I've been thinking about running some arena style matches. Gladiator stuff.
The idea is to have two equal teams build characters then fight in an arena. PF2's combat system feels tight enough that this ought to work fairly well. I think the rules (aside from normal PF2 rules) could be pretty simple and straight forward... basically just have at it. But, I submit this here either as inspiration or in case somebody can detect a glaring problem that I've overlooked. Here we go:
Pathfinder 2 Arena Rules:
--Teams have equal numbers of characters - 1v1, 2v2, etc.
--All characters are the same level.
--Equip characters using Table 10-10 (core page 510)
--Only one character of a given class allowed per team - this rule does not extend to multiclass feats
--At the start of each fight, characters are assumed to have full HP, be free of conditions (other than conditions like the Giant Barbarian's Clumsy 1), to have all spells and daily abilities available, and to have ammunition loaded into any applicable weapons.
And that ought to do it for the rules, I think.
Beyond that, I think it would be advisable to have at least a few arena maps prepared and to randomly decide which map will be used AFTER teams are declared.
One map should be fairly open, one should have loads of walls and other obstructions, etc., that way your teams can't be built to capitalize on the opportunities or challenges of only a single arena (i.e. a map that is completely open but filled with greater difficult terrain would favor a ranged team and punish a melee team; a small map without cover would favor a melee team and punish a ranged team.
Arena designers are encouraged to craft them with an eye towards fairness. Starting one team on an elevated platform that requires the other team to Jump to get to while offering the other team no such benefit is not ideal.
Arena designers are further encouraged to get creative. Pits filled with fire, or spikes projecting from walls will encourage players to get creative with shoves. Swaying rope bridges will allow dextrous characters to gain access to areas that other characters may have difficulty reaching.
If you make your team capable of healing in any way, then you can make use of the tools you brought. Elixers and potions, Battle Medicine, any of the classes that can heal... I think they all have a place in a format like this.
What about access to Uncommon options? (For higher level characters that might be assumed to have gained some from playing rather than build.)
Will builds be advancing or should they be built to peak at specific levels? What level(s) would that be given how casters & martials have different peaks along their paths?
Building a fair arena does seem the most difficult task, as is even determining what "fair" means. A team w/ significant mobility (or insert any aspect actually) has made investments that should pay off, but how much compared to investing in other aspects of battle?
And would one equate randomness w/ fairness?
Does a limited set of known maps favor planners and adapters too much?
Do obstacles favor some classes/builds more than others? One might have to include Will/mental-stat based ones for balance, right? Or is it just about the beef (not that a 1/day arena doesn't have major perks for casters already)?
Fairness can get pretty meta even in-game much less when one thinks about the players themselves making teams or having player knowledge (rather than character knowledge via experience or Recall Knowledge) of how members of other teams can/will operate.
And would an all-Dhampir team (loaded w/ lots of Harm spells) be unfair?
(In smaller groups, I'd say not so much, but in large groups the AoE spamming would be game-changing.) Heck, what's a fair team size? (If one wants diverse class representation & teamwork that is)
Good questions!
I think to keep things simple, only common equipment would be allowed. Uncommon class options would be available via feat unlocks as per usual, as would equipment made available through racial feat unlocks (Dwarven war axe et al).
I don’t view this being played in anything like a normal campaign, so I suppose you would build characters from scratch to the agreed upon level, equip it, and go straight to the fighting.
The level of a given fight would be agreed upon by the players ahead of time. Whether some classes are at a power peak at any given level is a bit of math and a bit of personal preference... up to the players whether they want to play at any specific level or not.
Fair maps, maps known ahead of time, etc:
I think maybe a minimum of 3 maps, known ahead of time, with a random roll after teams are locked in is the best you can do. Ideally the maps are mirrors so that it won’t favor one starting location over the other, and ideally each map is distinct enough that simply the chance of having any one of them promotes the building of a team that has at least a degree of versatility.
