| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I wasn't the only one that couldn't roll above a ten some sessions. The barbarian regularly had entire combats where his total on each roll didn't break 12 (the fight with the sculptor was one).
There were times the rogue went to pick a lock and he'd have to roll something like 8 times for a two-success lock.
I didn't keep track of all of these events because not all of them were mine. But they happened on average once a session. Once a session one player would just be like "yeah, f!#! this, I've been completely useless all session, all I had to do was roll a f!!!ing 8 and couldn't."
So again, you're basically confirming you and your group got to fall into the statistical outlier on dice rolls. It happens, it sucks, and I feel sorry that it happened to occur during your introduction to a new system. But balancing the game around that would basically be saying the dice don't really matter much because failure doesn't exist outside of nat 1's. Considering the way PF2 crits work, trying to balance around rolling less than a 10 always being a success would potentially swing things the other way and make it likely to crit by default anytime the group wasn't rolling horribly, which could ruin the appeal of crits by making them too common.
People keep saying these numbers are needed to make things a challenge for players.
News flash, high AC/Save/DCs values aren't the only way to make things a challenge.
Correct, they aren't the only way to make a challenge, but they are the easiest - which is probably why they're often the defaults with suggestions to modify based on other features of the creature. This is part of why I mentioned low AC monsters needing other features to compensate previously. Of course, being less based on strictly numbers makes the overall creature much more difficult to balance appropriately without accidentally becoming a joke to any table that isn't currently suffering from cursed dice (or overtuned towards being unfair & unfun)- so I can see why they are not the default expectation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I complain about my experience, I get asked for data.
In the numerous threads I've seen this scenario play out, I've yet to see someone request you provide data. What I've seen again and again is people attempting to engage with you on the the topic experientially and you immediately pivot to data to prove that your experience is the more valid one.
When I present data, I get asked for my experience.
Nobody asked you to provide data in this thread, you volunteered and presented it as a holistic analysis even after multiple others demonstrated the ways in which it was incomplete.
Where did I say "no your experience is irrelevant"?
Everytime you countered someone's experience with a statement about the math and what it supports you're arguing against their experience. Even when they don't discount yours.
I'm the one who's been told my experience is irrelevant and brushed aside by "roll20's RNG is bad, don't let that color your experience" despite the actual mountain of rigorous evidence that roll20's RNG is not bad.
If everyone is saying it's broken to discredit you and you've got a mountain of evidence that it works fine, then what was the value in saying that you and the other people in your group are:
pretty sure its borked too
]Ok, so (1) when I posted that 66% number I said "66% in the data set" and already stated it was incomplete.
No you didn't. You said:
So 66% of the entire bestiary is fine using a High AC, High Attack, and High save DC?
The entire bestiary which you admit you have yet to analyze.
(2) The "snap judgement" as you call it can't really be snap if the conclusion is both (a) supported by the GM guidelines and (b) one drawn from literal hours of data entry.
I spent hours studying chemistry, but I am not a chemist. Complete your analysis before delivering results. What you're doing is called speculating, and it's more or less pointless.
The whole reason I'm even doing the data analysis in the first place is to figure out why my expectations don't line up with my experience.
Maybe instead of figuring out the mathematical reasons the system isn't providing the experience you want but is providing it to other players is to engage in a conversation not about the mathematical underpinnings about the system but about the situation at your table. What's a massive difference between my party who isn't "miss, miss, miss, miss, miss" like yours is? You don't have my GM and I don't have yours. There's an obvious distinction there that is not expressable mathematically.
What is it that you actually want from me?
Maybe a little parity in the conversations you have about the game? It's hard to engage with you in a thread where your experience is valid supported by your math, but my experience is invalid and repudiated by your math. There's a level of intellectual dishonesty to that, just as there is when you swoop in to define someone else's incomplete data analysis as less rigorous than your also incomplete data analysis.
Neither of you have analyzed the complete data set, so neither of you can do anything at this point but share your impressions of the data thus far. No conclusions are yet reachable.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I complain about my experience, I get asked for data.
When I present data, I get asked for my experience.
Now I've done both and am told I'm talking over other people's experiences?
Much as I disagree with you on some stuff, you've got a definite point here. You're being put in a bit of a Catch-22 here, which isn't fair.
