|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If its the whole data its not a sample. If its a sample its not the whole data. Those two are mutually exclusive by definition.
Sample size < Population size.
Well, yes. But my point was that using a random sampling was not superior to the official monster creation guidelines. A full population would, in fact, be superior. A random selection? Not so much.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk devs are known to stray from the guidelines if it makes the creature/item/spell work. But okay, a full population would indeed be better than a sampling.
Absolutely they do, which is why a full population would be better than the guidelines. I'm just not at all convinced they do so a consistent enough direction (ie: all higher or all lower) that a random sample is better than said guidelines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the full population would help, but getting as many data points as possible would be best. This would always include the guidelines, since that's the fundamental architecture of the system. And it should include as much of the population as possible, since that's what's actually in play and will include anomalies, i.e. most oozes.
One more data point would be what monsters does Paizo put in its adventures. For example, it's common to hear in PF2 that Attacks of Opportunity are uncommon. But if Paizo's first PF2 AP had been Ironfang Invasion, that assertion would be questionable; Hobgoblins routinely have AoOs, as do many militant monsters.
And how does one factor in the Aspis Consortium and the multitudes of pseudo-PC builds one faces in PFS2?
Meanwhile, somebody who homebrews might ignore much of that.
And like in PF1, some writers might gain some notoriety for pushing the boundaries on difficulty.
Which is to say, I don't think there will be a definitive answer, nor a definitive list of data. (Though I find the exercise entertaining and informative.)
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.
...JEEEESUS. I tried a third time to type up a thoughtful response and it once again got eaten. I'm sorry Julian, I don't think I'm supposed to continue this conversation.
JEEEESUS. I tried a third time to type up a thoughtful response and it once again got eaten. I'm sorry Julian, I don't think I'm supposed to continue this conversation.
There are theese things called "mark all" & "copy" .... :/
JEEEESUS. I tried a third time to type up a thoughtful response and it once again got eaten. I'm sorry Julian, I don't think I'm supposed to continue this conversation.There are theese things called "mark all" & "copy" .... :/
Which I should have used on my third attempt, I'll admit, but the first two times was my browser deciding to go back to the previous page in the middle of typing. Must have bump something on this new laptop.
This forum software seems prone to breakage... which is why if I know I'm typing out more than a one-sentence reply I actually draft the post in notepad and then paste it over when all I have left to do is hit "submit"Which I should have used on my third attempt, I'll admit, but the first two times was my browser deciding to go back to the previous page in the middle of typing. Must have bump something on this new laptop.JEEEESUS. I tried a third time to type up a thoughtful response and it once again got eaten. I'm sorry Julian, I don't think I'm supposed to continue this conversation.There are theese things called "mark all" & "copy" .... :/
Yeah, I've used such precaution occasionally. Obviously I should have here. But 3 times on the same post is a new record for me.
JEEEESUS. I tried a third time to type up a thoughtful response and it once again got eaten. I'm sorry Julian, I don't think I'm supposed to continue this conversation.
Fair enough!
So I out of boredom calculated the hit chance of a Martial (starting with a 18 in their attack stat and level appropriate equipment) vs moderate AC for an equal level enemy on their first attack. Then I worked out the probability of enemy of equal level with moderate saves hitting failing to save against an equally optimized caster (18 to start, Trained to legendary) and compared them side by side.
I tried to add in a table without much luck but here is my maths.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VZzNzs3vWY3u3FxhYmFPvqQMi1teUhHl/view?usp= sharing
This has been done before but it looks ok. Main thing is that which saving throw you target has a huge impact on those save probabilities. I guess yours makes sense if a random one is targeted.
So I out of boredom calculated the hit chance of a Martial (starting with a 18 in their attack stat and level appropriate equipment) vs moderate AC for an equal level enemy on their first attack. Then I worked out the probability of enemy of equal level with moderate saves hitting failing to save against an equally optimized caster (18 to start, Trained to legendary) and compared them side by side.
I tried to add in a table without much luck but here is my maths.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VZzNzs3vWY3u3FxhYmFPvqQMi1teUhHl/view?usp= sharing
Its important to keep in mind for casters that they generally have effects on successful saves. While its less likely they'll "hit", their "misses" tend to actually deal "half damage".
