|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the 90% balance is what does it for me with 2e. Well, that and the ability of the GM to shift things to easier or harder very easily.
I am a PF1 veteran, also a PF1 society veteran. When my group played at the 12+ levels, it was near impossible to create a challenging session without having the high chance for TPK. It was rocket tag. The closest one of our crew got to creating a balanced, challenging session was after he had made an intricate spreadsheet of all of our stats (skills, saves, ACs, etc..).
In PF2, as people point out elsewhere on this forum, some of the numbers end up being a bit off at higher levels. But they are rarely off by more that 3, I'm pretty confident in that. As such, all the balancing that is required is slight tweaks, spreadsheets are not necessary.
It is definitely a different system. But, if things aren't going as desired, it only really requires small shifts to improve things to the desired points.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright. Thanks! And the Core of course, right ? So people know races/classes? Is there an advanced race/class?The single best investment you can make is the $15 on the pdf of the Beginner Box.
Learn the player rules (Heroes Handbook) and the gamemaster rules (Gamemaster's Guide). They are the foundation for running and playing PF2.
That package also gives you the maps and pawns you need to run your first adventure on Roll20.
Once you have mastered those, get the Player's Handbook, the first Bestiary, and the Game Mastery Guide.
And then you can start branching out with different advanced rule books, adventures, Adventure Paths, and so on.
The main books right now are:
1. Core Rule Book
2. Advanced Player's Guide
3. Bestiary (two of them)
4. Gamemastery Guide
There's also a number of "Lost Omens World Guides", which are essentially the old player companions consolidated into fewer releases with more content per release. I'd recommend just starting with the Beginner's Box and then seeing what you feel like you need after that; all of the rules content in the other books is available online on Archives of Nethys so you can do as much try-before-you-buy as you like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright. Thanks! And the Core of course, right ? So people know races/classes? Is there an advanced race/class?
No, I wouldn't buy the Core Rulebook until later.
Everything that is in any of the official Paizo rulebooks is also available for free online at Archives of Nethys.
The Core Rulebook is 600+ pages of details that you don't really need until later. If your players want different races, check out AoN.
Once you've played through the BB adventure, you'll have a much better feel for what you want to know more about.
The CRB (I mistakenly referred to it as the Player's Handbook earlier) would be my second purchase. But don't try to fit CRB classes and rules into that first BB game. The Beginner Box simplified things, so it's easier to get fully immersed in the game quickly.
The CRB is a ponderous tome, better suited for adding layers of complexity, not for quick learning. Until then use AoN for your questions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beginner Box with the option to continue in "Troubles in Otari" (this will bring you up to level 5) will let you test the waters and see if you like the new system (I love it as a GM btw). If you want to continue, you can use "The Slithering", but that one plays in the deep Mwangi Expanse. With "The Slithering" you will have to start with non-human characters in the Beginner Box.
Afterwards you can start the first 3-issue AP "The Abomination Vaults" (as that one also plays in, around and under Otari) or plunge into a full blown AP (Age of Ashes is an AP where you discover lots of different places around Golarion, Extinction Curse is a romp around the Isle of Kortos, Agents of Edgewatch is an urban AP in Absalom where the PCs are members of the City Watch).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules of PF2 make everything much easier for the GM.
Honestly, I could see PF2 GMing probably being more fun (for someone like me) than PF1 because monsters are incredibly effective.
I think the key change here is that monsters are more able to hit PCs, but less able to knock them down. In PF1, very often PCs had such extreme AC that you couldn't hit them until you escalated monster CR to way above recommended levels - but when you did that and you actually hit, you'd pulverize the PC.
But this isn't really very satisfying. Basically, as a GM, you want to land some blows, you want to see the players sweat. And even as players, you sometimes want to sweat a bit. But you don't want to be beaten into a pulp all the time. In PF1 you could do this by not having extreme AC but having extreme HP. PF2 makes that more the standard; HP are up and monster damage doesn't scale up as fast. But monsters are hitting you more.
@Gortle, you hit the nail on the head when you say I have the feeling of never getting ahead. That's exactly my issue. And it made me absolutely f~~!ing miserable. For me, that feeling of never getting better to the enemies I was currently facing makes me feel like an absolute failure. It was the definition of not fun for me.
It's felt exceedingly pointless and arbitrary to level up because my enemy was also getting stronger right along with me, at everything. They don't have to pick and choose which things they get better at. Everything gets better as they level up, just like you.
I think this is more a problem with monster selection and adventure design.
If at level 5 you fight lots of level 5 monsters and at level 7 you fight lots of level 7 monsters, you don't feel like you're getting stronger.
Instead, suppose at level 5 you fight level 4-7 monsters with maybe one level 8 end-of-level boss. Then at level 7, you'll fight level 6-9 monsters with maybe a level 10 boss. When you run into some of the monsters you fought before last level, you notice you've gotten stronger compared to them. That level 7 monster that gave you a lot of trouble when you fought one of them at level 5 - you can now take on two or three of them at the same time. That level 6 monster that felt a little tough when you were level 5 is now kinda weak and you crit it frequently.
So when you're looking at an adventure deciding which of the encounters to use, which ones maybe to cut - make sure you don't cut all the repeat-from-last-level monsters because they're "uninteresting".
Claxon's critiques feel bizarre to me because I cannot imagine being disappointed that enemies continue to be dangerous. It's not like it's the same sewer goblin that you fought at level one that continues to be a threat, you leveling up means you can match more dangerous foes - things that would've mopped the floor with you a couple levels earlier.
I guess I'm coming from the perspective of being a huge fan of famously difficult RPG's. Different strokes and all.
The problem is when the high level enemies look like the lower level enemies just scaled up and everything feels the same.
PF1 and the older D&D played very different from the low levels to the high levels. Some classes play very much the same as you go up level. If all you do is as a fighter is hit hit hit, or if as a cleric all you do is buff then heal, then any game can get a bit stale. Build a character mix things up. Use the options. Follow the hints the GM drops.
The problem is when the high level enemies look like the lower level enemies just scaled up and everything feels the same.
PF1 and the older D&D played very different from the low levels to the high levels. Some classes play very much the same as you go up level. If all you do is as a fighter is hit hit hit, or if as a cleric all you do is buff then heal, then any game can get a bit stale. Build a character mix things up. Use the options. Follow the hints the GM drops.
I find 2e better than most at making creatures feel unique even at low levels, if the monsters are using their unique quirks it doesn't matter that they're scaled up to match the player's strength (which is a question of taste, some people like challenges, others like the power fantasy, neither is wrong) because the flashier gimmicks get the point across that these are fearsome foes of a grander scale.
If your players are feeling weak or wish they could stomp an encounter every once in a while the solution to build an encounter a level or two lower than the recommended for the party is simple and works surprisingly well withing the boundaries of the system, they'll feel powerful and hit/crit more often but won't be bulldozing everything in their wake.
As for the second point there isn't really something the system can do for the player if they're not looking to diversify their approaches, as long as they have the options to do it, the system has done its job. In 2e a high level spellcaster will have exponentially more options to tackle any single obstacle (even if the on-level enemies are just as likely to resist the save) while the martials have had plenty of chances to take interesting maneuvers and skill feats to break out of the full-attack routine; also magic items are a thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Claxon's critiques feel bizarre to me because I cannot imagine being disappointed that enemies continue to be dangerous. It's not like it's the same sewer goblin that you fought at level one that continues to be a threat, you leveling up means you can match more dangerous foes - things that would've mopped the floor with you a couple levels earlier.
I guess I'm coming from the perspective of being a huge fan of famously difficult RPG's. Different strokes and all.
