| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like where the system is at chance-wise. If I wanted to play a game where chance wasn't a major factor, I would play a game where I didn't have to roll to hit to begin with.
That's an easy enough fix; give players a +3 bonus to all attack rolls and DCs. Consider also lowering AC and saves by -1, if you want to give NPCs and monsters a boost against your players.
One of the best parts of PF2 is that the knobs are tuned so tightly that arbitrarily adjusting chance is just a matter of a slight boost to something.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on what you're fighting. I look at this more narratively than mechanically.
From a narrative standpoint:
1. It's far more difficult to feat BBEGs and their main minions.
2. It's anywhere from moderately difficult to easy to defeat minion level mobs like regular soldiers and lots of monsters. With critical fails/hits and such occurring, AoE spells and attacks can ramp up damage making short work of minion level mobs. Yet the the minions still feel like real living things.
3. Hazards and challenges feel appropriately difficult within the framework of a story while still feeling like real things.
That's more how I view it as a DM. I think PF2 is hitting in the sweet spot right now for my tastes.
I like how the chances play out, but I've only experienced levels 1-4 so far, so we'll see how things work out as I get to higher levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also haven't played at higher level yet, so take this with that in mind. But from studying probability, the more dice are rolled, the more the actual outcome trends towards the expected outcome.
So no matter what level the players are at, a longer encounter is going to have typical results, while a shorter encounter is going to have more extreme results - whether those extreme results are good or bad.
So if higher level play has longer battles, the results are going to fall towards the average - which is usually targeted at the players winning, but taking damage and spending resources to do so. And the less that any individual dice roll is going to change that.
While the 4th edition of Game Unspeakable gets a lot of disregard, its assumed base 65% chance of success on all tasks level appropriate seems like a great base point, personally.
I think the key to improving it further from there is to actually raise that success chance slowly, probably up to 80% in the last 4~6 levels, assuming enough investment (as in 18 or above score and Master or higher proficiency, so not even theoretical maximum; actually make it overkill success so the player who overoptimized actually feels good about their somewhat crippling minmaxing).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it seems strange to me to talk about success chances as just meeting or beating the DC on a 20 sided dice. That greatly underestimates the balance that goes into what success and failure on that dice mean. I have always hated it when a game devolves to a single D20 roll to determine the success or failure of an entire non-combat encounter because there was no guidance on how to handle skill challenges. Multiple die rolls over time allow a building of tension and the ability of the players to adapt to a changing situation.
In PF2 combat, your character doesn't get one action a turn around which dice will be rolled. Talking about success and failure on an individual die roll basis ignore how much more dynamic character actions can be in PF2.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chance of success on your optimal skills vs. on level Skill DCs in PF2 is actually right around where you guys are talking about.
At 1st, it's a +7 vs. DC 15, for a 65% success rate. At 10th, it's +23 vs. DC 27 for an 85% success rate, and at 20th, it's +38 vs. DC 40, and a 95% success rate.
So...it goes up a fair bit, and is well within the range being discussed.
Where some people, I think, feel a disconnect is that those numbers are for really optimized skills. Skills you don't really optimize you have somewhat lower odds with (6 of the bonus at 10th is from a +2 Item and Master Proficiency, someone only Trained but with the same stat would only have a 55% chance...at 20th, it's 9 of the bonus that's from high Proficiency and Item, and the guy going on stat alone is down to a 50% chance).
The other potential area of disconnect is, of course, combat, where ACs scale a bit faster than Skill DCs (a standard monster AC is between 14 and 16 at 1st level...but has become more like 42-45 by 20th). That's balanced, especially given how crits work, but it's also lower odds of success on any individual attack.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike the chance of pf2 very much. Everyone just tosses the dice and someone rolls high so you succeed. Not because someone was good at the thing you were attempting, not because you came up with a good plan, but by sheer dumb luck. The random toss of the die is the most significant influence on the outcome of any situation. It is my biggest gripe with the new rules.
