| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The swashbuckler is an example of a class with wonky mechanics. If you use a finisher, you can only attack once per round. If you don't get panache, you can't use a finisher. Your speed is only fast if you have panache. So as a player and DM, you have to track when they have panache and when they don't. When they used a finisher and whether they can attack again. It's easier to play a rogue or fighter that plays like a swashbuckler. No mechanical headaches. And you do as well or better than the swashbuckler.I'm surprised the swashbuckler is too difficult for you, since it's way simpler than the 1E version. Keeping track of panache just isn't that hard for me.
It is simpler than PF1 only so far as it has way fewer abilities. There were no tags on the PF1 swashbuckler's attacks. The finisher tag was an annoyance. The swashbuckler swings, miss or hit the finisher and they're all done attacking including as far as I know anything with the attack trait. So if they open with a big finisher hit, their other two actions generally consist of getting panache back or moving into position as they can't attack again. This can become an annoyance especially when other classes don't have a similar imitation.
When you're in a group with another class with no such limitations like a fighter or barbarian who is pretty much ripping the battlefield apart. It can appear limiting. You take your one finisher attack on one target, then you're working on getting panache back. This attack does about the same damage as a barbarian regular hit. But the barbarian is just continuing to hit things after his first crushes something, it is a noticeable limitation.
Which is why I removed the single attack limitation on the finisher as I figured attacking without precision damage due to lack of a panache was a sufficient limiter. It has made the class play better as far as being competitive with fighters, barbarians, and rogues.
The player is happier with the changes I made. The swashbuckler damage is more competitive with the barbarian and fighter now. So it worked. But I still think the original design choice was wonky.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
seem intent that they are right and those of us that don't like it are wrongFunnily enough I think it is you who are doing this. PF2 is getting fantasic feedback and support, as well as profit, from the majority of players. But no it's the devs and the players who enjoy it that are wrong and stubborn. Not you.
Market always decides what it supports. If Paizo has an equal level of adoption to PF1, good for them.
I'm not feeling the new books, though I still like the core RB best so far. I don't plan to buy any additional books for classes with wonky, strange mechanics that aren't particularly interesting or effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never ever seen a GM waste an enemy's attacks on a down and killed PC.
Just saying.
I have, especially when a healer keeps getting players back up. Then monsters or enemies will start making sure they don't get up.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gee, I have only run a swashbuckler player for 16 levels.
I have very much seen a swashbuckler in combat. It's not nearly as good as posted on these forums.
I get tired of hearing these lvl 3 players talking like they know what these classes can do.
I never said they are masters of everything. But they are not sub par or pathetic like you are saying. They can hold their own with most martials in combat, they have a roll in debiffing and setting up the rest of the party.
You want some know some real simple ways to short circuit a swashbuckler? Fight flying creatures or creatures using ranged combat that don't allow you to Tumble Through them. Or caster using invisibility that prevents targeting. Or oozes immune to precision damage.
Like these don't hurt other classes? Of course there are cases when you can't bring your A game. Everyone sucks against invisibility unless you prepare with spells feats or magic items. If your GM is bringing you up against monsters where you can't use you main character ability most of the time, the problem is with the GM.
It's attempts to paint a ridiculous idea like I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't agree with a handful of folks on this forum who haven't been a Swashbuckler past lvl 6 that I find builds a false narrative for classes.
You are the one who made the assertion that they were a bad class. I pulled you up on this one point - not the others you made - because on this point you are flat wrong.
Yes its got conditions attached, and it suits some campaigns more than others but don't they all.
Swashbucklers have wonky mechanics that can be exploited. They can be good against simple, straightforward physical fights. But put them in situations against invisible enemies, fortified ranger fighters, creatures immune to precision, creatures with languages they can't speak, very high reflex or will saves, and you start to see the problems with the wonky mechanics.My player almost gave up on the swashbuckler until I modified the Finisher tag and rewrote the class to start with panache after he opened up with failed rolls to get panache multiple combats causing him to lose confidence in the class. It's not real fun to have to open up with a move to the target at a slower rate, then use a Tumble through or other skill against a high reflex save enemy, fail the roll, and be stuck doing nothing.
Classes like the barbarian have no such limitations. The rogue has many abilities to guarantee the sneak attack.
So what is the barbarian power against ranged flying attackers? whatever it is the barbarian is a lot worse off that the swashbuckler who just picks up a bow. He still has DEX as a primary stat. If he really wants some thing extra in that department he can go for some fighter feats. If you are actually at a level with flying you can still tumble behind a flying creature.
There are plenty of other classes that have problem with the rare creature that is immune to precision damage.
A swashbuckler always has basic ranged and melee weapon attacks to fall back on, if none of his at least 2 panache options work. They do have rispote and attack of oppourtunity it is hardly nothing.