I guess it's because after you fight those sewer goblins, you never (or at least rarely) get an opportunity to flex on someone and feel like a superhero.
In PF1 I felt like a superhero, even when playing a non-magical character. And even when facing monsters above my level.
In PF2, you basically always fight on level monsters or higher, and they're always challenging. So I always felt like a bumbling, incompetent, only alive through luck, schmuck. I detest that.
As a point of comparison, you sound like someone who likes Dark Souls. That kind of game isn't what I'm looking for.
I want to feel like a superhero, kicking ass and taking names. PF2 doesn't fit that play style, unless you rewrite adventures to mostly face level -2 (maybe level-1) creatures and bosses are on level or level +1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules of PF2 make everything much easier for the GM.
Honestly, I could see PF2 GMing probably being more fun (for someone like me) than PF1 because monsters are incredibly effective.
I think the key change here is that monsters are more able to hit PCs, but less able to knock them down. In PF1, very often PCs had such extreme AC that you couldn't hit them until you escalated monster CR to way above recommended levels - but when you did that and you actually hit, you'd pulverize the PC.
But this isn't really very satisfying. Basically, as a GM, you want to land some blows, you want to see the players sweat. And even as players, you sometimes want to sweat a bit. But you don't want to be beaten into a pulp all the time. In PF1 you could do this by not having extreme AC but having extreme HP. PF2 makes that more the standard; HP are up and monster damage doesn't scale up as fast. But monsters are hitting you more.
@Gortle, you hit the nail on the head when you say I have the feeling of never getting ahead. That's exactly my issue. And it made me absolutely f~~!ing miserable. For me, that feeling of never getting better to the enemies I was currently facing makes me feel like an absolute failure. It was the definition of not fun for me.
It's felt exceedingly pointless and arbitrary to level up because my enemy was also getting stronger right along with me, at everything. They don't have to pick and choose which things they get better at. Everything gets better as they level up, just like you.
I think this is more a problem with monster selection and adventure design.
If at level 5 you fight lots of level 5 monsters and at level 7 you fight lots of level 7 monsters, you don't feel like you're getting stronger.
Instead, suppose at level 5 you fight level 4-7 monsters with maybe one level 8 end-of-level boss. Then at level 7, you'll fight level 6-9 monsters with maybe a level 10 boss. When you run into some of the monsters you fought...
I agree whole heartedly with your concept. When I played (didn't GM) we ran pre-written adventures, and they didn't do this. And I believe it's part of what contributed to my dislike of the system.
Claxon's critiques feel bizarre to me because I cannot imagine being disappointed that enemies continue to be dangerous. It's not like it's the same sewer goblin that you fought at level one that continues to be a threat, you leveling up means you can match more dangerous foes - things that would've mopped the floor with you a couple levels earlier.
I guess I'm coming from the perspective of being a huge fan of famously difficult RPG's. Different strokes and all.
I guess it's because after you fight those sewer goblins, you never (or at least rarely) get an opportunity to flex on someone and feel like a superhero.
In PF1 I felt like a superhero, even when playing a non-magical character. And even when facing monsters above my level.
In PF2, you basically always fight on level monsters or higher, and they're always challenging. So I always felt like a bumbling, incompetent, only alive through luck, schmuck. I detest that.
As a point of comparison, you sound like someone who likes Dark Souls. That kind of game isn't what I'm looking for.
I want to feel like a superhero, kicking ass and taking names. PF2 doesn't fit that play style, unless you rewrite adventures to mostly face level -2 (maybe level-2) creatures and bosses are on level or level +1.
It sounds like maybe you would enjoy just being 2 levels higher. I think it might be hard to find a GM that wants to play that way though. Then again I would say in PF1 90% of the monsters just die with no efforts in our Iron Gods campaign ever since level 7. So if GMs preferred that sort of gameplay maybe you could find a GM that just uses monsters 2 levels lower.
I do admit I am surprised anyone would prefer that gameplay. We actually started to try PF2 coming from a super unbalanced 5e campaign where we were WAY stronger than the monsters and I really thought everyone would love the PF2 challenge combined with actually interesting tactics.
It turns out 2 players actually enjoyed being overpowered and pretty much never used tactics once. Turns were just move+cast spell or move+attack in 5e. So yes I guess some people really do enjoy that sort of combat.
Admittingly I really do enjoy PF1 mainly because I got to make my character somewhat unique and pretty much do whatever I want. I summoned giant dinosaurs that perma stunned everyone and now I cast dazing fireballs + other overpowered spells.
PF1 a level 10+ caster has like 10+ ways to nullify monsters in 1 turn. I pretty much have to do unoptimized turns otherwise the monsters would pretty much never get to act.
I play a lot of tactical RPG video games and by far my favorite are games that are moderate difficulty. I personally feel PF2 fits quite good since in general players are still better than monsters. I always hated games that were brutally difficulty or just way too easy.
I definitely wouldn't say PF1 is too easy but fights get super lopsided quick, both enemies/players can be destroyed in one spell. The only difference is players have to get super unlucky since their saves are much better.
So overall I much prefer PF2 because I can focus on whatever aspect I want and my character and not feel like I am making a "broken" character. I haven't got into high levels of PF2 but imo both D&D 5e and PF1 once you get to levels 10+ the games just gets too easy.
|
Claxon's critiques feel bizarre to me because I cannot imagine being disappointed that enemies continue to be dangerous. It's not like it's the same sewer goblin that you fought at level one that continues to be a threat, you leveling up means you can match more dangerous foes - things that would've mopped the floor with you a couple levels earlier.
I guess I'm coming from the perspective of being a huge fan of famously difficult RPG's. Different strokes and all.
I guess it's because after you fight those sewer goblins, you never (or at least rarely) get an opportunity to flex on someone and feel like a superhero.
In PF1 I felt like a superhero, even when playing a non-magical character. And even when facing monsters above my level.
In PF2, you basically always fight on level monsters or higher, and they're always challenging. So I always felt like a bumbling, incompetent, only alive through luck, schmuck. I detest that.
As a point of comparison, you sound like someone who likes Dark Souls. That kind of game isn't what I'm looking for.
I want to feel like a superhero, kicking ass and taking names. PF2 doesn't fit that play style, unless you rewrite adventures to mostly face level -2 (maybe level-1) creatures and bosses are on level or level +1.
I think the easiest way to get this with PF2 is to play published scenarios with characters 1 level higher.
IIRC, in PFS there are temporary level-up adjustments (far simpler than actually advancing a level) for PCs who play a scenario with a party (and in a difficulty level) really above their own level. From what I recall, the character wasn't really as efficient as those who had true levels, but at least they did not fold like paper dolls in encounters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really agree with the sentiment that you don't see improvement, I understand people feel that way if you fight things at your level the whole time but realistically story arcs will generally have you fighting at least one of the same types of foe throughout each arc and the system accomodates to four levels lower than you (this is represented in most of the AP volumes too)
In tomorrow must burn for instance, my party fought dwarven thugs in chapter 1 (level 7, two levels lower than their starting level of 9), then by chapter 3 they were fighting groups of 6+ of them, they were still a threat but as they could be crit more often the party giggled in glee as they cut through them (even if they got a little over confident, if that slow hadn't worked as well as it did there would have been 1-2 dead party members)
Same thing happened with the charuka (babboon humanoids) in the second book and the boggards between both books.
Realistically the GM will always balance to be somewhere around the party's strength because neither 1e or 2e have a bounded accuracy system like 5e's implementation.
But this doesn't stop there from being feelings of progress.
