say this, because it seems the same conversation is going on.
I recently had a realisation on 1st vs 2nd. I've been unfairly judging 2nd and it maybe deserves another try.
However this came after a discussion in a Facebook forum when someone commented on all the cool things their party's druid was doing.
I realised that the primary thing that made me so averse to 2nd was so many people telling me it was great because of how much they disliked things in 1st. I love 1st edition and have spent countless happy hours playing it. The more people deride it to praise 2nd, the more I knee jerk dislike 2nd.
If you want to win us grognards over, stop telling us what you hated about the old game we love and focus on telling us about what's cool with the new.
Don't tell me how wizards desperately needed to be "fixed" (which sounds like taking a kitten or puppy to the vet to lose certain things). Tell me about how much fun your new wizard is having doing X Y Z now...
Julian, among the things I love about PF2 is that the way things are balanced, I can have a reasonable understanding about how likely I am to succeed at something just by knowing the relative level gap between two things. Its predictable and consistent.
I love knowing that the whole system is rigged such that at an even level, with maximized bonuses I can just get to where I'm succeeding on a 2-3, which encourages me to play well. As well, my ability to do this is based on actions taken in play and not at character creation. It makes me feel like I'm playing well when I've made the numbers work in my favor, not just created a machine that manufactures winning.
I love how the system is designed so that even if I'm only trained in a skill, I'm more likely to succeed at a check than eventually fail, because the default assumption is that only a critical failure is catastrophic - with only a modest investment in a trained skill, i can get to where I only crit fail at a 1 and most eventual success is the most likely result. What looks like a 50% success rate is actually closer to 100, because of how the 4 degrees of success is intended to work.
On the other hand, those skills I push to legendary feel legendary because they exceed human limits and I really am pushing past where failure is a real option.
I love the fact that spellcasters share the same level of play that martials do, my spells almost always do SOMETHING, and spellcasters don't ruin encounters by doing nothing or ushering in instant ungratifying anticlimax. Spellcasters really have only a 10-20% chance generally of really failing a save based spell.
I love running the system, because encounter design is so tight, monsters make great use of the action system, and the Bestiary isn't hamstrung by being tied to the same rules as players. Because level is predictive of challenge, you really can use the same critters as bosses when they're higher level than your party and mooks when they're below, and get reliable and consistent results.
I'm a really big fan of how if I'm just doing whatever, things feel swingy and unreliable - but in reality, that's the challenge that has to be tackled and overcome.
I love knowing that the whole system is rigged such that at an even level, with maximized bonuses I can just get to where I'm succeeding on a 2-3, which encourages me to play well.
[citation needed]
None of the math I have done results in this except legendary skills at very high level in a skill matching your best stat. And even then it's not "succeed on 2-3" and more like "3-5." The best I've seen is success on 3+ at level 20. Lower level than that and the raw roll rises (erratically, but on average) a point about every 3rd level.I love how the system is designed so that even if I'm only trained in a skill, I'm more likely to succeed at a check than eventually fail, because the default assumption is that only a critical failure is catastrophic - with only a modest investment in a trained skill, i can get to where I only crit fail at a 1 and most eventual success is the most likely result.
This is only true at low level. At level 10+ you need a raw 18 or better to succeed (for half of the levels, 10 yes, 11 and 12 no, 13 and 14 yes, etc). Which means critical failure at 8.
Unless I'm missing something. So [citation needed]
On the other hand, those skills I push to legendary feel legendary because they exceed human limits and I really am pushing past where failure is a real option.
On the other-other hand, at low level when even Expert is hard to acquire, things suck, because "I am excelling at this skill" and "token effort" are indistinguishable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I love about the way chance plays out in PF2 is that it so integrated into the system, that much more of the character building can focus on the specific special abilities I want my character to be able to do, rather than how to overspecialize into getting the numbers up on more generic actions.
As the game continues to develop, I look forward to getting even more options into the categories that are currently most limited (like skill feats and general feats), but for a core system, each class feels really different from each other and even some of the more subtle class feats (like wizard meta magic feats) can result in very different builds of the same class.
|
This thread seems as good a place as any to say this, because it seems the same conversation is going on.
I recently had a realisation on 1st vs 2nd. I've been unfairly judging 2nd and it maybe deserves another try.
However this came after a discussion in a Facebook forum when someone commented on all the cool things their party's druid was doing.
I realised that the primary thing that made me so averse to 2nd was so many people telling me it was great because of how much they disliked things in 1st. I love 1st edition and have spent countless happy hours playing it. The more people deride it to praise 2nd, the more I knee jerk dislike 2nd.
If you want to win us grognards over, stop telling us what you hated about the old game we love and focus on telling us about what's cool with the new.
Don't tell me how wizards desperately needed to be "fixed" (which sounds like taking a kitten or puppy to the vet to lose certain things). Tell me about how much fun your new wizard is having doing X Y Z now...
Thank you for this.
This is exactly the same thing that turned me off of 5e when it came out and all the players who switched over started bad mouthing pathfinder. My reaction was to look for what was wrong with the new game and defend the old one. I now hate 5e because of that, I can't play that game without seeing all the glaring flaws in it. I don't want to ruin pf2 for myself in the same fashion.
I love knowing that the whole system is rigged such that at an even level, with maximized bonuses I can just get to where I'm succeeding on a 2-3, which encourages me to play well.[citation needed]
None of the math I have done results in this except legendary skills at very high level in a skill matching your best stat. And even then it's not "succeed on 2-3" and more like "3-5." The best I've seen is success on 3+ at level 20. Lower level than that and the raw roll rises (erratically, but on average) a point about every 3rd level.I love how the system is designed so that even if I'm only trained in a skill, I'm more likely to succeed at a check than eventually fail, because the default assumption is that only a critical failure is catastrophic - with only a modest investment in a trained skill, i can get to where I only crit fail at a 1 and most eventual success is the most likely result.This is only true at low level. At level 10+ you need a raw 18 or better to succeed (for half of the levels, 10 yes, 11 and 12 no, 13 and 14 yes, etc). Which means critical failure at 8.