2e as far as I can tell is balanced mostly around a 50% base probability of success for spells (enemies falling saves) and a 60% base chance of martials hitting equal level enemies and substationally worse/betters for higher level enemies.
Close.
At level 1 a Fighter hits on an 8 against a level 1 enemy.At level 20 a fighter hits on a 10 against a level 20 enemy.
(Assuming no buffs)
At level 1, monsters typically fail a save at 13- (but always 16-)
At level 20, monsters typically fail a save at 11- (always 15-)
(It depends on what save your targetting, these values are taken as an average).
Skills that you put additional ranks in get crazy better. Even staying at Master is completely acceptable (succeed 5+ against level 20 DCs).
Player saves stay mostly constant, though the boost up to Master giving you the Evasion Effect results in "crit success or failure" instead of "success or failure." But the number you need to roll still rises from 10+ to 13+ (for your best save) or 13+ to 16+ (for your worst).
So, in general, you lose about 10 percentage points off attacks and inflicted effects, lose 15 percentage points of your own saving throws (in exchange for Evasion), but skills improve 50 percentage points for your best skill (dabblers, i.e. trained and low stat) tend to hold steady (need a 16+).
However, there are spots where things jiggle unexpectedly (level 2 is really strong for skills, 18 is really bad; seems to sort of come in pairs, 13 and 15 are weak for skills, 16 and 17 are strong, 18 and 19 are weak, 20 is strong again).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Close.
At level 1 a Fighter hits on an 8 against a level 1 enemy.
At level 20 a fighter hits on a 10 against a level 20 enemy.
(Assuming no buffs)
Uh...this is wrong. Standard High AC at 1st level is 16, so a Fighter's +9 hits it on a 7. Standard High AC at 20th is 45 so a Fighter's +38 hits it on a 7.
I mean, you're closer to right if you ignore magic weapons or assume Extreme ACs, but neither of those are actually typical. Extreme ACs are more common at high levels, but they never become the norm.
At level 1, monsters typically fail a save at 13- (but always 16-)
At level 20, monsters typically fail a save at 11- (always 15-)
(It depends on what save your targetting, these values are taken as an average).
This is also incorrect. 'Average' monster Saves are +6 at 1st (while low are +3), meaning the monster saves on 11+ to 14+. At 20th, Save DC is 45, so a monster's 'moderate' +33 gets that on a 12+, and their 'low' of +30 needs a 15+.
In practice, many high level monsters have better Saves to some degree, so this 'gain' is probably illusory, but the Save DCs don't seem to be getting worse, at least.
Player saves stay mostly constant, though the boost up to Master giving you the Evasion Effect results in "crit success or failure" instead of "success or failure." But the number you need to roll still rises from 10+ to 13+ (for your best save) or 13+ to 16+ (for your worst).
Um...again, this isn't really correct. At 1st level, a monster's High Spell DC is 17, and it rises to DC 42 by 20th, for a net of +25. PC Saves vary a lot, but they'll almost universally rise more than 25 between 1st and 20th, since all go up at least one Proficiency rank (+2), you get +3 from Item, and you get +19 from level. So that's +24 even if you put zero Ability ups into Saves. More realistically, your Save related Ability scores go up by at least +2, IMO, for a total of +26 (and often +27 or even occasionally +28 due to raising Abilities more than twice, to say nothing of Evasion-type effects, or Saves that go up in Proficiency twice) over the same time that monsters get +25.
Now, again, Extreme numbers are more punishing, but they never truly become universal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2E is not nearly so random as people make out, unless you're talking about your base, unmodified chance of success for all or nothing attacks. You're given a ton of ways to skew that math, and by mid levels your Fighters should be hitting on 3-5 for their first attack easily (even against non trivial foes) and everyone else a couple points behind. Don't just walk up and swing, play the game with the full range of options given to your party.
As well, since you KNOW the baseline chance of success, your rate of success is actually EXTREMELY predictable overall - and I think there's a lot of confusion going on as to the difference between unpredictable (frustrating) and random.