Something that should be unlearnt for pf2e is the idea that hyper focus is optimal, do it if that is your jam but if you want to build characters that do one thing and only do that one thing regardless of whether that one thing makes sense, the system won't give you enough tools to make that feel satisfying. I see this as a feature though.
But yeah, echoing others. The beginner box is exceptional though and I was really impressed with it from a teacher's perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that should be unlearnt for pf2e is the idea that hyper focus is optimal, do it if that is your jam but if you want to build characters that do one thing and only do that one thing regardless of whether that one thing makes sense, the system won't give you enough tools to make that feel satisfying. I see this as a feature though.
I did just want to say that I think Pathfinder 2 really hits the sweet spot for me in this regard!
PF1 you could go spell focus>greater spell focus>spell specializations>improved initiative etc... and things got broken quick.
D&D 5e is the complete opposite that characters literally can just do whatever they feel like, they don't even need to focus on anything.
PF2 really is perfect for me in the character customization, which is my favorite part of the game...
-You get to focus on 2 skills (3 eventually)
-You can spend you class feats to be super focused if you like and not blatantly overpower your self.
-Ancestry feats add even more fun to either versatility or even focus more.
Just for instance here is my random that I just randomly through together
Level 8 Draconic Sorcerer Goblin with a focus on Intimidate + Athletics
Level 1 - Goblin Weapons
Level 2 - Champion Dedication
Level 4 - Lay on Hands
Level 6 - Champion Resiliency
Level 8 - Champion Reaction
Imo this is a good example that you can focus a character in one aspect but doesn't blatantly break the game. The same Sorcerer could go...
Level 1 - Goblin Weapons
Level 2 - Champion Dedication
Level 4 - Lay on Hands
Level 6 - Dragon Breath
Level 8 - Crossblooded Evolution
This is a similar character just less focused and I love that both characters feel "equally" good imo. While in PF1 the super focused character would be so much better.
|
|
I agree whole heartedly with your concept. When I played (didn't GM) we ran pre-written adventures, and they didn't do this. And I believe it's part of what contributed to my dislike of the system.@Gortle, you hit the nail on the head when you say I have the feeling of never getting ahead. That's exactly my issue. And it made me absolutely f~~!ing miserable. For me, that feeling of never getting better to the enemies I was currently facing makes me feel like an absolute failure. It was the definition of not fun for me.
It's felt exceedingly pointless and arbitrary to level up because my enemy was also getting stronger right along with me, at everything. They don't have to pick and choose which things they get better at. Everything gets better as they level up, just like you.
I think this is more a problem with monster selection and adventure design.
If at level 5 you fight lots of level 5 monsters and at level 7 you fight lots of level 7 monsters, you don't feel like you're getting stronger.
Instead, suppose at level 5 you fight level 4-7 monsters with maybe one level 8 end-of-level boss. Then at level 7, you'll fight level 6-9 monsters with maybe a level 10 boss. When you run into some of the monsters you fought before last level, you notice you've gotten stronger compared to them. That level 7 monster that gave you a lot of trouble when you fought one of them at level 5 - you can now take on two or three of them at the same time. That level 6 monster that felt a little tough when you were level 5 is now kinda weak and you crit it frequently.
So when you're looking at an adventure deciding which of the encounters to use, which ones maybe to cut - make sure you don't cut all the repeat-from-last-level monsters because they're "uninteresting".
I think you may have been particularly unlucky in the selection of adventures, or maybe the GM cut some of the "filler" encounters - fillers that are important to make sure you see a range of different levels, instead of only the key hard fights.
Just looking at the start of PFS2 for example:
1-00: enemies ranging from level -3 to +2 (most of them in the -2 to +0 range).
1-01: enemies range from level -1 to +2
1-02: -1 to +0
1-03: -1 to +1
1-04: -1 to +2
1-05: -1 to +1
1-06: -1 to +2
1-07: -1 to +2
1-08: -1 to +0
I could go on.. but also realized while compiling that list that often enough while playing these scenarios myself, I've run into substantially harder monsters. Earlier in PFS2, the scaling method used for larger parties had a tendency to push 5+ player groups into high tier, trusting their superior numbers to help them overwhelm a smaller number of high level enemies. Basically the typical solo bossfight setup, but every time. It's possible you may have been burned by this?
I play a lot of tactical RPG video games and by far my favorite are games that are moderate difficulty. I personally feel PF2 fits quite good since in general players are still better than monsters. I always hated games that were brutally difficulty or just way too easy.
I don't know about this part. The general sentiment a lot of my players and I have been having is that monsters are just better than PCs. At-level monsters have better stats and super strong passive or action economy improving abilities, nutty reactions, etc. Monsters can have the attack bonus and damage of a Fighter with the spell DC equal or even higher than a maxed out PC caster.
It's hard to compare something like a Babau and a 6th level Rogue (since both have 2d6 sneak attack) and not say the Babau is stronger in almost every way. Even the weaknesses it has are compensated for by a huge HP pool. Same thing with a Fighter and a Troll, for example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that should be unlearnt for pf2e is the idea that hyper focus is optimal, do it if that is your jam but if you want to build characters that do one thing and only do that one thing regardless of whether that one thing makes sense, the system won't give you enough tools to make that feel satisfying. I see this as a feature though.
This is precisely my problem though. I want to hyperfocus. Not hyperfocusing feels unrewarding to me.
Oh, so I'm moderately good at everything, and I have a couple things I'm above average.
Pffft! Who cares! I want to be exceptional at something, even if it means I'm awful at everything else.
In this capacity, PF2 fails categorically for me. It's why I told my gaming group I wasn't giving it another go. I realize PF2 just isn't a good fit for my playstyle.
I don't know about this part. The general sentiment a lot of my players and I have been having is that monsters are just better than PCs. At-level monsters have better stats and super strong passive or action economy improving abilities, nutty reactions, etc. Monsters can have the attack bonus and damage of a Fighter with the spell DC equal or even higher than a maxed out PC caster.
It's hard to compare something like a Babau and a 6th level Rogue (since both have 2d6 sneak attack) and not say the Babau is stronger in almost every way. Even the weaknesses it has are compensated for by a huge HP pool. Same thing with a Fighter and a Troll, for example.
Well players aren't supposed to be compared to monsters their level. Most fights are supposed to be moderate or low. In a moderate encounter for 4 players you would fight against 4 monsters -2 levels.
So most battles (moderate) for a party of 4 level 6 characters should be...
4 level 4 monsters
2 level 6 monsters
1 level 6 2 level 4 etc...
So yes a level 6 monster is better than a player because encounters shouldn't be 4 level 6 monsters. That is just the way they chose "CR".
This is precisely my problem though. I want to hyperfocus. Not hyperfocusing feels unrewarding to me.
In PF2 you can make very focused characters on 2-3 skills and on one combat style. You are definitely rewarded for focusing but other playstyles are just as viable. Or are you saying you want to make overpowered characters that can't fail?
PF1 I made an Arcanist with very little game knowledge that spells hit like 80+% of the time that all say "This monster loses X turns"... which is quite dumb.
The real difference is PF1 imo 100% requires players to hyperfocus or get completely outclassed while PF2 players can focus on 1-4 things quite good and all players feel like they contribute.
I really feel like the playstyle of focusing on one or two things works great in both games.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way I understand it, Claxon wants their PCs to be able to be head and shoulders above anyone not specialising as much as them in their chosen field of expertise, even at the cost of being far below others in all other ways.
And yes, PF2 very clearly does not allow this by design.
Many people like PF2 this way (self included), but clearly those who want this out of a system will not find it in PF2. Which is ok I think.