Unless I'm missing something. So [citation needed]
On the other hand, those skills I push to legendary feel legendary because they exceed human limits and I really am pushing past where failure is a real option.On the other-other hand, at low level when even Expert is hard to acquire, things suck, because "I am excelling at this skill" and "token effort" are indistinguishable.
Citation 1 - At level 11 (chosen because +2 status bonus from Heroism becomes available, and its not a 'trouble' level before a big proficiency jump).
Target AC is 31 (high). Base attack bonus for a Champion is +22 (11 level +4 expert +2 item +5 stat), meaning they hit by default on a 9.
Modified by 2 for a status bonus to hit (Heroism), 2 for a status penalty to AC (Fear spell, level 1 because of lack of incapacitation tag), 2 for flat footed, 2 for aid (current attack bonuses result in a critical success more than 50% of the time).
That's hitting on a 1, or a 4 vs. extreme AC at the same level. If you assume a successful save vs. fear and a normal success on the aid attempt, its hit on a 3 or a 6 for extreme AC. At lower levels, you have two less potential modifiers for Status to hit and aiding.
The above applies for half the games potential levels, and is only slightly less pronounced early on.
Citation 2 - At level 15 (because Legendary skills just became available).
Target DC is 34 (normal). Base Trained bonus is +22 (15 level, +2 trained, +2 item, +3 stat). +2 items are something like level -6 or -5 at this point, and therefore trivial. You can increase 4 stats, meaning a +3 in a skill stat is trivial for anything you care about (because you cared, you likely started at a 12). This constitutes a modest investment in my opinion.
That means you need a 12 to succeed, and only critically fail on a 1 or a 2. In many cases, this means you can try again, and you're very likely to roll a 12 before a 2.
A legendary skill likely has another +7 (proficiency and a 18 stat) and succeeds on a 5, and crits on a 15.
Note for 3rd comment - at low level, you likely chose Expertise in something you were good at unless you wanted to unlock a skill feat (like battle medicine, or magical item crafting). At this level, your good skills are defined by the difference you get from Expert + stat (can be a gap of something like +5 generally, for something tied to your best stat) and by your skill feats (which unlock new capabilities) more than the difference in numbers from proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing the math enables in PF2 that is absolutely awesome, is incredibly easy, and consistent encounter design. It is still important to know about your player's expectations and play styles, because different kinds of encounters will feel different to different players, but changing that stuff, even on the fly is easy and not very time consuming. Stat blocks for monsters are relatively short and direct and have exactly enough information on them for you to run your encounter in a unique and interesting way without missing the impact that some small feature will have on the encounter. Running PF2 is like getting everything you wanted for your chosen favorite holiday.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I love about the way chance plays out in PF2 is that it so integrated into the system, that much more of the character building can focus on the specific special abilities I want my character to be able to do, rather than how to overspecialize into getting the numbers up on more generic actions.
My players' experience has kind of been the opposite. They've been more concerned about making sure their numbers are on-target than ever before because of how much extra value PF2 places on each +1.
Granted, there are fewer ways to min-max in PF2, so there are times where they get to make choices where there is no min-maxed option, but that still makes those times where the imperative to optimize correctly when they can all the more important.
In PF1 for instance, sometimes they'd tank down their main stat down, because with the way point buy worked that would give them a lot of extra points to throw around to their other stats and there were always alternative ways of buffing up their attacks or skill checks to compensate. PF2 lacks that incentive and makes those +1s a lot harder to replace, and that has left them much less willing to experiment.
They also feel it a lot with skill checks, where someone will try to invest in skills that line up with tertiary attributes and as a result feel like they struggle to have those skill investments really be justified, because every investment to buff those skills makes them feel tangibly weaker in combat, but not investing in those skills makes them feel unreliable, especially at low to mid levels.
One thing I love about the way chance plays out in PF2 is that it so integrated into the system, that much more of the character building can focus on the specific special abilities I want my character to be able to do, rather than how to overspecialize into getting the numbers up on more generic actions.My players' experience has kind of been the opposite. They've been more concerned about making sure their numbers are on-target than ever before because of how much extra value PF2 places on each +1.
Granted, there are fewer ways to min-max in PF2, so there are times where they get to make choices where there is no min-maxed option, but that still makes those times where the imperative to optimize correctly when they can all the more important.
In PF1 for instance, sometimes they'd tank down their main stat down, because with the way point buy worked that would give them a lot of extra points to throw around to their other stats and there were always alternative ways of buffing up their attacks or skill checks to compensate. PF2 lacks that incentive and makes those +1s a lot harder to replace, and that has left them much less willing to experiment.
It is absolutely 100% true that PF2 is kindof unforgiving if you don't put your accuracy stat at 18 at character creation. Its extremely important to do so, and failing to do so will be notable. Its really the only fundamental "balance" mistake you can make while making your character.
Thats said, your OTHER stats can really be anything you want without really crippling your character. Frontline characters tend to get enough armor to make up for mediocre dex if they need to, and while con is nice the base hit point progression is more forgiving early on than ever before. Failed saves dont result in instant death very often, so as long as you avoid penalties you can generally shore these up before really crippling stuff comes into play.
Down the road, this problem is addressed by how stat advancement works - once you start getting ability increases, you're actually able to have a far more diverse array of relevant ability scores than ever before.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is absolutely 100% true that PF2 is kindof unforgiving if you don't put your accuracy stat at 18 at character creation. Its extremely important to do so, and failing to do so will be notable. Its really the only fundamental "balance" mistake you can make while making your character.
Or not.
It's not at all true for people like me who have a different playstyle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a PF2 player, I have 3 characters (one in an AP and two in PFS), only one of which has an 18 in their primary attribute, and, ironically, I don't think an 18 was all that necessary because she is a bard and uses their spell DC or their spell attack roll about 10-20% of actions I take.
I have a cloistered cleric with a 16 Dex and 16 Wis that murders enemies with harm spells up close and otherwise casts support spells or fires 1 ranged attack per round. I miss sometimes, especially against big bosses, but I also have a lot more to do to support the party in those fights so I make less attacks generally in those fights any way.
My third character is a Redeemer of Nethys with a 16 STR, and a 14 INT and CHA. She hits plenty well with her bo staff, makes a lot of recall knowledge checks, defends the party with her reaction and heals when necessary.
