| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
By contrast, the Fighter starts at Expert in all Simple, Martial, and Unarmed attacks, so why would you play any other class if you wanted to attack with weapons?
Barbarians deal far more damage on a hit. I'm talking 1d12+4 (average 10.5) vs 1d12+10 (average 16.5). And that's with the highest die weapon.
I can continue this with each martial class.What would any other caster offer compared to 10% extra fail + 10% extra crit fail chances, especially given the wizard can just decide to have more top-level spells than anyone?
Good for the storm druid who has 2 castings of lightning bolt plus Tempest Surge, the wizard can have 5 castings that are all 20% better.
I just keep circling back to both my AoA campaign (containing a wizard player) and a friend's homebrew campaign (containing a sorcerer). The fighters, rangers, and rogues were all wide eyes and smiles while the wizard and sorcerer players had slumped looks of disappointed resignation after multiple turns of subpar results on limited resources. The dm in me screamed in empathy and I justed wanted the feels of play to be equitable. Martials have unlimited attacks while casters need both tactical PARTY play AND thoughtful deduction of monster vulnerabilities to get favorable results on their limited resource. It just seems a little lop sided to me when half of the classes can be best enjoyed by anyone while the other half is best enjoyed by dedicated war gamers. It just seems like a big ask. An overall +2 would go a long way in addressing these issues in a game with such tight math. Just make them extremely rare items subject to dm fiat (I realize it's easily homebrewed on a table to table basis. I just kinda want it codified). I can honest take or leave caster buffs as a player (simply accepting the design philosophy of the edition and having fun regardless) but as a dm I strongly, strongly hate seeing people not having fun
I mean if we're talking anecdotes, the wizard has consistently saved our campaign from disaster. Hideous Laughter on a Will-weak boss crippled it, removing AoO and the third action from a two-weapon fighter that was destroying our party. Fireball and Slow have been his favourite 3rd level spells thus far, and he's also dropped Magic Missile for the unavoidable damage when necessary.
Between all that and Electric Arc, definitely been outshining my swashbuckler by a solid margin. To be completely fair, my rolls have also been bad enough that I've never crit on a finisher by late level 6, so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just keep circling back to both my AoA campaign (containing a wizard player) and a friend's homebrew campaign (containing a sorcerer). The fighters, rangers, and rogues were all wide eyes and smiles while the wizard and sorcerer players had slumped looks of disappointed resignation after multiple turns of subpar results on limited resources. The dm in me screamed in empathy and I justed wanted the feels of play to be equitable. Martials have unlimited attacks while casters need both tactical PARTY play AND thoughtful deduction of monster vulnerabilities to get favorable results on their limited resource. It just seems a little lop sided to me when half of the classes can be best enjoyed by anyone while the other half is best enjoyed by dedicated war gamers. It just seems like a big ask. An overall +2 would go a long way in addressing these issues in a game with such tight math. Just make them extremely rare items subject to dm fiat (I realize it's easily homebrewed on a table to table basis. I just kinda want it codified). I can honest take or leave caster buffs as a player (simply accepting the design philosophy of the edition and having fun regardless) but as a dm I strongly, strongly hate seeing people not having fun
Yep
Almost everyone understand flanking from the start. It is moderately easy to get and happens fairly often even with novices.
Making enemies Frightened or Stupified takes more effort and doesn't last. Timing is important. Casters really need it to get their critical chances above 5% so they can shine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep
Almost everyone understand flanking from the start. It is moderately easy to get and happens fairly often even with novices.
Making enemies Frightened or Stupified takes more effort and doesn't last. Timing is important. Casters really need it to get their critical chances above 5% so they can shine.
This is one huge thing I love about PF2. Every character can support each other very well. Even just from skills not even going into class features.
There is one thing for certain if players delay tactical combat will go 100% smoother. I am realizing some players really have a hard time comprehending when delay is good or bad. The power of buffs/debuffs can easily double if you delay smart.
