| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I think Incap spells are a solid and powerful piece of your toolbox.They are, even with the build in level limit.
Speaking of which I guess my (and others?) biggest issue is a psychological one which centers around the meta-ness of incap spells, as most people simply hate to be ineffective and/or waste their turns.
Which means that the mental drawback is not the level limit per se but that you more often than not simply don't know if you will be able to cast for full effect. I guess incap spells would be much more prominent in a computer game where every single enemy has a level tag above his head.
And in contrast to e.g. saves (big lumbering hulk = try Ref or Will) I think it is not especially easy to gauge the exact level of your opponents.
Massive Disclaimer - Creature Level is so fundamentally important to PF2E that I would never, ever, withhold relative Creature Level from players.
The game is best when everyone is making informed decisions, and unlike "best save" or whatever creature level is entirely meta based. Therefore, I feel no issue making it known.
Plus, people who know the game - as GM, massive play experience, etc will inherently eventually intuit this info. Withholding creature level from newer players isn't exactly new player friendly.
So... I'd highly encourage GMs not to withhold this, as the system works better when players know if their stuff is gonna work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So for your third level spell what you effectively achieve is making an enemy flat-footed and stopping them making reactions that really on sight for a fragment of a round. Not useless by any means but hardly special for a third level slot and similar effects can be achieved with less. Making all enemies (well 5 of them) in the encounter scared 2 for the same third level slot is a far better use of resources. There are also spells that are lower level that disrupt reactions so having your allies flank whilst the enemy can't react achieves the same effect with a lower level spell.
The point is that the floor of what an incapacitation spell will accomplish is very high, too high to be viable as a success effect against a higher level solo enemy. The issue with Paralyze isn't that hitting a boss monster with stun 1 is too much, it is having a 80%+ chance of providing at least a stunned 1 condition for one round makes it way too good of an option against a solo creature. Spells that can possibly one shot a higher level enemy need for the % chance of that to be relatively low AND can't have the most likely alternative to one-shotting them be "seriously impair them until I get to go again."
Also, PF2 requires "level" to be a functional term that characters are capable of understanding and determining on a numeric level. Not just for incapacitation effects, but also for all counteracting effects. Maybe it should require a knowledge check to figure it out, but denying your PCs that information is being a GM that is antagonistic to players being spellcasters.
Massive Disclaimer - Creature Level is so fundamentally important to PF2E that I would never, ever, withhold relative Creature Level from players.
The game is best when everyone is making informed decisions, and unlike "best save" or whatever creature level is entirely meta based. Therefore, I feel no issue making it known.
Plus, people who know the game - as GM, massive play experience, etc will inherently eventually intuit this info. Withholding creature level from newer players isn't exactly new player friendly.
So... I'd highly encourage GMs not to withhold this, as the system works better when players know if their stuff is gonna work.
Also, PF2 requires "level" to be a functional term that characters are capable of understanding and determining on a numeric level. Not just for incapacitation effects, but also for all counteracting effects. Maybe it should require a knowledge check to figure it out, but denying your PCs that information is being a GM that is antagonistic to players being spellcasters.
I think we might be up to something here. And while a certain table variance is expected from any RPG this massive variance could be a major reason for any perceived or not perceived balance issues.
Again, how does PFS handle this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at incapacitation spells, the really simple fix to make them at least usable is just don't convert successes to critical successes.
That way the incapacitation trait still does what it was meant to do, prevent incapacitation of bosses, but the spells are still usable because they still have some effect on a success.
While there was a time where I actually really wanted to implement this as a homebrew rule (the worst tier is the only tier off limits for Incapacitation, basically exactly how Phantasmal Killer works) I've decided I'm not sure it's needed.
I haven't had any negative experiences with the incapacitation rules yet, with my players or my creatures, so I'll probably wait until there actually is a moment that it feels needed.
I do wish Incapacitation was a little more lenient on Class Abilities like it is for Spells.
EDIT: Another house rule that would be nice is to make Incapacitation have a "cost" associated with it. Basically, you can drop the tier 1, but it makes you Sickened/Clumsy/Frightened 1 (depending on save type) if you do it.
That does two things, it makes it to where there's a choice on the enemy which inherently I think feels "fun" and "competitive" no matter which side is subject to it.
And it gives a little extra debuff in the case of them avoiding the downsides.
Again, probably not needed, but it feels more "fair". Blindness for 1 minute on a Boss is absolutely a massive debuff to get. The Critical Failure on Blindness isn't needed at all to win that fight (in fact, in the logistics of a Fight that you win, it literally makes no difference).
I have never had anyone ask what a creature level was nor seen it happen. If I was asked by a player I would not give that information. If they made a recall knowledge check I might give them an idea of how they might react to an incapacitation based spell.I think we might be up to something here. And while a certain table variance is expected from any RPG this massive variance could be a major reason for any perceived or not perceived balance issues.
Again, how does PFS handle this?
Why would you withhold it, knowing that its a fundamental part of most game decisions a player (not character) would make?
I'm genuinely curious. There are significant game subsystems that rely on this information for informed decision making.
I have never had anyone ask what a creature level was nor seen it happen. If I was asked by a player I would not give that information. If they made a recall knowledge check I might give them an idea of how they might react to an incapacitation based spell.I think we might be up to something here. And while a certain table variance is expected from any RPG this massive variance could be a major reason for any perceived or not perceived balance issues.
Again, how does PFS handle this?
Why would you withhold it, knowing that its a fundamental part of most game decisions a player (not character) would make?
I'm genuinely curious. There are significant game subsystems that rely on this information for informed decision making.
One of the biggest draws of TRPGs is the ability to immerse themselves. Usually that is done by limiting the game elements as much as physically possible, that includes level and metagaming knowledge. Giving away the level is a direct contradiction to immersion and helps break the illusion during play.