Where did I say "no your experience is irrelevant"? I'm the one who's been told my experience is irrelevant and brushed aside by "roll20's RNG is bad, don't let that color your experience" despite the actual mountain of rigorous evidence that roll20's RNG is not bad.
Yep, that sounds like what I read you post.
Ok, so (1) when I posted that 66% number I said "66% in the data set" and already stated it was incomplete. No really, here's the post. I even linked TO the data set so that it could be observed. The "75% complete" number isn't accurate, but it was a "I've done some work, quite a bit, more than you did by looking at only monsters starting with the letter A" comment, not a rigorous percentage.
Yeah, again, I've brought up an objection in a previous thread to you using this data without noting its nature, but you didn't do that here and I have no objection at all to you using it while announcing its nature.
(2) The "snap judgement" as you call it can't really be snap if the conclusion is both (a) supported by the GM guidelines and (b) one drawn from literal hours of data entry.
So, for the record, this is where I disagree with you. Looking at your data, I don't think it conflicts with their own monster creation guidelines at all. I think it lines up with them pretty exactly. High AC and to-hit are to be expected as pretty standard according to said guidelines.
(3) The whole reason I'm even doing the data analysis in the first place is to figure out why my expectations don't line up with my experience.
A totally reasonable thing to do. I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions, but this seems a totally reasonable course of action to take.
What is it that you actually want from me?
I have no idea what anyone else wants. Me, I kinda want you to finish your data set so we can discuss the final version. That sounds super interesting.
Oh, and I didn't come into this thread to b$$$~, I came into this thread to post the data. That data was then belittled, despite being more rigorous than what the OP posted.
Again, this seems totally reasonable. That said, you did also complain some, so I'm not sure objecting to people saying you were complaining has quite the same bite as your other issues with dirtypool's post, which, to be clear, I otherwise mostly agree with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will not say anything about statistics, because enough has been said about that. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare the extremes of PF 1 and 2, because that is not what the OP is about. He never said he wants the PF1-thing, where NPCs only hit with a 20, and PCs only not hit rolling a 1 (besides this is more of a "problem" with optimizers in the 10+ level range. In our Pf1 campaign Iron Gods we don't have these extremes). I think and may be wrong of course, he'd like to experience a slightly higher to-hit-chance for the PCs in general.
I play both games and I can relate to the feeling of the OP. I want to like Pf2, because when I read (and still learn) it, it makes much more sense, seems more solid than Pf2. On the other hand, actual play (AoA campaign) felt ok, when with four players and like a death spiral when with three players. Rolls feel so much more important than in Pf1. I think this is basically a good thing, but I also don't like it when I have average dice rolls and don't hit with my good attack(s) when we're fighting against some stupid birds that have higher ACs and to hit than we do.
I think it makes sense that if you fight the real baddies, everything can go wrong and it is really hard to succeed. But lying in the dirt with the dying condition in the first round of combat against some mooks is not what I find terribly entertaining, because I want to contribute.
I am still undecided on the system (loved it when I read it) in actual play, because I need more experience in the system to judge it. I really hope we will improve (as players but also as our player characters).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is basically a good thing, but I also don't like it when I have average dice rolls and don't hit with my good attack(s) when we're fighting against some stupid birds that have higher ACs and to hit than we do.
Are we talking AoA part 1? Because if so the birds in question (which are the same level as the PCs when you meet them, or should be, something I'll go into below) have AC 18 and a +11 to hit at 2nd level. That's definitely higher to-hit than non-Fighters, but it's actually mediocre to crappy AC by 2nd level PC standards (where martials should have a 19 or 20), and their damage should be a fair bit lower than PCs who focus on damage to boot (1d10+2 is meaningful, but a Str 18 martial needs to be using a d6 weapon for it to be on par).
Anyone with a 16 in their attack stat should hit them on an 11+, and dedicated combatants should do better than that. They can make you Dazzled and thus give you a miss chance, but that's different from high AC in a few different ways, and takes most of their turn to activate.
I think it makes sense that if you fight the real baddies, everything can go wrong and it is really hard to succeed. But lying in the dirt with the dying condition in the first round of combat against some mooks is not what I find terribly entertaining, because I want to contribute.
