|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is anything "wrong" with shields to me its the odd balance between the material types. A sturdy shield is functionally better than an adamantine one. You get earlier access to the sturdy version and it has considerable more hit points. The hardness is as good or better with sturdy. The only advantage with the adamantine shield is its use in shield bashing counting as adamantine, which IMHO is an extremely circumstantial benefit vs the utility of the sturdy shield which can just as easily be upgraded with an adamantine boss/spike if you need that type of attack.
|
|
...it basically gave the guy an always on +2 to AC
So it becomes equivalent to a shield user with a quick block feat and IMO even on par with any shield user since they spend an action to get an always functional bonus. The nimble dodge user has to use a more restricted resource (reaction) and a very good chance that the feat does nothing in the end. I find that nimble dodge is most effective either against the first attack to mitigate a critical or on the 2nd attack to mitigate a hit. As it is written, its always used on the first attack and rarely works. I just find it poor designed in comparison to all the other rules that allow you to see the results before committing your resources. YMMV
If there is anything "wrong" with shields to me its the odd balance between the material types. A sturdy shield is functionally better than an adamantine one. You get earlier access to the sturdy version and it has considerable more hit points. The hardness is as good or better with sturdy. The only advantage with the adamantine shield is its use in shield bashing counting as adamantine, which IMHO is an extremely circumstantial benefit vs the utility of the sturdy shield which can just as easily be upgraded with an adamantine boss/spike if you need that type of attack.
Yes, the problem is that the shield rules where fiddled with late in the release process, so there are a number of things like adamantine shields which clearly make zero sense. There needs to be other "sturdy" shields and this should be one of them.
Which is better for shields, adamantine or vibranium?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We once fought a leader with his soldiers, and he had Nimble Dodge. But the GM mistakenly applied it after the roll, so only when it made a difference. We almost got TPKed because it basically gave the guy an always on +2 to AC.
I find that feat just fine as it is.
This is how the NPCs get the ability so your GM was running it by RAW potentially.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the Bestiary, three monsters have Nimble Dodge. The Drow Rogue's version triggers when he is hit or critically hit, while the other two have it working like the PC feat version.
|
In the Bestiary, three monsters have Nimble Dodge. The Drow Rogue's version triggers when he is hit or critically hit, while the other two have it working like the PC feat version.
I checked the scenario after the game and it was indeed worded like the feat.
Also a reaction is a restricted resource if you have other reaction abilities competing for that spot. Otherwise, it is a free resource.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what the problem with current shields are.Flavor it however you want, what it comes down to in actual play at actual tables is:
GM: "Okay, the troll hits you for 20 damage."
Player: "If I block now I could stay standing, but my brand new awesome shield I just bought will be gone forever."
Party: "Don't bother, we'll just heal you back up.".
Yes, once healing and resurrection become cheap resources, while magic gear remains a harder resource to replace, this is the result. Always and not just for shields. It’s so much ingrained in D&D that Knights of the Dinner Table had a name and a slogan for it:
"The revolving door of death: death is transitory but treasure is forever“
As for this not simulating fiction: depends. Fictional characters are willing to break their one valuable shield in the BBEG fight (Eowyn, shield maiden of Rohan), and are willing to break cheaper shields when they are dispensable as in this battle:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lM5FTQjMYpg
By the way, if you look at the art for Eric Mona‘s Viking barbarian in the last AP volume to 1E, you see that it’s modeled on that fighter in that very scene. Having your shield broken at the right time seems a lot more nuanced than the binary discussion you sometimes see in roleplaying context (where KodDT sums up the prevailing mentality).
For what it is worth I don't think resurrection is especially cheap anymore.
I think there is a prevailing sentiment in role playing games that time us only valuable in combat, and otherwise it is an endless commodity, but wealth is a static resource and I don’t think that is very healthy for good storytelling, but I have moved most of that conversation to a thread about that exact subject. It is also something that has pervaded role playing games way deeper than just a discussion about the differences between PF1 and PF2.