In other words this is one of the debates over Simulationism, Narrativism, and Gamism.
I mean, I suppose I personally don't have an issue separating those elements in a game like Pathfinder. I suppose that is an obstacle here, which exercervates peoples issues with feeling like they're being penalized for choosing incap spells if they don't know what theyre going to get when they take the action.
Incap is a game element, so its important to understand the related game elements in any case imo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to say, because I've seen it said a few times, Incap is NOT an effective +10. It can be, but that is a worst case scenario.
Example: The enemy needs a 10 to succeed. They roll a 9 and Incap has only given them an effective +1. They roll a 1 and it's the same.
But if it WAS a +10, they'd have gotten a 19...which is also still just a success (not a critical success).
So calling it "sometimes its only a +1" is grossly misleading, whereas "its an effective +10" is always accurate.
The only time it doesn't quite work is nat-1, but you can rephrase the "always crit-fail" or "always one degree worse" as an effective -10 and then only use the succeed by 10 or more / fail by 10 or more thresholds when determining success.
A DC 10 check where you roll a nat-1 and have an effective +10, your total is 1 (1+10-10 = 1) which does not fail-by-10 (it fails by 9) so the result is a regular failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say it's not very fun for the high level caster to have 4 chances a day to do something cool while the rest of your spell slots need filled with true strike+random hopefully useful spells because using those slots for either damage or some other effect that has incapacitation.
I'd like to have more chances to do something interesting a day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stunned 1 has the exact same effect as Slowed 1. I saw no part where Stunned 1 removes your reaction, if you can link or send it please do.
I see no reason why Paralyzed (a level 3 single target spell) needs to have a worse chance of getting its success effect compared to slow (a level 3 AoE spell).
This is why Incapacitate is dumb. The fact a success (which I already see as a pity reward) gets even less chance ia what makes it bad. If incapacitate only was to prevent critical failure/success or just gave a scaling bonus I would not complain as much about it.
Being stunned means you can take no actions at all until your stun conditioned is removed. Reactions (and free actions) are actions, so you can't take one until you are no longer stunned, which happens at the start of your turn.
You’ve become senseless. You can’t act while stunned. Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns, from being stunned. Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never had anyone ask what a creature level was nor seen it happen. If I was asked by a player I would not give that information. If they made a recall knowledge check I might give them an idea of how they might react to an incapacitation based spell.I think we might be up to something here. And while a certain table variance is expected from any RPG this massive variance could be a major reason for any perceived or not perceived balance issues.
Again, how does PFS handle this?
Why would you withhold it, knowing that its a fundamental part of most game decisions a player (not character) would make?
I'm genuinely curious. There are significant game subsystems that rely on this information for informed decision making.
One of the biggest draws of TRPGs is the ability to immerse themselves. Usually that is done by limiting the game elements as much as physically possible, that includes level and metagaming knowledge. Giving away the level is a direct contradiction to immersion and helps break the illusion during play.
In other words this is one of the debates over Simulationism, Narrativism, and Gamism.
I mean, I suppose I personally don't have an issue separating those elements in a game like Pathfinder. I suppose that is an obstacle here, which exercervates peoples issues with feeling like they're being penalized for choosing incap spells if they don't know what theyre going to get when they take the action.
Incap is a game element, so its important to understand the related game elements in any case imo.
It's the same with the table culture in my area, the GM never tells the players the level of a monster or exact numbers on a monster's AC or saves. Telling players a monster's level is just seen as too metagamey.
On a related note, the group also sees the incapacitation trait as a trap, as we always have to assume the monster we're facing will succeed on its save, and thus incapacitation will make it a critical success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never had anyone ask what a creature level was nor seen it happen. If I was asked by a player I would not give that information. If they made a recall knowledge check I might give them an idea of how they might react to an incapacitation based spell.I think we might be up to something here. And while a certain table variance is expected from any RPG this massive variance could be a major reason for any perceived or not perceived balance issues.
Again, how does PFS handle this?
Why would you withhold it, knowing that its a fundamental part of most game decisions a player (not character) would make?
I'm genuinely curious. There are significant game subsystems that rely on this information for informed decision making.
One of the biggest draws of TRPGs is the ability to immerse themselves. Usually that is done by limiting the game elements as much as physically possible, that includes level and metagaming knowledge. Giving away the level is a direct contradiction to immersion and helps break the illusion during play.
In other words this is one of the debates over Simulationism, Narrativism, and Gamism.
I mean, I suppose I personally don't have an issue separating those elements in a game like Pathfinder. I suppose that is an obstacle here, which exercervates peoples issues with feeling like they're being penalized for choosing incap spells if they don't know what theyre going to get when they take the action.
Incap is a game element, so its important to understand the related game elements in any case imo.
It's the same with the table culture in my area, the GM never tells the players the level of a monster or exact numbers on a monster's AC or saves. Telling players a monster's level is just seen as too metagamey.
On a related note, the group also sees the incapacitation trait as a trap, as we always have to assume the...
That last bit is important and seems almost universal for any seasoned ttrpg player.
And is a big reason as to why it's bad. You either have to be seen as meta gaming to use it well, or don't use it at all.
Massive Disclaimer - Creature Level is so fundamentally important to PF2E that I would never, ever, withhold relative Creature Level from players.
It's the same with the table culture in my area, the GM never tells the players the level of a monster or exact numbers on a monster's AC or saves. Telling players a monster's level is just seen as too metagamey.
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that in my previous post.
Knowing the exact level of creatures you're fighting feels like metagaming and that if it is intended to be a "known quantity" design wise, I think that was a mistake.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the same with the table culture in my area, the GM never tells the players the level of a monster or exact numbers on a monster's AC or saves. Telling players a monster's level is just seen as too metagamey.
On a related note, the group also sees the incapacitation trait as a trap, as we always have to assume the...