Plus, there's the fact that non binary attacks (ie spells with effects on successful saves) are actually extremely reliable for doing something - part of embracing PF2 is learning to embrace the fact that there are now four degrees of success, and a successful save that still cripples your opponent is still winning, even though they partially "made" their save...
I dislike the chance of pf2 very much. Everyone just tosses the dice and someone rolls high so you succeed. Not because someone was good at the thing you were attempting, not because you came up with a good plan, but by sheer dumb luck. The random toss of the die is the most significant influence on the outcome of any situation. It is my biggest gripe with the new rules.
Not planning if the DM is planning is a sure way to death. No idea why you think a dice roll is changed at all unless you're talking about the capacity in PF1 to completely eliminate any tension from the game by somehow rules lawyering a weak DM into letting you run over the encounters. I never let that happen in PF1 in main encounters.
If rolls aren't having a substantial influence on the game to raise the tension of battle and make sure no one knows who will win, the DM isn't doing a very good job.
At 1st, it's a +7 vs. DC 15, for a 65% success rate. At 10th, it's +23 vs. DC 27 for an 85% success rate, and at 20th, it's +38 vs. DC 40, and a 95% success rate.
So...it goes up a fair bit, and is well within the range being discussed.
While there is little to no doubt regarding the math presented here the thing is that at least in our current adventure path many "relevant" rolls seems to be higher than simple DC's, at least by 2 or even by 5, dropping success rates well below the mentioned 65%. If for example you want to climb a tree to take a look around that may be +7 vs 15, however if you want to unlock or force a door, find a hazard or similar DC's are mostly around 20, even at level 1 (40%).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While there is little to no doubt regarding the math presented here the thing is that at least in our current adventure path many "relevant" rolls seems to be higher than simple DC's, at least by 2 or even by 5, dropping success rates well below the mentioned 65%. If for example you want to climb a tree to take a look around that may be +7 vs 15, however if you want to unlock or force a door, find a hazard or similar DC's are mostly around 20, even at level 1 (40%).
Based on what?
I actually did a quick look through Chapter 1 of Age of Ashes looking for this specifically (the summary is here), and found it to mostly not be true.
Most of the checks, even meaningful checks, in that are right around the on-level DCs, with only a few weird ones vastly higher.
Taking a brief look at the other extreme in terms of level, and examining Broken Promises, and in the first part of the adventure (at 18th level), several are over the standard level DC...but none are higher than 40, making for at least an 80% chance on all of them for someone optimized in the skill in question, and DCs as low as 20 or 30 show up as well.
There's also a single Hazard that's DC 47 to spot (and either 40 or 45 to disarm, depending on what Skill is used), and you're thus very unlikely to spot, but Hazards are always more extreme than other Skill checks.
At 19th level, there are DC 41 and DC 42 checks, and there's a single DC 45 check (there's also a DC 50 check you auto-succeed at by having Legendary in a Skill...I'd term that less a skill check and more auto-failure unless you have Legendary, auto-success if you do). There are also several checks that are between DC 39 and 43 depending on what Skill you use for them.
At 20th, there are a couple more DC 45 checks, and a single DC 46 check...but these remain significantly outnumbered by the lower DC ones.
So...yeah, technically there are certainly some out-of-level DCs there, and that does become more common as levels rise, but not enough to actually reduce the odds of success down lower than 70-80% for specialists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe using 3d6 bell curves as the default might have been better for those who want skill over chance (I personally do love bell curve chances by the way). Critical success/failure would want some adjustments though (maybe somewhere between ±6 and ±8).
Maybe using 3d6 bell curves as the default might have been better for those who want skill over chance (I personally do love bell curve chances by the way). Critical success/failure would want some adjustments though (maybe somewhere between ±6 and ±8).