Strength - Tripping / Grappling really helps your ranged characters and other melee so they don't have to get into dangerous positions.
Intellect - Let's players find information about the enemies so you can exploit them or finding about an AoO is great.
Wisdom - Same as above but also gets battle medicine!
Charisma - I admit I just love Charisma so much between bon mot and demoralize you can really help your party.
Sadly it is rare to see new Martial players use these options. In my limited experience some players almost always use a second attack than using this effects. Even when you tell players a -1 to all dcs is great it seems like players would rather just do Xd10+X even at like a -10 penalty and maybe flank. Oddly I see players do attack+attack+demoralize instead of demoralize+attack+attack too...
This can leave casters getting 0 benefits from the team and feel worse because of it imo. If a martial trips + demoralizes a caster actually could probably do decent damage with a true strike + spell (fire ray is decent).
Delaying has been a surprisingly hard tactic to teach and casters can benefit greatly from it to before unloading their "big spell". Just as a random example of a turn order...
Player A (Bard)
Player B
Monster A
Player C
Player D
I mentioned oh player C/D could delay so the Bard can buff/debuff the enemy before your attack for 0 negative effects. Then these things can occur...
1. The player agrees and delays his turn for a net gain of +1-5 modifier. Yay we win the fight easy.
2. The player states that is stupid "I lose my turn". Then they just walk up an attack giving no buffs for the team and just losing like 20-50% damage. This causes the players to have a much harder fight.
3. I spend like 10+ minutes explaining and normally they delay but afterwards they still don't seem to understand why it was good.
It really just seems like common since to me but it is surprisingly hard to teach people.
Oddly I actually saw a player delay until after Monster A in this type of situation completely losing his turn. I do this in PFS because I got tired of explaining this :(, it is just so hard to get 3+ players to delay for positive results in PFS.
So when a "simple" tactic like this is hard to teach I 100% understand why it is hard to explain why casters are good. Without delaying casters can feel so much worse. In this example if Player B is in a group that doesn't delay their power level would be horrible. Even just looking at level 1...
If Player B uses Magic Weapon the ally that he used it on could get knocked out and he would have "wasted his turn".
-Delaying and using it first gives the Martial a great turn
If Player B uses fear and the monster rolls a success they get frightened 1 and it immediately end on the monsters turn.
-Frightened one is good if your party all attacks but near useless if the monster goes next.
If Player B uses a cantrip and no one debuffed he could miss.
-This one isn't a huge negative but just a quick example that cantrips with 0 debuffs/buffs are just ok.
If Player B uses bless then the ally right next to him dies he "wasted his turn"
-Bless is great if everyone gets to use the +1 buff right away.
In all these examples delaying 100% makes players more powerful and casters especially. Moral of the story is Caster's aren't weak with smart tactical play but if no one wants to use tactics they could potentially feel bad. Having a Caster use Synthesia first vs last in turn order is game changing.
I am finding VERY hard to explain any sort of tactics to players though. Just for example I find it super hard to show that demoralize/bon mot/recall knowledge/athletics manuevers are actually good. It is just impossible for some people to see trip is sometimes better than Xd10+X in some situations.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If casters are to equal martials in attack rolls, please give easy access to martials to attacks that target the 3 saves and hurt the enemy even on a failure. And that target more than one opponent. So that they can try to equal casters too.
Sadly, there are no spells with spell attack rolls (Ray of Frost, Acid Arrow, etc.) that target Fortitude, Reflex, or Will. Likewise, those spells have no effect on a failure.
When people call for boosting caster's accuracy, they usually speak specifically of spell attack rolls, not spell DCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of a level 6 metamagic feat available to most(?) casters that lets you spend your 'third action' to roll a spell attack you're about to cast twice and take the higher result, with the fortune tag.