I mean, feels sort of like a given that if you hide important information for someone, spells that rely on that information (like incap spells and counterspelling, among other effects) are going to feel bad to use.
I'm not sure that's really relevant to whether or not incapacitation is a problem or not, though. It's sort of like having a GM who metagames their way around illusions and using that as an argument that illusions in general are terrible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If incapacitation is a problem because the character needs to be aware of level differences (which happens to directly coincide with the cost of all items tied to spells and abilities a character has) then counteracting is just as much of a problem.
Thinking you always have to cast dispel magic at your highest level is going to make your caster waste a lot of valuable resources everyday and further bring down the perceived effectiveness of spell casters.
If one element of the game (not telling players the levels of creatures and spells) is making a much bigger part of the game (all magic) not work at your table, you should at least consider trying out the least disruptive change possible and see if it really ruins your fun.
After all, your character is going to be observing and interacting with level dependent elements of the game every day of their lives, and it breaks your plausibility that they notice that?
Edit: about stunned 1 - you can't take reactions or free actions until you clear the condition.
Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost.When you regain your actions at the start of your turn, reduce the number of actions you regain by your slowed value.So they have the same effect.
Stunned 1-3 is no different to Slow 1-3.
Except that if you are stunned you cannot use your reactions or free actions that you could normally use outside your turn.
Slowed does not prevent that.
In terms of actions lost on your turn, you're correct.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole "you're not supposed to know the level difference, it's metagaming!" is honestly not relevant.
For starters, most GMs will set up stronger enemies.
Secondly, it's pretty easy to tell when something is stronger than you simply by rolling Recall Knowledge, making an attempt to beat the AC/DC/Get Hit/etc.
You don't need to know "exact levels" you only need to know that it's higher level than you are, and if we all want to sit here and pretend like that's some super nebulous hard to do thing then I'm out.
It's not metagaming to understand you're fighting a tough opponent and making claims like "You always have to assume that the enemy is higher level than you" is a false truth. You could make the exact same argument about lower level mobs (and since those mobs are more common, you'd be statistically right more often than the first assumption).
Lest we forget that knowing that someone can be affected by Incapacitation does not devalue the spell at all, the relative value does not change because it was always an assumption of the spell. Using a spell against a CL + 2 Creature is always going to be risky and have value. Sure, your Fireball might not be Incapacitation, but your Fireball is also not going to potentially end the fight even if they critically fail (statistically cannot deal that much damage, but Blindness 1 minute ends that bad guys whole life).
Your success or failure simply has more riding on bad rolls due to the nature of the enemy.
Lastly, if you're not sure, pack a backup spell that isn't Incapacitation.
And Lower-level spells are still effective against higher level enemies due to their inherent scaling DC. They might be easily counteractable or subject to Incapacitation, but acting like they are non-options is quite frankly ridiculous.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note, the group also sees the incapacitation trait as a trap, as we always have to assume the monster we're facing will succeed on its save, and thus incapacitation will make it a critical success.
Well, yeah, it would seem like a trap when you accept a fundamentally untrue assumption as your baseline.
Taking charm from earlier discussions and grabbing the first volume of Extinction Curse here we've got 49 encounters total. Of those, only 15 are encounters where every enemy in the encounter would benefit from the incapacitate trait. Fully half of those enemies have low Will saves and close to a 45% chance of critically failing their save against a 1st level wizard spell before other debuffs are brought into play, and most of those are sprinkled through the encounters with more resistant enemies, meaning that in almost every encounter you still have viable targets who won't critically succeed against an incapacitate spell with any reliability. So in 34 out of 49 encounters, or about 70% of an entire adventure path volume, incapacitation never even comes up. In the remaining 30%, you can still use incapacitation spells in about half of the encounters, you just have to be smart about your targets. Those numbers also closely mirror what is true in PFS as well.
So is a solo boss monster in a moderate or severe encounter most likely to critically succeed on their save against an incapacitation effect? Yes. But they comprise a significant minority of encounters in total, and they're why you have multiple spell slots, spell books, focus powers, etc. to round out your inventory and options.
That last bit is important and seems almost universal for any seasoned ttrpg player.
And is a big reason as to why it's bad. You either have to be seen as meta gaming to use it well, or don't use it at all.
I mean, YMMV, but I would assume that a seasoned RPG player would do what I just did and look at the encounter design rules, tally up a published adventure, and then realize that they've got a button that triggers win conditions for 70% of fights and turns the tables in the party's favor in another 15%. Leaving a measly 15% of the encounters I'm likely to run into that need to be dealt with non-incapacitation spells. And even in those "bad" 15% encounters, there might still be a good reason to pop the incapacitation effect and hope that you get lucky on a roll with a 35%ish chance of still significantly affecting the combat encounter regardless of the spell slot used, as described previously in this thread.
This whole "you're not supposed to know the level difference, it's metagaming!" is honestly not relevant.
For starters, most GMs will set up stronger enemies.
Secondly, it's pretty easy to tell when something is stronger than you simply by rolling Recall Knowledge, making an attempt to beat the AC/DC/Get Hit/etc.
You don't need to know "exact levels" you only need to know that it's higher level than you are, and if we all want to sit here and pretend like that's some super nebulous hard to do thing then I'm out.
It's not metagaming to understand you're fighting a tough opponent and making claims like "You always have to assume that the enemy is higher level than you" is a false truth. You could make the exact same argument about lower level mobs (and since those mobs are more common, you'd be statistically right more often than the first assumption).
Lest we forget that knowing that someone can be affected by Incapacitation does not devalue the spell at all, the relative value does not change because it was always an assumption of the spell. Using a spell against a CL + 2 Creature is always going to be risky and have value. Sure, your Fireball might not be Incapacitation, but your Fireball is also not going to potentially end the fight even if they critically fail (statistically cannot deal that much damage, but Blindness 1 minute ends that bad guys whole life).