The two PFS characters are being played by post so they are still level 1, but my cleric is almost to level 5 (where my attributes will be most advantageous), and I don't think anyone in the party would suggest that he doesn't pull his weight. He sneaks effectively, he is a wiz with nature checks, uses natural medicine for making medicine checks (we play it by RAW where I only substitute the skill for the actual treat injury roll, no other synergy). At +11 to the check, I crit more often than I succeed and regularly heal 4d8 after combats, while only running out of heal spells when our party tries to tackle 5 encounters rolled over into 1 big encounter.
My party tries to play tactically, but our tactics fall apart frequently. We do stuff like jumping off of 10ft platforms to punch someone in the face, just because it sounds cool, and our GM does not pull punches when our big ideas fail, but we still have only had one character die (in our last session against a level +3 encounter that we really messed up tactically).
I think if you look at the system too mechanically, as if your characters will develop set routines they should execute every round, you are much more likely to get frustrated by how easily enemies disrupt those kinds of plans, but our party has had a blast playing ways that have felt the most fun, rather than always the most tactically sound moves. 1st level characters need to fail somewhat frequently when they try to swing from chandeliers and balance across ropes, so that when they hit level 3 and jump to expert in acrobatics, they can start regularly succeeding at things they struggled with a few levels earlier.
...a lot of praise...
Could you or the others please specify the level range when all pieces are supposed to fall in place? Because level 1 to 6 I have been seeing few of it. I assume level 11+ or 13+ because heroism +2 and reliably able to critically aid DC30. No criticism, just being curious.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing the math enables in PF2 that is absolutely awesome, is incredibly easy, and consistent encounter design. It is still important to know about your player's expectations and play styles, because different kinds of encounters will feel different to different players, but changing that stuff, even on the fly is easy and not very time consuming. Stat blocks for monsters are relatively short and direct and have exactly enough information on them for you to run your encounter in a unique and interesting way without missing the impact that some small feature will have on the encounter. Running PF2 is like getting everything you wanted for your chosen favorite holiday.
Obviously my perspective is a little different from the average player's, but encounter (and monster) design in PF2 are my absolute favorite things about it. I love being able to put together an adventure and know with reasonable certainty what experience players are going to get out of it. And how much faster it is creating unique monsters. Huuuge time saver but the monsters still have all the flavor and tactical components they need for the story both in and out of combat.
Oh, and the entire monk class. My playtest character Kobra was a half-orc monk, who I then carried over into our Age of Ashes campaign. So I've been playing the PF2 monk (in some form or another), for almost two years now and it's been really fun to get to provide suggestions or turnovers to the design team for expanding it (like pestering Logan to make ki blast a variable action spell or getting to write and suggest a bunch of stuff for the APG like the ki form Seifter teased in the GMT article).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Citation 1 - At level 11 (chosen because +2 status bonus from Heroism becomes available, and its not a 'trouble' level before a big proficiency jump).
Target AC is 31 (high). Base attack bonus for a Champion is +22 (11 level +4 expert +2 item +5 stat), meaning they hit by default on a 9.
Modified by 2 for a status bonus to hit (Heroism), 2 for a status penalty to AC (Fear spell, level 1 because of lack of incapacitation tag), 2 for flat footed, 2 for aid (current attack bonuses result in a critical success more than 50% of the time).
Wow ok. Yeah, this is what I'm getting at. That's not your base success rate. That's "stacking every buff and debuff known to man." Fear also only lasts a round and costs resources. You aren't getting those benefits every time. You're also spending significant resources on Heroism (as you've cast it out of the highest level slot available to the party). So you're only going to have that for one or two fights.
Flat Footed and Aid are the only reliable bonuses here.
This is literally the system mastery everyone whines about PF1 being so complicated and therefor bad for.
Citation 2 - At level 15 (because Legendary skills just became available).
Target DC is 34 (normal). Base Trained bonus is +22 (15 level, +2 trained, +2 item, +3 stat). +2 items are something like level -6 or -5 at this point, and therefore trivial.
This involves placing a +2 item bonuses into a skill you're only trained in, instead of putting it towards a skill you're supposedly investing in.
Not necessarily wrong but at 15th you should only have three such items (I'm going by APB).
You can increase 4 stats, meaning a +3 in a skill stat is trivial for anything you care about (because you cared, you likely started at a 12). This constitutes a modest investment in my opinion.
A "moderate investment" doesn't leave a skill they care about at Trained after having seven skill boosts to allocate.
In any case, this discussion made me poke into the guts of why I'm seeing several levels with out-sized skill DCs. This is due to hazards. While I do calculate an arbitrary skill check with a DC from the table, I also run hazards through it too (not all disabling is thievery but the values involved should be approximate stand-ins for equal level challenges and are hard data rather than guidelines).
(1) Complex hazards have skill DCs that are 5 points above the DC table for the same level. I've adjusted my systems to drop the DC by 5 in this case (as the idea appears to be that all players can be involved, triggering the "add 5 because reasons" rule). eg. Banshee's Symphony (18) has a DC of 44.
(2) Some simple hazards are above the table as well--such as the polymorph trap (12) and planar rift trap (13), offering up DCs of 32 and 33 respectively; 2 points high. Frozen Moment (17) is also 2 points high at DC 38. I'm not adjusting this.
Two traps had bad data.
That leaves level 7 and level 18 as the highest raw d20 roll needed to succeed at a "trained only" skill (16+). Level 7's trap, Pharaoh’S Ward, has a higher disable DC than the level 8 trap, yellow mold. Whereas nothing stands out at level 18.
The lack of diversity is also part of the problem. By having at most only one trap at each level, that one trap's statistics are dominating the results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...a lot of praise...Could you or the others please specify the level range when all pieces are supposed to fall in place? Because level 1 to 6 I have been seeing few of it. I assume level 11+ or 13+ because heroism +2 and reliably able to critically aid DC30. No criticism, just being curious.