Langauge is only a problem with the Wit Swashbucker, The Braggart can take a first level skill feat Inimidating Glare and never worry about it again. The 3 other types of Swashbuckler don't care for langague at all. The Wit Swashbuckler obviously needs to prioritise a magic item to help with languages. Sadly its a 5th level spell so you have to wait till you can get it. Potion of Tongues last for 4 hours?
Other classes don't have problems? Ok lets look at barbarian as you mentioned it. Giant has to worry about the rare situation of ceilings, Draconic has to worry about damage resistance, Animal has to worry about creatures you can't melee with your hands. You have to get down to Spirit before you get even an option to have an OK ranged attack.
Sorry your arguments don't add up.
When you're in a group with another class with no such limitations like a fighter or barbarian who is pretty much ripping the battlefield apart. It can appear limiting. You take your one finisher attack on one target, then you're working on getting panache back. This attack does about the same damage as a barbarian regular hit. But the barbarian is just continuing to hit things after his first crushes something, it is a noticeable limitation.Which is why I removed the single attack limitation on the finisher as I figured attacking without precision damage due to lack of a panache was a sufficient limiter. It has made the class play better as far as being competitive with fighters, barbarians, and rogues.
The rule you are talking about is
Once you use a finisher, you can't use any actions that have the attack trait for the rest of your turn.Yes it is a bit harsh. It is very hard for the Gymnast SwashBuckler. But only because it stops one of his two ways of gaining panache. But that is what most Swashbucklers should be doing every turn finsher/regain panache/regain panache, or if panache is not possible strike/strike/strike.
They should almost always be attacking with bonuses. From level 14 they can roll twice with a finisher
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whose experience is good enough to state outright fact about how the game plays? No one? I trust few posters here to do that, but those who have enough credentials to get that sort of pass (DMW, Mathmuse, SuperBidi) back up their experiences with numbers that actually take into account the reality of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whose experience is good enough to state outright fact about how the game plays? No one? I trust few posters here to do that, but those who have enough credentials to get that sort of pass (DMW, Mathmuse, SuperBidi) back up their experiences with numbers that actually take into account the reality of the game.
Why would you trust any one? I don't care who it is, they will get stuff just wrong from time to time. Look at the points that they raise, play it and read the rules yourself. Looking to authorative people is only appropriate if you are totally new to the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whose experience is good enough to state outright fact about how the game plays? No one? I trust few posters here to do that, but those who have enough credentials to get that sort of pass (DMW, Mathmuse, SuperBidi) back up their experiences with numbers that actually take into account the reality of the game.Why would you trust any one? I don't care who it is, they will get stuff just wrong from time to time. Look at the points that they raise, play it and read the rules yourself. Looking to authorative people is only appropriate if you are totally new to the game.
I mean, yeah, nail on the head.
EDIT: It looks like my previous post was a bit unclear. I don't think that anyone can actually state objectively how the game should be played/what the proper way to play is. Mark Seifter could himself say that the game was intended so players should never attack more than once around and I would still give that the critical eye. I brought up the other posters as people who temper their opinions with experience and analysis, but they're also people who - to the best of my knowledge - have not made sweeping statements of being objectively more correct than anyone else.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gee, I have only run a swashbuckler player for 16 levels. Watched his up and down rounds including strings of unlucky rolls to regain panache. Rewritten the finisher mechanic so that when he misses a finisher and can't do much else in a round, he doesn't feel like he wasted his round. Rewrote the mechanic so he starts with Panache so that his move and a single failed panache skill roll doesn't leave him watching other classes do their schtick, while he can't do much. Or heavens forbid, it requires a few moves to engage in combat as he doesn't start with panache so has a lower move to start a combat until he engages.
[snip]
You want some know some real simple ways to short circuit a swashbuckler? Fight flying creatures or creatures using ranged combat that don't allow you to Tumble Through them. Or caster using invisibility that prevents targeting. Or oozes immune to precision damage.
[snip]
I can say for certain the Swashbuckler in ideal circumstances can be quite strong. Those ideal circumstances are usually physical combatants on a field with good movement. But if a swashbuckler runs into less than idea circumstances, he is hurt far more than other classes. There are greater limitations on the swashbuckler's abilities than most other martial classes. This is very noticeable to both a DM and player when their schtick is short-circuited.
I’m sorry your player had such a hard time with the swashbuckler, and I’m glad you were able to work it out, but I think there are a few things about swashbucklers that you and he missed. I’m playing a level 12 swashbuckler in an AP if that matters.
Swashbuckler should normally try to gain panache by debuffing enemies or moving into flank, and then spend it on finishers.There are numerous ways to gain panache. Some Styles have it easier than others, and it sounds like you had a Wit or Braggart Swashbuckler (you mentioned the obstacle of not sharing languages). For those, I recommend One for All and Intimidating Glare to avoid the language barrier. Vexing Tumble lets him move into combat while gaining Panache. Remember that if you fail at an Acrobatics check, you can just try again with the next action.