Your success or failure simply has more riding on bad rolls due to the nature of the enemy.
Lastly, if you're not sure, pack a backup spell that isn't Incapacitation.
And Lower-level spells are still effective against higher level enemies due to their inherent scaling DC. They might be easily counteractable or subject to Incapacitation, but acting like they are non-options is quite frankly ridiculous.
I guess you are out, because every group I've been with it's indeed been a nebulous hard to pin down thing outside of extremes like instantly downing our fighter/barbarian.
And you can't say it doesn't devalue while in a round about way explain how it's devalued (in regards to incapacitation spells). Your just ignoring what you said at that point.
On a related note, the group also sees the incapacitation trait as a trap, as we always have to assume the monster we're facing will succeed on its save, and thus incapacitation will make it a critical success.
Well, yeah, it would seem like a trap when you accept a fundamentally untrue assumption as your baseline.
Taking charm from earlier discussions and grabbing the first volume of Extinction Curse here we've got 49 encounters total. Of those, only 15 are encounters where every enemy in the encounter would benefit from the incapacitate trait. Fully half of those enemies have low Will saves and close to a 45% chance of critically failing their save against a 1st level wizard spell before other debuffs are brought into play, and most of those are sprinkled through the encounters with more resistant enemies, meaning that in almost every encounter you still have viable targets who won't critically succeed against an incapacitate spell with any reliability. So in 34 out of 49 encounters, or about 70% of an entire adventure path volume, incapacitation never even comes up. In the remaining 30%, you can still use incapacitation spells in about half of the encounters, you just have to be smart about your targets. Those numbers also closely mirror what is true in PFS as well.
So is a solo boss monster in a moderate or severe encounter most likely to critically succeed on their save against an incapacitation effect? Yes. But they comprise a significant minority of encounters in total, and they're why you have multiple spell slots, spell books, focus powers, etc. to round out your inventory and options.
I mean, YMMV, but I would assume that a seasoned RPG player would do what I just did and look at the encounter design...That last bit is important and seems almost universal for any seasoned ttrpg player.
And is a big reason as to why it's bad. You either have to be seen as meta gaming to use it well, or don't use it at all.
It's one thing if you've played module before but it's considered extremely bad form to look up the module you are playing to know your encounter's beforehand. To the point where any of my DMS would change the encounters in response.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you are out, because every group I've been with it's indeed been a nebulous hard to pin down thing outside of extremes like instantly downing our fighter/barbarian.
It's a play experience that is unique IME.
If your GM is deliberately downplaying their enemies, not allowing Recall Knowledge checks to retrieve numbers (if something has an X in a particular score, you can reasonably discern about where they are) that has no bearing on the game itself.
I don't think I've seen/played a single AP that's presented an above level enemy as "trivial" in the context of their introduction and I do no such thing in my homebrews either.
It's not a RNG "Let's see what sticks!" game anymore than you wouldn't try to poison a stone golem or make a mindless creature charmed. I assume those are both problems at your table, since you cannot reasonably infer based on interaction what "will" and "won't" qualify based on appearance and interactions alone.
But alas, I suspect that isn't the case, and your group in fact understands that attempting to Grapple Ghosts doesn't work, you can't Trip a Gelatinous Cube, and various other things.
If you can reasonably infer what might be a target's lower/lowest save by looking (Ogre's likely Reflex or Will, Air Elementals likely have high Reflex, etc.) then this is no different than that.
And even then, even after all of that circumstantial evidence, are you really trying to say that spending one spell, which still operates exactly as it is written to work, and potentially STILL getting valuable benefits while also learning the target is higher level because of Incapacitation is somehow a "huge waste"?
You use Incapacitation spell, target resists heavily and you know it's incapacitation and you still get the standard effect associated with the spell.
And you can't say it doesn't devalue while in a round about way explain how it's devalued (in regards to incapacitation spells). Your just ignoring what you said at that point.
You missed the point.
The spell was always capable of doing the three things the spell will end up doing. The player understands that not getting a Critical Failure is an outcome that can happen, and all other outcomes are already possible.
The only thing that changes is the knowledge the player has when it does fail.
And that effect isn't some Schroedinger's Save that changes magically mid combat, it was always going to affect a higher level opponent that way. Just like a higher level enemy is going to care a lot less about the damage your 3rd level fireball is capable of with their CL7 hitpoints.
The relative value of both spells is identical, because the Blindness spell can end the CL 7 encounter, which is a MUCH stronger encounter to end with a single spell.
That's why the logic doesn't work. The relative level of the enemy affects both, it just isn't perceived by the player that the Fireball was "less effective" simply because the enemy has much more Hitpoints (and higher Reflex saves to boot).
You use Incapacitation spell, target resists heavily and you know it's incapacitation and you still get the standard effect associated with the spell.
Resists heavily: critical success: spell did nothing.
And unless the target-that-is-higher-level-than-you somehow had only a 5% chance of success to save,* the automatic boost from Incap means that the odds of a critical success are a minimum of 50%.
*So astonishingly unlikely that I shouldn't even have to mention it.
The spell was always capable of doing the three things the spell will end up doing.
[...]
not getting a Critical Failure is an outcome that can happen
Er.
If critical failures can't happen, then the spell is not capable of doing the three things the spell can do. You've removed one of them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's still capable of getting a critical failure. Just not against enemies with incapacitation. It helps to read peoples' posts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You use Incapacitation spell, target resists heavily and you know it's incapacitation and you still get the standard effect associated with the spell.Resists heavily: critical success: spell did nothing.
And unless the target-that-is-higher-level-than-you somehow had only a 5% chance of success to save,* the automatic boost from Incap means that the odds of a critical success are a minimum of 50%.
*So astonishingly unlikely that I shouldn't even have to mention it.
The spell was always capable of doing the three things the spell will end up doing.