Damage is referred to here because it's easier to compare damage as an "Apples to Apples" item than it is to consider other effects (though generally, martials require a hit to apply rider and supplemental effects and casters dont).
I'm fairly certain that once you account for that, you'll find that save based spells are generally just as effective as martial attacks.
The napkin math here is just to add 25% to the caster hit values (50% of die results being successful saves, at 50% effect) and note that at almost ALL levels casters then become on par or within 5% of the martial accuracy values. (DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR CRITICALS OR THE EASIER AVAILABILITY OF MARTIAL "TO HIT" MODIFIERS, OR THE FACT THAT CASTERS CAN CHOOSE TO TARGET WEAKER SAVES)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming perfect knowledge of saves in illogical and having looked through the bestiary moderate is the most common so itis a good guess at what people will be going against most of the time.
Low Saves aren't usually that hard to guess just based on what the creature is like. Is it a spellcaster? Is it big and lumbering? Is it small and fragile looking? Really, it's pretty doable.
You won't be right all the time, but you can almost always at least remove the high Save from consideration, which gives you a 50/50 shot at the lowest one.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't really disagreeing with using Moderate Saves as a base. I was simply noting that, in practice, you can often hit low Saves if you have a versatile spell load-out, something a lot of people seem to ignore or overlook in white room analysis.
You won't always be able to hit the low save by any means, but 30-40% of the time seems very possible if you have a versatile load-out. I mean, there are situations like you discuss, but those are exceptions, and even all together they can't account for more than 20-30% of cases, maybe 40% on the outside...so that leaves 60-80% where you can get that 50/50 shot of hitting the lowest Save.
Getting to beat the curve as shown in that analysis 1/3 of the time (and almost never having to target high Save and be worse) is super relevant and worth talking about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you can often hit low Saves if you have a versatile spell load-out, something a lot of people seem to ignore or overlook in white room analysis.
I feel like the exact opposite is true. People put a lot of stock in being able to reliably target low saves when theorycrafting on this website, when a spellcaster isn't always going to have the precise combination of spells necessarily prepared, even if they can reliably guess a monster's worst save (which, while not too hard, isn't guaranteed either).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the exact opposite is true. People put a lot of stock in being able to reliably target low saves when theorycrafting on this website, when a spellcaster isn't always going to have the precise combination of spells necessarily prepared, even if they can reliably guess a monster's worst save (which, while not too hard, isn't guaranteed either).
Interesting. Either this is a matter of different perspectives or we've been frequenting different threads.
Either way, it's certainly not automatic, and the odds go down for some characters or even whole Classes (the Occult list doesn't have much for Reflex Saves, for example), but covering your bases is both usually possible to some extent and a good idea.
From my experience, people avoid Fortitude-based spells as it's a common high save and people consider that Will-based spells are better as it's a common low save.
So, I think Deadmanwalking is quite right. The decision just happens before having to cast the spell.
I must admit I don't follow your calculation.
If you have 3 slots and you take save based spells, the probability to have the right spell at least once is 100% as you have one of each saves. So, I think I really don't follow you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...that doesn't follow. If you invest three slots into one of each Save, your odds of having a single spell of the right Save are 100%. And you have a lot more than three slots as levels go up, with at least the top two levels probably available for serious offense, and cantrips (some of which do, indeed, target Saves) available to boot.
Now, in practice, you might already have used that spell (or all spells with that Save), so it's not actually 100%...but the odds you're showing don't make a lot of sense to me. What math are you using?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a mistake in your calculation. If we consider completely random spells, you have 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 = 8/27 of not having the proper spell. So you have 19/27 of having a spell of the right type.
If you have only one slot you have 1/3 of having the right spell, which is above 7/27 that you get with 3 slots.
And 15/81 = 5/27. So, you can't have a lower probability of having the right spell by having more slots.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like its worth noting that you don't really need to cover all saves to avoid a low failure rate here - just don't waste spells in situations where they're unlikely to succeed.
My Cleric I'm currently running (level 3, so still very limited on total spell slots) is only packing a few non-utility spells.
So most combats, she's looking for useful stuff she can do (like healing, support, TK projectile) that doesn't involve wasting a slot where its unlikely to do much.