I think that would make for a very interesting game if attacks and skills were off 3d6+x rather than 1d20+x
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe using 3d6 bell curves as the default might have been better for those who want skill over chance (I personally do love bell curve chances by the way). Critical success/failure would want some adjustments though (maybe somewhere between ±6 and ±8).I think that would make for a very interesting game if attacks and skills were off 3d6+x rather than 1d20+x
Interesting as it is, that's not a thing you can do without rebalancing the whole game.
Rolling 3d6 means that you have a tighter range of DCs you can go against. You succeed at easy tasks much more reliably, but attempting hard ones is foolish.A bonus to the roll is worth much more than it is with a d20, so you would have to review everything: proficiencies, skills and spells and items.
For example, if you have a character with +10 rolling with a d20 against DC 24, you have 35% chances of success (including crit); if you roll 3d6, your chances drop to 16.2%.
But you can have a good approximation by halving all bonuses.
In the same example above, if you halve your bonus (to +5) and adjust the DC (DC 24 means the bonus is 14, so it becomes 7; add 10 again and you have DC 17), your chances with 3d6 are 37.5%.
This way you generally have better odds at any roll (up to 10% more chances of success).
To approximate criticals, you can lower the threshold to +/-5, and say that natural 16+ improves the result, while natural 5- does the opposite. Doing this you have generally a little more chance to crit succeed too, but no more than 5% compared to the standard rules.
The problem would be that things giving a +1 bonus would be very powerful in some cases (when the fractional +0.5 makes you reach a full point) and useless in others. Maybe tinkering a little with crit thresholds (like requiring +5.5 instead of +5) would help, but that would also mean complicating the math more.
EDIT: These are the success (or better) chances you get with the 3d6 rules (and half bonus), compared with standard 1d20:
20 - 5% - 9.26%
19 - 10% - 9.26%
18 - 15% - 16.2%
17 - 20% - 16.2%
16 - 25% - 25.93%
15 - 30% - 25.93%
14 - 35% - 37.5%
13 - 40% - 37.5%
12 - 45% - 50%
11 - 50% - 50%
10 - 55% - 62.5%
9 - 60% - 62.5%
8 - 65% - 74.07%
7 - 70% - 74.07%
6 - 75% - 83.8%
5 - 80% - 83.8%
4 - 85% - 90.74%
3 - 90% - 90.74%
2 - 95% - 95.37%
1 - 95% - 95.37%
And these are crit success chances with the +5.5, 16+ rule:
20 - 5% - 4.63%
19 - 5% - 4.63%
18 - 5% - 4.63%
17 - 5% - 4.63%
16 - 5% - 4.63%
15 - 5% - 4.63%
14 - 5% - 4.63%
13 - 5% - 4.63%
12 - 5% - 4.63%
11 - 5% - 4.63%
10 - 5% - 4.63%
9 - 10% - 9.26%
8 - 15% - 9.26%
7 - 20% - 16.2%
6 - 25% - 16.2%
5 - 30% - 25.93%
4 - 35% - 25.93%
3 - 40% - 37.5%
2 - 45% - 37.5%
1 - 50% - 50%
No, it's mostly a problem of people used to their Landsknecht / Savage Horticulturist 134 DPR kukri juggle build PF1 characters who would never miss with their 11 attacks and are now faced with the brain-shattering reality of the PF2 math working differently.
I agree. In PF1e you could achieve similar never miss a skill DC/hit build without getting excessively convoluted; in fact I think it was quite easy to end up with such a build with very little effort. For example you start with the not unusual character premise of "small and stealthy", you pick a halfling rogue, Skill Focus Stealth and 20 dex. Without really trying, your first level halfing rogue has a Stealth mod of +16.
So I think it's reasonable to assume that a section of people complaining about chance in PF2e had, intentionally of otherwise, taken for granted such builds in PF1 and are now experiencing a degree pf edition shock. It's pretty much the only way I can get my head around people complaining about chance existing in a game system based on rolling dice.
Based on what?