You mentioned swashbuckler being weak to flying enemies, invisible enemies, and enemies immune to precision damage, and also that rogues and barbarians have no such limitation. How effective is your party’s rogue against foes immune to precision damage? How is your party’s barbarian better at the swashbuckler in ranged combat?
IME, the Swashbuckler has better AC, HP, Fortitude, ranged capability, an easier time getting their extra damage, and mobility than a rogue. Their other saves, damage, and debuffing are about the same. Compared to a barbarian (a less similar class to a swashbuckler than the rogue is) they have much better AC, Reflex (at all levels) ranged capability, debuffing and mobility, but worse damage, lower HP, and worse will saves at leves 15&16.
I think if you take a second look at the swashbuckler, you’ll come around to them like you did with the wizard.
|
I have, especially when a healer keeps getting players back up. Then monsters or enemies will start making sure they don't get up.I've never ever seen a GM waste an enemy's attacks on a down and killed PC.
Just saying.
I meant killed PC as in not getting back up.
Come to think of it, I sometimes saw lenient GMs do this to avoid killing other PCs.
But the GMs who are actively trying to kill the PCs under the guise of smart tactics?
Even when their monsters are incredibly stupid, they miraculously know not to waste their attacks on targets that will not get back up.
I call that metagaming.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the swashbuckler tangent, note that the Swashbuckler gets to riposte to hit back without MAP when they someone misses them by 10, so "action to gain +2 AC" is really valuable for the class.
So a routine like "gain panache, finisher, dueling parry" is a solid round for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said they are masters of everything. But they are not sub par or pathetic like you are saying. They can hold their own with most martials in combat, they have a roll in debiffing and setting up the rest of the party.
I never said they were pathetic. I said their mechanics are wonky and you could do just as well without the limitations with other classes.
Like these don't hurt other classes? Of course there are cases when you can't bring your A game. Everyone sucks against invisibility unless you prepare with spells feats or magic items. If your GM is bringing you up against monsters where you can't use you main character ability most of the time, the problem is with the GM.
Barbarians can get fly or get insane reach to hit a flier pretty easily. They also require only a single feat to use rage with ranged weapons.
Fighters can switch hit.
Rogue sneak attack works with feint, so they are good at switch hitting as well.
Rangers can switch hit easily as well.
Swashbucklers are exclusively focused on melee, similar to champions.
Difference being with invis that the main ability of each class is not short-circuited by invis meaning everyone can do their class schtick without worrying about seeing the enemy. But the swashbuckler can't just tumble through or use a swashbuckler skill on a creature it can't see. Without panache, a swashbuckler is just a weak fighter.
Yes its got conditions attached, and it suits some campaigns more than others but don't they all.
No. Rogue, fighter, ranger, and barbarian work in every campaign all the time against almost any enemy.
Champion is more limited as they require melee range to be most useful. That is a comparison to the Swashbuckler who requires melee range to maximize their abilities.
So what is the barbarian power against ranged flying attackers? whatever it is the barbarian is a lot worse off that the swashbuckler who just picks up a bow. He still has DEX as a primary stat. If he really wants some thing extra in that department he can go for some fighter feats. If you are actually at a level with flying you can still tumble behind a flying creature.
Barbarian has dragon wings, super leaping (no tumble through required), raging thrower feat, penetrating throwing feat, breath weapon, insane 30 foot reach or more.
Barbarian has other options. The reason I found this out was playing one to high level. They are ideal in melee range. But as I fought ranged and flying creature, I found investing in Raging Thrower to be a cheap way to hit hard at range.
There are plenty of other classes that have problem with the rare creature that is immune to precision damage.
True. Ranger, rogue, and swashbuckler. Rogue and swashbuckler take the biggest hit.
A swashbuckler always has basic ranged and melee weapon attacks to fall back on, if none of his at least 2 panache options work. They do have rispote and attack of oppourtunity it is hardly nothing.
Attack of Opportunity can be taken by every class. Riposte can be good in the right circumstances. Reach can generally defeat both options.
Langauge is only a problem with the Wit Swashbucker, The Braggart can take a first level skill feat Inimidating Glare and never worry about it again. The 3 other types of Swashbuckler don't care for langague at all. The Wit Swashbuckler obviously needs to prioritise a magic item to help with languages. Sadly its a 5th level spell so you have to wait till you can get it. Potion of Tongues last for 4 hours?
I'm pretty sure you know the limitations of the other Swashbuckles. The gymnast has to use an attack tag option that lowers his attack roll on a target. Intimidation is decent as long as he makes the roll or has the ability that doesn't make intimidate once per minute. Once again failed rolls short circuit the panache regain.