[...]
not getting a Critical Failure is an outcome that can happenEr.
If critical failures can't happen, then the spell is not capable of doing the three things the spell can do. You've removed one of them.
The three includes nothing at all, the one that was removed was the Critical Failure, which would be 4.
And again, we're failing to account for relative value.
A Fireball, a non-incapacitation spell, loses the exact same relative effectiveness to a CL7 opponent as Blindness does.
The relative value of Blindness for a minute/end of turn is still MUCH more valuable against a +2 opponent than it would be against a +0.
A Fireball DPR drops considerably (at least +2 to their save) and the Creature also gets a bunch more hitpoints relative to a CL7 challenge (this isn't necessarily a strictly linear increase like a PC), and that damage can still be mitigated by other abilities.
The relative value of both is the same.
I suppose all of you want the "Treat Critically Failures of X as Failures" abilities proudly proclaimed as well? After all, it's legitimately the same thing.
And the funny thing about those abilities, they are rarer for Will Saves as opposed to Reflex/Fortitude and can apply to people of equal level.
So when I hear these arguments, what I actually hear is "I JUST DON'T LIKE IT, MEH!" because all of the metrics for Incapacitation are met by other abilities.
The only concern should be on the power itself, and as I've stated the "power" of being able to end a +2 encounter is almost certainly worth a slot.
...you can't Trip a Gelatinous Cube...Is this a house rule? Nothing in the Bestiary says Gelatonous Cubes are immune to Trip.
It's funny, because after I wrote that I thought about a thread I saw on reddit where it is technically legal and the GM couldn't figure out how to describe a Prone Gelatinous Cube.
Until an FAQ states "oozes can't be knocked prone", insert some other easy to identify analogy there LOL
In short, yes, you can Trip a Gelatinous Cube :) funny enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, yes, you can Trip a Gelatinous Cube :) funny enough.
Until bestiary 2 you could trip and grapple swarms (also lol, we got an errata with bestiary 2... but no notification lol)
I gave my oozes immune prone though, I couldn't describe it and my players had derailed the game with too many jokes about it. Thank god I am not a PFS gm lol.
As for incapacitation. AoE incapacitations are solid vs same or lower level foes and pretty worthwhile at higher levels when HP and damage have stopped scaling so much.
The whole knowing what level a foe is thing rankles quite a bit though and I can get the frustration. But I see it as Paizo either did this, or we lost that entire element of magic from the game.
The whole legendary save thing was an option from 5e but a bit clumsy in its own right.
Given the amount targets can be debuffed failures are still in reach (and why it is better than a flat -10) but yeah, I don't overly like it, but also don't have a good solution as I don't feel like going back to spellcaster dominance in the same way again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The three includes nothing at all, the one that was removed was the Critical Failure, which would be 4.
I wouldn't call "doing nothing" "one of the things the spell does."
No, it's still capable of getting a critical failure. Just not against enemies with incapacitation. It helps to read peoples' posts.
Then your post was then unclear: People are talking about incap when applied to higher level creatures as having devauled the spell. Saying "it isn't devauled, you can use it on lower level creatures just fine!" does not address the complaint:
"Red ones go faster!"
"Yes, but I want a blue one."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, people complain about Incapicitation spells but low level Incapacitation spells at level 1 (Color Spray, Sleep) are still fight winners against a huge range of potential foes at low level.
Yes they are reasonably good at level 1. It is once you get higher level spells they are irrelevant. That was pretty much always the case with those spells. It is just now it happens to things like Charm Person, and Calm Emotions as well. If you want to use them they have to be in your top slots or forget them. PF2 has seriously devalued this type of magic from lower level slots and its a big change to the game.
Level +1 enemies are not jokes. Taking out multiple lower level foes in one spell is also not nothing.
Lower level foes almost invariably are easy. level -2 foes are a cakewalk
I'm always fighting against equal or higher level foes. The GM is always beefing up and adding extra to encounters for our groups. Yes this is a reflection of our play experience and it does colour my opinions.
Work with the system, not against it, and things work better than you expect.No.
I've tried it. Most of what Paizo has done has been good. My expectations have been mostly spot on. But Incapacitation is something I will be house ruling to water down.
Im' running an official AP and so there isn't a lack of L-1 and L-2 enemies.
The bigger point is: you would never want to spend your highest levelled spells at one of them.
The basic criticism against Incapacitation is that it makes single-target save or die spells a domain for monsters only.
I have discussed this frequently and so far NONE of those defending the core rules have been able to explain or justify this. In fact, most try to ignore it as if it wasn't the centerpiece of the critique!
To end this post on a constructive note, Gortle - not sure if you're aware, but I (with the helpful assistance of one...
What incapacitation spells specifically are you trying to make work?
They seem to primarily affect Dominate, Paralyze, Charm, Color Spray, and perma-stun spells like Synaptic Pulse.
I've been going over the list and a few spells that do similar things are not affected. Which makes me wonder how they made the choice for the incapacitation trait.
Stunning is basically like a slow at this point. It doesn't make you flat-footed or reduce your armor class or much else other than prevent you from taking a certain amount of actions per round. I found that surprising, but sure enough I looked up stunned and it's pretty much a slow spell. So Confusion which lacks the incapacitation trait does stun better than many stun spells.
So the main spells you're going against are outright death spells which are few and charm or dominate spells.
Another issue is the affliction removal spells which also require you to heighten a slot, which is pretty annoying. Though I am noticing a lot of higher level characters get those "If you succeed, you get a critical success" abilities which somewhat ameliorate these.
Another thing I'm starting to notice is the Spell DC and hit roll scaling is the bigger issue with low level casters. My feeling is all casters should be starting with Expert skill in casting and moving up faster to Legendary. If the wizard were really mirror the fighter for magic, his casting ability would rise faster than other classes. That would have really made him stand out.