At level 1, a High AC is 16 and a non-fighter attack bonus is generally +7, meaning you need that same 9 to start. Flanking (-2 AC), Fear (-2 AC on a failure, -1 AC on a success) or Demoralize (-1 AC) is available , and status bonus to hit (+1 from Bless or bard song) are all available from the beginning if your party supports them (the status bonus to hit is the most precious and limited at this point, so far as I'm aware). At +7 to hit, aiding is unreliable without one of the "+4 to aid" features.
Still, most parties can reliably and accessibly impose a 3-4 point shift using some combination of the above to hit on a 5 or a 6 as a non-fighter as early as level 1. All you're really missing are the +2 status bonus to hit (limited strictly by level) and reliable circumstance modifiers to hit (these become unlikely to fail at level 2 or 3, whenever you start picking up potency runes for your attacks, and extremely reliable once you get to expert with your attacks).
I think that this helps to push the feeling of being less magical and more mortal at lower levels, whereas you're able to push things further and more reliably at higher levels.
Note that the game doesn't require all of this bonus stacking - you can succeed with less bonuses than this. I'm just trying to illustrate that things are 'tuned' such that at the most extreme, you're just then arriving in the 1 or 2 to hit range... but it is attainable, and eventually its even fairly accessible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow ok. Yeah, this is what I'm getting at. That's not your base success rate. That's "stacking every buff and debuff known to man." Fear also only lasts a round and costs resources. You aren't getting those benefits every time. You're also spending significant resources on Heroism (as you've cast it out of the highest level slot available to the party). So you're only going to have that for one or two fights.Flat Footed and Aid are the only reliable bonuses here.
This is literally the system mastery everyone whines about PF1 being so complicated and therefor bad for.
Everything here is available to most parties, one way or the other, though some have easier access than others. If you want to be awesome and never fail, put in the work.
It is a benefit that system mastery now occurs in play and not at character creation.
There's nothing at all wrong at requiring you to work for the coveted 'only miss on a 2' state. That's a big benefit, and should be the culmination of your parties cooperation. If it isn't, whats the point of working together?
This is a team and group game, not a competition or solo one.
This involves placing a +2 item bonuses into a skill you're only trained in, instead of putting it towards a skill you're supposedly investing in.
Not necessarily wrong but at 15th you should only have three such items (I'm going by APB).
That table (heck, that entire mechanic) doesn't account for the fact that in reality, you have gold to spend and items to trade for gold. The cost of +2 skill items at 15th is trivial, and a real party will likely have as many as they want.
A "moderate investment" doesn't leave a skill they care about at...
I said "modest investment", not moderate. At 15th level, every example I gave here is absolutely trivial to invest in a skill you want to use at the Trained level. A moderate investment implies investment a tier below your BEST skills, not the ones you're only casually committed to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
simple math
Thanks. Again I don't doubt the numbers, what I doubt however is the ease of application of all mentioned buffs and debuffs in actual play. For example a large enemy having reach and AoO and if this is coupled with more levels than the party has levels (equals more to-hit/crit and greater damage) makes flanking very unattractive to the individual player (a "hive-mind" player would probably take the hit and flank nonetheless in order to apply the debuff, at least if it would not mean sucide later on). Or the monster could just critically succed versus your fear spell, which is now expended and gone for good (happened to me in our first boss fight despite targeting the lowest save) etc.
If I could rebuild our party from scratch and play every combat as a single mind than perhaps I would be able to experience all that hindsight combat mastery, however at the actual table I am not. Four to five players having four to five visions about their character and different ideas how to play them. I can't "force" the fighter player to use a warhammer or other weapon with better traits over his trusty battle axe because (quote) "dwarves use axes". I can't force the wizard player to cast Slow if he like to cast Lightning Bolt instead. I can't move the ranger to a flanking position for the fighter if he likes to shoot his bow from afar.
Of course we are talking about those issues in the aftermath of every major battle and things are slowly beginning to change, especially after the introduction of a 5. player who now is providing flanking opportunities and has a notable intimidation skill, however every single one of the harder fights, where coordinated buffing/debuffing would really have been required, so far was a pain in the arm because everybody more or less had to rely on chance.
I'd just like to point out that the +5 DC when everybody is expected to roll is not necessarily "because reasons", but probably because who built the hazard took extra effort to hide it better, in case one of those pesky adventurer groups would show up. Traps work better when you don't spot them.
I mean, there's always a possible in-game explanation. One could argue why the same effort isn't placed in, say, a locked door; well, maybe they know that a lockpicking specialist isn't guaranteed to be in that group, and so they are dedicating more time and money to something else.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a benefit that system mastery now occurs in play and not at character creation.
I used to be a big tabletop miniature gamer. I recall sitting down for a game with a friend, and he started to complain about some new models he just got. They had too many parts and took so long to put together. He went on to complain about having to paint everything for the upcoming tournament. I stared at him dumbfounded. None of the kits came in enough separate parts. I wanted them to be 10 times as complex to facilitate personalizing every model. I spent countless hours carefully cutting, sculpting details out of green stuff, and painting. To me that was the absolute best part of the hobby. Playing the actual game was a secondary enjoyment. I couldn't understand why you would be a miniature gamer if you didn't love miniatures.
Different people do the same thing for different reasons, they enjoy different aspects, one man's trash is another man's treasure and all that. These sorts of things don't have a right way and wrong way about them. What you consider a benefit, others consider removing one of the most enjoyable aspects of the hobby.
I mean, there's always a possible in-game explanation. One could argue why the same effort isn't placed in, say, a locked door; well, maybe they know that a lockpicking specialist isn't guaranteed to be in that group, and so they are dedicating more time and money to something else.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for doing the analysis. I am not GM'ing AoA, just playing, and the checks that I actually have knowledge about where all on the 11+ side of things. But given that a lot of rolls are hidden now, maybe I "missed" many of the easily passed DC's and checks, thus my perception may be screwed. For example I seem to remember doing some knowledge checks on an infamous creature, which would have required me a 16+ to succeed (13+ while maximized, which however I weren't at the time). Also I remember some sort of sturdy cabinet which was hard to open by either pick lock or force open (DC25), however as we had all the time in the world our GM ruled that we would eventually succeed.
Yeah, there are certainly exceptions that are higher DC...but a lot of them (almost all, from what I looked at) fall into two categories:
1. Something the whole party gets to try (like a Perception check to find loot), or that (like the cabinet you note) there's no restriction on retrying.