This is already doable with True Strike and makes spell attack rolls plenty powerful, its just clunky because of the way it takes up and uses level 1 spell slots to do. We also know it isn't overpowered to be able to do this, because while un-intuitive, loading up on True Strikes through other means is already doable since a wand or something with it is so cheap, and I've heard no reports of spell casters breaking the game under those circumstance.
This would make spell attacks *much* stronger, add an action cost to compensate that people likely wouldn't mind playing, adds a tactical consideration as you might need to move or something instead, and prevent the increased accuracy from stacking with other metamagic effects. Level 6 means it takes some investment, and more importantly, doesn't completely obliviate true strike, which still has a low level niche, and for people who don't want to spend a sixth level feat (this puts it nicely out of range of natural ambition and such as well.)
Overall, its likely to do what it needs to do in order to make spell attack rolls feel more usable if you want to use them a bunch, without meaningfully changing the balance of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of a level 6 metamagic feat available to most(?) casters that lets you spend your 'third action' to roll a spell attack you're about to cast twice and take the higher result, with the fortune tag.
This is already doable with True Strike and makes spell attack rolls plenty powerful, its just clunky because of the way it takes up and uses level 1 spell slots to do. We also know it isn't overpowered to be able to do this, because while un-intuitive, loading up on True Strikes through other means is already doable since a wand or something with it is so cheap, and I've heard no reports of spell casters breaking the game under those circumstance.
This would make spell attacks *much* stronger, add an action cost to compensate that people likely wouldn't mind playing, adds a tactical consideration as you might need to move or something instead, and prevent the increased accuracy from stacking with other metamagic effects. Level 6 means it takes some investment, and more importantly, doesn't completely obliviate true strike, which still has a low level niche, and for people who don't want to spend a sixth level feat (this puts it nicely out of range of natural ambition and such as well.)
Overall, its likely to do what it needs to do in order to make spell attack rolls feel more usable if you want to use them a bunch, without meaningfully changing the balance of the game.
I could get behind this. Makes my true strike staff nexus wizard a bit superfluous but I could always pick a different spell lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it should be innate or an item, because those things would materially increase their power, whereas I suspect they currently keep up numerically through high damage numbers, while mainly feeling bad due to their hit chances-- rather than being actually under-powered.
Its something that lets you use a specific subcategory of spell better, I don't see it as a feat tax because I don't think all builds would take it, its very much an option you would select to focus heavily on attack roll blasting.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Metamagic feats have only one problem for me: They're freaking boring and often way too tame.
It is a perfect system to fully realize casters and make them unique, yet it's so underutilized and standardized. The only saving grace is that some archetypes have different ones that are somewhat interesting.
Of all the sacred cows that should've been shot in the head, the Vancian system was the one that I hoped for the most. After the recent rise in highly detailed magical systems in fantasy literature, it would've been the perfect time to bring in a new magic system taking inspiration from the best, much like Gygax did with Jack Vance's books.
I said that because I've been thinking more and more that this is another underlying system issue that creates a lot of problems for classes for very little benefit in return, that maybe a complete overhaul would've been a good direction. I completely understand I'm on the minority, though, and I don't expect anyone to come nowhere near agreeing with me, I just feel the need to say it. Hopefully in the future we get an alternative system akin to those found in the GMG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They wouldn't be spending all of their time standing still to cast, because not every spell you cast is a spell attack roll, even if you want to use a lot of them-- I also don't think standing still is really a problem? as in the current game its competitive with other third actions, so while you might be trying to avoid moving around so much, you're still actively doing things and making plays with that third action.
I don't see high mobility as an intrinsic part of the fantasy of playing a character who emphasizes spell attack rolls, a build that wants to plop down and artillery as best they can, moving as pressured by circumstance, seems fine to me.
