| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the world of Golarion, your PC is absolutely a larger than life character, even at level 1, but growing more and more so over time. proficiency and bonus vs at level challenges is only a relatively minor part of that story.
I find this statement at odds with my experience.
In PF2e, I feel like a random schmuck muddling his way through the world, surviving by luck and happenstance, not skill.Like the party is the group of bumbling fools in some Adam Sandler film.
I never experienced this in any other incarnation.
As for my ‘PC Olympics event of choice’ analogy, I was fortunate enough to see Usain Bolt in his prime. Taking the gold medal in the 100m over 1/10th of a second ahead of the rest of the field. Then do the same in the 200m.
Unprecedented performances.
There’s a reason he was, legitimately, called a Legend before he was 30.
no, he didn’t do that by sitting on the couch watching the ‘flix and eating chips
no, he didn’t do that by ‘rolling better’
it was pure, all out commitment to his chosen goal
hindsight is always 20/20 but after 2008, I knew the 2012s would see him, again, go 3 for 3 and said the same before the 2016s
I understand the need for everyone to be in the running [wording intentional]
yet for me, I want to be on the fields I mentioned above, not some heat of random schmucks pulled from the stands where whoever was luckier that day won
phrased differently, which would you prefer?
- the foe is only hit on a 16+ and takes three hits to take out
- the foe is hit on a 5+ and takes nine hits to take out
(you can also chose the 11+ and six hits option if you’d prefer)
(and I can tweak those #s to 1/3 to hit vs 2/3 to hit or ... however you’d like the comp phrased)
without exception, the people I game with detest the first option
they, universally, want to bring the smack and rock the enemy (even if the enemy is Rocky and can take blow after blow after blow)
never wanting 3/4 chance to miss (or maybe only 2/3 if allies tweaked a bit)
the problem is, the choice isn’t hit on a 16+ or a 6+, it is hit on a 16+ or hit on a 6+ & crit on a 16+, which makes that 6+ option a non-starter
the PF1e combat crit rules needed a serious rationalization and simplification
what, in my view, wasn’t needed was ‘tight math’ which means some of the most elegant aspects of the former system, like the size modifiers sub-system, must be completely deprecated because of a foundational design decision
I was gonna post about some of my experiences with my transition into 2e but it seems that the discussion has moved to other avenues.
Post away we will enjoy it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to the Balor for a second
I built a champion out to level 20 for a solo fight.
Caveats
- Over half of the selected champion class feats were dead selections for this fight, the champion cannot use its reaction without allies and having options like shield warden do nothing, extra reactions and reaction boosts do nothing.
- I allowed the champion the speed rune on its weapon to give it a more reasonable representation of the action economy of a level 20 player in a party.
- The champion knew it was going to be fighting a balor when choosing a weapon loadout, using a offhand weapon and doubling rings to help with weapon destruction from the aura. Ranged weapons also circumvent this.
- Both parties were allowed to start with an item in their hands and the champion had its shield raised (exploration activity)
- I did not factor in movement past the initial dimensional dervish, there are too many complexities that come into play and a party of 4 would drastically change how movement would be factored in.
Observations
- The Balor's whip, improved grab forces flat checks to manipulate (draw weapons) and being flatfooted in a solo combat is pretty impactful. The champion would have fared better if it had legendary athletics rather than legendary crafting.
- The champion was cautious and used Take Cover as often as possible, this ended up impacting two rolls in 3 combats (both in the same combat, one after another). It is worth taking, towershields don't get enough love here.
- The level 20 feat with the debuff aura for evil creatures had no impact on the results, it stopped 2 hits from getting through total.
- Weakness really hurts the balor and sources of its weakness are too common/cheap/easy to get at that level. Other classes will likely be better, the champion was selected for thematics.
- Flame aura doing 6d6+10 every round accumulates a decent amount of damage even through fire resistance.
Conclusions
- The champion wins hands down even without access to most of its kit. A champion would only struggle if it weren't aware of the chance of it fighting a balor or had below average dice luck.
- The champion if built to fight a Balor could make it a joke, this build was not built to fight Balors.
- If the Redeemers Reaction was in place the Balor would have died with minimal impact and fast. To the point where two redeemer champions could probably take on four balors.