I think a lot of people need to do some significant reframing of how they think of monsters in PF2. On-level monsters are not 'mooks'. Ever. They are serious threats that have about a 50% chance of winning in a fight with a single PC of the same level. They are dangerous and need to be thought of as such by players and framed that way by GMs. Usually, they come in smaller numbers than the PCs and can thus readily be defeated due to action economy advantages, but they are not weaker than PCs, just outnumbered.
Below level foes absolutely are mooks (or should be, most of the time), and come up, so it's not like mooks are gone, but on-level monsters are not among their number, and even level-1 monsters are very tough for mooks compared to some other games (including PF1), only at level-2 do they get into actually being weak enough to be reminiscent of how people often think of mooks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably felt much more at the early levels because it only goes down to -1. There are no level -2 monsters to fight at level 1.
Yes there are, level-1 foes are two levels down from level 1 PCs (there are level 0 monsters, after all). Indeed, I'd argue such creatures exist pretty specifically to fill the 'mook' category for 1st level PCs.
And the numbers you expect to see some of these low level monsters in can be an encounter that's actually quite deadly. 4 goblin warriors is a severe encounter, if I recall.
Level 1 is definitely swingier than later levels, as it always has been, but that has more to do with just not having the cushion of more HP to allow time for the odds to even out than anything else.
Anecdotally, I can say that if you TPK a group at level one, there is a greater than even chance they just won't play another session.
This is probably true of many groups, and one of the reasons why you should be very careful designing encounters for 1st level characters.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
(2) The "snap judgement" as you call it can't really be snap if the conclusion is both (a) supported by the GM guidelines and (b) one drawn from literal hours of data entry.I spent hours studying chemistry, but I am not a chemist. Complete your analysis before delivering results. What you're doing is called speculating, and it's more or less pointless.
I will be muting the rest of this thread but first I want to point out that Draco is discussing data that is still being collected which is a perfectly useful thing to do. It is a few of the people in this thread who are shouting him down who are making things pointless.
In my experience, it takes guts to put yourself out there and present an analysis that you've worked hard on. Whether I agree or disagree, Draco has worked hard to put together this dataset and I have tons of respect for anyone who does that. So for what it's worth (which is nothing), I stand by Draco.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So for what it's worth (which is nothing), I stand by Draco.Discussing your conclusions about a process you’ve not yet completed is pointless; because your conclusion Hasn’t. Been. Proven. Just like thenobledrake’s analysis of the O’s had a different outcome than your analysis of the A’s, the holes in Draco’s data might contravene his the results he has presented as holistic.
A trend in the Monsters beginning with the letter Q is just that and is not indicative of the whole data set of monsters. Which is what those people “shouting him down” are saying. The analysis is flawed because it is not complete, not because we don’t agree with the opinions of the people collating the data - but because we recognize you aren’t done yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it is worth, I do think that it is possible, especially if a large amount of players feel that monsters are too hard to hit, that you will see more monsters in future bestiaries with moderate ACs. But I don't know that these forums will be the best place for that data to be collected. Perhaps the developers are interested in running a 2 years later survey, but maybe not.
At the same time, GMs have never had an easier time of adjusting these kinds of things on the fly, based upon their players needs. A lot of people used to other RPGs are finding the monster level = PC level to be pretty jarring and unexpected, but it really does make for the easiest to modify system. If you are a player, and you feel that the encounters you have played through are too difficult, talk to your GM. Have them look at discussions about how to change the nature of challenges to keep things lively, but reduce the "miss factor" that really rubs some players the wrong way. The system is so flexible, it would be a shame to write it off because its default setting wasn't what you were looking for.
Yes there are, level-1 foes are two levels down from level 1 PCs (there are level 0 monsters, after all). Indeed, I'd argue such creatures exist pretty specifically to fill the 'mook' category for 1st level PCs.Huh. So there are. I overlooked them entirely. Odd that its not better represented in the low level groups you fight. Goblins and Kobolds and whatnot. There's an orc though.
It is represented for them though?
- goblin warrior
- kobold warrior
- skeleton
- bloodseeker (stirge)
- zombie
|
|
Yes there are, level-1 foes are two levels down from level 1 PCs (there are level 0 monsters, after all). Indeed, I'd argue such creatures exist pretty specifically to fill the 'mook' category for 1st level PCs.Huh. So there are. I overlooked them entirely. Odd that its not better represented in the low level groups you fight. Goblins and Kobolds and whatnot. There's an orc though.It is represented for them though?