I don't know that the rune would feel good, spells take 2 actions to cast which preclude the second strike martials use to have a good chance of getting a hit in. Which means its only putting in the work of a single +1 increase, obviously useful, but probably doesn't fix the problem. It would also encourage people to stand around anyway, since True Strike is already in the game and can, as I've discussed, be loaded up on. Every +1 raises True Strike's value in creating critical hits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally love metamagic in PF2. I think there are plenty of good ones so far..
My favorite is probably reach spell, it can potentially be a lot more helpful than move+cast spell.
It is nice that metamagic is useful at every level while in PF1 it is mostly great at higher levels with some exceptions.
I do look forward to some new ones in the future. I know they kind of are staying away from once a day abilities but I would love some more powerful metamagic that uses focus points or just once a day.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another problem with the 1 action Metamagics is that Concentrating on a previously cast spell also takes an action. If you have to concentrate on a spell, that only leaves you 2 actions to actually do anything else, like being persistent Slowed 1 after casting any ongoing concentration spell. That is crippling for casters.
5e solved the problem by allowing casters to maintain 1 Concentration effect per round as a free action that can still be interfered with by damage or situational/environmental disturbances. Why didn't Pathfinder 2e do the same?
Another problem with the 1 action Metamagics is that Concentrating on a previously cast spell also takes an action. If you have to concentrate on a spell, that only leaves you 2 actions to actually do anything else, like being persistent Slowed 1 after casting any ongoing concentration spell. That is crippling for casters.
5e solved the problem by allowing casters to maintain 1 Concentration effect per round as a free action that can still be interfered with by damage or situational/environmental disturbances. Why didn't Pathfinder 2e do the same?
Just want to say 5e is so much worse IMO and would never want their limiting mechanic. Characters only get one concentration action and the abilities go away randomly if you get hit.
Not sure why anyone would want that. In Pathfinder 2e you get the option to have 2-3 "concentration" spells at once. Also 5e had every buffs/debuff spell with concentration becaus of this.
Theoretically in PF2 the spells with sustained actions are supposed to be stronger. Yes it takes an action but it is supposed to be a "strong" lasting effect. It is fun being able to combine buffs in PF2.
I would say 5e feels so much worse for casters in this department. Since 2e gives a lot more freedom. 5e you just cast your 1 concentration spell per combat than just use nukes/heals every turn because if it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another problem with the 1 action Metamagics is that Concentrating on a previously cast spell also takes an action. If you have to concentrate on a spell, that only leaves you 2 actions to actually do anything else, like being persistent Slowed 1 after casting any ongoing concentration spell. That is crippling for casters.
5e solved the problem by allowing casters to maintain 1 Concentration effect per round as a free action that can still be interfered with by damage or situational/environmental disturbances. Why didn't Pathfinder 2e do the same?
"Problems" and "Opportunity Costs" are different things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like making metamagics cost a free action but only one per spell would make them a lot more viable and fun, without being too overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like making metamagics cost a free action but only one per spell would make them a lot more viable and fun, without being too overpowered.
Free Actions already do that. You can only attach one of them per "action", in this case your 2-action activity can only have one Free Action attached to it. If you never played a Bard, it's hard to run into this aspect of the rules.
I feel like making metamagics cost a free action but only one per spell would make them a lot more viable and fun, without being too overpowered.
I agree. Certainly on some limited basis via a feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like making metamagics cost a free action but only one per spell would make them a lot more viable and fun, without being too overpowered.I agree. Certainly on some limited basis via a feat.
I mean metamagics for free for a free action would be a crazy power jump for caster and not sure how you are saying they wouldnt be too overpowered
It would 100% forces casters to grab metamagic feats which PF2 tries to avoid. Of course some some classes do kind of have amazing almost mandatory feats.
It would just push metamagic from being a situational 3rd to just making spells better.
"Maybe" a metamagic focus power like cackle would be okay but I think that might just be a little too good still.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think metamagic should use up actions, but I only if most spells are single action cast by default. Would have been far better if spells were just balanced as single action things as the more common state.