It was a fun experiment and I look forwards to do it again, here is the transcript of the second match (the first one I didn't think to record, the third I couldn't be bothered recording)
While it's true that a level 6 Rogue can't compete with a Babau in combat prowess alone, why would they have to? Monsters are shmucks that live for 4 to 5 rounds if they're lucky, they need to be tough and scary, but just enough to pack a punch and maybe use an unique ability or two that's hopefully memorable, they'll regularly get action economy cheats simply to have a chance at doing something before being blasted off the face of Golarion; the Rogue is cunning, agile and resourceful, they can stack the deck by planning ahead, researching the enemy, buying a cold iron weapon and most importantly relying on their allies to set the stage by rendering the enemy flat-footed and exposed.
I think you would be surprised at how effective a level 6 rogue can be against a babau in a flat fight with no prep. It is much more even than people think. If it just stood there exchanging blows I wager it would be a slight edge towards the Babau, but not by a huge margin and it isn't like the Babau is a rogue analogue. If the rogue can move, then things get interesting, if the rogue is assumed to get gangup (as it likely would) then the rogue almost certainly wins.
In the world of Golarion, your PC is absolutely a larger than life character, even at level 1, but growing more and more so over time. proficiency and bonus vs at level challenges is only a relatively minor part of that story.I find this statement at odds with my experience.
In PF2e, I feel like a random schmuck muddling his way through the world, surviving by luck and happenstance, not skill.
Like the party is the group of bumbling fools in some Adam Sandler film.
I never experienced this in any other incarnation.
Can you give an example, this is a pretty extreme claim.
As you level up you essentially no longer have to roll for things that you have surpassed and are trained in (even without assurance).Even in combat, you aren't hitting every blow at the same level because it is assumed that the same level are individuals in the same bracket of performance and combat is fast, so it is hardly like you are standing there trading blows for minutes at a time.
In the solo combat with a balor above it was resolved in 9, 9 and 10 rounds. That is a minute of fighting and even when the champion is failing to withdraw an item due to being grappled that is more a testament to the Balor than it being a comedy of errors.
If you have 55% to hit with your first attack (10+) and 30% with the second that is a 70% chance of you striking your foe in 6 seconds. This is improved via flatfooted, martial/fighter/gunslinger proficiency and various status or circumstance bonuses. This myth of "everything misses I can't hit anything" is tosh, dice luck may suck at times but the base odds aren't as bad as they are being made out to be.
Back to the champion example, a Balor has an AC of 45, the Champion has an ATK of +37 base, that is a 65% chance to hit on the first blow, 75% chance if the balor is flatfooted, 80% with enforced oath or some other ability, 95% if someone who cannot safely attack it is using aid actions... And that is before we get into debuffs like clumsy and stuff like demoralize.
Better yet, pushing it to 95% success rates also increases your crit chance dramatically... further helping that heroic sensation.
This is repeated across all levels, not with every character vs every enemy. But even the much maligned spell damage is reliable and quite effective given that it requires no investment outside of knowing the spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for my ‘PC Olympics event of choice’ analogy, I was fortunate enough to see Usain Bolt in his prime. Taking the gold medal in the 100m over 1/10th of a second ahead of the rest of the field. Then do the same in the 200m.
Unprecedented performances.
There’s a reason he was, legitimately, called a Legend before he was 30.
no, he didn’t do that by sitting on the couch watching the ‘flix and eating chips
no, he didn’t do that by ‘rolling better’
it was pure, all out commitment to his chosen goal
hindsight is always 20/20 but after 2008, I knew the 2012s would see him, again, go 3 for 3 and said the same before the 2016s
This is more like comparing a level 7 to a level 5.
Expecting a near-guarantee of success in every equal-level challenge, to me, feels somewhat akin to expecting every batter that steps up to the plate to hit a home run most of the time, while your pitcher - but only your pitcher - will throw strikes most of time and rarely allow a hit.
Some people are just really going to balk at a system designed around around the players existing at the center of the world. They did not in 3.x to PF1 and that made it possible to imagine how specialization happens in world, but it stopped being true in PF2.
In PF2, Only the PCs and the people and things they really interact with exist within the gamist system. In that regard, how heroic the PCs are is entirely resting on the GMs shoulders, not the game system's shoulders. I very typically throw in flat DC 5, 10 and 15 environmental features to my campaigns. Those numbers stay exactly the same (climbing on a table, or scaling a rough wall) from level 1 to level 20. The players get much better at them. Most of the monsters they fight do to, because they go from fighting a couple of thugs in an ally way to fighting demons and dragons. But the difficulty of doing things in the world doesn't change.