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.
|
No, it's mostly a problem of people used to their Landsknecht / Savage Horticulturist 134 DPR kukri juggle build PF1 characters who would never miss with their 11 attacks and are now faced with the brain-shattering reality of the PF2 math working differently.No, it's mostly a problem of people used to their Landsknecht / Savage Horticulturist 134 DPR kukri juggle build PF1 characters who would never miss with their 11 attacks and are now faced with the brain-shattering reality of the PF2 math working differently.I agree. In PF1e you could achieve similar never miss a skill DC/hit build without getting excessively convoluted; in fact I think it was quite easy to end up with such a build with very little effort. For example you start with the not unusual character premise of "small and stealthy", you pick a halfling rogue, Skill Focus Stealth and 20 dex. Without really trying, your first level halfing rogue has a Stealth mod of +16.
So I think it's reasonable to assume that a section of people complaining about chance in PF2e had, intentionally of otherwise, taken for granted such builds in PF1 and are now experiencing a degree pf edition shock. It's pretty much the only way I can get my head around people complaining about chance existing in a game system based on rolling dice.
I feel your being a bit unfair chance is great for the game, but if chance is the only thing that matters in the game you may as well consult a d100 table at the start of a fight for an outcome.
Dice binaries have always had their detractors a number of people (including me) hate save or die effects and would rather see those sort of issues resolved over multiple roles (like the current affliction method) where there will be opportunities to nudge the dice in your favor with the right actions and resources. But the game isn't so much about the dice but how you can alter your chances through your actions, its the bonuses, resources...
You can easily alter your chances in PF1. A +1 magic buff and a flank net you +3 to hit right off the bat which is HUGE, given the math.
What you can't is ensure that your success chance is 100% and I can see how people coming from PF1 are grumpy about that.
|
|
Weapon item bonuses are already a necessary part of the maths for pathfinder 2e. But I agree about the flanking.
You might want to edit that I am pretty sure you meant PF2 for the first one of those PF1.
I a think the attack roles for martial are fine, the enemies saves are a little harsh (having 50% chance for your daily resource to successfully work).
But it is perfectly fine to have a d20 game where the default is you hit unless your unlucky (5e and PF1 play this way). My preference is for everyone (good guys, bad guys, explosions) to be hitting everyone rather than everyone missing everyone.
I didn't mean weapon enchantment bonus, I meant spell/ability buffs. But apparently, you're set on your tracks.
Fortunately, PF2 is not a game where everyone is missing everyone, so we're good! But if you prefer your system mastery net you autosucess, PF1 is ---> that way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
the enemies saves are a little harsh (having 50% chance for your daily resource to successfully work).
Very few spells that allow a save have less than a 50% chance for your spell to "successfully work" and waste a daily resource.
In pathfinder 2, spells with partial effects on a successful save are definitely considered as part of the "chance to succeed" curve. While a full on spell effect is less likely than a martial hit, its made up for by the far smaller likelihood of the spell doing nothing at all on a "miss".
Once your figure "partial effectiveness" of spells in, you realize they're actually extremely reliable for getting stuff done.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
the enemies saves are a little harsh (having 50% chance for your daily resource to successfully work).Very few spells that allow a save have less than a 50% chance for your spell to "successfully work" and waste a daily resource.
In pathfinder 2, spells with partial effect s on a successful save are definitely considered as part of the "chance to succeed" curve. While a full on spell effect is less likely than a martial hit, its made up for the thr far smaller likelihood of the spell doing nothing at all on a "miss".
Once your figure "partial effectiveness" of spells in, you realize they're actually extremely reliable for getting stuff done.
This. The baseline for spells in PF2 is that they do nothing on crit save success, something warranting their casting on save success, something really nice on save fail and something VERY VERY nice on save crit fail.
In that case, you want a different game, one that PF2 is not - and won't be, as that would require adjusting the whole underlying math.Actually funnily enough it wouldn't really the bounded accuracy for this game means a nudge of +1 or 2 could do that if applied universally. Which is actually says something pretty incredible about pathfinder 2e in general into how well it is built.