I’d argue that PF2 is no worse about it than any other RPG, but a whole lot of that depends upon how GMs treat both time and wealth as a resource. PF2 has ways to directly turn one into the other pretty freely.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a prevailing sentiment in role playing games that time us only valuable in combat, and otherwise it is an endless commodity, but wealth is a static resource and I don’t think that is very healthy for good storytelling, but I have moved most of that conversation to a thread about that exact subject. It is also something that has pervaded role playing games way deeper than just a discussion about the differences between PF1 and PF2.
I’d argue that PF2 is no worse about it than any other RPG, but a whole lot of that depends upon how GMs treat both time and wealth as a resource. PF2 has ways to directly turn one into the other pretty freely.
I'd argue that if you apply automatic bonus progression from PF1 or PF2 then it really gets rid of a lot of the problems of wealth progression, but incorporating it into leveling up.
To be honest, I wish more RPGs used that sort of thing.
For example, one of my favorite things in WoW (and I haven't played in years) was the gear that leveled up with you character leveled up. Like, it was never the best gear, but being able to basically ignore gear altogether except to sell it made the experience way more fun. Because I always spent an insane amount of time comparing gear to decide what I should use. And you would do it basically every level all the time.
Plus I always feel more awesome when the reason I'm good isn't the gear I'm carrying but just because I'm so magically cool that it makes the stuff I hold better.
The reason players in 2e (and 1e, and many other RPGs) value their gear so highly compared to most fictional characters really is simple.
Very few fictional series have resurrection at all, and while healing is more common, it's rarely nearly as effective or abundant.
Most fictinal characters don't fight to the death multiple times per day as a matter of course.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but I think they would have been MUCH better served if they instead decided to create a "successor" for the far more popular 5e rather than the failed 4e.Quick note: D&D 4e was stupendously succesful by any standard other than "Hasbro Core Brand" (by which standard there has never been a successful RPG).
I always thought the real failing of 4e was that they abandoned the homebrew community they had built up via OGL in order to more tightly control what people played (and then compounded this by failing to properly support their own ability to produce content). It was not a mistake they repeated with 5e.
They clearly had an audience, but not nearly enough content to point them at.
In any case, I found this whole thread fascinating. I came to the conclusion that what some players really want is to be able to have the same sensation you get playing DPS in an MMORPG, that of you needing to have the best possible character to tag into a fight, but once you're in the fight your ability to affect what other people do is limited. Myself, I always play healers and tanks, so my game mindset has always been reactive.
It is an interesting difference in taste, I think.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiple dice make significantly below average (and above average) rolls less likely, not more.
Multiple dice is more likely to hit the average than one die but less likely than static modifiers. 2d6 is less swingy than 1d12 but just getting 7 every time is not swingy at all, and with how small the dice were compared to your static modifier in PF1 that's effectively where we were at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick note: D&D 4e was stupendously succesful by any standard other than "Hasbro Core Brand" (by which standard there has never been a successful RPG).
You sure about that?
Hasbro reorganizes to support big growth from ‘Dungeons & Dragons’ and ‘Magic: The Gathering’
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its been a good couple of years for the worlds most popular roll playing game. The article even notesQuick note: D&D 4e was stupendously succesful by any standard other than "Hasbro Core Brand" (by which standard there has never been a successful RPG).You sure about that?
Hasbro reorganizes to support big growth from ‘Dungeons & Dragons’ and ‘Magic: The Gathering’
D&D is more popular and profitable right now than it’s been at any other point in its 47-year historyOf the two, Magic: The Gathering has been the larger money producer in the past, when speaking in percentages its hard to tell if a 33% increase in the world's most popular roll playing game sales is more than a 23% increase in Magic: The Gathering revenue. Maybe the source Wall Street Journal Article goes into it, but paywall.
2019 or 2020 might have been the year for Hasbro to finally say "Hey, this might be worth something" and decide to do something interesting with it. Of course, it might mean that its has a large enough market share now to be a viable IP farm for movie, TV, and other media projects.
5th edition might be the one. Of course, we don't know what caused this upsurge exactly. I myself am curious to see if that growth is also reflected elsewhere in the tabletop market. Not curious enough to check, I suppose.