But last night, we open a door and get the drop on an encounter with one fighter enemy, a cleric, and two animals. I look at what I'm up against and I said - "Yes. THIS is the fight I've saved Calm Emotions for."
I knew that 3 of the 4 enemies were going to be weak to that spell, so I opened with it - and got 3 of the 4 of them! Including, luckily, the Cleric who might have know they could slap some sense into into their allies, but not one of the others who rolled a 19. Encounter over, for all purposes.
You don't need to "win big" every combat necessarily - just be sure to use your resources where you know they'll be effective and use secondary tactics otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well how about you have the correct spell and save and your GM consistently rolls good even on low saves (open rolls, so no GM shenahigans)?
Last time I dropped Calm Emotions on 3 low will guys I had one critical sucess and two sucesses against me and after one of the guys was downed pretty fast I already dropped the spell next round. Or how about yesterday when I dropped a fireball with DC21 versus 6 level-3 enemies with +7 reflex low save? Two times critical save (nat20, no damage), 2 times normal save (half damage), 1 failure (full damage) and 1 crit failure (double damage).
Fun times with those still work on a save spells even when guessing the correct save. We are level 6 now and I can't remember our GM failing saves in our favour once even when I (we) more or less manage to target the correct save.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well how about you have the correct spell and save and your GM consistently rolls good even on low saves (open rolls, so no GM shenahigans)?
Last time I dropped Calm Emotions on 3 low will guys I had one critical sucess and two sucesses against me and after one of the guys was downed pretty fast I already dropped the spell next round. Or how about yesterday when I dropped a fireball with DC21 versus 6 level-3 enemies with +7 reflex low save? Two times critical save (nat20, no damage), 2 times normal save (half damage), 1 failure (full damage) and 1 crit failure (double damage).
Fun times with those still work on a save spells even when guessing the correct save. We are level 6 now and I can't remember our GM failing saves in our favour once even when I (we) more or less manage to target the correct save.
Dice are gonna dice man.
But you don't design a game based on random numbers based on the outlier scenarios where some people are going to roll outside of the normal range for extended periods of time.
That's going to happen to some people REGARDLESS of system, and regardless of how the dice are structured, whether its a dice-pool system, etc. Some people are going to roll exceptionally outside the bounds of the expected range of results.
And in cases where games are intended to be Challenging and RNG is at all a factor, thats going to be painful when you're experiencing an unfavorably exceptional series of rolls.
All you can do is Make Good Decisions and keep the odds in your favor for the actions you take and hope that eventually you get to observe a more even distribution of results given a large enough sample size of die results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well how about you have the correct spell and save and your GM consistently rolls good even on low saves (open rolls, so no GM shenahigans)?
Last time I dropped Calm Emotions on 3 low will guys I had one critical sucess and two sucesses against me and after one of the guys was downed pretty fast I already dropped the spell next round. Or how about yesterday when I dropped a fireball with DC21 versus 6 level-3 enemies with +7 reflex low save? Two times critical save (nat20, no damage), 2 times normal save (half damage), 1 failure (full damage) and 1 crit failure (double damage).
Fun times with those still work on a save spells even when guessing the correct save. We are level 6 now and I can't remember our GM failing saves in our favour once even when I (we) more or less manage to target the correct save.
Ubertron X, I am sorry but my party must be sucking up all of the good luck for spell casting. Our casters regularly target the wrong saves, use incapacitation spells against higher level enemies and make spell attack rolls that we have no business making, and get incredibly critical effects exactly when we need them. Next time I play I will try to roll worse so that some of that luck can head your way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the only lessen here is, that for every story that works well, there is one that doesn't work well. I am well versed in statistics, so I know that by law of large numbers everything should even out eventually, however it currently is rather frustrating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the only lessen here is, that for every story that works well, there is one that doesn't work well. I am well versed in statistics, so I know that by law of large numbers everything should even out eventually, however it currently is rather frustrating.
One of my table practices is that I try to provide Hero Points to players after multiple extremely bad rolls in a row. Generally, AFTER they've had a opportunity to reroll and the results of the third critical failure in a row has stuck, so as to ensure I'm not reducing the potential for negative consequences/chance of failure.