2. Really high DC stuff that lets you just avoid major encounters or skip large portions of dungeons, or stuff like that.
Most stuff that actually progresses the plot in an expected way is within level expectations, or perhaps occasionally slightly above that, but no more than +1 or +2.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm doing neither. I pulled actual monsters from the bestiary and the code currently assumes ABP (because I haven't had the time to break down an item purchase assumption). So I'm not ignoring magic weapons and except for a single level 20 creature in the relevant data set having an Extreme AC, all of them are High.
Okay, so are you pulling all the monsters, or a random assortment? Because if it's a random assortment, that's actually a huge issue.
If you are pulling all the monsters (which it sounds like you're not based on the Ancient Gold Dragon not being in your set), your data is also obsolete...though only as of today, so it's hardly your fault. The Bestiary 2 monsters just landed on AoN, so that'll change some things.
So I dug in.
Level 1 fighter, 8+ always succeeds hit 8 because of a level 1 hazard with an AC of 17. When making my post I was attempting to give an impression of "usually" vs. "always definitely", but having written portions of the post at different times, due to other obligations, this was not made clear.Likewise, level 20 fighter, the 10+ value came from the single extreme AC monster.
These statements make me really doubt the way you're using your data.
If you're basing 'a Fighter hits' on the single highest AC at any individual level...that's not really a very useful statistic in terms of how well Fighters work most of the time, and very misleading since some levels will just not have an Extreme AC monster. It's a bad metric that you shouldn't be using.
At level 1, PC saving throw values range from +4 to +7 vs 17. Which matches my "Roll 10 for your best save and roll 13 for your worst." Dead on the money.
PC saves at 1st level range from +3 (Trained, +0 stat) to +9 (Expert, +4 stat). So...no, this is completely incorrect.
At level 20, PC saving throw values range from +31 to +33, and while you're correct that a High DC is 42, the level 20 creatures available to pick from in the bestiary have a higher propensity for Extreme DCs than low level creatures. Both the Balor and Pleroma have DCs above 42. The balor's Death Throws is 45 (its spells are 44) and the Pleroma's spellcasting is 47.
The one creature not in my data set--Ancient Gold Dragons--have a breath weapon DC of 44. Also the Tarn Linnorn's Curse of Death was ignored (DC 46) in favor of the breath weapon and venom DCs of 42 (its Constrict DC is also 44). The only DC below 42 is the dragon's Frightful Presence (39) and would likewise have been ignored, as I was attempting to aggregate averages, not represent every attack 100% accurately. Additionally as I can only pick "High" or "Extreme" with no random bonus modifier, DCs of 44 are set as High and DCs of 45 are set as Extreme (closest approximation).
The end result is that "actually, more DCs are above 42 than at or below." So, there you go.
Extreme DCs are certainly more common at high levels, yes. But not as much more common as this. That's actually not your fault if you're going purely by the Bestiary 1, though. That has only a very few level 20 creatures, and they skew the curve high.
Looking at all 15 level 20 creatures published as of the Bestiary 2, the majority max out at DC 42, with (I believe) only the Ancient Gold Dragon, Balor, Pit Fiend, Tarn Linnorm, Yamaraj, and Pleroma having higher DCs than that (and of those, the Pit Fiend has only DC 43). Now, given all that, the average probably is more like DC 43 than 42 (since almost all the others have a 42, and that's 6/15 with a bit higher)...but that's still only a 26 point increase over the DC 17 at 1st level, and outpaced by PC Save increases in most cases.
+4 to +31 is a change of +27
+7 to +33 is a change of +26 (your highest stat can't benefit from attribute boosts as well as your lowest)
So you didn't actually show me as being wrong.
Uh...again, those starting numbers are wrong. And so are the ending ones, really. A Rogue can start with +9 Reflex and wind up with +38, a change of +29 in their high stat, and a Barbarian can readily go from +8 to +36 in Fortitude for a change of 28, and so on.
In low stats with bad saves, going from +4 to +31 is indeed fairly typical, but your high end is very off, and +4 isn't technically the bottom of the low end. +7 to +33 is about right for a stat that started at 18 but with a bad Save, but you're basically ignoring Good Saves entirely, which is frankly just incorrect. And a bad starting stat in a Good Save can easily wind up going from +5 at 1st to +35 at 20th for a +30 shift (technically, with a stat item, that could wind up as a +31 shift, I think the highest change from 1st to 20th for any character).
But my point wasn't actually to dispute your numbers per se, it was to argue that the net gain in Saves was generally equal, or slightly higher, than the net gain monsters get in Save DCs.
Yes. I mentioned those. They don't change the requisite d20 value, though, they just boost your success type.
Saves that go up in Proficiency more than once actually do change the d20 value necessary. Going from Expert to Legendary is a +4 over the level, and thus going up +28 rather than +26 just from Proficiency and Item.
And I mentioned Evasion effects because they're relevant to the actual matter under discussion (ie: how well Saves scale), rather than to dispute you per se.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to point out that you didn't ask them to cite base success, you asked them to cite:Wow ok. Yeah, this is what I'm getting at. That's not your base success rate. That's "stacking every buff and debuff known to man." Fear also only lasts a round and costs resources. You aren't getting those benefits every time. You're also spending significant resources on Heroism (as you've cast it out of the highest level slot available to the party). So you're only going to have that for one or two fights.Citation 1 - At level 11 (chosen because +2 status bonus from Heroism becomes available, and its not a 'trouble' level before a big proficiency jump).
Target AC is 31 (high). Base attack bonus for a Champion is +22 (11 level +4 expert +2 item +5 stat), meaning they hit by default on a 9.
Modified by 2 for a status bonus to hit (Heroism), 2 for a status penalty to AC (Fear spell, level 1 because of lack of incapacitation tag), 2 for flat footed, 2 for aid (current attack bonuses result in a critical success more than 50% of the time).
with maximized bonuses I can just get to where I'm succeeding on a 2-3, which encourages me to play well."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Professionals probably have assurance and don't make rolls on their everyday skills. The DCs for those tasks don't get harder as you level up. Characters in PF2 get much much better at these basic tasks as they level up.