I'm in a party right now where the fighter is dealing about 3 times as much damage as the rest of the party which contains a monk, wizard, warpriest cleric, and bard. I know those are probably the weakest damage dealing classes, but 300 percent more damage than the other classes indicates those classes are pretty terrible at lvl 10.
I'm really not sure that "power" here is a single dimension since for my money most of the classes have one or more thing that they can be really good at, and some of those things might be more or less common in a given adventure.
Casters do seem a little underwhelming at low levels, but that might be a legacy thing. Of the casters the Wizard seems like the least interesting in terms of what it gets for the feats, but it's efficient use of spell slots can be really impressive eventually.
For me incapacitation seems to be working as intended since those abilities seem to be designed to trivialize people who are below your weight class, not silver bullets for dangerous foes. It's not a "give your PCs their level thing" but if you describe them as particularly fearsome, or whatever, that generally signposts to use other things.
I wouldn't call "doing nothing" "one of the things the spell does."
It's one of the standard outcomes to get a Critical Success, so why wouldn't it be considered among the available outcomes.
You've yet to address the fact that a Success Tier applied against a CL + 0 vs. a CL + 2 does not have equal value, so why you would expect the distribution of that value to be the same.
A CL+0 creature getting hit with Blindness holds less value than a CL+2 creature getting hit with Blindness.
The DPR and damage associated with their reduction in reactions/hits, their reduction to AC universally, their reduction in movement, etc. are not the same. Their removal from the game via a spell should not be measured equally.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's one thing if you've played module before but it's considered extremely bad form to look up the module you are playing to know your encounter's beforehand. To the point where any of my DMS would change the encounters in response.
That has nothing to do with what I said. The person that I was responding to said that an experienced RPG player would come to the conclusion that incapacitate spells are bad and not use them. I pointed out that an experienced RPG player would actually understand the system, such as by reading the CRB and dissecting published adventures. From which they would learn that roughly 85% of encounters are going to be ones where an incapacitation spell like charm either doesn't run into any barriers at all, or where the effect even with the incapacitation trait can still play a major role. So the idea that you need to just assume every enemy will crit succeed on their save is patently false; it doesn't match the encounter building framework, the game's math, or the spread in published adventures. There are certainly encounters where incapacitation spells won't be effective, but those are a significant minority of the encounters a party will interact with during the course of an adventure.
Clearly you didn't read the post. It's a level 1 slot.I don't think 7 out of 20 pips on the die giving you an 18th level friendly for 1 hour is a terrible use of a Quickened spell.
Using a once per day resource - your ability to quicken. You have wasted your once per day ability on a super easy encounter 2 below your level. In terms of effectiveness and efficient use of resources a really poor action. The actual level 1 or leve 3 slot is almost totally irrelevant for a level 20 caster. They will have as many of those as they want thanks to cheap items.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are not supposed to incapacitate bosses. That is what it seems like to me. No more ending fights for casters while the martials standing around looking useless.
Not sure why that is hard to accept. PF1 high level casters ended fights quickly and easily in many, many, many battles before they even started. PF2 specifically does not want that to happen.
Is is because you don't understand or because you don't want to understand?
Spells that end creatures need to have a shot against boss monsters.
Otherwise they can't justify their using up your high level slots.
I'm not saying that as my personal opinion. I'm basing that on simple math. Your highest level slots are too precious. There are a lot of other things they can be spent on, that "one less mook" will never compete.
In other words, far too much defense of Incapacitation discusses the option in isolation, not taking the opportunity cost into account. It's as if you started with the goal of "there should not be any fast way to end a combat", forgetting to ask yourselves what this does to the wizard as a viable class. A game can't just offer Wizards as a class option for those that find it fun. It actually needs to answer the question "but why not just play another Barbarian?" That answer has always been "because it gives the party options that it wouldn't have". In Pathfinder 2, it seems the dev team has lost sight of this very basic notion.
Back to the decision point:
Even if you could use a mid-level slot to take out a mook, I'm not sure the action economy would make that a palatable option. In a fight lasting four rounds, you only have four shots at making a difference as a spellcaster. If your chance of nailing the mook is 50%, that means that in one out of four fights, you will start round three having accomplished exactly nothing. Given that you've just emptied yourself of your highest slots, that's just unacceptable. If you then compare that to damage spells, where you're...
I'm still not sold on the wizard or sorcerer.
But my view is changing on incapacitate spells. There are a lot of spells that are highly useful and trivialize fights that aren't incapacitate. Two off the top of my head are synesthesia and confusion. Both of those spells are very nasty and no incapacitate. You hit a boss with them, he is likely done within a round or two.
I'm not going to get in this argument with you as one thing I am sold on is that low level wizards and sorcerers suck terribly. They are fricking terrible at the job they are made for which is magical damage and fight control. Their spellcasting stats don't advance fast enough and they need something to boost them.
Now that I've seen higher level casters, I'm thinking less of removing incapacitate and perhaps accelerating the caster skill advancement for sorcerer and wizards. Make them start as expert for their spells versus trained. Advance them to Legendary faster. The slower advancement of the other caster classes is offset by better class abilities. If a sorcerer and wizard are going to be the most dependent on magical power being their primary source of winning, they should be clearly the best at it.
And as I'm experiencing the nastiness of these higher level spells, I'm thinking boosting their spellcasting training might be the better way to improve the lower level experience since missing saves and better attack rolls are essential to them doing well.
It's one thing if you've played module before but it's considered extremely bad form to look up the module you are playing to know your encounter's beforehand. To the point where any of my DMS would change the encounters in response.That has nothing to do with what I said. The person that I was responding to said that an experienced RPG player would come to the conclusion that incapacitate spells are bad and not use them. I pointed out that an experienced RPG player would actually understand the system, such as by reading the CRB and dissecting published adventures. From which they would learn that roughly 85% of encounters are going to be ones where an incapacitation spell like charm either doesn't run into any barriers at all, or where the effect even with the incapacitation trait can still play a major role. So the idea that you need to just assume every enemy will crit succeed on their save is patently false; it doesn't match the encounter building framework, the game's math, or the spread in published adventures. There are certainly encounters where incapacitation spells won't be effective, but those are a significant minority of the encounters a party will interact with during the course of an adventure.