But once again you run into the chance of failure, which comes up more often than I've seen assumed on this forum. It pretty much short circuits the entire round. Most classes do not have an ability requiring a roll that ruins their abilities for the round.
Other classes don't have problems? Ok lets look at barbarian as you mentioned it. Giant has to worry about the rare situation of ceilings, Draconic has to worry about damage resistance, Animal has to worry about creatures you can't melee with your hands. You have to get down to Spirit before you get even an option to have an OK ranged attack.
They don't have an issue with having their entire set of abilities dependent on a roll. Barbarians at low level have a problem with getting knocked unconscious ruining their rage.
But the swashbuckler situation is worse because as you gain levels, the game is setup for 40 to 60% failure rate for skills. So a swashbuckler running into creatures with high saves in the skills they use basically has to roll a 40 to 60% failure chance to regain panache for their abilities to work. It is not super fun for them.
No other classes have to do this.
Sorry your arguments don't add up.
My arguments state how the rules work when playing. The issues a swashbuckler player I run had to deal with leveling up to 16th level and the steps I took to smooth out the rough edges.
My player has just picked up Perfect Finisher. This ability he loves as it reduces his failure chance substantially.
When the swashbuckler works, it is quite a fun class. It's very swingy in a way the core RB classes are not. In rounds when his abilities work well, he's having a blast. In those rounds when facing an enemy that disrupts his ability to get panache or he rolls poorly just to get panache, he feels terrible.
This can be compounded by bad rolls on the attack as well. Whereas a player of a barbarian or rogue or fighter has to worry about bad rolls for their attacks. A swashbuckler has to worry about bad rolls for panache regain as well as bad attack rolls.
The mechanics are a bit wonky.
If you can stomach the ups and downs of the Swashbuckler class, then it can be fun. I know as a DM of a swashbuckler, I have to be extra cognizant of trying not to be a jerk and setting up the player for failure in a way I don't have to do for other classes. A swashbuckler prevented from taking the actions to regain panache is not fun. I try not to do that to the player. I don't like how they wrote the finisher tag or that so much is tied to panache with the Swashbuckler. It makes it so a DM has to be aware of when he might be playing enemies in a way that is messing up the SB player like preventing the player from regaining panache with their movement or spells. I don't like it when classes are built in a way that requires extra rolls to be effective in a game built to ensure rolls are always somewhere in that 40 to 60 range. It can make things tough on such classes, much like it does on casters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no "UGH" big enough in the world for this. For someone who spent the first year of the game's release getting the rules wrong and having massive threads pointing out your misunderstandings, you really do consider yourself quite the knowledgeable player.
Really? They were that big of mistakes. No. I do not think they were.
Please stop making it seem like they were huge, egregious mistakes. They were at best some minor misinterpretations that affected a few encounters. Even with those included, I played so much as to do four campaigns to relatively high level comparatively accumulating a lot of experience with PF2 to know how these things work.
So please stop with the pretense I don't have a lot of experience. I played the hell out of PF2 for the last year testing a ton and reading these forums.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whose experience is good enough to state outright fact about how the game plays? No one? I trust few posters here to do that, but those who have enough credentials to get that sort of pass (DMW, Mathmuse, SuperBidi) back up their experiences with numbers that actually take into account the reality of the game.
You choose to ignore the numbers I post which is not from white room math like Superbidi or Mathmuse. I have literally posted numbers taken from the games I play with context included. Meaning real game play, not this is the damage you should do using this damage calculator or the average over the course of a thousand fights in a white room against this AC.
I have provided tons of context with how numbers were modified with character abilities.
Yet I get shots like this taken at me? Good fun.
Sorry, you may not like how I state my opinion. I do know what I'm talking about providing numbers, rules text, and in play experience for how things work.
I tell it how it is and leave it up to others to figure out if they like it or not. I could tell you the strengths and weaknesses of nearly any class as I've seen them in play against a variety of enemies. I would be right in what they have to deal with.
I certainly did not just make up the swashbuckler problems. I watched the swashbuckler play for many levels and modified to improve my player's experience with the class because he was ready to quit playing it as it is written.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never said they are masters of everything. But they are not sub par or pathetic like you are saying. They can hold their own with most martials in combat, they have a roll in debiffing and setting up the rest of the party.I never said they were pathetic. I said their mechanics are wonky and you could do just as well without the limitations with other classes.
Their mechanics are a little bit more complex than smash. YEs they are about debuffing and timing is important. But you are overrating their problems.
Barbarians can get fly or get insane reach to hit a flier pretty easily. They also require only a single feat to use rage with ranged weapons.
One out of five types of barbarian can get flight in class. The others will be relying on items or their allies, or ancestry feats.