TBH, I think this thread is awesome in how people with very different preferred play styles can explain their opinions without it becoming a flame war. I sincerely thank all participants for this. You all rock :-)
BTW, Claxon, if I misrepresented your meaning, do not hesitate to correct me.
Way I understand it, Claxon wants their PCs to be able to be head and shoulders above anyone not specialising as much as them in their chosen field of expertise, even at the cost of being far below others in all other ways.
And yes, PF2 very clearly does not allow this by design.
Many people like PF2 this way (self included), but clearly those who want this out of a system will not find it in PF2. Which is ok I think.
TBH, I think this thread is awesome in how people with very different preferred play styles can explain their opinions without it becoming a flame war. I sincerely thank all participants for this. You all rock :-)
BTW, Claxon, if I misrepresented your meaning, do not hesitate to correct me.
Nah, you're analogy is pretty apt in this case.
@Artifical 20, I'm not sure exactly what number would be right for the feel. I'd probably have to test it a lot. But going from PF1 where my Warpriest Archer is shooting like 4 arrows a turn and only 1 misses to PF2 and I'm lucky if 1 of my 2 arrows hits....it was a huge shock. Having turns where all my attacks miss makes me very resentful of the system.
@RPGNoremac, I think you're looking at the difference between focusing and hyperfocus. Hyperfocusing is PF1. That doesn't exist in PF2. PF2 allows you to focus on 3 or 4 things without expense to other things. Heck, you can have a fighter with 3 legendary skills, a chosen weapon combat style, and still pickup a caster multiclass without losing much of being good at your combat style.
It's just that you're only "good" at your weapon combat style (IMO) and I never feel legendary or heroic.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard to compare something like a Babau and a 6th level Rogue (since both have 2d6 sneak attack) and not say the Babau is stronger in almost every way. Even the weaknesses it has are compensated for by a huge HP pool. Same thing with a Fighter and a Troll, for example.
That is, because one Babau is a same-level threat for a group of 4 PC's. It is not a same-level threat for one PC. You should compare the babau to PC's of of levels 9 or 10 (or even higher). You should find some similarities at that point.
One of the main differences between PF1e and PF2e is it focus of mastery.
PF1e has its focus on the mastery of character creation/optimization.
PF2e has its focus on the mastery of play itself.
If you built a character in PF1e that specialized in something, you had no problem with any encounter, where you were able to use the specialization (e.g. grappling). This leads to many adventures being a cakewalk and not a challenge for the PC's (and neither for the players).
In PF2e you have to find solutions to the different problems that arise from the very different monsters, the three Bestiaries present. If the players do not find the solution, the PC's should either flee or a TPK is imminent. This is what I mean with mastery of play and I find it a much more rewarding way to play (for the players AND the GM).
Something that should be unlearnt for pf2e is the idea that hyper focus is optimal, do it if that is your jam but if you want to build characters that do one thing and only do that one thing regardless of whether that one thing makes sense, the system won't give you enough tools to make that feel satisfying. I see this as a feature though.This is precisely my problem though. I want to hyperfocus. Not hyperfocusing feels unrewarding to me.
Oh, so I'm moderately good at everything, and I have a couple things I'm above average.
Pffft! Who cares! I want to be exceptional at something, even if it means I'm awful at everything else.
In this capacity, PF2 fails categorically for me. It's why I told my gaming group I wasn't giving it another go. I realize PF2 just isn't a good fit for my playstyle.
I wasn't quoting you or saying anything about you so I am not seeing a reason for the hostility. But I will bite.
Hyper focus and focus are different things. I wish to make it clear that I am not saying PF2e doesn't cater to focused playstyles; just that hyper focused playstyles akin to "I will have one or two action rotations and I will always use these no matter what" is punished harder, when it makes sense for them to shine they will still shine but will never be optimal.
In my current PF1e game each combat is essentially decided at character creation for most of the party. That doesn't mean players don't get noticably stronger as the levels progress though. This may be fun for some, just not a PF2e game.
I have two focused builds in my main PF2e group, one is movement and two handed weapon focused, the other is shapechanging focused. Both work and work well. Neither are so focused they lack any other meaningful options though and the shapechanging druid has some non shapechanging feats selected to allow for scenarios when they need to be flexible even if 70-80% of the time they will shapeshift.
I play a lot of tactical RPG video games and by far my favorite are games that are moderate difficulty. I personally feel PF2 fits quite good since in general players are still better than monsters. I always hated games that were brutally difficulty or just way too easy.I don't know about this part. The general sentiment a lot of my players and I have been having is that monsters are just better than PCs. At-level monsters have better stats and super strong passive or action economy improving abilities, nutty reactions, etc. Monsters can have the attack bonus and damage of a Fighter with the spell DC equal or even higher than a maxed out PC caster.
It's hard to compare something like a Babau and a 6th level Rogue (since both have 2d6 sneak attack) and not say the Babau is stronger in almost every way. Even the weaknesses it has are compensated for by a huge HP pool. Same thing with a Fighter and a Troll, for example.
The weaknesses are pretty huge for demons and devils, plus the PCs will have a bunch of options available to them. The biggest risk is players not knowing how the system works and trading blows while not being built for trading blows.
PCs will have people who can heal, people who will flank with them, diverse debuff and control options as well as greater movement options in this case. Oh and action enhancing feats/options, enemies like devils rarely have the power multipliers support classes bring to the table and will generaly be tipping battles even further in the players favour.
1:1 the babu will outclass a same level rogue in a standing slug match, but the rogue is bringing more to the table than the babu overall and has no reason to get into a slug match. 1:1 a Champion, Fighter, Ranger or Barbarian will be a more equal fight. (Despite the babu having sneak attack it isn't built like a rogue, a Spy is more of a rogue analogue for an npc)
It taking 4d6 damage a round when a pc heals from its ideal attacks, losing damage against neutral PCs, and taking 6 damage from a miss on a 2nd or 3rd MAP holy water while lacking real means of getting flatfooted for its sneak beyond flanking (that said, rogues and barbarians for cannot be flanked by foes of their level and lower anyway).
But back to the rogue, a human chaotic neutral rogue at level 6 will often have 80-86hp, means of single action healing its self (battle medicine and healers gloves come to mind as does any fast healing or regen effect), doesn't need to flank to get reliable flat footed, can easily have 10-15ft more speed, has ranged flexibility and on a flatfooted hit (super easy with gangup) will likely deal 2d8+4+2d6+1d6 or more. The babu loses out on its evil damage and will struggle to keep up with the rogue's movement options even with a longspear, is unable to flank and needs two actions to get its ideal actions or spells off.
I don't think it would be an easy fight and dice luck could easily sway things, but looking at accuracy and other whiteroom numbers alone doesn't tell the full story and they are much closer in power than you would think.
Way I understand it, Claxon wants their PCs to be able to be head and shoulders above anyone not specialising as much as them in their chosen field of expertise, even at the cost of being far below others in all other ways.
I do want to point out one thing though in PF2 characters are actually more specialized in skills except Rogues/Investigators. Since in PF1 a character gets to be amazing in X skills while PF2 you just get 2 - 3.
Of course in PF1 you can spend your feats on skills to be worse in combat. Just not sure how many did this.
I think this is a super cool thing about PF2 compared to PF1/5e since players can pick their favorite skills and really focus on the them while being good in combat.
I also wanted to point out "even at the cost of being far below others in all other ways." is pretty much non existent for a lot of characters in PF1. The way buff stacking works in PF1 there are plenty of characters that are amazing at everything while being exceptionally amazing at one thing.