I feel like making metamagics cost a free action but only one per spell would make them a lot more viable and fun, without being too overpowered.I agree. Certainly on some limited basis via a feat.I mean metamagics for free for a free action would be a crazy power jump for caster and not sure how you are saying they wouldnt be too overpowered
It would 100% forces casters to grab metamagic feats which PF2 tries to avoid. Of course some some classes do kind of have amazing almost mandatory feats.
It would just push metamagic from being a situational 3rd to just making spells better.
"Maybe" a metamagic focus power like cackle would be okay but I think that might just be a little too good still.
Aren't people arguing the balance of caster classes?
No not that is not what I meant. There is a range of limited options, maybe once per day with one particular metamagic feat. Which is technically weaker than the level 10 feat to quicken spell, and could be lower level than that. Yes metamagic Mastery is a level 20 feat. But there are some compromise options. Maybe with some limits there could be a slightly lower level version of that.
Also we could get stronger metamagic options as higher level feats. I could easily sit down and belt out a dozen extra feats, just by looking at PF1. Maybe even some metamagic that was weaker but was a free action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are never going to feel powerful, they'll never deal much damage (unless you get to face a huge number of weak foes, which is sadly quite rare), they won't be crippling enemies with a big save or suck.
They'll apply an unstackable (as in everything is just status penalties so there's no combining multiple spells to get a bigger penalty) numerical penalty and perhaps cost the enemy an action or two if they're using a really good spell.
This is a useful role as by default monsters hit harder and more often than players of the same and bosses will have even better stats, so those small penalties are needed to make the fight fair and one less action means the monster can't use whatever terrifying 3 action abilities it has or move and use a 2 action ability.
It's still pretty underwhelming if you're used to 1e where spells can make fights easy rather than just manageable.
There's buffs too of course, but much like the above penalties, it's all status bonuses, so once you've got one there's no need to ever use another.
Oh and remember that they're only useful cast on the martials, they're not nearly enough to make a caster competent with weapons and nothing will ever raise your save DCs.
At least you have a bit more variety in options than a martial (though only at higher levels, you'll spend a good chunk of the game stuck spamming your offensive cantrip of choice thanks to very limited spells per day)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just finished playing a society scenario with a level 3 Ezren. I had to use his standard spell load out the first day and then I was able to memorize different spells for the second day. The first day we faced 2 encounters, the second day was 4 with a heavy boss at the end.
In the final boss encounter against a monster that was at least 2 levels higher than me, having already used one first level spell for the day, I did 66 points of damage in 3 rounds, out pacing any of the other 5 characters in the party. And I did the vast majority of that damage with the spell attack roll spell acid arrow. Wizards are very good damage dealers, even against solo monsters, even when they are barely built for it.
When I see wizards struggling, it is because they are targeting high saves and not using true strike and magic missile nearly enough( if damage is your goal) that is just one effective wizard build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and remember that they're only useful cast on the martials, they're not nearly enough to make a caster competent with weapons and nothing will ever raise your save DCs.
Just a note that the attack value given in the top level Battle Form spells does equate very closely to a barbarian or other standard martial, at the level it first appears. So there are ways of being OK.
Obviously you need to work on it a bit to make it a good tactic but it is there.You can also surpress enemies with spells and skills to effectively raise your spell DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a note that the attack value given in the top level Battle Form spells does equate very closely to a barbarian or other standard martial, at the level it first appears. So there are ways of being OK.
Obviously you need to work on it a bit to make it a good tactic but it is there.
My "Civilized Shapeshifter" character focuses on this. Primal Sorcerer instead of Druid (I don't like the "uncomfortable in civilization" anathema). Max Charisma allows for Demoralize. Top level spell slots for Animal Form, Insect Form. I don't like L2, L4 Sorc feats, so not missing much to go Fighter dedication L2, Attack of Opportunity L4. What can it do?
Casts spells like a normal sorcerer. When ready to wade into battle:
Uses Battle Form spells with top spell level.