Difference being with invis that the main ability of each class is not short-circuited by invis meaning everyone can do their class schtick without worrying about seeing the enemy. But the swashbuckler can't just tumble through or use a swashbuckler skill on a creature it can't see. Without panache, a swashbuckler is just a weak fighter.
If you are really using invisibility that often the player will have
defenses against it. You can tumble through an enemy if you know its square. You don't have to be able to see it.
raging thrower feat
Thrown weapons have some pretty severe limitations. For starters its still using DEX to attack on a barbarian. Which is probably their 3rd ability score. But also the range is poor and that range difference is often exploited. It helps in some scenarios but in many ranged scenarios it is just useless.
Give me a bow and a primary stat in DEX anyday, its not close.| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player in a higher (now 16th level) 1E game, I am reminded (yet again) that high level 1E simply doesn't work very well. There are simply too many ambiguous interactions and obscure fiddly bits. Even very experienced GMs consistently make mistakes, because the rules are -- to put it kindly -- extremely unwieldy. In fact, I've literally never seen a single high level 1E session go off without mechanical mistakes/retcons. Does that mean it's not possible to have fun with high level 1E? Of course not. But you shouldn't have to fight the rules of a game to have fun, and in my experience, that's what high-level 1E always becomes: A fight with the rules.
I don't have enough experience with higher level 2E yet to know if this problem is completely solved, but I've already seen enough to be sure that it is significantly improved. That alone means I won't ever be revisiting 1E once my current game wraps.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarians can get fly or get insane reach to hit a flier pretty easily. They also require only a single feat to use rage with ranged weapons.
Fighters can switch hit.
Rogue sneak attack works with feint, so they are good at switch hitting as well.
Rangers can switch hit easily as well.
Swashbucklers are exclusively focused on melee, similar to champions.
I think you should take a 2nd look at swashbucklers. 16 levels or not, you overlooked the Flying Blade feat. Also, ranged attack rolls key off DEX, which benefits a Swashbuckler more than a Barbarian. Swashbucklers can use items to fly, same as any other class. I looked up the text for Demoralize, Bon Mot, and Tumble Through, and all work fine even if the opponent is hidden.
Also, Feint only works with melee attacks, so rogues can't get use it to Sneak Atttack at range.
That's one of the things that's really important about making a character in 2e - being able to see a classes weak spots and patching them up. A swashbuckler, or really almost any melee, should be able to attack at range, be able to fly, attack ghosties, deal with creatures that don't share a language, etc. And there are ways to do all that stuff and more through skills, race feats, magic items, and other characters supporting.
Like others have said, 2e is about expanding what your character is capable of, not concentrating on one thing and specializing in it. Maybe someone doesn't see their character being a thrown weapon user, but it's still a good idea to pick up flying blade and a returning thrown weapon.
It's also worth noting that core classes have more support with both the core and apg, as well as some lost omens and adventure path stuff, so it's not a super fair comparison with apg only classes.
|
|
It's also worth noting that core classes have more support with both the core and apg, as well as some lost omens and adventure path stuff, so it's not a super fair comparison with apg only classes.
Nah, the class feats for the Core classes in the APG are nothing revolutionary. The APs have 20th-level options. Neither are game-changing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cough Animal Barbarian cough.Barbarians can get fly or get insane reach to hit a flier pretty easily. They also require only a single feat to use rage with ranged weapons.
Don't forget the Superstition Barbarian that can't even willingly have Fly cast on them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to note: a swashbuckler using a bow is exactly as good as a finesse fighter with a bow until level 19.
I've never heard of a finesse fighter being considered bad with a bow.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was feeling down about my PF2 game today so came back to revisit this thread and have come to a couple of interesting realisations which I'm sharing in case anyone cares. :)
1. I clearly don't mind not playing optimal characters. I've questioned for a long time whether I should take Power Attack on my martial characters. I actually find the penalty to attack rolls worse than the increased damage... I'm playing a Shifter in PF1, I've taken Weapon Finesse cause I'm playing a were-touched tiger so Dex is my jam. But I'm at level 3 and I have no idea what feat to take. No doubt there is an "optimal" choice (or five) but I don't care. I want something that will be fun. Again I think I'm very lucky that the group I play with all work on a similar wavelength - we treat combat as that annoying thing that pops up to interrupt our role-playing so we very rarely have "uber-pounce barbarian" or anything like that. I'm also playing a Warrior Poet Samurai - vital strike for the win! It's never going to be optimal, but a samurai in Jade Regent is just too perfect and I've always loved the image of the fast moving warrior who appears just long enough to hit you and dodges away again, so I'm going for it!