But NEXT time, they can have a second chance!
Bad rolls are a part of the game, but as a GM I recognize they're less fun... so I personally try and help turn consistent bad luck at least a little positive.
One of my table practices is that I try to provide Hero Points to players after multiple extremely bad rolls in a row.
Neat rule.
I also sort of wonder how much perception of the game is being altered by how cognizant the party is of hero points. The book kind of suggests you hand them out with reasonable reliability but doesn't give a lot of guidelines and the difference between having a few hero points a session and not remembering they're a mechanic at all could make for some pretty significant deviations in terms of game feel.
Yeah, the only lessen here is, that for every story that works well, there is one that doesn't work well. I am well versed in statistics, so I know that by law of large numbers everything should even out eventually, however it currently is rather frustrating.Numbers are jerks.
And brains are jerks too.
For instance, my last session of D&D I played I rolled a 4 (total) for initiative in every encounter. Not too bad since I'm playing a spell caster and can take the time seeing which spell might work best... but still, it feels like I just can't get a good initiative roll.
When I think about all the dice rolls, though, not just the ones for initiative (or just saving throws, or just attack rolls) I get a different picture - my dice rolls throughout the night were entirely within normal expectations statistically speaking. But the brain doesn't want to do that naturally, it wants to say "I roll great damage." and "I can't miss!" and "...I'll never go before anyone, ever." ...and it also wants to tell me that casting barkskin was a complete waste because the first attack that came my way was a hit and I lost concentration on the spell, even though it was just as probable that said spell protect me from that attack entirely.
And you pick up on weird patterns that are weird coincidences. I've gotten a final result of 14 on medicine checks a seriously weird number of times in my characters first three levels. Like, significantly more than any other result put together.
But my die rolls in general? Pretty good distribution. Just kindof funny that we've seen them go one way consistently on a specific check to the point its becoming a meme at the table...
One of my table practices is that I try to provide Hero Points to players after multiple extremely bad rolls in a row.Neat rule.
I also sort of wonder how much perception of the game is being altered by how cognizant the party is of hero points. The book kind of suggests you hand them out with reasonable reliability but doesn't give a lot of guidelines and the difference between having a few hero points a session and not remembering they're a mechanic at all could make for some pretty significant deviations in terms of game feel.
Having practices like this helps me to remember to give them out regularly, as suggested. I always set out with the best intentions to reward good play, but that's harder than you think in the moment.
Its a bit easier to remember, "Crap. So and so is really demoralized by that third critically failed first attack in a row. Hero Point!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do this as well. For some reason several players in my game have gotten the nat one curse. Roll a nat 1 then hero point and roll another nat one then on their second attack roll yet another nat one. They come in threes like that and it has happened far more often than stisticaly probable (like 6-7 times in the last 3 sessions on average twice per session). After the 3rd nat one and recently after the 2nd I have have given hero points out cause Damn!!! I have even allowed once for the player to use a 2nd hero point on the same roll after doing this twice in a row (he then proceeded to nat 20 and smash face, darn perverse dice).
It can be very frustrating for a player to consistently roll badly but eventully it wears off and they get a streak of luck (which I make sure to point out with an cool discription so the memory of the moment sticks). I also make sure the strings of bad luck that result in failyer are discribed well usually by having an outside "unlucky" thing happen to explain the bad rolls again with a good "fun" discription so it is not bringing the player down ie he didn't do wrong it was just fate/an accident that it happened that way.
Hero point does often seem to be "first roll -1" haha. How many 3s are turned into 2s? A lot, it seems.
Unfortunately we rarely use hero points at our table apart from: It's 23:59 and probably the last rolls of this gaming night, so I should really use that hero point soon...
GM is not handing out any so most players "hoard" the one they have as their avoid-death insurance.
Unfortunately we rarely use hero points at our table apart from: It's 23:59 and probably the last rolls of this gaming night, so I should really use that hero point soon...
GM is not handing out any so most players "hoard" the one they have as their avoid-death insurance.
You really do need for there to be an economy for the system to work.
The issue you're talking about here is especially apparent in Savage Worlds, where 'Bennies' also effectively serve as your hit-points. Bennies let you Soak, or avoid Wounds and Wound penalties rapidly cripple you such that you're more likely to take more damage and die. Therefore, its critical to use bennies to avoid damage...