Gains same stats as a non-fighter martial.
Has Attack of Opportunity - many forms have reach (15' frog tongue?)
L6 picks up sorcerer focus feat on track
L8 can get fighter resilience for 9 extra HP (3 feats at 3 hp each)
Still able to play the civilized, charismatic role while going beast mode as needed. Secondary focus on Con boosts HP to a fair range.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are never going to feel powerful, they'll never deal much damage (unless you get to face a huge number of weak foes, which is sadly quite rare), they won't be crippling enemies with a big save or suck.
Actually I regularly do these things with my cleric. It's happened several times in a row now that I toss a Divine Wrath into a room to try to weaken the mooks and the boss ends up critically failing the save. And a boss who's Slowed 1 is so much weaker all of a sudden. The neat thing too is that Divine Wrath will do this even when it's not being cast from my highest level slot. It's like a debuff fireball that has only minimal risk of harming any party members that happen to be in the area.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are never going to feel powerful, they'll never deal much damage (unless you get to face a huge number of weak foes, which is sadly quite rare), they won't be crippling enemies with a big save or suck.
They'll apply an unstackable (as in everything is just status penalties so there's no combining multiple spells to get a bigger penalty) numerical penalty and perhaps cost the enemy an action or two if they're using a really good spell.
As someone whose caster threw out a level 3 slow and ended up crippling the level 20 end boss of the campaign with slowed 2, I think I have to disagree.
As someone who's in a campaign where the wizard loves throwing out fireball, I think I have to disagree on how rare weak foes are - hitting 3 or more is consistently doing heavy damage.
Casters are never going to feel powerful, they'll never deal much damage (unless you get to face a huge number of weak foes, which is sadly quite rare), they won't be crippling enemies with a big save or suck.
They'll apply an unstackable (as in everything is just status penalties so there's no combining multiple spells to get a bigger penalty) numerical penalty and perhaps cost the enemy an action or two if they're using a really good spell.
As someone whose caster threw out a level 3 slow and ended up crippling the level 20 end boss of the campaign with slowed 2, I think I have to disagree.
As someone who's in a campaign where the wizard loves throwing out fireball, I think I have to disagree on how rare weak foes are - hitting 3 or more is consistently doing heavy damage.
As someone who has never experienced any critical fail on any "disabling" spell on any Level±0 or higher enemy (apart from blasting) I think I have to fully agree.
Jokes aside, casters are not as nearly as bad as they are often depicted here in this forum, however spell balancing around crit failure effects or crit hit effects seems all over the place and often affects the outcome too drastically.
As someone who has never experienced any critical fail on any "disabling" spell on any Level±0 or higher enemy (apart from blasting) I think I have to fully agree.
Jokes aside, casters are not as nearly as bad as they are often depicted here in this forum, however spell balancing around crit failure effects or crit hit effects seems all over the place and often affects the outcome too drastically.
Heh, honestly, I just looked at the die and went "are you serious", given it was his best save and he would have saved on anything 2+, crit on 12+.
Easiest way to see a crit fail on a Level±0 or higher enemy is to Bon Mot into a Will spell, say Phantasmal Killer or Hideous Laughter. At level 3 versus Level+0, that's a 25% chance for crit fail.
Heh, honestly, I just looked at the die and went "are you serious", given it was his best save and he would have saved on anything 2+, crit on 12+.As someone who has never experienced any critical fail on any "disabling" spell on any Level±0 or higher enemy (apart from blasting) I think I have to fully agree.
Jokes aside, casters are not as nearly as bad as they are often depicted here in this forum, however spell balancing around crit failure effects or crit hit effects seems all over the place and often affects the outcome too drastically.
That much is understood, however I am still a little annoyed at a game design where the difference in between a cakewalk encounter or a TPK can just be one or two rolls. Dont get me wrong PF1 was just the same or even worse when it comes to SoS spells, however the 4 levels of sucess pushed the extreme results even more into "luck beats skill" territory.