My favorite levels for PF1 was the 5-10 range because of this. I realized quickly being a full caster that things just start to get out of hand when you get higher levels.
I admit you can make some really "bad" characters in PF1 by spending every feat on non combat abilities, I just could never get myself to do that.
Luckily atm PF2 is quite a balanced and nothing too broken yet. It will be VERY tough to keep it that way with how much content is being added. I just love that about PF2 you get "close" to as many options as PF1 but without the crazy balance issues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is, because one Babau is a same-level threat for a group of 4 PC's. It is not a same-level threat for one PC. You should compare the babau to PC's of of levels 9 or 10 (or even higher). You should find some similarities at that point.
Um... this is how CR works in 5e (possibly PF1? Not sure, haven't played it). It's not how encounter building works at all in PF2. An extreme encounter should be around 50/50 of each side winning, and if you have the same amount of PCs and monsters of the same level, you have the exact XP of an extreme encounter. By that logic, it means a PC and a monster of that level should be roughly equal in power. I'm arguing they aren't; monsters supposedly trade versatility for power but I found a lot of them to be as versatile as PCs in combat while also being more powerful.
I'm sorry, but your comparison is so far away from how it works that a level 6 monster can barely tickle a level 10 PC. It's considered an "extremely low threat lackey", by the book's definition.
@Artifical 20, I'm not sure exactly what number would be right for the feel. I'd probably have to test it a lot. But going from PF1 where my Warpriest Archer is shooting like 4 arrows a turn and only 1 misses to PF2 and I'm lucky if 1 of my 2 arrows hits....it was a huge shock. Having turns where all my attacks miss makes me very resentful of the system.
I did just want to point out that has nothing to do with hyperfocusing that is just how PF1 is balanced compared to PF2. It is just easier to hit in PF1 most the time on any character.
PF2 is just balanced around characters hitting less often no matter one. Which I 100% agree is something some players dislike. I actually don't really care one way or another. I never have felt that bad missing my attacks but I understand others do.
Just for example without looking at numbers exactly if in PF1 it takes 4 hits to kill a monsters (2 rounds) since you have like an 80% hit chance.
While in PF2 it takes 2 hits to kill a monster (2 rounds) since you have 50% hit chances
In reality they both take an average of 2 rounds of "full attacks" but some players greatly prefer PF1 low miss chance which 100% agree I would rather have that too but to have that they would have to inflate enemy HP even more.
|
|
a level 6 monster can barely hit a level 10 PC. It's considered an "extremely low threat lackey", by the book's definition.
That is correct, if you want to compare its lethality. But you wanted to compare its statistics because a level 6 monster is a challenge for a group of level 6 PCs it should have the same values for attributes and hit points and that is not the case.
That is, because one Babau is a same-level threat for a group of 4 PC's. It is not a same-level threat for one PC. You should compare the babau to PC's of of levels 9 or 10 (or even higher). You should find some similarities at that point.Um... this is how CR works in 5e (possibly PF1? Not sure, haven't played it). It's not how encounter building works at all in PF2. An extreme encounter should be around 50/50 of each side winning, and if you have the same amount of PCs and monsters of the same level, you have the exact XP of an extreme encounter. By that logic, it means a PC and a monster of that level should be roughly equal in power. I'm arguing they aren't; monsters supposedly trade versatility for power but I found a lot of them to be as versatile as PCs in combat while also being more powerful.
I'm sorry, but your comparison is so far away from how it works that a level 6 monster can barely hit a level 10 PC. It's considered an "extremely low threat lackey", by the book's definition.
Well in general you should very rarely have extreme encounters unless your GM is really mean lol. So I think in general for most combats a player should be compared to a level - 2 since that is what most fights will consist of.
I have never ran 1 on 1 encounter against a player of equal levels. Monsters are obviously way more one dimensional though so they have inflated stats to make up for it. I also feel monsters are supposed to be more self-sufficient while players are supposed to rely on each other.
If they made monsters weaker "at level" all that would be different is to have a more challenging battle you would have monster level + 2 so it would mean the same thing just players would feel better I guess.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that should be unlearnt for pf2e is the idea that hyper focus is optimal, do it if that is your jam but if you want to build characters that do one thing and only do that one thing regardless of whether that one thing makes sense, the system won't give you enough tools to make that feel satisfying. I see this as a feature though.This is precisely my problem though. I want to hyperfocus. Not hyperfocusing feels unrewarding to me.
Oh, so I'm moderately good at everything, and I have a couple things I'm above average.
Pffft! Who cares! I want to be exceptional at something, even if it means I'm awful at everything else.
In this capacity, PF2 fails categorically for me. It's why I told my gaming group I wasn't giving it another go. I realize PF2 just isn't a good fit for my playstyle.
I wasn't quoting you or saying anything about you so I am not seeing a reason for the hostility. But I will bite.
Hyper focus and focus are different things. I wish to make it clear that I am not saying PF2e doesn't cater to focused playstyles; just that hyper focused playstyles akin to "I will have one or two action rotations and I will always use these no matter what" is punished harder, when it makes sense for them to shine they will still shine but will never be optimal.
In my current PF1e game each combat is essentially decided at character creation for most of the party. That doesn't mean players don't get noticably stronger as the levels progress though. This may be fun for some, just not a PF2e game.
I have two focused builds in my main PF2e group, one is movement and two handed weapon focused, the other is shapechanging focused. Both work and work well. Neither are so focused they lack any other meaningful options though and the shapechanging druid has some non shapechanging feats selected to allow for scenarios when they need to be flexible even if 70-80% of the time they will shapeshift.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as hostile. Please don't read my words with that intent. It was mean to be...farcical perhaps. I'm not sure what I should call it precisely. A very short one person play about my feelings?
Please don't take any ill will from my post as there was none intended. Merely just trying to state my position on how I feel about the system.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, how does second compare to first? What are the changes that make a big impact? Does it simplify? Make things more interesting?Also can second edition be ran comfortably with 1st edition adventures? Like Rise of the Runelords, etc?
As a player:
1. Three-action economy is excellent. Gone are confusing swift actions, move actions, etc.2. Crits and fumbles are better. They work the same in skill checks, saves and attacks, if you beat the DC by 10 or more you crit, if you miss by 10 or less you fumble. Nat 20s and Nat 1s still matter, because they can turn a failure into a success or a crit failure into a regular failure.
3. Multiclassing is gone, if you pick fighter at first level, you are a fighter. However, you can take dedication feats to get features of a different class to mix your own combination of spells and abilities, so all "fighters" are different and yours is special.
4. Leveling requres 1000 xp per level. Simpler math.
5. Not all classes are released yet, some are still being playtested. But there are a bunch of new playable species, or ancestries as PF2 calls them.
6. Use pathbuilder2e app on android to make characters. It makes it SO much easier than going through the book. It's the best.
As a gamemaster:
1. Monsters scale with level, and this math is important. That means any monster that is 2-3 levels above the party is a solo boss fight, and any monster that is 4+ levels above the party level is a TPK. Likewise, any monster 1-3 levels below party level is a trash mob, and anything below that is trivial. So your encounters should always be within -3 to +3 levels of the party.
2. Encounter budgets are important. You can't wing them when making your own content for the game, you have to count the beans. If you throw a horde of low levels at players they might get overwhelmed by sheer numbers. If you throw more than one "boss" enemy at a time at them, that could also be problematic (bosses crit more often, shrug off spells more often, etc). A good encounter should be within 120-200 XP. Higher than that would be a slog or a brick wall of a TPK, anything lower might be over too soon or too easy. Thankfully this math is simple, just read the fine print carefully. Don't do what I did on your first game and pit your players against a group of 5 monsters who are all 2 levels above them. When the encounter difficulty table says your budget is "severe", believe it.