The trick is that they also start trying to do harder tasks as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doctors, even surgeons, don't frequently accidentally kill their patients.We know how Surgeons and Physicians get around this. They get the ability Doctor's Hand.
Doctor's Hand When the surgeon rolls a critical failure on a check to Treat Disease, Treat Poison, or Treat Wounds, they get a failure instead.
A special ability that means, while they may fail to help a patient, they never actively hurt their patients. NPCs get special abilities like this to prevent these sorts of problems. PCs take Assurance and get enough skill to cover the DCs.
Its explicitly for system challenge purposes. If you let more PCs take the actions to do something and you only need one success, the chances of them succeeding are higher so if you ostensibly want it to be 'challenging' for them, the DC needs to be higher. You can justify that however you want, you're the GM, you don't owe the players any explanation for why DCs are what they are.I'd just like to point out that the +5 DC when everybody is expected to roll is not necessarily "because reasons", but probably because who built the hazard took extra effort to hide it better, in case one of those pesky adventurer groups would show up. Traps work better when you don't spot them.
I mean, there's always a possible in-game explanation. One could argue why the same effort isn't placed in, say, a locked door; well, maybe they know that a lockpicking specialist isn't guaranteed to be in that group, and so they are dedicating more time and money to something else.
When you are designing an adventure you aim at a certain level of challenge, and also at a certain level of verisimilitude. A tree that has an enormous DC to climb? Some groups won't bat an eyelid to that, but to others it will feel off; so it's better if you justify the greater challenge somehow.
But in general I agree with you. If you are making an adventure for level 1 characters and you decide that they have to move a boulder, you have all the right to choose how hard it should be. You don't have to stick to a standard DC for level 1: the rock can definitely be bigger and heavier!|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The process was mostly "I need at least 3 monsters, I want a range of possibilities, so that I can make sure that there's at least one monster that causes a Fort save, at least one a Reflex save, at least one a Will save, and I'd like it if they didn't all have the exact same to-hit and AC."
Okay. So you're using convenience sampling. That's by far the easiest and most common sampling technique used in most of, at least, the social sciences. Also, one of the worst in terms of generalizing to the population at large.
Which is to say, as someone with some small experience in statistics, I do not take your sampling as representative of the game as a whole, and frankly nobody else should do so either.
It's a larger percentage than most convenience sampling, sure enough, but given the really wide disparity between individual creatures and the fact that (as I'll address below) all the percentages you just listed should be halved or more with the Bestiary 2 out...well, that's just not very good data.
I didn't go seeking out monsters with Extreme stats, just that 85% of them are High and I wanted variability, sometimes it was a Low stat, sometimes it was Extreme, and occasionally there weren't any alternatives at all. In total I have 118 creatures with data entered.
And none of that makes your numbers any more accurate. It makes them unbiased, but that's very different from accurate.
I mean, what you're basically saying is 'I pulled these monsters out of a hat.' It's a great defense against bias, but a super bad one against you just being wrong about what's most common.
Its online, the changes mentioned above haven't been uploaded yet, but it pops out way more data (and more nuanced data) than I can type into a post.
I'm really skeptical of any data based on convenience sampling. This tool is not an exception.
Again, I was specifically looking at "Fighter" and "Wizard" where neither one has a key stat that is also a save, but also classes that want token effort to saves. Sure you CAN put a zero in Wisdom, but I don't think anyone actually DOES that, so the data point isn't super relevant.
Could I have put that free boost into charisma or intelligence instead? Sure, I could have, but i chose to drop it into wisdom for the willpower save, because I can measure that.
I honestly missed the post where you said that you were only dealing with Str Fighters and Wizards, it certainly wasn't in the post I was responding to. Even there, you're factually wrong (both can easily hit +8 in some Saves at 1st level, though it's true not a +9...a Dex Fighter can easily have a +9, of course).
Also, basing your analysis of and arguments on 'what PCs can do' on only two Classes, and, in the case of Saves, two with some of the worst Saves in the game, is not remotely generalizeable to the game as a whole.
Good to know. Don't have it.
It's literally free on the internet on Archives of Nethys. So yes, you do.
Now, admittedly, you didn't a few days ago, but my point was that your model has incomplete and obsolete data and is thus producing wrong results. That's not a condemnation of you and not about 'fault' (obviously you can't be blamed for not having these monsters three days ago when they weren't on the internet yet), it's a statement about how models with incomplete data tend to work.
Which is to say, even if your model was right previously (and I have doubts, as mentioned above) it has, though no fault of yours, become obsolete and is almost certainly no longer accurate.
Again, I was specifically looking at "Fighter" and "Wizard."
And again, trying to make statements about the game's math as a whole on the basis of this and a convenience sampling of the monsters is pretty much just not gonna give an accurate picture of the game.
I did not expect to have to be this f$$@ing pedantic about this.
No s#@& sherlock you get an additional +2 when you rank up to legendary. That wasn't the point. The DCs have also risen by 2 points in that time, so you track even on the treadmill. I was pointing out the fact that Evasion does Weird S#@& to the resulting statistics, but you still need to roll the same raw d20 as if you didn't get Evasion.
My point was, in fact that, say, a Fighter likely goes up by +27 Fort Save between levels 1 and 20. Which is about equivalent to the +26 Save DCs go up in the same time period. So yes, there's a treadmill there.
My point in mentioning Saves going to Legendary, is that a Barbarian goes up by +29 in Fortitude rather than the Fighter's +27, two more than the Fighter over the same time period due to his Proficiency ups. Which means he winds up indisputably ahead of the monster Save DCs in that Save.
Which is to say: The treadmill accounts for (or very nearly accounts for) all Saves going up once. Those Classes who have one go up twice thus definitionally pull ahead of said treadmill on that Save.
That's not me being unnecessarily pedantic (I actually have an alias specifically for that), it's me pointing out an aspect of how the game's fundamental math works that you're ignoring (probably because of your monofocus on less than two Classes...Dex Fighters are probably as common as Str ones, so you're really addressing something less than 15% of Classes in the game if you're only focusing on Wizards and some Fighters).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread seems as good a place as any to say this, because it seems the same conversation is going on.