Just about the beef... yeah, martial will likely be pretty strong in this... but consider the impact of invisibility, flight, etc. I think that casters will have a place in this format.
Meta fairness and character vs player knowledge... again I don’t view this as an RP heavy thing, and even if it was an RP thing, everybody knows the strengths and weaknesses of their favorite pro athletes and teams, so I would also suspect that knowledge of competing teams would be freely available. Or at very least, when you look across the arena and see a rogue and a wizard, you'd have a pretty good idea to avoid using Will abilities on the Wizard and avoid using Reflex abilities on the Rogue.
All Harm dhampir is interesting! My own crazy scenario was wizard/sorcerer who can auto hit magic missiles from 120 feet away for average 11 damage. In a 2v2 arena at level 1 that’s a pretty reliable 22 damage which will drop most characters. Both can bring 2 magic missiles, should be a 2 round win right? I think most of the fun of a format like this would be in the chase to find and break the currently dominant team makeup.
Best team size... entirely up to the players. Personally I like the feel of a 2v2 and I like low level if I’m playing myself, as it will take time to build these characters and they may only be used once and discarded. PF2 is pretty easy to build in, yes, but I’m lazy lol! I really don’t feel like there is One True Answer here. Personal preference between the players involved is the most important factor.
I appreciate your input and questions! They have made me think about a few things that I wasn’t thinking about before.
I don't think you'd know what classes you were facing, and as a player I'd likely go out of my way to step over the already blurry lines (especially since I already do that with my PCs!).
Was that precision damage from a Rogue (low Fort) or a Ranger (low Will)?
Was that off of the Primal list or the Arcane? (And was the caster alluring?)
Heal beats Magic Missile. :) (Especially with Shield absorbing a share.)
Though that does raise a point about focused fire. It'd likely be best if none of the maps allowed for 1st round focused fire. Even if it's mostly an open field, a barrier or two would make the fight more interesting than seeing who wins initiative. Of course, to avoid trench warfare, there could be a variety of challenges, i.e. Capture the Flag (really bulky!) or King of the Hill (who's on top the most rounds out of X, or who's on top at end of round Y).
Might even let the teams choose obstacles and set pieces and where to place them (knowing they'll be in a mirror position on the other side).
Maybe even add monsters or items that need to be destroyed. Lots of options.
It'd be interesting to keep actions secret from each other. You'd likely need separate maps! Oh certainly now that I remember Stealth & Invisibility will matter. One Counterstrike map I made had invisible walls (though they were marked on the floor), so you could track your enemies and vice-versa. Might make GMing easier.
Hm, I do really like the idea of not declaring classes to your opponent and letting them just figure it out over the course of the battle! Cool!
Letting the players build the arena ahead of time is nifty. I used to play a lot of war games and that was a typical theme... I place, you place, and if one player decides “OK that's enough, I won’t place any more terrain” the other player can opt to place one more, then it's game on. I can see that working.
First round alpha strike... yeah, that's no fun. I think a good standard would be that deployment zones can’t have line of sight to each other. So at minimum there is a wall in front like a speedball paintball course.
Having a GM would make some things easier I guess, but it also then requires a GM who won’t be doing anything other than arbitrating invisibility. If two people can agree to play fairly and just remove invisible characters from the map and keep track of where they go, that is simplest. If you can’t trust your opponent.... well, play with whom you can/will, but I ain’t got no time for that myself...
It's not just invisibility though.
It's "even though I don't directly detect the enemy on the other side of this fog/wall/doorway, wouldn't I expect them to be there? Would I normally have slowed down to Stealth or tossed an AoE over there?" (Assuming it's a modest expenditure.)
In attempting to not metagame, one might ruin one's actual game by limiting oneself from normal paranoid-PC options.
Sight issues are one reason one might want few obstacles to visibility (or a mirrored ceiling!) even if there's plentiful terrain and barriers.
But then again, that hinders the Rogue (et al)! Doh.
Plus there are illusions and other trickery to adjudicate, unless one wishes a cleaner game.