While I technically belong in that "some people", the base chassis of PF2 is so meaty that I won't give it up as long as I can. As such, if I'd run the game I'll probably follow your methods of showering the gameplay with flat "simple DCs" + use NPCs with statblocks that seem sane to me (like attack/skill modifiers equal to ability bonus plus intended(*) level plus 2/4/6/8; the outliers with +1/3/5/7/9 in the GMG alone were too glaring to me).
(*) It took a looooong time but I somewhat mellowed out on the idea of Legendary bakers with a combat stat of Lv.1, as long as other rules like the one above are still met...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For my experiences with the transition, there is actually a little bit of a funny story. Mildly.
As PF1 went on, I ended up making a rather extensive document of optional rules + house rules that quickly grew out of control. It grew to many pages, but I got pretty good at formatting and trimming them to make them easily presented
Enter PF2. Nearly everything I was attempting to do with my houserules, PF2 did. It did them better. Making shields more active? Done. Reducing skill requirements and branching skill trees? Done. Racial HP bonuses to increase early HP? Done. Three action system? Done.
The list goes on. Every decision I made to shift towards (what I thought) was a better experience was everything PF2 was doing, but with the benefit of being built from the ground up. PF2 is everything I wanted the original system to be. It even improved upon things I didn't know that I wanted, like dedicated skill and ancestry feats.
In short, pf2 is exactly what I wanted from Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you give an example, this is a pretty extreme claim.
here you go
Bumbling BabboonsGM posted that last year; I only learned of it the 5th of this month when he shared that link
I was one of the four players, all of which had the same thought
that wasn’t our John McClane moment of Die Hard winning, that was us being tossed in the deep end and, fortunately, this time, the dice gods said,
sure, let’s give those idiots a moment of the Teela Brown gene, after all, their denouement will be a TPK
none of us were thrilled or juiced by that fight, it left a bad taste
we all did the like, seriously? look at the GM
of the four, two of the lot are gone gone (not playing PF2e, not in touch), the two of us left have been joined by three others (for a party of five, with the GM not adjusting encounters due to party size)
yes, in the irrelevant fights (L-# ones) we rocked the beasties
in the fights that really matter (L+2,L+3,L+4), we reconsider our choice of past times
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is more like comparing a level 7 to a level 5.
Expecting a near-guarantee of success in every equal-level challenge, to me, feels somewhat akin to expecting every batter that steps up to the plate to hit a home run most of the time, while your pitcher - but only your pitcher - will throw strikes most of time and rarely allow a hit.
isn’t this a bit of an apples to celery comparison?
which of us runs the fastest (highest check of same skill wins)vs
can I hit your pitch (opposed check, higher check of different skills wins)
in the L7 vs L5, the base difference is at most 4 (2 levels and one proficiency rank)
which (rerolling ties) is a 68 3/4% vs 31 1/4% split (66%, 30%, 4%, L7,L5,tie)
hardly a dominating, legendary difference
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you don't like P2 since you couldn't curbstomp a boss?
no one wanted a cake walk
we all wanted a challenging encounter where the deciding factor in the outcome of the contest would be skill, not lucknone of us felt we came out on top because we played better, were the combatants which made the better choices, utilized our character’s capabilities to their limits
we all felt we pulled a rabbit out of a hat and won by pure, blind luck
we didn’t hold the field by playing well, we just got lucky
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you don't like P2 since you couldn't curbstomp a boss?no one wanted a cake walk
we all wanted a challenging encounter where the deciding factor in the outcome of the contest would be skill, not luck
none of us felt we came out on top because we played better, were the combatants which made the better choices, utilized our character’s capabilities to their limits
we all felt we pulled a rabbit out of a hat and won by pure, blind luckwe didn’t hold the field by playing well, we just got lucky
Crits have been in these games since forever, if you don't like them I don't know what to tell you.
Also one player wanted to leave the game cause they got hit with confusion early in the fight so...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was there. I’m well aware.
I feel I’ve failed to communicate if from what I wrote one could infer “couldn’t curb stomp a boss” was the point I tried to convey.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While low level you had a grueling fight against a boss (one player wanted to leave the moment a negative happened to them) and won because you got crits. To most people that would be an awesome memorable encounter, the nature of fights in a d20 system.
You don't like that though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yes, in the irrelevant fights (L-# ones) we rocked the beasties
in the fights that really matter (L+2,L+3,L+4), we reconsider our choice of past times
This attitude right here is exactly what I am talking about, and incredibly problematic, but also something a GM can work around.