2. My group doesn't play the way you need to in PF2. Our regular GM, whom we love and appreciate very much, doesn't do much with maps. Since we play PbP that's an extra level of effort that they don't have the time/energy for. From what I've read though we all play PF2 like PF1. We each act individually and without discussion of tactics etc, doing our individual best for the group. The closest we have to synergy is a. the bard uses IC, b. the rogue always fights next to the champion so that they treat the same enemy as flat-footed, c. the rogue gets attacks with reactions if the champion hits. It's the same thing I mentioned above - we don't play the game for the combat and I think that means that a lot of the time we have a much harder time/do worse than other more 'combat focused' parties would. I don't think we've ever gotten together on Discord before, or even during, a fight and said "Right, Smithy do A, Frank do B and that should make it easier for Jones to do C and blow this bastard to kingdom come!" It's not our game.
Which might just be the reason I don't like combat in PF2. In PF1, because we can all do something well we all work together without much effort - it feels like we're an A-Team of heroes because when we fight together we usually do well, we have that 'they just work together' vibe that you get when the Avengers have dealt with their respective emotional problems/complexes/missing shields and just get on with smacking down the bad guys, cool music and all.
PF2 feels more like playing Gloomhaven. You need to discuss your tactics, plan everything out and hope that the modifier deck/dice don't screw with you too much. I play Gloomhaven with the same people I role-play with, and it's great. A completely different game to PF but great. Whether I'd want to mix the two...
TL;DR. My friends and I have never planned our combats in PF before. Maybe it would help me enjoy PF2 more - I don't know, but in the meantime I don't get the easy sense of camaraderie and team success which was one of the things I liked about PF1.
Was feeling down about my PF2 game today so came back to revisit this thread and have come to a couple of interesting realisations which I'm sharing in case anyone cares. (...)
(Sharing their experiences, lots of stuff, doesn't fit in the quote)
Thank you for sharing your experiences in such a clear manner. Maybe not 100% of it but the big majority with what you said summarizes my current experiences and frustrations with the game too (despite still actually preferring it over 1e in my case).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you can play non-optimal PCs in PF1 and succeed even without teamwork, it means that the enemies you face aren't that strong.
In PF2 the power floor for characters is higher, which means that you probably have PCs that are more capable in combat despite building them for flavor and not efficiency. Still, you can't dispatch your enemies as easily.
This is clearly a matter of adventure design. If you don't have fun because PF2e published adventures contain combats that are too hard, or require a level of coordination you don't like, this thread has pointed to some very easy solutions to adjust the game's difficulty to a level you enjoy more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say I think PF2 is NOT a good system to PbP with. It trades its strongest pro (involved combat with dynamic tactics that matter) and turns it into a con. You can't mass roll quickly through a combat in PF2 like you could in PF1 and us such anytime initiative is called you are going to be in for either a long slog through the PbP, or fast but terrible combat.
I hadn't thought about it, but your right.
Positioning and tactics are incredibly important in PF2. You are virtually required to have a map, or else combat is going to be...weird.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PbP typically uses a map (at least the PbP that's happening on these forums does), but I agree that PF2 is a worse system for PbP.
Combat in general tends to be slow in PbP, and as a GM you're always looking for ways to reduce "fidelity" in exchange for speed. This means there's a lot of lumped initiative (all foes together or all PCs together), GM interpretation for turn order (people post in any order and you reconcile their actions by handwaving people delaying and the like), and generally minimizing the degree of back and forth from player to GM (pre-generate spoilers for Recall Knowledge, for example).
PF2 on the other hand can be dicey with lumped init, really loses some of its tactical fun when you're not able to coordinate actions as well with your fellow players at the table, and has more situations that require a back and forth mid-turn. The generally higher difficulty doesn't help either.
I will say I think PF2 is NOT a good system to PbP with. It trades its strongest pro (involved combat with dynamic tactics that matter) and turns it into a con. You can't mass roll quickly through a combat in PF2 like you could in PF1 and us such anytime initiative is called you are going to be in for either a long slog through the PbP, or fast but terrible combat.I hadn't thought about it, but your right.
Positioning and tactics are incredibly important in PF2. You are virtually required to have a map, or else combat is going to be...weird.
You can PbP with PF2 pretty well, it all depends on the group and how often the GM can get online. My group PbP'd for a few months with a simple map made with Google drawings. The party would note their actions and their rolls, using a discord dice roller, in sequence, so if anything needed to be adjusted, it was easy to go back and do so. Reactions were handled by the GM usually, unless they forgot. But the rule was as long as whatever you are trying to do was within the current round (or before your next turn) then you can generally do so.
Combats usually only took a day or two to resolve, unless everyone happened to be on at the same time, in which case it went quite a bit faster.
But your mileage may vary and all that. There are plenty of downsides to PbP, which is why my group is next going to try a Foundry once/week campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PbP is certainly an odd fish - social role-playing with people you've never met(!) but most of the people I know actually prefer it. You can go into depth with your characters and really tell your story without taking the spotlight away from other people and spoiling their experience.