- goblin warrior
- kobold warrior
- skeleton
- bloodseeker (stirge)
- zombie
Kasoh is saying there are very few level 0 monsters among the 'low level groups you fight', and in terms of humanoids at least they are correct (only a handful of NPCs, an orc and a duergar are level 0). all the examples you list are, instead, level -1.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Idk, but I've found the "your first 3 attacks hit, the only point of rolling d20 is to check if you crit" paradigm of PF1 boring as hell, but YMMV.Hypothetically, there might be a compromise possible between "50% success rate" and "95% success rate"...
I'm sure there are TTRPGs out there built around 75% success rate as a baseline. PF2 isn't one of them.
|
|
I think there is, and I think pf2 has got it. It's a 50% rate with a big asterix that says "this number can be heavily improved through the application of in play factors".Idk, but I've found the "your first 3 attacks hit, the only point of rolling d20 is to check if you crit" paradigm of PF1 boring as hell, but YMMV.Hypothetically, there might be a compromise possible between "50% success rate" and "95% success rate"...
That's why I used the word "baseline".
PF2 is 55% and you can bump it by, errr, perish the thought, teamwork. Heresy! Who would have thought that in a cooperative game you could get anywhere further thanks to working with your teammates?
Likely somewhere out there are games where you can get to the highest possible PF2 numbers right off the bat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's success rate also varies by activity.
55% is about right for first attacks before buffs and circumstances (for non-Fighters, anyway), but as I've said many times you can get quite a bit higher with skills you focus on, and with Saves it depends a lot.
All of which seems pretty relevant to me in terms of what the game's success rate is as a whole.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. At the same time, a lot of people still follow the The Gaming Den's SGT methodology - benchmarking classes on how they handle solo encounters against equal CR monsters and ignoring the whole teamplay cooperate aspect of the game.
PF2, from my experience, rewards teamwork far more as some abilities and feats are literally set up to be used in conjunction with each other.
Yes. At the same time, a lot of people still follow the idiotic The Gaming Den's SGT methodology - benchmarking classes on how they handle solo encounters against equal CR monsters and ignoring the whole teamplay cooperate aspect of the game.
PF2, from my experience, rewards teamwork far more as some abilities and feats are literally set up to be used in conjunction with each other.
What is the Gaming Den? Is this this same place that came up with “Mister Cavern” - in which case that would be very consistent
|
|
What is the Gaming Den? Is this this same place that came up with “Mister Cavern” - in which case that would be very consistentYes. At the same time, a lot of people still follow the idiotic The Gaming Den's SGT methodology - benchmarking classes on how they handle solo encounters against equal CR monsters and ignoring the whole teamplay cooperate aspect of the game.
PF2, from my experience, rewards teamwork far more as some abilities and feats are literally set up to be used in conjunction with each other.
Why yes, of course it's them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people who think cooperative table top RPGs should be played as if you are playing a solo video game where it only matters if you personally are having fun ...
Sounds like a delightful place /s
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's success rate also varies by activity.
55% is about right for first attacks before buffs and circumstances (for non-Fighters, anyway), but as I've said many times you can get quite a bit higher with skills you focus on, and with Saves it depends a lot.
All of which seems pretty relevant to me in terms of what the game's success rate is as a whole.
While I have absolutely no problems with a 55% sucess rate per se one also needs to take into account the overall difficulty scheme of any adventure (path or homebrew).
If 55% is the on-level sucess chance and I have a considerable number of easier tasks, some on-level tasks and some high level tasks this feels completely different from having a considerable number of on-level tasks, some high level tasks and some extreme tasks.
Baseline difficulty is a thing and could be one reason for the felt "discrepancy" in between mathematical analysis (10+, 55%) and in-game experience (12+, 45%).
|
|
While I have absolutely no problems with a 55% sucess rate per se one also needs to take into account the overall difficulty scheme of any adventure (path or homebrew).
If 55% is the on-level sucess chance and I have a considerable number of easier tasks, some on-level tasks and some high level tasks this feels completely different from having a considerable number of on-level tasks, some high level tasks and some extreme tasks.
Baseline difficulty is a thing and could be one reason for the felt "discrepancy" in between mathematical analysis (10+, 55%) and in-game experience (12+, 45%).