It is problematic because, in encounter design, level is only half the equation. If you will dismiss any fight as irrelevant unless it is against higher level monsters, then you are missing out on a lot of really fun encounters. You can make an even more challenging encounter for PCs using 12 level -2 monsters than the fight in question, and good adventure writing is not dependent only on the higher level solo fights a party will encounter.
That said, in this particular instance, the exactly wrong level +3 gap got exposed in PF2’s first AP. It crosses THE major proficiency gap in a situation that a lot of players have ended up walking in to without an idea of what is about to happen.. The adventure gives GMs the tools necessary to avoid sending their PCs into the slaughter, but doesn’t necessarily make it clear how necessary it is to do so. This specific example indicates a skewed experience that will 100% confirm the bias that PF2 adventures are tuned to too high of difficulty.
I learned this my self as a GM when I also set a home brew encounter of level 4 PCs vs Lvl 7 monster and ended up with the only PC death in the campaign so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can make an even more challenging encounter for PCs using 12 level -2 monsters ...
This
I suggested to our GM that major revamping of the encounters is likely needed.For me, L+1 rounded out by L-1,-2,-3s is a superior dynamic.
Or, as you say, the horde of L-#s.
But time is a significant barrier, hence running AP modules not home brew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you will dismiss any fight as irrelevant unless it is against higher level monsters, ...
I think I again failed to communicate well.
When I say L+2,L+3,L+4 I mean an encounter XP budget of, respectively, 80, 120, 160 points; aka Moderate-, Severe-, Extreme-threat encounters.My bad for using the shorthand here which I do with my gaming group.
If the party meets their exact duplicates (one L+0 40 XP foe per PC) that is, by definition, an Extreme-threat encounter.
And, if you fought yourself, you figure that’d be a toss up of which ‘you’ would win ...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While low level you had a grueling fight against a boss (one player wanted to leave the moment a negative happened to them) and won because you got crits. To most people that would be an awesome memorable encounter, the nature of fights in a d20 system.
You don't like that though.
We didn’t win “because you got crits”, we won exclusively because we were lucky.
That “one player wanted to leave the moment a negative happened to them” is a tangential side show to this; that is, irrelevant to the primary point.That skill is what wins the day is our experience of “the nature of fights in a d20 system” in all prior versions (4e, PF1e, 3.5, 3.0, and even earlier ones).
And what we want to see in every fight of consequence.
If luck of the dice is the primary factor in the outcome, not interested.
Sadly, that skill of play is the overriding determinant has not been the overarching story of our group’s PF2e experience in Moderate-, Severe-, Extreme-threat fights - and we have a TPK or so a season to show what ‘not getting lucky’ results in.
I’m glad others have had other experiences.
That has simply not been ours.
please note: AP sessions, not GM generated ones
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We didn’t win “because you got crits”, we won exclusively because we were lucky.Said lucky being getting a crit, which has always been a welcome boon in these game, I really do not understand why you see it as a negative.
That “one player wanted to leave the moment a negative happened to them” is a tangential side show to this; that is, irrelevant to the primary point.It is very relevant and paints a picture for your group's mindset and how you view things.
Neither the d20 nor Critical Hits are something brand new to P2. They've been here forever.That skill is what wins the day is our experience of “the nature of fights in a d20 system” in all prior versions (4e, PF1e, 3.5, 3.0, and even earlier ones).
And what we want to see in every fight of consequence.
If luck of the dice is the primary factor in the outcome, not interested.
Sadly, that skill of play is the overriding determinant has not been the overarching story of our group’s PF2e experience in Moderate-, Severe-, Extreme-threat fights - and we have a TPK or so a season to show what ‘not getting lucky’ results in.
The very very very hard fights are very very very hard.
Luck is a factor that can damn you or save you, it always has been. This is not something new to P2, you've always been at the mercy of the dice save for situations in previous editions where you had characters that made the dice irrelevant which is a completely separate issue.
The adventure gives GMs the tools necessary to avoid sending their PCs into the slaughter, but doesn’t necessarily make it clear how necessary it is to do so.
Having just finished AoA volum 2, I can not not emphasize this. A huge part of how the party feels about and is reacting to the challenges that are presented to them in PF2 is on the GM. And I am not even talking about antagonistic GM'ing. Even if the GM just wants to provide a memorable experience and dangerous challenge by letting his players "go in blind" can easily leave his group in an unwelcome "roll high or die" situation. Knowing is half the battle, literally.