This means that while Bennies are ostensibly there 'to do cool things', unless your GM is generous enough with them that you feel SAFE using them to do cool things, players tend to horde them to avoid death instead.
Pathfinder 2 is definitely dangerous enough to feel exposed when I don't have a safety Hero Point....
It might be worth bringing up with your GM. I encourage my players to nominate each other for Hero Points, which occasionally helps :)
Hero point does often seem to be "first roll -1" haha. How many 3s are turned into 2s? A lot, it seems.
So true.
I personally like when there are tons of Hero Points around the table. What I've seen is that if you give only one Hero Point to your players, they will keep it for the one true roll. But if you give them more, they tend to use them lightly on rolls that are not really important either to reduce frustration after a serie of bad rolls or because they find that specific die roll to be one they should shine at. But it doesn't impact the characters efficiency too much as they are mostly "badly used". So, I find giving really a lot of Hero Points increases the fun and doesn't impact much the difficulty.
But I think it's a general law in PF2: You can give extra items, gold, Hero Points or feats to your players, the difficulty won't drop like it used to in PF1. The only thing you must not give lightly are bonuses to attributes.
Hero point does often seem to be "first roll -1" haha. How many 3s are turned into 2s? A lot, it seems.So true.
I personally like when there are tons of Hero Points around the table. What I've seen is that if you give only one Hero Point to your players, they will keep it for the one true roll. But if you give them more, they tend to use them lightly on rolls that are not really important either to reduce frustration after a serie of bad rolls or because they find that specific die roll to be one they should shine at. But it doesn't impact the characters efficiency too much as they are mostly "badly used". So, I find giving really a lot of Hero Points increases the fun and doesn't impact much the difficulty.
But I think it's a general law in PF2: You can give extra items, gold, Hero Points or feats to your players, the difficulty won't drop like it used to in PF1. The only thing you must not give lightly are bonuses to attributes.
I really like to preserve mine for 'correcting' rolls where I feel that my character should be good at something.
Failed Religion roll about demons for my Cleric of Nocticula? To the Abyss with that!
More is definitely better though if you want people to try risky (and often fun) things more often.
Yeah, the only lessen here is, that for every story that works well, there is one that doesn't work well. I am well versed in statistics, so I know that by law of large numbers everything should even out eventually, however it currently is rather frustrating.
I sympathize. My Barbarian once spent most of a session at the bottom of a pit trap due to bad rolls and I ended up doing an entire statistical analysis on all of my d20's because my luck cannot be that bad by accident.
(I found that my dice are all generally pretty normal, with the exception of one heavily biased towards 3 and 17, I'm assuming because it's out of round? Weird to have opposite faces consistently show up. But I digress.)
I'm interested in trying out some of the suggestions in this thread, because the stints of bad luck below level 5 have been seriously demoralizing to my group.
Hero point does often seem to be "first roll -1" haha. How many 3s are turned into 2s? A lot, it seems.So true.
I personally like when there are tons of Hero Points around the table. What I've seen is that if you give only one Hero Point to your players, they will keep it for the one true roll. But if you give them more, they tend to use them lightly on rolls that are not really important either to reduce frustration after a serie of bad rolls or because they find that specific die roll to be one they should shine at. But it doesn't impact the characters efficiency too much as they are mostly "badly used". So, I find giving really a lot of Hero Points increases the fun and doesn't impact much the difficulty.
But I think it's a general law in PF2: You can give extra items, gold, Hero Points or feats to your players, the difficulty won't drop like it used to in PF1. The only thing you must not give lightly are bonuses to attributes.I really like to preserve mine for 'correcting' rolls where I feel that my character should be good at something.
Failed Religion roll about demons for my Cleric of Nocticula? To the Abyss with that!
More is definitely better though if you want people to try risky (and often fun) things more often.
Same here. How tough it is to fail a Religion check to convince someone he should give these hobgoblins a chance to redeem themselves when you are an Angelic Sorcerer of Sarenae.
That's what I called die roll your character should shine at. But they are not necessarily the most "optimized" ones, just important ones for you.