This is totally fair, though an issue with the adventure in question rather than the system per se.
An adventure skewing towards high level enemies and high DC Skill Checks is absolutely gonna feel a lot different, and a lot harder, than one with a better balance between high and low level stuff.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
In the case of the "unfair treatment of PF1," many of us GMs did adapt. It's however not as simple as sitting down and opening up a guide that says, "Just recreate all the NPCs in this module this way or write your own homebrew." Oftentimes GMs were left with groups split between insane min-maxers and the guy who took a dip into sorcerer for story reasons. Make a tough encounter to challenge the minmaxer and annihilate the player with less system mastery. It became just easier for many to let the minmaxer get what they what: total dominance over the game while everyone else was along to watch.
That's not to say that PF1 is bad by any means, but handwaving legitimate problems that it had with "GMs should learn to adapt," isn't exactly helpful to the discussion at hand. Especially one where players are being asked to adapt the new dynamics of probability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely still a game thing that to-hit and AC for players accelerates faster than the same for monsters (save for the to-hit of really big monsters, which has funny numbers.) And the GM shouldn't be tasked with fixing game math to have a decent play time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing this out there, but I don't think a Non-Fighter can 1v1 an on-level opponent in a lot of occassions. I was running a lv10 party the other day (Champion, Rogue, Bard, Cleric, Ranger) against Stone Giants and Bulettes (level -2 enemies) and those monsters had higher to-hit, higher damage and higher AC (except champion) than anyone in the group. It took over 2 hours to resolve that battle.
It balances out when the party is working together and the enemies are dumb. Haven't had a chance to GM enemies that have the tools/INT to do smart tactics (Humanoids seem to always be low level in books compared to monsters).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ruzza I get what you are saying. And honestly that type of split where a player is hyper min-maxing while another is going for flavor is indeed very difficult to handle. There is no way I can deny it.
That previous comment was specifically for the people who see PF1 as "players can hit anything and NPCs can't hit anything". The type of people who ignore that the game is perfectly playable when things are kept in control, even if the system doesn't force them to.
Blaming PF1 itself for the culture, personal/group dynamics, and unwritten rules of many groups seems bad to me.
Just put a bunch of "PC-like" monsters against a high level party in PF1 and see how players whine about the 6-bombs-a-round Alchemist and the DC30-Will-Save-Kitsune Sorcerer.
If you follow the escalation of violence with your party, the game becomes just a game of initiative or die past level 10. I don't think anyone would enjoy it.Same with skill challenges, asking for DC40+ skill checks at level 10 is eliminating from the game anyone but optimized characters who are still laughing at how easy it is to succeed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just throwing this out there, but I don't think a Non-Fighter can 1v1 an on-level opponent in a lot of occassions. I was running a lv10 party the other day (Champion, Rogue, Bard, Cleric, Ranger) against Stone Giants and Bulettes (level -2 enemies) and those monsters had higher to-hit, higher damage and higher AC (except champion) than anyone in the group. It took over 2 hours to resolve that battle.
That sounds wrong.
A 10th level Ranger should have a to-hit of about +21 (+10 level +4 Expert +5 Stat +2 Item), the same as the Stone Giants, ditto the Rogue and Champion. If their to-hit is lower than that, they're either unoptimized or do not have sufficient gear to be fighting at full expected strength for their level.
And their AC should be higher than the Stone Giants at 28 or so (10 level +2 Proficiency +5 Armor +1 Magic). While their HP should be higher than the Bulette and only slightly below the Stone Giant at around 130 or 140. So they (except for the Rogue, who lack staying power) should have more AC than the Stone Giant and more HP than the Bulette.
And as for damage, a flurry Ranger might be lower per attack (and make up for it with a greater number of relevant attacks), but a Rogue should be doing something like 5d6+7 and more damage per hit than they're doing.
So your stats should've been around on par with those creatures in terms of raw starting numbers. 'But they're two levels lower!' you immediately cry out, to which I respond: Those are two of the most thuggish monsters in the Bestiary. They have basically no tricks aside from hitting hard and staying power, and even there they have pretty bad Saves all things considered (a +14 vs. even an on-level enemy's DC 26 is not good, never mind the DC 29 a 10th level PC can manage).