It's interesting (and reassuring) to see people agreeing with me on the subject of combat. PF2 is clearly a more 'tactical' game than PF1, at least in regard to combat and I'm sure it's great with a like-minded group around the game-table - Pbp speed and so forth is just a different arena where the relatively greater flow of PF1 works better. I was chatting to my GM today and he said that when he runs PF1 around a table everyone zones out until its their turn, rolls their dice and zones again - a positive advantage in Pbp!
Perhaps once I get the chance to play PF2 around a table I'll get the hang of combat like that, but since all my experience has been online so far, and with my like-minded group, we've never taken it terribly seriously and thus probably found it harder than some other groups with better tactics do.
Regarding what Megistone said about difficulty: I'm sure there are, I confess that I haven't read every post in the thread but there's plenty of good opinions on both sides being offered so I'm sure I can mine it for information if needed. It's not my place to suggest changes to my group, or at least I don't feel it is. About half of them prefer PF2 to PF1 (although we all agree that the consumables are terrible) and that's fine, I'm just giving my personal two cents on what I like about PF1. I play PF2 with my group because I like gaming with them, the game system itself is secondary. This is me giving my opinions and often figuring a lot of them out while I write the posts!
I confess to having an instinctive 'no, can't do that' reaction as well ;). The published adventures are what they are, and particularly in PF2 are much more balanced to the difficulty the writers (presumably) intended. PF2 is far superior in that sense. So to lower the difficulty feels like... not exactly failing, but being insufficient somehow. There has been some discussion about this earlier on, using video game difficulties as an analogy and I think I'm definitely an easy/standard/hard kinda guy, and I'd never play on easy unless my specific goal was mindless fun. I want some challenge in my games but in the end I often feel like PF2 has too much challenge - although this comes back again to my group not doing everything we can to make our own lives easier in that regard. Still, I think it's a shame that that kind of play-style is required, or nearly so, in a number of combats. Every so often for sure, but my memories of combat in PF2 are all about boss fights and, with one exception, about how frustrating I've found them. To the extent where we get to a boss fight and I think "Oh god, not another boss fight. This is going to involve at least four rounds of everyone failing and feeling miserable." There's no anticipation of a thrilling victory because I know we're going to have a fair few rounds of suck - the games maths says so.
Sorry - venting. I'll stop now and just say that there are plenty of fights in PF1 that I remember positively, often because my character managed to do what they are meant to do and do it really well, but also for cool moments where they failed as well. I only have one of those moments in PF2 and that was purely down to luck, not because of anything I did. It was a nice moment, but it didn't offer vindication for any of my choices and decisions the way my Oath against Corruption paladin smiting an aboleth from full to dead in a single round did.
Fingers crossed I'll make some of those memories in PF2 in the future!
I do find this interesting, because while PF2 is definitely designed to be more tactical, it clearly worked fine for Knights of Everflame. (And possibly some other examples that don't come to mind right now.)
The question is, what did they do differently that enabled that?
|
|
I do find this interesting, because while PF2 is definitely designed to be more tactical, it clearly worked fine for Knights of Everflame. (And possibly some other examples that don't come to mind right now.)
The question is, what did they do differently that enabled that?
Wasn't the Oblivion Oath campaign also Theater of the Mind?
In any case, both were GM'd by Direcotr of Game Design Jason Bulmahn, who obviously understands PF2 better than most people.
I do find this interesting, because while PF2 is definitely designed to be more tactical, it clearly worked fine for Knights of Everflame. (And possibly some other examples that don't come to mind right now.)
The question is, what did they do differently that enabled that?
Wasn't the Oblivion Oath campaign also Theater of the Mind?
In any case, both were GM'd by Direcotr of Game Design Jason Bulmahn, who obviously understands PF2 better than most people.
Probably occasionally but they definitely used maps and pawns often.
As a player in a higher (now 16th level) 1E game, I am reminded (yet again) that high level 1E simply doesn't work very well. There are simply too many ambiguous interactions and obscure fiddly bits. Even very experienced GMs consistently make mistakes, because the rules are -- to put it kindly -- extremely unwieldy. In fact, I've literally never seen a single high level 1E session go off without mechanical mistakes/retcons. Does that mean it's not possible to have fun with high level 1E? Of course not. But you shouldn't have to fight the rules of a game to have fun, and in my experience, that's what high-level 1E always becomes: A fight with the rules.
I don't have enough experience with higher level 2E yet to know if this problem is completely solved, but I've already seen enough to be sure that it is significantly improved. That alone means I won't ever be revisiting 1E once my current game wraps.
1E is highly in favor of the players at high level.
2E solves a lot of the issues with very tight math. But you're ability to affect things stays relatively static with a few exceptions as you level up.