Specifically its causing a trickle down effect to other games, while the majority of 5e players only play 5e, its proportionally swelling the subset of players that try and enjoy other games, basically the more people who try the gateway game, the more end up following through to trying other things, even if most still don't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to say that I have introduced several players that never played 5E at all.
Of course, my groups are probably outliers but nonetheless, I think when we frame all conversions in the "coming from 5E" space we don't really see the whole picture. Lots of people I've played with are coming from board games, PF1 and older editions, and just plain no other games period (except maybe video games).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of the two, Magic: The Gathering has been the larger money producer in the past, when speaking in percentages its hard to tell if a 33% increase in the world's most popular roll playing game sales is more than a 23% increase in Magic: The Gathering revenue. Maybe the source Wall Street Journal Article goes into it, but paywall.
It's basically impossible to understate how much money Magic makes. D&D could be the absolute perfect game that makes anyone who plays it ascend to immediate godhood and it still would not make as much money as Magic does. For starters, you can't monetize a tabletop RPG as aggressively as a trading card game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I remember, wizards has an annual revenue of 816ish million, 581 of that is mtg. The rest is split between D&D and their other products.
Paizo has an annual revenue of about 22.4 million. Even if you said D&D was 3x as big as pathfinder, that would put D&D at about 66 million, roughly 1/9 of MtG.
That’s how much MtG dwarfs D&D as a WotC revenue stream.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing any table Top RPG to Magic is Pointless. It is the biggest money maker in Board, RPG, or war games. I would almost say that it makes more than Monopoly for Hasbro. I would be curious to see the numbers between the two. I will say that D&D is closing the Gap and Wizards is getting its own division now.
Moving the Topic back. I am huge Pathfinder 2 fan. More choices each class, the architype system is great. Critical hits and misses if you hit or miss by 10. To me it is the best d20 game bar none. 2nd place is Starfinder and D&D 5e. Armor class also scales with level. I do not think that gets mentioned enough.
Any how that is just my take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I think it is much better. Of course there are things I'd do differently. But it is the best.
Go with D&D 5 if you want something simple, but you don't care that much about balance or you have an aversion to simple addition.
Go with Pathfinder 2 if you want strong rules and detailed mechanics that enable different characters.
Yes. I think it is much better. Of course there are things I'd do differently. But it is the best.
Go with D&D 5 if you want something simple, but you don't care that much about balance or you have an aversion to simple addition.
Go with Pathfinder 2 if you want strong rules and detailed mechanics that enable different characters.
If you want something simple go with FATE Accelerated tbh
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want something simple go with FATE Accelerated tbhYes. I think it is much better. Of course there are things I'd do differently. But it is the best.
Go with D&D 5 if you want something simple, but you don't care that much about balance or you have an aversion to simple addition.
Go with Pathfinder 2 if you want strong rules and detailed mechanics that enable different characters.
That is a totally different. Almost free form improvisation. I've played a couple of campaigns. Far too ephemeral for my tastes
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moving the Topic back. I am huge Pathfinder 2 fan. More choices each class, the architype system is great. Critical hits and misses if you hit or miss by 10. To me it is the best d20 game bar none.
Its interesting because I find the -/+10 crit mechanic to be highly problematic.
Consider the encounter I have planned for my PCs next. I've been waffling about making it a fight of an L+3 vs an L+2, as it is a 'boss' monster of the scene the PCs are now in.
If I make it L+3, against the raging barbarian in the group it on a roll of 11+, the beastie crits. The raging barbarian against the beastie, roll of 13 or less and barby misses.
L+3 just doesn't feel fun nor heroic for the PCs.
Moving the Topic back. I am huge Pathfinder 2 fan. More choices each class, the architype system is great. Critical hits and misses if you hit or miss by 10. To me it is the best d20 game bar none.
Its interesting because I find the -/+10 crit mechanic to be highly problematic.
Consider the encounter I have planned for my PCs next. I've been waffling about making it a fight of an L+3 vs an L+2, as it is a 'boss' monster of the scene the PCs are now in.