PCs, by virtue of Class abilities and Feats, have lots of tricks other than those, and can make good use of them to defeat such foes. Applying penalties is just the start of it, really. And you'll find that any monsters that do have tricks (and they certainly exist) have less impressive raw numbers.
Obviously, some builds are more teamwork focused than others, including many Rogue and Champion builds and they thus wouldn't fare well in a one on one fight just in general, but a Rogue + Champion can absolutely have about 50/50 odds going up against two 10th level monsters. Now, that does, obviously mean a 50% chance of party wipe, so it's not something to do lightly, but PCs can generally play in the same league as monsters of their level.
I think there has also become an assumption that martial PCs are better than casters at overcoming enemies in PF2, which, as Deadmanwalking points out, becomes really problematic when a group internalizes that idea so much they put together a 5 person team with almost no aggressive magic capabilities and comes up against martial focused opposition. ChibiNyan, it sounds like your over focused martial party walked into its kryptonite, but even so, they probably had enough support magic that they should have been able to shift the numbers much more in their favor, while their opposition had none.
Perhaps the balance of casters vs martials in PF2 rests upon more than just a direct comparison of one to the other and includes things like needing to be capable of targeting various saves, and being able to respond to opposition that has varying strengths and weaknesses?
Well, they're just very early level 10, versus lvl8 monsters, so they don't have any +2 Equipment yet, making them have less to-hit as a result. Yeah, the AC and HP are tight depending on the char. I think those level 10 PCs might be able to 1v1 the lv8 enemies (Bestiary 1 was VERY lacking on lvl8-9 monsters I wanted for this random encounter). They would probably be annihilated at 8, though.
I do agree those weren't the best enemies, but it's what I picked when I needed a random encounter for them on hills, lacking much better selection...
Worth nothing the party didn't suffer that much. It was just very slow and grindy. Flame Strike from the Cleric Sneak attacks were the most useful things I noticed.
By encounter building rules this would have been "Low".
|
|
Well, they're just very early level 10, versus lvl8 monsters, so they don't have any +2 Equipment yet, making them have less to-hit as a result. Yeah, the AC and HP are tight depending on the char. I think those level 10 PCs might be able to 1v1 the lv8 enemies (Bestiary 1 was VERY lacking on lvl8-9 monsters I wanted for this random encounter). They would probably be annihilated at 8, though.
Well, it depends on the PC and the tactics, and what you mean by 1v1. I'm saying that they have 50% odds vs. on-level enemies (possibly a bit less if, as you say, they lack the gear expected of their new level), but 50% odds of winning are actually terrible. That's the same as 50% odds of a TPK, and that's a horrifying thing to happen more than once or twice a campaign.
I do agree those weren't the best enemies, but it's what I picked when I needed a random encounter for them on hills, lacking much better selection...
Fair. The Bestiary 2 being out and on AoN has really expanded available options a lot.
Worth nothing the party didn't suffer that much. It was just very slow and grindy. Flame Strike from the Cleric Sneak attacks were the most useful things I noticed.
By encounter building rules this would have been "Low".
It sounds like it was 'Low' if they weren't too hurt. It was just a longer and slower 'Low' than usual.
Personally I don't find single attack accuracy to be a valid metric by which to judge the game, your odds of hitting in a turn are more valuable to me, and imo, two attacks give you a great chance to hit one even with full MAP.
Your hit rate also changes positively by 10% (per attack) when you're flanking on each attack, which makes it way easier to hit, nevermind other buffs and debuffs.
|
Personally I don't find single attack accuracy to be a valid metric by which to judge the game, your odds of hitting in a turn are more valuable to me, and imo, two attacks give you a great chance to hit one even with full MAP.
Agree.
I think the real metric is "Did i accomplish something fun this turn?" and for a martial you usually hit 1 or more times a round so it feels fun. If you're fighting a boss with high AC and have a hard time getting help from the party so your hit % for the whole round is dipping 50% or lower then it can start to feel a little demoralizing to the player as whole rounds go by and you do nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must admit that's one of the reasons I don't like much martials in PF2 and prefer to play casters: You are too dependant on luck. Rounds when I don't hit are not very fun, and rounds where I suddenly do crazy damage just because I roll 20s are also no fun to me. Having the feeling my contribution is only a matter of luck doesn't please me.