I recently had a realisation on 1st vs 2nd. I've been unfairly judging 2nd and it maybe deserves another try.
However this came after a discussion in a Facebook forum when someone commented on all the cool things their party's druid was doing.
I realised that the primary thing that made me so averse to 2nd was so many people telling me it was great because of how much they disliked things in 1st. I love 1st edition and have spent countless happy hours playing it. The more people deride it to praise 2nd, the more I knee jerk dislike 2nd.
If you want to win us grognards over, stop telling us what you hated about the old game we love and focus on telling us about what's cool with the new.
Don't tell me how wizards desperately needed to be "fixed" (which sounds like taking a kitten or puppy to the vet to lose certain things). Tell me about how much fun your new wizard is having doing X Y Z now...
Well, it is natural to compare PF2 to perceived flaws in PF1 because that is why a new edition was made. If the things people complain about in first edition are not things that bother you, than there's actually not a lot of reason for you to jump ship. You might be like Claxon and want a game you can just tear through with the right build without difficulty, in which case this isn't the right system for you and PF1 is. And as long as you can find enough people to play PF1, I see no reason you shouldn't continue.
That being said, it has been getting harder and harder to find people to play
PF1 for years now and it is an a hard game to learn, so you may eventually be forced to migrate. :( Hopefully you have a table of folks who are sticking together.
All that said, stuff I like about PF2 that doesn't require dunking on PF1 and hasn't already been covered up thread...
The 3 action economy and the way feats are usually abilities with narrative effects rather than pure number boosters means encounters have taken on a very cinematic vibe. My favorite example being the wall running monk and the level of wuxia shenanigans they can get up to. In my games, I've seen them run up a wall, leap off, and grapple a flying harpy. The next round they flurried the harpy to death, kicked off their body to the wall and bounced to the ground without harm.
Now, admittedly, you didn't a few days ago, but my point was that your model has incomplete and obsolete data and is thus producing wrong results.
So...I make about 1 commit every 3 days.
My last commit (before the one last night) was on the 25th.That was a couple days ago, it was a very small commit. Doing bestiary entries takes quite a lot of time. Time I don't have right now.
So again, it might be available but I don't have it.
As for the bias, I plan on fixing it by actually having every monster in the bestiary.
When I have time.
You want to help out? Instructions on the repo.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, my point was not to place blame. Yes, compiling data like that is a lot of work and I'd never dream of blaming you for it not being done.
But that's just it, it's not done and until it is it's not really a very accurate picture of monster stats in general, and yet you're acting like it is.
That attitude that your stats are objectively correct (more correct than the official numbers from Paizo's monster builder, which is what I was using) when they're based on a deeply incomplete data set is what I'm objecting to.
Your numbers, when complete, may well be the best available, but they aren't remotely complete yet and so you don't get to act like they're an absolute authority when they are very much not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a 6th level character with Expert Medicine and Assurance can do Expert level Treat Injury all day every day and never fail once, auto-stabilize everyone they use first aid on, never fail to provide bonuses for level 5 or less diseases, and so on.
I wanted to echo this. Our Age of Ashes group started with the Fighter with a 10 Wis as the only PC with Medicine. At +3, he would need to roll a 12 to succeed (no guarantee) and would actually crit fail on a 2 or 1 (happened a couple times).
Fast forward to level 3. He puts expert in Medicine and takes Assurance as his level 3 feat. Now he auto-succeeds at every try.
I've often wondered how 1e would do with a 3d6 vs 1d20 system, and I think the same could be done in 2e. This would make smaller bonuses loom bigger. With it, you'd likely have to do crit success/failure at +/-5 rather than 10...
If you go back one page, I have done some math exactly about that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the baseline %s are bad in PF2, but what I think could be improved are the ways you can hedge the odds in your favor. Circumstance bonuses are so ubiqutous that most of the time you can't do much to improve your odds further. Think status bonus are fine, though!
Melee martials can flank, that's -2 Flat-Footed which is pretty good. But if you try to flank a prone opponent while your ally is grappling them and you still get that same -2 AC. -2 is not bad, but a very tactical party in PF1 could engineer much more favorable situations with their tactics when the party all worked in tandem. To get any better, you need a status penalty, so demoralize is allowed to stack, but not prone.
A lot of weapon traits can allow a random +1 circustance to hit, which also won't stack with, say, the Aid action for some reason. Again, getting multiple party members to contribute giving diminishing returns.
You need Inspire Courage or Heroism to do any better.
If you're a caster? lol, Frightened condition is basically all you got. (Clumsy/Stupefied/Enfeebled for 1 specific save I guess). If you're the only caster vs a strong enemy your debuff spell is gonna run out before you can leverage it next turn (they're making the save).
There might be some value in allowing circumstance bonuses to stack in some scenarios if the party is going out of their way to "set up" for one big roll. There is a lot of options in this game, but a lot of times you can't actually squeeze anything out of em.
Right now, I feel playing smart is more about mastering out the stacking rules and getting the right combo than actually doing things that seem smart from an in-game perspective.
And don't get me started on drinking a mutagen and getting only the penalties because you happen to have a magic sword.
If you're a caster? lol, Frightened condition is basically all you got. (Clumsy/Stupefied/Enfeebled for 1 specific save I guess). If you're the only caster vs a strong enemy your debuff spell is gonna run out before you can leverage it next turn (they're making the save).
There are several spells that inflict Sickened, which will either last or cost an enemy action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But those spell all invariably require an enemy to fail a save to get the sickened effect art from Stinking Cloud which requires to stay in your zone rather than leave it. Which means you would need to buff your dc to even land those effects.There are several spells that inflict Sickened, which will either last or cost an enemy action.
If you're a caster? lol, Frightened condition is basically all you got. (Clumsy/Stupefied/Enfeebled for 1 specific save I guess). If you're the only caster vs a strong enemy your debuff spell is gonna run out before you can leverage it next turn (they're making the save).
Maybe look at spells that cause sickened again?
Baleful Polymorph, Goblin Pox, Mariners Curse and Stinking Cloud all impose Sickened on a Successful Save, and Sickened has its own "end" condition apart from the spells for the most part.