3. Making encounters is easy. There's a ton of bestiary entries, plus you can use pathbuilder2e app to make a monster the same way one would make a character. Level 3 character = CR 3 monster. Easy! Just count the encounter budget as I mentioned above.
4. Adventures aren't backward compatible with 1st ed. You'd have to restat all the monsters.
5. There's a handy table of how much stuff your players should earn per level. Reference it every level when building your stuff to make sure they're not too poor or too rich. Math is tight, and if you deviate too much from the guidelines you can be in a situation where the fights start being too challenging or not challenging enough.
6. Virtual tabletops, such as Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Astral or (my favorite) Talespire can help your group meet and play while isolated in quarantine. You mentioned coming back to the hobby, so be aware that it is a changing landscape and a lot of it has gone digital in a variety of ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I think in general for most combats a player should be compared to a level - 2 since that is what most fights will consist of.
Good Sarenrae, how much I wish whoever writes PF2's adventure paths listened to you.
I have never ran 1 on 1 encounter against a player of equal levels. Monsters are obviously way more one dimensional though so they have inflated stats to make up for it.
This argument is one I see a lot, but I think it's mostly only true for low levels (and some rare high level exceptions like Black Scorpions). If you look at outsiders or general monstrous creatures with innate spells, a lot of them are just blaster-controller-tank-melee-ranged-damage-debuffer-skirmisher monstrosities. With usually an aura or two on top. The ones that aren't are usually stupidly good at one thing to a degree no PC of that level could come close (see Storm Giant having the AoE ability of a meat blender with Whilwind-but-better, Swipe-but-better and 3 Chain Lightnings)
I also feel monsters are supposed to be more self-sufficient while players are supposed to rely on each other.
This part I certainly agree with, but I think it's taken a bit too far. The game expects a very high level of teamwork and tactics for you to be even mildly successful. I also think PCs being too reliant on one another to succees takes away from the moments where one player does something amazing and everyone stands and yells in excitement for them, but that's a tad more personal. It doesn't feel the same way when the optimal strategy is debuff-stacking the boss so hard they wish you just killed them already.
On the subject of feeling like you're getting stronger, the real key is that any given monster statblock, over the course of a handful of levels, will go from 'single monster we struggle against' to 'fighting a few of them on relatively even footing' to 'fighting swarms of them and batting them aside left and right' all while being a viable part of encounters as per the encounter building rules.
The only way you don't experience this is if the GM never has you fight some of the same monsters over the course of multiple levels, the orcs that are difficult at level 1 when you confront the 3 bandits in their camp are wave-clear material at level 4 when you take on the orc chief in his fortress and are doing battle with his guards.
My players very distinctly went to confronting a single adult dragon, to batting aside small swarms of them before a climactic battle with an ancient dragon.
_____________________________________________________________________
As for the conversation about specializing, its all relative, you WILL be head and shoulders above people who don't specialize in whatever you are, but not to the absurd degree of pathfinder 1e (where the other person is categorically useless if they aren't specialized to that degree.)
By the same token, a lot of that specialization is qualitative more than quantitative, though both are present in different ratios than in Pathfinder 1e (quantitative is raising your proficiency level in a skill via skill ups, qualitative being taking skill feats that let you do a bunch of cool things with that skill.)
Technically, a lore skill doesn't increase your bonus in something, but it does make you far and away the best person for that subject by usually dropping the dc-- and thats on top of you placing prof ranks into it, picking up feats, boosting the ability score, and potentially finding a magic item to make you better at it, and potentially even having class feats for it as well (I'm thinking of recall knowledge shenanigans, the Investigators abilities related to exploration, and so forth.)
Similarly, a lot of the choices you make to be good at something are more obvious because the ivory-tower-defining trap options are gone. This means that the threshold of system mastery to be able to make a character good at something is lower, and you might not even realize that its less that you aren't specialized, its more that other people have invested in their stuff as well.
Also the way resources are distributed means that you're good at multiple things, your stats are naturally a little more spread out, you have room to get the bulk of your specialization in something done and still invest in other things.
|
|
So I think in general for most combats a player should be compared to a level - 2 since that is what most fights will consist of.Good Sarenrae, how much I wish whoever writes PF2's adventure paths listened to you.
For what it's worth... I spoke with Jason Bulmahn at GenCon when the 2nd edition was released, and asked him how to make monsters of various levels until Gamemastery Guide would come out later with proper rules for making them. He recommended the game masters would do one of two things: reskin an existing monster or make a monster as a character. In the latter case, the level of the character would roughly make it equivalent to the same level monster.
What does that mean? Do what you will with this info.
I can tell you that it doesn't mean that pitting 1 PC against an NPC of the same level would make a balanced or fun encounter in every class/ancestry/dedication combination. This is a party game, and you are greater than the sum of the parts. It's balanced for a party of 4-6 humans working together to foil the plans of various villains run by an absent-minded fellow human being with limited attention span. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Artifical 20, I'm not sure exactly what number would be right for the feel. I'd probably have to test it a lot. But going from PF1 where my Warpriest Archer is shooting like 4 arrows a turn and only 1 misses to PF2 and I'm lucky if 1 of my 2 arrows hits....it was a huge shock. Having turns where all my attacks miss makes me very resentful of the system.It can take some feeling out. I'm not presenting P2E in this, just asking in a generic sense of rolling a D20 for something. To build a system you have to start without said system existing, and rolling any dice implies chance, so I'm interested to hear from someone with an articulate interest in hyperfocus what probability of failure works. Steps can be taken beyond that, such as multiple attacks a round, by rolling is the design molecule.
Even if you can't specify it, thank you for giving a response.
To that end, in the context of PF2 type number of attacks (basically always 2) for me to feel successful I'd probably have to be somewhere in the 75% to 80% success rate on the first attack, knocking the second attack down to a 50% or 55% success rate. It makes the odd of failing both attacks about 10% (if my probabilities math is correct, I don't do it frequently enough to remember).
I don't know that it would give me quite the feel I'm after, but I think it would probably get rid of the feeling of being a bumbling idiot.
While I am not stating that this reflects any individual in this thread (because I don't know if it does or not), at the extreme end of the spectrum I've talked to people who said that not being able to build their characters to succeed hard skill checks for their level even ok a Nat 1 was a deal breaker, because a 5% chance of failing at their specialty felt incompetent to them. How much specialization math people want in the game varies a lot.
Personally, I like having the floor and ceiling much closer together, because in 1E I hated how skill challenges ended up impossible to set DCs for that weren't guaranteed success for some characters, guaranteed failure for anyone else, or both at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest I never had a problem with guaranteed successes on skills checks happening for one player per skill.
For most anything that mattered you could make it such that the whole party (or at least multiple people) needed to succeed. Or you could provide a challenge where everyone got to showcase a different ability.
Except stealth. Stealth was always like...well the rest of the party is noisy so unless you want to go off alone (and probably die when you do get caught)...
To be honest I never had a problem with guaranteed successes on skills checks happening for one player per skill.
For most anything that mattered you could make it such that the whole party (or at least multiple people) needed to succeed. Or you could provide a challenge where everyone got to showcase a different ability.
Except stealth. Stealth was always like...well the rest of the party is noisy so unless you want to go off alone (and probably die when you do get caught)...