On the other hand, I find casters to be very nice. Even when the dice are against you you have a contribution, just a smaller one. It's less frustrating.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must admit that's one of the reasons I don't like much martials in PF2 and prefer to play casters: You are too dependant on luck. Rounds when I don't hit are not very fun, and rounds where I suddenly do crazy damage just because I roll 20s are also no fun to me. Having the feeling my contribution is only a matter of luck doesn't please me.
On the other hand, I find casters to be very nice. Even when the dice are against you you have a contribution, just a smaller one. It's less frustrating.
Interesting.
I usually think the psychology goes the other way for most players. For spellcaster players its often frustrating that the GM makes the save and is "in control" rather than the player and casters usually only "swing once" per se and have less chances to make an impact.
Random data point on 1v1 equal level monsters - one of my groups Level 18 Champions (sword and board, speed weapon and sturdy shield) pretty trivially stood off and defeated an equal level melee foe, and took barely any net damage.
I don't put stock in feel or 'fun' arguments, they're way too muddy and are influenced by everything from your experiences in other games, personality, random preconceptions, mood while playing, or even just good ol emotional investment in a world view. They tend to just be a vessel to transmute a feeling something is true into evidence if it's truth.
I don't put stock in feel or 'fun' arguments, they're way too muddy and are influenced by everything from your experiences in other games, personality, random preconceptions, mood while playing, or even just good ol emotional investment in a world view. They tend to just be a vessel to transmute a feeling something is true into evidence if it's truth.Maybe, but you can have the objectively and mathematically best game on the planet but if no one enjoys playing it, its a moot point. Enjoyment and fun are actual concerns to be addressed when designing a game.
That's a non-sequiter, because design is about creating engaging experiences, you can't have good design without that. The problem is that by themselves 'feeling' and 'fun' don't mean anything, they're just cliches designed to shut down dissent.
You can be given the most well designed experience in the world, and never appreciate it, and that can have nothing to do with some flaw of the game itself, just you.
But when this comes up in an argument, and someone gives you good reasons, and you just respond with "I feel" there's no way to answer you, it's a cheap way of getting the last word in.
You can apply it to anything, imagine playing Overwatch and saying the game is badly designed because you lost/got outplayed and that felt bad.
There's just no way around that, it's like telling the person you're debating "I have no obligation to the truth, but you should still give my argument weight."
If you don't look at what that majority seems to respond to and design around it, you're just fishing for failure.
This would depress me so much if I believed it was true.
I remember one of the developers saying that things didn't stay linear, that things got easier as you grew in level. (Not a direct quote; paraphrasing from memory.)
Anyone got any math to back that up?
I think it'd be great if it was something like 55% baseline success at low levels and more like 75% baseline at higher levels.
|
|
I remember one of the developers saying that things didn't stay linear, that things got easier as you grew in level. (Not a direct quote; paraphrasing from memory.)
Anyone got any math to back that up?
I think it'd be great if it was something like 55% baseline success at low levels and more like 75% baseline at higher levels.
I haven't tried to look at ACs, but for level-based DCs the 1-20 scale is 15-43, which scales at exactly the same rate as skill proficiency across the same range (+3 to +28). However, PCs will be gaining stat boosts and item bonuses across that range as well, so they should wind up doing better by about 30 percentage points for their most important skill(s) by the time it's all said and done.
I remember one of the developers saying that things didn't stay linear, that things got easier as you grew in level. (Not a direct quote; paraphrasing from memory.)
Anyone got any math to back that up?
I think it'd be great if it was something like 55% baseline success at low levels and more like 75% baseline at higher levels.
Base accuracy appears fairly static from what I looked at, but Status bonuses to accuracy (Heroism, Inspire Heroics) definitely scale upwards and higher values of status effects become easier and more reliable to apply (Scare to Death is Frightened 2 on success, which is twice as potent as demoralize and much easier to land than a failed save on a Fear Spell). As well, circumstance bonuses from aiding scale upwards with character proficiency.
I noted when I did the math on attack accuracy while you can totally get to good numbers early on, its pretty trivial to get to the 'hitting on a 2 range' at higher levels with all these bonuses and debuff's online.
Thats not base accuracy, but it is definitely easier to get better bonuses as you grow in level.
ALL OF THE ABOVE only applies to attack rolls - Skills absolutely become more reliable once you've invested in them.