A persistent -1 to everything until the target spends AT LEAST one action is a perfectly valid use of a spell slot in all those cases, with the bonus effects of a save failure scaling appropriately with spell level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other are high level so ignored them because most of the games I have played ended before then. But Goblin Pox is worth noting. Kind of annoying that the two main debuffs (frightened and sickened) does nothing against un-dead but its defiantly useful. My reading of stinking cloud is that it does nothing unless your enemies end their turn in it which is going to require even more work to arrange so I have always discounted it as anything other than terrain denial.But those spell all invariably require an enemy to fail a save to get the sickened effect art from Stinking Cloud which requires to stay in your zone rather than leave it. Which means you would need to buff your dc to even land those effects.There are several spells that inflict Sickened, which will either last or cost an enemy action.
If you're a caster? lol, Frightened condition is basically all you got. (Clumsy/Stupefied/Enfeebled for 1 specific save I guess). If you're the only caster vs a strong enemy your debuff spell is gonna run out before you can leverage it next turn (they're making the save).
Maybe look at spells that cause sickened again?
Baleful Polymorph, Goblin Pox, Mariners Curse and Stinking Cloud all impose Sickened on a Successful Save, and Sickened has its own "end" condition apart from the spells for the most part.
A persistent -1 to everything until the target spends AT LEAST one action is a perfectly valid use of a spell slot in all those cases, with the bonus effects of a save failure scaling appropriately with spell level.
I know it's not the point of the topic, but frightened can affect undead unless they have the mindless trait. So stuff like ghosts, vampires, and mummies can all be frightened. I can't find anything saying that undead can't be sickened, but I'm less sure about that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's not the point of the topic, but frightened can affect undead unless they have the mindless trait. So stuff like ghosts, vampires, and mummies can all be frightened. I can't find anything saying that undead can't be sickened, but I'm less sure about that one.
If you find a way to apply the sickened without using the "disease" or "poison" traits you should be fine. However this will limit your options, e.g. Divine Wrath or Mariner's Curse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it is natural to compare PF2 to perceived flaws in PF1 because that is why a new edition was made. If the things people complain about in first edition are not things that bother you, than there's actually not a lot of reason for you to jump ship. You might be like Claxon and want a game you can just tear through with the right build without difficulty, in which case this isn't the right system for you and PF1 is. And as long as you can find enough people to play PF1, I see no reason you shouldn't continue.
Ok so this first part kind of proves my point. A response to a post specifically about maybe talking about the positives of 2nd instead of wailing on 1st, starts with a comment about how if I like 1st maybe its because I'm an min-maxing optimiser that just wants the actual game to be on easy mode.
What I will say is that our golden zone of playing campaigns is around 2nd-12th level - my hunch is this is why my position is that there's nothing wrong with 1st ed and that skills/magic absolutely did not need to be nerfed.
That being said, it has been getting harder and harder to find people to play
PF1 for years now and it is an a hard game to learn, so you may eventually be forced to migrate. :( Hopefully you have a table of folks who are sticking together.
This hits on an interesting point and its why 'edition wars' get so heated. There are lots of comments on the lines of no one is taking your books away / forcing you to play edition A or B. However RPGs are inherently social games - you need a pool of other players/GMs to play, which is probably why everyone gets so passionate about swaying others to support one over the other.
In the various play groups I see here in the UK, its much easier to assemble a 1st ed game than a 2nd ed one. I'm actually one of the most sympathetic, maybe it deserves another chance, viewers of 2nd in the groups I play with.
All that said, stuff I like about PF2 that doesn't require dunking on PF1 and hasn't already been covered up thread...The 3 action economy and the way feats are usually abilities with narrative effects...
I'm interested in the narrative effects part however - tell me more (apologies for thread de-railing)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding convenience sampling. According to the Wikipedia article posted, it works well for pilot test before doing actual research and that it works to represent the given sample rather than the general population.
Absolutely! But the sample wasn't the whole of even Bestiary 1, which makes me dubious that it's a better metric than the actual monster creation rules.
In this case having a sample size based on Bestiary 1 from before Bestiary 2 was released does make the sample a lot more representative of the population at the time the sample was taken (Bestiary 1). So dismissing the sample at hand due to new data being added seems like poor form.
If it had been the whole of Bestiary 1 I wouldn't have objected nearly as strongly. It wasn't and isn't. My dismissal is only incidentally related to the new data, and was originally based on it not even being a complete picture of the old data.
Granted this new data could change the value of the sample, but that is why proper citations and references are important.
This is also an issue. The data was originally presented as fact with no reference made to the tool used to determine it or that tool's limitations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it is natural to compare PF2 to perceived flaws in PF1 because that is why a new edition was made. If the things people complain about in first edition are not things that bother you, than there's actually not a lot of reason for you to jump ship. You might be like Claxon and want a game you can just tear through with the right build without difficulty, in which case this isn't the right system for you and PF1 is. And as long as you can find enough people to play PF1, I see no reason you shouldn't continue.Ok so this first part kind of proves my point. A response to a post specifically about maybe talking about the positives of 2nd instead of wailing on 1st, starts with a comment about how if I like 1st maybe its because I'm an min-maxing optimiser that just wants the actual game to be on easy mode.
What I will say is that our golden zone of playing campaigns is around 2nd-12th level - my hunch is this is why my position is that there's nothing wrong with 1st ed and that skills/magic absolutely did not need to be nerfed.
That being said, it has been getting harder and harder to find people to play
PF1 for years now and it is an a hard game to learn, so you may eventually be forced to migrate. :( Hopefully you have a table of folks who are sticking together.
This hits on an interesting point and its why 'edition wars' get so heated. There are lots of comments on the lines of no one is taking your books away / forcing you to play edition A or B. However RPGs are inherently social games - you need a pool of other players/GMs to play, which is probably why everyone gets so passionate about swaying others to support one over the other.
In the various play groups I see here in the UK, its much easier to assemble a 1st ed game than a 2nd ed one. I'm actually one of the most sympathetic, maybe it deserves another chance, viewers of 2nd in the groups I play with.
...
All that said,
Gosh darn it. I've twice typed up really thorough responses to this and they've been eaten. I'll see if I can try it a third time later.