And I kinda like the movies analogy as our group has also had their fair share of "are we the heroes or are we just some passer-bys tossed into a situation that we neither understand nor are likely to survive" kind of moments. Nobody wants to be Superman but the line in between always being on top (think Roger Moore as James Bond), being on top after an intense struggle (think Daniel Craig as James Bond or Cristian Bale in the newer Batman movies) and winning by just not losing (think Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley in Alien) is rather thin.
And I kinda like the movies analogy as our group has also had their fair share of "are we the heroes or are we just some passer-bys tossed into a situation that we neither understand nor are likely to survive" kind of moments. Nobody wants to be Superman but the line in between always being on top (think Roger Moore as James Bond), being on top after an intense struggle (think Daniel Craig as James Bond or Cristian Bale in the newer Batman movies) and winning by just not losing (think Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley in Alien) is rather thin.
Yeah, it's not like the two extremes are the only two possibilities, honestly. I think the PCs having 10-20% better odds than what they do now (so about a +1/+2 over the current monster numbers and flat DCs, considering crits) would go a long way.
As for "using more simple DCs", this does help quite a bit, but it's not an all-encompassing solution because simple DCs are barely usable in combat, if at all, and combat is a big part of the game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simple DCs are for players to feel charter progression against the world. Encounter design is how you show players their growth. As a character “how do I fare against a level +2 monster” is a completely white room extraction. “How do I fare against ogres?” Is a very clear in world progression that is obvious. “I am finally whooping Ofres, but now these giants are a brutal enemy” is perfectly reasonable logic. Those giants would have been incontemplatible three or four levels ago.
What you are asking for when you want to see your character get better at fighting level +2 opposition as you go from level 1 to level 20 is for level to have no actual value for a metric of power balance.
But, good news, you absolutely can get better at fighting solo monsters as a party as you level up! You do so by choosing powers and equipment as a team that focus on debilitating single target enemies, even on a successful save, and picking reactions that help each other get out of the kinds of situations that steal your allies actions and force you to act inefficiently.
PF2 is brilliantly designed where the most likely accuracy proficiency gaps that can develop happen to coincide exactly with flat footed penalties. This makes any fight against an out numbered foe essentially have a built in proficiency boost for attacks that can be made up close against AC when you need that bonus to feel competent.
When you fight a higher level enemy, you are not Usain Bolt. Your Enemy is. It is going to take luck and careful planning to even have a chance as of course they are going to leave you in the dust if you try to just out run them one on one.
What you are asking for when you want to see your character get better at fighting level +2 opposition as you go from level 1 to level 20 is for level to have no actual value for a metric of power balance.
Well, to be fair, that's not what I'm asking for. That would, indeed, make no sense. What I wish is that PCs had a 10-20% better chance on every challenge at every level, period. I don't think there's anything wrong with their formula, it's the base value the formula starts with that I see as a problem/makes a lot of players feel incompetent.
PS: Characters already have better odds at fighting +level creatures as the game goes on because of HP scaling. When you get to the point where a level+2 boss only has 10% more HP than a level-1 mook, boss fights become a bit of a cakewalk. But that's a whole different issue that's very hard to solve.
What you are asking for when you want to see your character get better at fighting level +2 opposition as you go from level 1 to level 20 is for level to have no actual value for a metric of power balance.Well, to be fair, that's not what I'm asking for. That would, indeed, make no sense. What I wish is that PCs had a 10-20% better chance on every challenge at every level, period. I don't think there's anything wrong with their formula, it's the base value the formula starts with that I see as a problem/makes a lot of players feel incompetent.
PS: Characters already have better odds at fighting +level creatures as the game goes on because of HP scaling. When you get to the point where a level+2 boss only has 10% more HP than a level-1 mook, boss fights become a bit of a cakewalk. But that's a whole different issue that's very hard to solve.
Luckily the base value for the formula is entirely in the hands of the GM. They just not might realize that. Especially if they are running published Material.