Having barely escaped a fight with a level +3 enemy last night (well, 3 out of 4 of PCs and 1/2 NPCs survived it), I don't think boss monsters need an addition +1 or 2 to hit. Shifting those numbers just on the PC side is what throws all the math off on encounter design because equal levels between enemies and PCs is what makes the math of PF2 so brilliant and easy to manipulate.
If you want players to hit more but still feel threatened by encounters, you want to go with more monsters at a lower level. We have a great thread going on right here if you want suggestions about how to do that.
I mean, you're closer to right if you ignore magic weapons or assume Extreme ACs, but neither of those are actually typical. Extreme ACs are more common at high levels, but they never become the norm.
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.
Uh...this is wrong. Standard High AC at 1st level is 16, so a Fighter's +9 hits it on a 7. Standard High AC at 20th is 45 so a Fighter's +38 hits it on a 7.
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.
Um...again, this isn't really correct. At 1st level, a monster's High Spell DC is 17, and it rises to DC 42 by 20th, for a net of +25.
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.
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.
PC Saves vary a lot, but they'll almost universally rise more than 25 between 1st and 20th, since all go up at least one Proficiency rank (+2), you get +3 from Item, and you get +19 from level. So that's +24 even if you put zero Ability ups into Saves. More realistically, your Save related Ability scores go up by at least +2, IMO, for a total of +26 (and often +27 or even occasionally +28 due to raising Abilities more than twice,
+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.
to say nothing of Evasion-type effects, or Saves that go up in Proficiency twice) over the same time that monsters get +25.
Yes. I mentioned those. They don't change the requisite d20 value, though, they just boost your success type.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Can't dig into your whole post at the moment, but the range listed here is confusing or possibly incorrect.
The range of PC saving throws at first level is +2 (-1 stat, trained) to +9 (+4 stat, expert).
I don't see any context that would explain the difference.
As well, on the practical side of this there are a number of classes which are both likely to have an 18 in a relevant stat and expert in the related save, so a +9 isn't exactly uncommon...
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.Can't dig into your whole post at the moment, but the range listed here is confusing or possibly incorrect.
The range of PC saving throws at first level is +2 (-1 stat, trained) to +9 (+4 stat, expert).
I don't see any context that would explain the difference.
I was using Fighter (STR primary) and Wizard (INT primary) explitly, neither of which are saving throw stats. So you won't get the full +4 from stats to any save.
Cleric? Absolutely hits +9.
(I'm also categorically ignoring flaws, as you can always put a flaw into a stat that categorically doesn't matter to your character; you won't always DO so, but you CAN--or be human).
No, it's mostly a problem of people used to their Landsknecht / Savage Horticulturist 134 DPR kukri juggle build PF1 characters who would never miss with their 11 attacks and are now faced with the brain-shattering reality of the PF2 math working differently.
You expand on this quite a bit in later posts but this one pretty much nails it.
The change from PF1 math to PF2 math was intentional. It's a positive change to some and a negative change to some but it's definitely not accidental.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's mostly a problem of people used to their Landsknecht / Savage Horticulturist 134 DPR kukri juggle build PF1 characters who would never miss with their 11 attacks and are now faced with the brain-shattering reality of the PF2 math working differently.You expand on this quite a bit in later posts but this one pretty much nails it.
The change from PF1 math to PF2 math was intentional. It's a positive change to some and a negative change to some but it's definitely not accidental.
I find it interesting what details people remember from their play experience. Specifically how the experience can be similar, but the resulting memories entirely focused on different aspects.
For example: I find that a lot of people remember the way PF1 worked in the moments that their characters ripped apart big bad monsters and felt awesome for doing so - while I remember that same event different; a few good rolls at the right time so the "build" worked perfectly... resulting in me, or another player, having a dead character on their hands without there having been any chance to mitigate other than "just don't lose initiative" or "should have built a different character"
"The Big Bad casts Circle of Death, half the party is rerolling based on one "bad" roll because the NPC had halfway optimized save DCs and no core mechanic to avoid instant death due to a bad roll."