Just imagine a party in a boss fight that contains a Wizard who has happened to have Slow memorized and is even able to recast it using Drain Bonded Item.
Group 1 gets a crit fail on one of the two casts and does not even notice that it is a difficult encounter.
Group 2 gets a fail result on one of the two casts and it is still a memorable encounter.
Group 3 gets at least one sucess result, probably two and it is still a difficult encounter.
Group 4 gets both castings critically resisted and TPK'ed.
So what exactly did group 4 do wrong?
Easiest way to see a crit fail on a Level±0 or higher enemy is to Bon Mot into a Will spell, say Phantasmal Killer or Hideous Laughter. At level 3 versus Level+0, that's a 25% chance for crit fail.
While a good idea our current campaign is (self-) restricted to the CRB.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just imagine a party in a boss fight that contains a Wizard who has happened to have Slow memorized and is even able to recast it using Drain Bonded Item.Group 1 gets a crit fail on one of the two casts and does not even notice that it is a difficult encounter.
Group 2 gets a fail result on one of the two casts and it is still a memorable encounter.
Group 3 gets at least one sucess result, probably two and it is still a difficult encounter.
Group 4 gets both castings critically resisted and TPK'ed.So what exactly did group 4 do wrong?
I've never seen a combat so bad that a spell or two having no effect kills everybody. Seems like an odd dichotomy here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Group 4 gets both castings critically resisted and TPK'ed.So what exactly did group 4 do wrong?
Not retreat when their 1 weird trick failed. If their survival is so precarious that they have to succeed at a partial cut set of actions to survive, they need to have both backups to the back up AND an exit strategy.
That too is part of tactics. I’m not a fan of recon and gather information, but I sure as anything am keeping a line of retreat open at all times.
I've never seen a combat so bad that a spell or two having no effect kills everybody. Seems like an odd dichotomy here.
Just imagine a party in a boss fight that contains a Wizard who has happened to have Slow memorized and is even able to recast it using Drain Bonded Item.Group 1 gets a crit fail on one of the two casts and does not even notice that it is a difficult encounter.
Group 2 gets a fail result on one of the two casts and it is still a memorable encounter.
Group 3 gets at least one sucess result, probably two and it is still a difficult encounter.
Group 4 gets both castings critically resisted and TPK'ed.So what exactly did group 4 do wrong?
Well it is no certainty, but a possibility. For example there is a HUGE difference in play experience and as well in felt and real difficulty if a certain enemy in the most infamous AoA volume 1 encounter crit fails his save versus your Wizards Hideous Laughter or he crit succeeds (which is more likely).
Group 4 gets both castings critically resisted and TPK'ed.So what exactly did group 4 do wrong?
Not retreat when their 1 weird trick failed. If their survival is so precarious that they have to succeed at a partial cut set of actions to survive, they need to have both backups to the back up AND an exit strategy.
That too is part of tactics. I’m not a fan of recon and gather information, but I sure as anything am keeping a line of retreat open at all times.
Then you have never been tossed into a dire situation with no intel and your backs to a literal wall. You simply can't plan ahead or evasive action without any indication or information that such a situation will be unfolding shortly and abruptly.
Don't get me wrong, gathering info is a good thing and will make your life easier, however in the AP volumes that I have played it was often never possible (your mileage may vary depending on your GM).
And if you cannot prepare for the road ahead your "one trick" better work.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if you cannot prepare for the road ahead your "one trick" better work.
Which is just a restatement of my point. Your party’s strategy skills are such that they have to get off a certain spell, or they die.
You asked a question, and that’s still the answer. That is a failure to properly strategize and create tactical options, including the option to withdraw. That the other three parties apparently made the same mistake but they got lucky enough to win anyways isn’t a reflection of their skill, but their luck, as you pointed out.