Some real basic ideas that change as you level. At lower levels say around 1 to 6 or 7, a single big powerful creature is a real challenge for a group of PCs. It can TPK your party if rolls go against you. Once you hit a certain level single big creatures can be handled with probability shifting abilities and magic that allow you to shift its AC and/or saves by a substantial amount that allows fairly easy wins against single creatures. The more dangerous groups become equal CR casters mixed with martial creatures that can do the same probability shifting as you do to single target monsters or layer powerful AoE for a lot of damage. Single big creatures aren't nearly as dangerous for parties, though still more challenging than PF1.
It's much easier for a DM to challenge players. But at the same time you still want to make your players feel strong, so you might want to modify some of the encounters to do so.
One of the complaints I had later on is that even intimidating or grappling higher level guard enemies had too high of a failure chance and felt like a high level party wasn't much better than a low level party because they didn't feel like they were getting any stronger. You have to manage that expectation accordingly and adjust the math, so your players aren't always feeling like every henchmen is a slog as to a lvl 17 party a lot of enemies are CR 15 to 14, which is still a pretty strong minion level creature.
Barbarians can get fly or get insane reach to hit a flier pretty easily. They also require only a single feat to use rage with ranged weapons.
Fighters can switch hit.
Rogue sneak attack works with feint, so they are good at switch hitting as well.
Rangers can switch hit easily as well.
Swashbucklers are exclusively focused on melee, similar to champions.
I think you should take a 2nd look at swashbucklers. 16 levels or not, you overlooked the Flying Blade feat. Also, ranged attack rolls key off DEX, which benefits a Swashbuckler more than a Barbarian. Swashbucklers can use items to fly, same as any other class. I looked up the text for Demoralize, Bon Mot, and Tumble Through, and all work fine even if the opponent is hidden.
Also, Feint only works with melee attacks, so rogues can't get use it to Sneak Atttack at range.
It was Stealth they rogue was using, not Feint. It further leverages dex in a very efficient manner.
Probably occasionally but they definitely used maps and pawns often.I do find this interesting, because while PF2 is definitely designed to be more tactical, it clearly worked fine for Knights of Everflame. (And possibly some other examples that don't come to mind right now.)
The question is, what did they do differently that enabled that?
Wasn't the Oblivion Oath campaign also Theater of the Mind?
In any case, both were GM'd by Direcotr of Game Design Jason Bulmahn, who obviously understands PF2 better than most people.
It would be hard to run PF2 without maps. Pure PbP would be rough. It's a very good game for online play with maps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1E is highly in favor of the players at high level.
Becuase PF1 is fundamentally unbalanced and typical players can easily find a few techinques that make them several times for effective than an unoptimised build.
Also if you have time to prepare you have so much stuff you can stack up, its almost impossible to design a challenging opponent.
2E solves a lot of the issues with very tight math. But you're ability to affect things stays relatively static with a few exceptions as you level up.Some real basic ideas that change as you level. At lower levels say around 1 to 6 or 7, a single big powerful creature is a real challenge for a group of PCs. It can TPK your party if rolls go against you. Once you hit a certain level single big creatures can be handled with probability shifting abilities and magic that allow you to shift its AC and/or saves by a substantial amount that allows fairly easy wins against single creatures. The more dangerous groups become equal CR casters mixed with martial creatures that can do the same probability shifting as you do to single target monsters or layer powerful AoE for a lot of damage. Single big creatures aren't nearly as dangerous for parties, though still more challenging than PF1.
It's much easier for a DM to challenge players. But at the same time you still want to make your players feel strong, so you...
I don't disagree. But there is not much that can't be fixed by adding a level to a boss. However it seriously affects your tactics and play style if you are always fighting up a level. It is probably better to add another minion.
Never moving far from a 50:50 success failure chance is inherent in the choice to have the game somewhat balanced and playable from levels 1 to 20.
If you want the players to feel more heroic and a bit stronger. Then maybe dual class or free archetype is the way to go. It has a modest power increase over the default and may be enough for the feeling you want at mid to high level.
Or just hand out a few items a few levels early.
|
|
I have always said that 4th edition had some good ideas within it's framework, but that the failing it had was in the execution. Healing Surges, Defenses, and the blocks of two (Three for the Wizard) types of powers/abilities.
The problem had always been the carbon copy of the classes into the same cut out with different names. Then Essentials happened and broke the system.
PF2 has the building blocks right from the beginning to augment the choices for the character with each additional rules source without overshadowing what came before, and the classes has their own identities as they expand as they level.
PF1 is the continuation of the more robust system that the new shiny (4th edition) moved away from in favor of balance. Now we have the new edition from the brand that is simple but limited in scope. My overall feeling is that most here will stick with the Pathfinder game for both the better setting (FR was ruined by the time jump) and more robust system in PF2.