You are still saying the same thing to me but I'll try to answer another way.
Percentage don't mean squat. If your going to blindly assume your not running into that 15 percent and consider that waste if spell slots an acceptable tax then we just disagree at a base level.
The system basically needs the DM and the player to be on the same page with specific wording so the player knows when the enemy is too powerful to want to realistically try it on. Or else is just going to waste the very limited per day relevant level slots trying to figure it out.
And I've played with many a GM that isn't going to simply tell you this creature is obviously too powerful or weak. This has not been an issue in other ttrpgs. But is in 2e because you can't reliably utilize incapacitation in a fair way without breaking immersion. Unless you settle upon trigger words with the DM beforehand.
There are certainly encounters where incapacitation spells won't be effective, but those are a significant minority of the encounters a party will interact with during the course of an adventure.
No - for my group it is the majority of encounters. We are always fighting uplevel. If we aren't the encounter is trivial and a filler - where our main goal is to deal with it and not waste many resources.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using a once per day resource - your ability to quicken. You have wasted your once per day ability on a super easy encounter 2 below your level.Clearly you didn't read the post. It's a level 1 slot.I don't think 7 out of 20 pips on the die giving you an 18th level friendly for 1 hour is a terrible use of a Quickened spell.
No, I didn't. As specifically mentioned in my original post, I was using the numbers for a moderate or severe encounter, which will usually be made up of a variety of monsters from APL -2 to APL +2. APL+3 solo boss fights are exceedingly rare and something I already accounted for in the numbers I mentioned. And since that spell lasts for an hour, I used a level 1 resource to simplify not just the moderate or severe encounter where I cast the spell, but potentially numerous other encounters as well.
There are certainly encounters where incapacitation spells won't be effective, but those are a significant minority of the encounters a party will interact with during the course of an adventure.No - for my group it is the majority of encounters. We are always fighting uplevel. If we aren't the encounter is trivial and a filler - where our main goal is to deal with it and not waste many resources.
The fact that your home group is designing encounters that aren't consistent with the game's baseline doesn't establish a problem with the game, but rather an inconsistency between the game's expectations and your preferred playstyle. Which is absolutely fine and perfectly acceptable, it just needs to be noted that this isn't an issue with the game, but rather an adjustment that needs to be made to accommodate a preference that is not consistent with the presented framework.
I'd also expect incapacitation spells to be less useful in organized play than the rest of the game, since it's much more likely that parties will have characters of mixed levels and anyone playing up is going to be below the game's expected curve. That's also not an issue with the game framework, but rather one created by PFS's necessary house rules that modify the game to play as an interactive non-digital MMO.
There is a difference between "We always play up and thus don't interact with the game in the way it expects" and "The game doesn't work as presented". The first is a perfectly normal thing to happen and the solution is implementing house rules that adjust the game to your preferred playstyle. The second is an actual issue and not representative of the role incapacitation plays in the game's expected environment.
The fact that your home group is designing encounters that aren't consistent with the game's baseline doesn't establish a problem with the game, but rather an inconsistency between the game's expectations and your preferred playstyle. Which is absolutely fine and perfectly acceptable, it just needs to be noted that this isn't an issue with the game, but rather an adjustment that needs to be made to accommodate a preference that is not consistent with the presented framework.I'd also expect incapacitation spells to be less useful in organized play than the rest of the game, since it's much more likely that parties...
I reject the notion of a game that can't handle a range of players. That has to be a feature of its design. Pathfinder has always had a large portion of players that want a crunchier game.
The bottom line is - as you graciously acknowledge - that in several circumstances they are going to be a very bad idea. Hence my position that they are a trap is fair. I would be very careful about taking a spell with this trait. It will trip up some players who haven't been aware of the rules. It will be used by other players at the wrong time - because the invisible meta knowledge of the opponents level is not always clear - and be a total waste of a action.
These spells remain a bad idea, avoid them like the plague.
IMHO The game mechanism should be fixed - yes I know many people like you disagree. But I will be house ruling it, to water its effects down. Which the designers recommend that anyone does with any rule that is a problem for their group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that your home group is designing encounters that aren't consistent with the game's baseline doesn't establish a problem with the game, but rather an inconsistency between the game's expectations and your preferred playstyle. Which is absolutely fine and perfectly acceptable, it just needs to be noted that this isn't an issue with the game, but rather an adjustment that needs to be made to accommodate a preference that is not consistent with the presented framework.I'd also expect incapacitation spells to be less useful in organized play than the rest of the game, since it's much more likely that parties...
I reject the notion of a game that can't handle a range of players. That has to be a feature of its design. Pathfinder has always had a large portion of players that want a crunchier game.
The bottom line is - as you graciously acknowledge - that in several circumstances they are going to be a very bad idea. Hence my position that they are a trap is fair. I would be very careful about taking a spell with this trait. It will trip up some players who haven't been aware of the rules. It will be used by other players at the wrong time - because the invisible meta knowledge of the opponents level is not always clear - and be a total waste of a action.
These spells remain a bad idea, avoid them like the plague.
IMHO The game mechanism should be fixed - yes I know many people like you disagree. But I will be house ruling it, to water its effects down. Which the designers recommend that anyone does with any rule that is a problem for their group.
Please post any incapaciation-related house rules in the homebrew. I dislike incapacitation as written and would like to change it for my home game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hence my position that they are a trap is fair. I would be very careful about taking a spell with this trait. It will trip up some players who haven't been aware of the rules. It will be used by other players at the wrong time - because the invisible meta knowledge of the opponents level is not always clear - and be a total waste of a action.