It’s a dice game. Luck happens. The skill part is creating a situation where it doesn’t have to happen but you win a different way, or at least minimize your losses.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well it is no certainty, but a possibility. For example there is a HUGE difference in play experience and as well in felt and real difficulty if a certain enemy in the most infamous AoA volume 1 encounter crit fails his save versus your Wizards Hideous Laughter or he crit succeeds (which is more likely).I've never seen a combat so bad that a spell or two having no effect kills everybody. Seems like an odd dichotomy here.
Just imagine a party in a boss fight that contains a Wizard who has happened to have Slow memorized and is even able to recast it using Drain Bonded Item.Group 1 gets a crit fail on one of the two casts and does not even notice that it is a difficult encounter.
Group 2 gets a fail result on one of the two casts and it is still a memorable encounter.
Group 3 gets at least one sucess result, probably two and it is still a difficult encounter.
Group 4 gets both castings critically resisted and TPK'ed.So what exactly did group 4 do wrong?
Indeed chance plays a role in this edition. It can be mitigated through builds and tactics, but never completely disappears.
That is a feature IMO, not a bug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s a dice game. Luck happens. The skill part is creating a situation where it doesn’t have to happen but you win a different way, or at least minimize your losses.
This is the ideal situation, so no arguing against that. However all white room theory falls apart rather quickly if you pair a GM and his style of GM'ing, four to six players with individual ideas and goals, their characters with individual ideas and goals and a possible dangerous and often disadvantageous situation as presented in an adventure or AP, and any individual encounter can (not must) quickly devolve into "use what you have", especially at low level where your options may even be more limited. Not all players are prepared like batman and even if they are this does not mean hive-mind strategy and tactics nor characters not making stupid decisions for role-playing reasons. PF2 is after all a role-playing game, not chess.
Well it is no certainty, but a possibility. For example there is a HUGE difference in play experience and as well in felt and real difficulty if a certain enemy in the most infamous AoA volume 1 encounter crit fails his save versus your Wizards Hideous Laughter or he crit succeeds (which is more likely).I've never seen a combat so bad that a spell or two having no effect kills everybody. Seems like an odd dichotomy here.
Just imagine a party in a boss fight that contains a Wizard who has happened to have Slow memorized and is even able to recast it using Drain Bonded Item.Group 1 gets a crit fail on one of the two casts and does not even notice that it is a difficult encounter.
Group 2 gets a fail result on one of the two casts and it is still a memorable encounter.
Group 3 gets at least one sucess result, probably two and it is still a difficult encounter.
Group 4 gets both castings critically resisted and TPK'ed.So what exactly did group 4 do wrong?
Indeed chance plays a role in this edition. It can be mitigated through builds and tactics, but never completely disappears.
That is a feature IMO, not a bug.
The answer about what group 4 did as a mistake, to add to your point, is that apparently no one else did anything worthwhile after that to win the encounter. Even if both castings were critically resisted (which is unlikely) other characters are flinging resources at the boss and it becomes increasingly unlikely that everything is failing.
In my group that just finished a campaign, you might have a caster trying something like that, alongside a ranger (previously an alchemist) flinging bombs with fear effects, a barbarian doubling up on the odds of demoralize with their third action, a rogue throwing debilitations around, a fighter with knockdown and other tricks, another caster whose going to do who knows what, a champion guarding with retributive strike and inflicting flat footed when they crit, and so forth. Its too many possibilities to describe.
It really speaks to how used to being able to end encounters by themselves casters are, that we consider an inability to escape a degree of chance to be crippling our usefulness.
The answer about what group 4 did as a mistake, to add to your point, is that apparently no one else did anything worthwhile after that to win the encounter. Even if both castings were critically resisted (which is unlikely) other characters are flinging resources at the boss and it becomes increasingly unlikely that everything is failing.
Agreed, especially when talking about high level, depending on and faling because of one spell is most unlikely, but I can assure you that especially low level a lot of your possible options can and will fail.