That sort of PF1 experience?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example: I find that a lot of people remember the way PF1 worked in the moments that their characters ripped apart big bad monsters and felt awesome for doing so - while I remember that same event different; a few good rolls at the right time so the "build" worked perfectly... resulting in me, or another player, having a dead character on their hands without there having been any chance to mitigate other than "just don't lose initiative" or "should have built a different character"
You should really try RIFTS as you can literally play a hobo with a shotgun alongside a genetically enhanced human in fully space and flight capable power armor. Fun times!
Speaking personally, I play predominantly PbP so my stuff tends to get stretched out a lot, but it's not unusual for me to have days or even weeks straight where I just can't roll above a 10. And no matter how much logic would dictate it should all even out in the end... I never seem to have those counterbalancing periods of rolling straight fire. Me rolling a 15+ is almost always noteworthy because it just so rarely happens. As such, yeah, I feel the new math hard. This game is really harsh on the unlucky.
And even playing a caster might not help depending on the GM. The one GM in my group who's run PF2e so far is actually infamous for the inverse, he's exceptionally lucky. I actually lost my first character from literally being crit twice in a row from a creature with persistent damage on crits. So all odds point towards said GM likely Saving or even quite likely Crit Saving most of the time on offensive spells.
Really it's a miracle (and a little bit the side effects of having a party of 4, 3 frontliners and a heal-focused Cleric, and the two Animal Companions of two of the frontliners) that we managed to clear book 1 of AoA at all, especially given how many fights I contributed quite literally nothing of value (even my flanking could easily have been arranged just by the others).
Organized Play Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example: I find that a lot of people remember the way PF1 worked in the moments that their characters ripped apart big bad monsters and felt awesome for doing so - while I remember that same event different; a few good rolls at the right time so the "build" worked perfectly... resulting in me, or another player, having a dead character on their hands without there having been any chance to mitigate other than "just don't lose initiative" or "should have built a different character"You should really try RIFTS as you can literally play a hobo with a shotgun alongside a genetically enhanced human in fully space and flight capable power armor. Fun times!
Cypher does that as well. We had a party where one player's special thing was "Controls Gravity" and another person's was literally "Doesn't Do Much". I think we've also had "Sees Through Time" alongside "Wields a Bow".
rarely[/i] happens. As such, yeah, I feel the new math hard. This game is really harsh on the unlucky.
I went a stupendously large potion of The World's Largest Dungeon without ever rolling a crit on an attack.
And it wasn't just me that noticed, when I mentioned it (mostly in the context of "I never get Flaming Burst or similar because I can't rely on critting, I'd rather have the 1d6 all the time instead of 1d10 only on a crit) and it became a thing that everyone was like, "Yeah, I don't think I've seen you crit either." And we started paying attention to it.
I remember the day when I finally DID roll a nat-20 and it was against an undead (immune) who died from my non-crit damage anyway.
On the flip side I knew a guy with crazy good luck (two, actually, but one was more applicable to dice). He could roll 3d6 six times for stats and end up with two 17+s. It was actually rarer for him to end up with no 18s than one. Yes, on raw 3d6, no 4d6 drop lowest. 4d6 drop lowest he'd never roll a stat under about 12 and always roll an 18.
He ran a campaign once and rolled stats for every PC in the game (and then proceeded to be a dick with regards to encounters; yes, throw six level 1 players up against a spider so large redcaps built a ****ing castle on it).
| 5 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...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a really good point, JulianW.
Goes up there with arguments that "PF1 is bad because it needs a lot of system mastery," followed up with, "PF2 is easy if you learn the system properly!" (i.e. have a lot of system mastery).
You can't have your kayak and heat it too.
Edit, oh hey, an Extra Creditz video from seven years ago that's surprisingly relevant.