If I make it L+3, against the raging barbarian in the group it on a roll of 11+, the beastie crits. The raging barbarian against the beastie, roll of 13 or less and barby misses.
L+3 just doesn't feel fun nor heroic for the PCs.
Honestly, if your group refuses to make use of buffs/debuffs, or actually take advantage of their action economy, don't throw a L+3 at them.
Its interesting because I find the -/+10 crit mechanic to be highly problematic.Consider the encounter I have planned for my PCs next. I've been waffling about making it a fight of an L+3 vs an L+2, as it is a 'boss' monster of the scene the PCs are now in.
If I make it L+3, against the raging barbarian in the group it on a roll of 11+, the beastie crits. The raging barbarian against the beastie, roll of 13 or less and barby misses.
L+3 just doesn't feel fun nor heroic for the PCs.
I think naratively the critical mechanic is good and it makes the dice rolls more interesting.
For me the consequnce is that I have to play with really tight levels on the monsters. As a GM I prefer to run with a smaller number of higher level monsters as it is just easier to manage. But that should be done sparily as it is too hard for the PCs to get hits and successes of their own. Especially the casters.
You really do need to talk to your players about the mechanical tactics in the game(trip, demoralise, etc, etc). Or just do it to them - from a lower level - till they get it. Fighting up level is very hard.
Barbarian's a class that really clamors for some enablers - the consequence of being the class who's entire mechanical structure is getting big damage and zero accuracy bonuses. Either provide them yourself through Demoralize or party up with a Bard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if your group refuses to make use of buffs/debuffs, or actually take advantage of their action economy, don't throw a L+3 at them.
Moving the Topic back. I am huge Pathfinder 2 fan. More choices each class, the architype system is great. Critical hits and misses if you hit or miss by 10. To me it is the best d20 game bar none.
Its interesting because I find the -/+10 crit mechanic to be highly problematic.
Consider the encounter I have planned for my PCs next. I've been waffling about making it a fight of an L+3 vs an L+2, as it is a 'boss' monster of the scene the PCs are now in.
If I make it L+3, against the raging barbarian in the group it on a roll of 11+, the beastie crits. The raging barbarian against the beastie, roll of 13 or less and barby misses.
L+3 just doesn't feel fun nor heroic for the PCs.
Also worth noting that a L+3 opponent is the sort of thing that is meant to be reserved for an important moment like a final boss and be pretty grueling. And you will have a rough time if you don't play smart-- which is often anathema to a certain definition of heroic. The barbarian throwing themselves into a meat grinder tends to not just result in the barbarian going down, but the rest of the party desperately trying to save them instead of ending the threat. It gets messy.
Honestly, if your group refuses to make use of buffs/debuffs, or actually take advantage of their action economy, don't throw a L+3 at them.
Except my group does buff/debuff and take advantage of their action economy. The Bard often is tossing out Inspire Courage or Inspire Defense, or even both with Harmonize (though the Harmonize trick is tough because its all the bard can do on his turn). That is just one example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think naratively the critical mechanic is good and it makes the dice rolls more interesting.
To each their own, I've never been one to like mechanics that are based on high dice variance. It makes for an unpredictable game and often robs players of their chance to shine.
Given the
For me the consequnce is that I have to play with really tight levels on the monsters. As a GM I prefer to run with a smaller number of higher level monsters as it is just easier to manage. But that should be done sparily as it is too hard for the PCs to get hits and successes of their own. Especially the casters.
The best fights I've run are large numbers of low level beasties with a couple of equal level commanders.
You really do need to talk to your players about the mechanical tactics in the game(trip, demoralise, etc, etc). Or just do it to them - from a lower level - till they get it. Fighting up level is very hard.
Folks, I need to stress my group fully understands how to use buffs and debuffs. When fighting above your weight class your options are limited. The bard is buffing as much as he can. The wizard will use things like Befuddle on bad guys since it even has an effect on a successful save. That said, there is still only so much you can do.
I'll also add, as a GM I've got enough on my plate just prepping and running published material (admittedly at the moment heavily modified but hoping to get the AP back on track). I do not need to add even more to my busy life trying to micromanage mechanics in the rules set will that slaughter PCs if you are not extremely careful.