Its only a trap if players don't understand it or are denied the meta knowledge needed to make an informed decision about the use of these spells.
Therefore, information is the key to "fixing" the issue.
I've gotten great use out of them before, seen my peers do so as well, and expect to on an ongoing basis in the future.
I much prefer a setup that encourages players to build a toolbox from a range of tools with different specialized purposes. One tool - one spell - should not be applicable in all scenarios, unless that's its function and its giving up power in exchange for broad utility (like Fear, or Slow).
But this is indeed what Houserules are for, if this balance does not suit you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please post any incapaciation-related house rules in the homebrew. I dislike incapacitation as written and would like to change it for my home game.
The fact that your home group is designing encounters that aren't consistent with the game's baseline doesn't establish a problem with the game, but rather an inconsistency between the game's expectations and your preferred playstyle. Which is absolutely fine and perfectly acceptable, it just needs to be noted that this isn't an issue with the game, but rather an adjustment that needs to be made to accommodate a preference that is not consistent with the presented framework.I'd also expect incapacitation spells to be less useful in organized play than the rest of the game, since it's much more likely that parties...
I reject the notion of a game that can't handle a range of players. That has to be a feature of its design. Pathfinder has always had a large portion of players that want a crunchier game.
The bottom line is - as you graciously acknowledge - that in several circumstances they are going to be a very bad idea. Hence my position that they are a trap is fair. I would be very careful about taking a spell with this trait. It will trip up some players who haven't been aware of the rules. It will be used by other players at the wrong time - because the invisible meta knowledge of the opponents level is not always clear - and be a total waste of a action.
These spells remain a bad idea, avoid them like the plague.
IMHO The game mechanism should be fixed - yes I know many people like you disagree. But I will be house ruling it, to water its effects down. Which the designers recommend that anyone does with any rule that is a problem for their group.
Removing incapacitation really messes up the game. When I tried to do it, it really made the game a problem. You might be better off deciding incapacitation on a spell by spell basis.
Calm Emotions is for sure one of those spells you never want to remove incapacitation on as it is pretty much an AoE encounter ender. A spell like Dominate might be completely fine to remove incapacitation because maintaining in on any creature of decent power would be difficult unless it critically failed often. A spell like Paralyze I think you could probably remove Incapacitation and probably be ok if you don't mind watching a creature get whacked a bit. I may do a spell review myself and remove incapacitation on a spell by spell basis.
Please post any incapaciation-related house rules in the homebrew. I dislike incapacitation as written and would like to change it for my home game.
The fact that your home group is designing encounters that aren't consistent with the game's baseline doesn't establish a problem with the game, but rather an inconsistency between the game's expectations and your preferred playstyle. Which is absolutely fine and perfectly acceptable, it just needs to be noted that this isn't an issue with the game, but rather an adjustment that needs to be made to accommodate a preference that is not consistent with the presented framework.I'd also expect incapacitation spells to be less useful in organized play than the rest of the game, since it's much more likely that parties...
I reject the notion of a game that can't handle a range of players. That has to be a feature of its design. Pathfinder has always had a large portion of players that want a crunchier game.
The bottom line is - as you graciously acknowledge - that in several circumstances they are going to be a very bad idea. Hence my position that they are a trap is fair. I would be very careful about taking a spell with this trait. It will trip up some players who haven't been aware of the rules. It will be used by other players at the wrong time - because the invisible meta knowledge of the opponents level is not always clear - and be a total waste of a action.
These spells remain a bad idea, avoid them like the plague.
IMHO The game mechanism should be fixed - yes I know many people like you disagree. But I will be house ruling it, to water its effects down. Which the designers recommend that anyone does with any rule that is a problem for their group.Removing incapacitation really messes up the game. When I tried to do it, it really made the game a problem. You might be better off deciding incapacitation on a spell by spell basis.
Calm Emotions is for...
I'm happy to hear you stuck at it and gave it a try.
I think a spell by spell, measured approach is the best way to approach this.
I dont have enough data yet, but Synesthesia is a case of a spell I'm shocked isn't Incapacitation, based on how extremely disruptive it is from Success down to Crit Failure.
...Removing incapacitation really messes up the game. When I tried to do it, it really made the game a problem. You might be better off deciding incapacitation on a spell by spellPlease post any incapaciation-related house rules in the homebrew. I dislike incapacitation as written and would like to change it for my home game.
The fact that your home group is designing encounters that aren't consistent with the game's baseline doesn't establish a problem with the game, but rather an inconsistency between the game's expectations and your preferred playstyle. Which is absolutely fine and perfectly acceptable, it just needs to be noted that this isn't an issue with the game, but rather an adjustment that needs to be made to accommodate a preference that is not consistent with the presented framework.I'd also expect incapacitation spells to be less useful in organized play than the rest of the game, since it's much more likely that parties...
I reject the notion of a game that can't handle a range of players. That has to be a feature of its design. Pathfinder has always had a large portion of players that want a crunchier game.
The bottom line is - as you graciously acknowledge - that in several circumstances they are going to be a very bad idea. Hence my position that they are a trap is fair. I would be very careful about taking a spell with this trait. It will trip up some players who haven't been aware of the rules. It will be used by other players at the wrong time - because the invisible meta knowledge of the opponents level is not always clear - and be a total waste of a action.
These spells remain a bad idea, avoid them like the plague.
IMHO The game mechanism should be fixed - yes I know many people like you disagree. But I will be house ruling it, to water its effects down. Which the designers recommend that anyone does with any rule that is a problem for their group.
Designers always let at least one spell through that is sick. Synesthesia is that spell. Good thing is not AoE. If you Quicken Synesthesia with a hard hitting AoE or single target reflex save spell, that could hurt. Or Synesthesia and True Target, ouch.