I'm not trying to claim that my feelings about this are universal truth, but I really want to be able to set things up so that a specialist will probably succeed, but have a chance of failing and needing to go to Plan B, while a less invested (but not totally untrained) character can attempt and possibly succeed, but with worse odds. That specific space that I want is what really doesn't exist in that system.
To that end, in the context of PF2 type number of attacks (basically always 2) for me to feel successful I'd probably have to be somewhere in the 75% to 80% success rate on the first attack, knocking the second attack down to a 50% or 55% success rate. It makes the odd of failing both attacks about 10% (if my probabilities math is correct, I don't do it frequently enough to remember).
When I first heard about the 3-action economy and the multiple attack penalty waaay back in the beginning of the Playtest, I thought they would do something very similar to this. Balance the game around first attacks being very accurate and then the iterative ones being more gambly. Sadly, that's not what happened. Or at least not for PCs, high level monsters hit on 3s and 4s against at level, but I digress...
To that end, in the context of PF2 type number of attacks (basically always 2) for me to feel successful I'd probably have to be somewhere in the 75% to 80% success rate on the first attack, knocking the second attack down to a 50% or 55% success rate. It makes the odd of failing both attacks about 10% (if my probabilities math is correct, I don't do it frequently enough to remember).When I first heard about the 3-action economy and the multiple attack penalty waaay back in the beginning of the Playtest, I thought they would do something very similar to this. Balance the game around first attacks being very accurate and then the iterative ones being more gambly. Sadly, that's not what happened :(
So I keep seeing this "I wish I had 80% chance to hit on something I'm good at" being repeated.
All of the monsters/enemies in the Bestiary that I can see follow the same level of hit chance as the PCs when on-level generally.
Changing it to where PCs have disproportionately better to hit chances than the same enemies they face isn't an option for balanced encounters obviously, so in order to achieve that "80%" ration, Monsters would also have to be buffed to the same hit range.
I seriously doubt feeling like every turn you're going to be walloped with 80% hit chances on first, and 50% hit chances on second would feel any better than current.
And on top of that, when you inflate the percentages of success on attacks up to 80% it makes doing anything but attacking a bad idea.
Like, why would I ever consider using Demoralize/Feint/etc. when I can just use my third action to attack again with a 25% hit chance (and still a 5% chance to crit). I really don't look forward to the "back to full attacks, but with extra steps" that it would entail, but that's me.
________________
That's even negating the fact that narratively the concept that "You suck if you miss" could easily be re-thought as "Everyone is pretty good at avoiding death, including myself since I don't get hit 80% of the time".
After all, if rolling the dice is inconsequential, then what's the point?
Now people are entitled to how they feel about the system, I would never argue otherwise, but in the same way that someone could call "Johnny B Goode" just "too d*&% loud" (Back to the Future) a personal opinion.
Being 80% successful at something doesn't make your character "competent" because it doesn't occur in a vacuum. There are ways to achieve 80% (set up and tactics like FF, Frightened, etc) and even if it was just built in it would only mean characters then become "incompetent" or only "marginally competent when compared to others".
I just am having a hard time seeing that point of view when it seems entirely subjective, unless the expectation is the PCs should trounce any encounter below a CR+2 (in which case, we fundamentally disagree).
I seriously doubt feeling like every turn you're going to be walloped with 80% hit chances on first, and 50% hit chances on second would feel any better than current.
That IS the current. At least for high level play. A Balor or a Pit Fiend (+40 to hit) hits a full plate Fighter (10 + 20 + 6 + 6 + 3 = 45 AC) on a 5, which is literally 80% hit chance. It just doesn't apply to PCs.
Less extreme monsters always have the attack bonus equal to or one higher than a Fighter at all levels, which is about 70-75% chance to hit. Even if they're gishes, have strong innate spells, etc. While for players, having this kind of accuracy is a huge premium, only doable by one class who has this as its one big class feature, and is still considered the strongest martial by most people just for having it. Balor/Pit Fiend level of accuracy is complete unattainable.
So no, I don't think you'd have to buff monster accuracy very much or at all to do this.
Except a Pitfiend/Balor is in fact a higher level creature than a PC at level 20.
We're expecting a creature, with only 3 actions, to be a match for a party of 4 PCs and have the same bonuses to hit? How does that figure?
Also at level 1, a Ball Python has a +8 to hit and a 17 AC, so cherrypicking the best to-hit monster at level 20 (there's a +36 monster and most are +38) doesn't really seem like a fair comparison.
Especially considering of the level 20 Monsters, they are the "fighters" of the bunch, so of course their to-hit is going to be one of their higher stats.
Why is the expectation that your to-hit bonuses be even with a creature that is objectively supposed to be stronger than you by yourself a "bad thing"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find pathfinder second edition both the hardest and easiest game I've ever ran.
From the point of view of the rules and the mechanics it is really easy. Once you know the basics you can use the core rulebook as a reference document which it excels at.
However, I found learning the basics from the core rule book really difficult until I managed to get some games under my belt. It's why the Beginers Box is so important as it allows you to get those first few sessions under your belt in a simple manner (Unless you know an experienced 2nd edition Pathfinder GM I would strongly recomend you start with the Beginners Box).
The hardest part however is developing and tweeking the encounters. Not in terms of the numbers (AC, Saves, HP etc.) that is really easy with the tables in the Gamemastery Guide (and also held on Archives of Nethys). However, the monsters are designed in a different way to first edition (or any game I've played to be honest). Each monster or hazard has strengths and weaknesses as do each player. This can cause encounters to play out in very different ways. This means for the first time in an RPG i've played (and that's a long time) you have the opportunity to really make each encounter feel unique. However as GM you need to use these tools to do that and that takes hard work.
Thankfully so far that hard work has paid off, I'm sure it will for you too.
Except a Pitfiend/Balor is in fact a higher level creature than a PC at level 20.
We're expecting a creature, with only 3 actions, to be a match for a party of 4 PCs and have the same bonuses to hit? How does that figure?
Also at level 1, a Ball Python has a +8 to hit and a 17 AC, so cherrypicking the best to-hit monster at level 20 (there's a +36 monster and most are +38) doesn't really seem like a fair comparison.
Especially considering of the level 20 Monsters, they are the "fighters" of the bunch, so of course their to-hit is going to be one of their higher stats.
Why is the expectation that your to-hit bonuses be even with a creature that is objectively supposed to be stronger than you by yourself a "bad thing"?
Huh? I'm confused by what you mean here. Balor and Pit Fiend are both exactly level 20. The comparison was made to a level 20 Fighter. How are they a higher level creature or objectively supposed to be stronger?
Unless you mean one level 20 creature is supposed to be a boss to a level 20 party, which, again, is not true in 2e. They're considered 1 to 1 by the encounter balancing rules.
Also can second edition be ran comfortably with 1st edition adventures? Like Rise of the Runelords, etc?
It can! In fact, doing so may help to bypass some of the problems people are arguing about now. I ran most of the first 3 books of Rise in second edition. While book 1 has a few challenging encounters, books 2 and 3 are kind of cakewalks. Book 2 pits small groups of level 1 enemies against level 5 or 6 parties. Book 3 also has some real fodder enemies to wade through, and a single overleveled encounter that wasn't really meant to be winnable in PF1 and needs to be handled with caution in PF2.
PF1 adventures seemed more OK with soft ball encounters. Not just because PCs could be built to be unbeatable, but if you look at the CR of encounters in PF1 and translate them into equal level encounters of PF2 there are a fair number that are just easy. In the back half of Ironfang Invasion I was usually tuning encounters upwards a bit, especially for BFD bosses, and those wound up being challenging but beatable. Many others the party steamrolled.