Honestly, if your group refuses to make use of buffs/debuffs, or actually take advantage of their action economy, don't throw a L+3 at them.Except my group does buff/debuff and take advantage of their action economy. The Bard often is tossing out Inspire Courage or Inspire Defense, or even both with Harmonize (though the Harmonize trick is tough because its all the bard can do on his turn). That is just one example.
So why do Level +3 then? The boss doesn't always need to have a huge level advantage. There is nothing wrong with some extra powers or some help?
Also worth noting that a L+3 opponent is the sort of thing that is meant to be reserved for an important moment like a final boss and be pretty grueling. And you will have a rough time if you don't play smart-- which is often anathema to a certain definition of heroic. The barbarian throwing themselves into a meat grinder tends to not just result in the barbarian going down, but the rest of the party desperately trying to save them instead of ending the threat. It gets messy.
Based on guidance on the CRB, L+3 bosses aren't necessarily supposed to be final boss monsters. Certainly a major threat, but not THE boss.
Based on actual play since PF2e has been released, shows that your comment is probably correct; L+3 against most parties is really Final Boss Monster territory.
I've also run plenty of L+2 solo monster fights, and even against a four person party (my previous group), the PCs routed those encounters every time. Not even close to a challenge. Sure the PCs take some hits, but never any doubt about the outcome.
Its interesting because I find the -/+10 crit mechanic to be highly problematic.Consider the encounter I have planned for my PCs next. I've been waffling about making it a fight of an L+3 vs an L+2, as it is a 'boss' monster of the scene the PCs are now in.
If I make it L+3, against the raging barbarian in the group it on a roll of 11+, the beastie crits. The raging barbarian against the beastie, roll of 13 or less and barby misses.
L+3 just doesn't feel fun nor heroic for the PCs.
I think naratively the critical mechanic is good and it makes the dice rolls more interesting.
For me the consequnce is that I have to play with really tight levels on the monsters. As a GM I prefer to run with a smaller number of higher level monsters as it is just easier to manage. But that should be done sparily as it is too hard for the PCs to get hits and successes of their own. Especially the casters.
You really do need to talk to your players about the mechanical tactics in the game(trip, demoralise, etc, etc). Or just do it to them - from a lower level - till they get it. Fighting up level is very hard.
IMO this helped to balance and make boss fights more like Boss Fights!
In older PF1/3.5 many time I have more difficult fights against many foes than vs a Big Boss. This happens because the numeric diference between the sides. The outnumbered side has to face many attack rolls, many times is easily flat-footed, and receive many attack rolls and crits. Also the most brutal GMs use the outnumber to pass through tankers and take the fight to backside making it difficult or useless to use wide area spells and highly damage the arcane casters.
In PF2 the use of high number of low level enemies also means higher chance to high level chars to crit them, diminishing their effectiveness. And at same time make the big high level bosses much more dangerous.
My only main problem with the 10+ critical system is if your class is critical focused it may become far weaker against a high-lvl boss.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on guidance on the CRB, L+3 bosses aren't necessarily supposed to be final boss monsters. Certainly a major threat, but not THE boss.
The CRB says Level +3 can be either a severe or extreme threat, and both categories are for final boss. Severe quite specifically uses the phrase "final boss", and extreme is "for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on guidance on the CRB, L+3 bosses aren't necessarily supposed to be final boss monsters. Certainly a major threat, but not THE boss.The CRB says Level +3 can be either a severe or extreme threat, and both categories are for final boss. Severe quite specifically uses the phrase "final boss", and extreme is "for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign".
Yeah, for a book end you might expect to see a solo L+3, or a L+2 with some minions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo heard how people complained how singular bosses were a complete joke all through 3.5 and thought they should fix that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, for a book end you might expect to see a solo L+3, or a L+2 with some minions.
That is, players who have gone through several battles with their characters and know theirs strong and weak points very well and also probably are equipped with what the best available for them.
That's the why a L+3 Boss fight is so strong and difficult for many players (specially those who are unprepared).