The hardest part is loot, as mentioned, and even then really just gold. Magic items aren't too hard because you can just pick something similar around the level of the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? I'm confused by what you mean here. Balor and Pit Fiend are both exactly level 20. The comparison was made to a level 20 Fighter. How are they a higher level creature or objectively supposed to be stronger?
Unless you mean one level 20 creature is supposed to be a boss to a level 20 party, which, again, is not true in 2e. They're considered 1 to 1 by the encounter balancing rules.
Actually, they are indeed considered a boss per the CRB:
Any standard creature or low-threat boss
And no one would argue that a Balor isn't a "low-threat" to a party of level 20 Adventurers (they would rip this Balor to shreds).
The fact of the matter is the only thing preventing you from using lower CR opponents against PCs is the need to gain experience points faster.
But the math supports them not only as being threats but the rules outright state that anything of your level or above is considered a "boss" by some metric.
And if we examine a Balor vs. a Fighter solo at level 20, then 100% a solo fight is a "boss fight" because a non-solo fight is already a boss fight. You're evaluating a CR 20 as if a Level 20 are the same thing. They are not at all the same and shouldn't be evaluated as "equals", they are a collective power that can at least provide some strife to four of you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're evaluating a CR 20 as if a Level 20 are the same thing. They are not at all the same and shouldn't be evaluated as "equals", they are a collective power that can at least provide some strife to four of you.
CR doesn't exist in 2e, and this is not at all the intent. See PC Style Build in the GMG:
If you do choose to build an NPC fully using the PC rules, your NPC should generally end up being an appropriate challenge as a creature of their level. They will likely have lower statistics in some areas than if you had built them using the creature rules, but more options due to their full complement of feats and class features. This is best saved for important, recurring NPCs, especially if they’re meant to engage in social or exploration endeavors rather than just battles.
An NPC built as a character has a level equal to their character level, and an NPC of that same level not built as a character has their stats determined the same way as any other creature - therefore, a level 20 monster is in fact meant to equal a single level 20 character, with potentially higher statistics in 'some areas' to make up for a lack of versatility.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? I'm confused by what you mean here. Balor and Pit Fiend are both exactly level 20. The comparison was made to a level 20 Fighter. How are they a higher level creature or objectively supposed to be stronger?
Unless you mean one level 20 creature is supposed to be a boss to a level 20 party, which, again, is not true in 2e. They're considered 1 to 1 by the encounter balancing rules.
Actually, they are indeed considered a boss per the CRB:
Any standard creature or low-threat bossAnd no one would argue that a Balor isn't a "low-threat" to a party of level 20 Adventurers (they would rip this Balor to shreds).
The fact of the matter is the only thing preventing you from using lower CR opponents against PCs is the need to gain experience points faster.
But the math supports them not only as being threats but the rules outright state that anything of your level or above is considered a "boss" by some metric.
And if we examine a Balor vs. a Fighter solo at level 20, then 100% a solo fight is a "boss fight" because a non-solo fight is already a boss fight. You're evaluating a CR 20 as if a Level 20 are the same thing. They are not at all the same and shouldn't be evaluated as "equals", they are a collective power that can at least provide some strife to four of you.
I'm not quite sure that I agree with this. Yes, the CRB refers to an on-level creature as a standard creature or low-threat boss, but that doesn't mean we can expect their statistics to significantly diverge from PCs of that level. If you build a PC of the same level of the party, they would also be a standard creature/low-threat boss. You say that level 20 monster shouldn't be compared to level 20 PCs, as the level 20 monster should be able to 'provide some strife for the four of you', but that should be true of the level 20 PC as well. I think we can see this in a few ways:
1: Most creatures DO have statistics that are similar to a well-built PC of the same level. By the time you get to level 20, it's recommended that the monsters have 3+ Extreme stats, so it's less true there - but anything less than Extreme is comparable to what a PC can get in the stat. As Midnighttoker stated, +38 is a more common attack modifier - and a fighter at that level has +38 (+20 level + 8 legendary + 7 attack stat + 3 item) before buffs.
2: The GMG guidelines do imply this several times, though outright explicit statements are rarer. They do still exist, outright stating that the most common modifier for an ability a monster is good at should be similar to a specialized PC, for example:
High skills are roughly on par with a specialized PC of the creature’s level, though they could be a little lower or higher.
3: The encounter design rules; despite a single level = APL+0 creature being called a 'low threat boss', a difficult (but still in the PC's favour) encounter is 3 APL+0 creatures. If we're expecting each of them to be more capable than an equivalent level PC, 3 of them would be a rather unfair encounter - given the expected party size is 4 PCs. For 3 level + 0 monsters to be an appropriate challenge for 4 PCs, each monster can't be much more threatening than a single PC.
That isn't to say I agree fully with dmerceless here - as I stated above, the standard attack mod at level 20 for a creature is +38, the same as an unbuffed fighter's attack mod. The 80% success chance doesn't only apply to monsters; that's just representative of level 20 attack rolls. The fighter's +38 attack mod can go to +40 quite easily - a 6th level Heroism spell cast on them (potentially even by them, as multiclassing doesn't ruin your BAB anymore), a helpful bard can be chipping in a boost, the enemies' AC can be lowered to get the same effect (and the fighter has several ways of doing that), etc. Similarly, a more defensively focused PC like a champion can have AC 47 and throw in a penalty or two to the enemies' attack (lets say Frightened 1 and Enfeebled 2) and the very much threatening pit fiend only has a 50-50 shot of hitting the defensively focused PC on its best attack.
Edit: FowlJ has ninja'd me by a few minutes with the quote I was looking for but couldn't find :P :)
You're evaluating a CR 20 as if a Level 20 are the same thing. They are not at all the same and shouldn't be evaluated as "equals", they are a collective power that can at least provide some strife to four of you.CR doesn't exist in 2e, and this is not at all the intent. See PC Style Build in the GMG:
If you do choose to build an NPC fully using the PC rules, your NPC should generally end up being an appropriate challenge as a creature of their level. They will likely have lower statistics in some areas than if you had built them using the creature rules, but more options due to their full complement of feats and class features. This is best saved for important, recurring NPCs, especially if they’re meant to engage in social or exploration endeavors rather than just battles.An NPC built as a character has a level equal to their character level, and an NPC of that same level not built as a character has their stats determined the same way as any other creature - therefore, a level 20 monster is in fact meant to equal a single level 20 character, with potentially higher statistics in 'some areas' to make up for a lack of versatility.
Except the book explicitly states the two are built with separate rules intentionally.
The fact is a CL even creature is meant to be a low threat boss to a party of 4 of that level. That’s explicit.
What’s also explicit, is that the rules for building a pc and a monster/npc are explicitly designed with different metrics. Level being a governance for one does not inherently mean it has the same value to the other.
We wouldn’t argue a level 10 spell is the same as a level 10 character in power right? We understand the correlation of power is spell x 2.
A level 20 Fighter with PC rules is not a CL 20, it’s more like a CL 18/19 when you compare them to a party of 4 of the exact same level. Enemies are designed with an inherent advantage because they are relative to the party and not a specific person. But APs certainly have these too from what I’ve seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact is a CL even creature is meant to be a low threat boss to a party of 4 of that level. That’s explicit.
Or a 'standard creature', listed in the same table. It's also explicit that a single such creature represents a 'trivial' encounter, such a small threat that the book suggests you don't even award XP for it.
What’s also explicit, is that the rules for building a pc and a monster/npc are explicitly designed with different metrics. Level being a governance for one does not inherently mean it has the same value to the other.
Apart from the part I already quoted where it does equate the two, you mean.