A way to correct balance in campaign, that your players will only know if you tell them or they are reading the material, is this: If your party is getting beat up and demoralized (a big if, not a universal situation),and you see a powerful higher level solo monster on the horizon, then take a break from pushing on with the main plot line. Throw some additional lower level broader encounters (combat and social) at your party until they they level up and then have them encounter the solo creature. It will still be a challenge, but they will have just come off a series of encounters where they should have been succeeding regularly at their tasks (you picked lower level but broader encounters for them) so the toughness of the solo creature will still feel like a challenge, but they won't be as over powered by it as they would have been if they encountered directly after having some encounters that felt like total beatdowns right before. This is really really easy advice to enact and it is a great way to tip the scales towards the success numbers that people are asking for here, without changing anything about the system, or having to rebalance every encounter from here on out in the published material, which is what happened over and over again in PF1 when encounters were just clearly too easy for tactically minded PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you give an example, this is a pretty extreme claim.here you go
Bumbling Babboons
GM posted that last year; I only learned of it the 5th of this month when he shared that link
I was one of the four players, all of which had the same thought
that wasn’t our John McClane moment of Die Hard winning, that was us being tossed in the deep end and, fortunately, this time, the dice gods said,
sure, let’s give those idiots a moment of the Teela Brown gene, after all, their denouement will be a TPKnone of us were thrilled or juiced by that fight, it left a bad taste
we all did the like, seriously? look at the GMof the four, two of the lot are gone gone (not playing PF2e, not in touch), the two of us left have been joined by three others (for a party of five, with the GM not adjusting encounters due to party size)
** spoiler omitted **yes, in the irrelevant fights (L-# ones) we rocked the beasties
in the fights that really matter (L+2,L+3,L+4), we reconsider our choice of past times
While I obviously can't confirm it, the description your GM gave really seems like you were just trying to roll numbers at him and hope it worked out.
Comparatively, that's akin to me giving you and three of your friends swords and telling you to fight a bear, and you just run up and try and hack at it.
Just as you would when fighting a bear, you have to actually use tactics, force it into unfavourable situations, and even then there's a danger of the bear's sheer power overwhelming you.
here you go
Bumbling Babboons
GM posted that last year; I only learned of it the 5th of this month when he shared that link
I was one of the four players, all of which had the same thought
that wasn’t our John McClane moment of Die Hard winning, that was us being tossed in the deep end and, fortunately, this time, the dice gods said,
sure, let’s give those idiots a moment of the Teela Brown gene, after all, their denouement will be a TPKnone of us were thrilled or juiced by that fight, it left a bad taste
we all did the like, seriously? look at the GMof the four, two of the lot are gone gone (not playing PF2e, not in touch), the two of us left have been joined by three others (for a party of five, with the GM not adjusting encounters due to party size)
** spoiler omitted **yes, in the irrelevant fights (L-# ones) we rocked the beasties
in the fights that really matter (L+2,L+3,L+4), we reconsider our choice of past times
I just wanted to say I really enjoyed the read. Overall it kind of felt like the group just doesn't like tough gritty gameplay and the boss just overturned for them. It is perfectly understandable.
It is hard to tell what tactics the players used, it seemed like most players just healed + attack but maybe there was more in between. Out of curiosity were the players debuffing the boss at all? It kind of sounds like they just attacked. PF2 kind of reminds of JRPGs where it is vital to use buffs/debuffs to overcome your enemies.
I get the feeling why they feel like battles are 100% luck based is because they don't want to use tactics like knocking the boss prone and slowing him or using an action to move away to limit the bosses attack... I love that about PF2 that these tactics are viable. Like I said it is hard to tell but in your example you never mention 1 debuff or buff. Again I can't tell from the example if this is true or not, but in my PF2 experience I see players walk up and die instead of doing attack>attack>move away they will just attack>attack>attack.
I am finding out that some players much prefer the easy fighting of PF1/5e. PF2 you end your turn next to a strong monster without raising a shield / debuffing there is a really chance you will be knocked out.
We actually have a player who gets really upset when he gets hit by any Crowd Control. One day he got hit by suggestion and swallowed whole lol, he 100% doesn't enjoy those sorts of things. Our entire party failed confusion check in PF1 the GM basically had to give us the win against the boss, there is 100% no way we should have survived.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is more like comparing a level 7 to a level 5.
Expecting a near-guarantee of success in every equal-level challenge, to me, feels somewhat akin to expecting every batter that steps up to the plate to hit a home run most of the time, while your pitcher - but only your pitcher - will throw strikes most of time and rarely allow a hit.isn’t this a bit of an apples to celery comparison?
which of us runs the fastest (highest check of same skill wins)
vs
can I hit your pitch (opposed check, higher check of different skills wins)in the L7 vs L5, the base difference is at most 4 (2 levels and one proficiency rank)
which (rerolling ties) is a 68 3/4% vs 31 1/4% split (66%, 30%, 4%, L7,L5,tie)
hardly a dominating, legendary difference
Yes, and Usain Bolt has lost on multiple occasions due to him not being in good condition, or slacking off compared to his competitors, or other circumstances.
Will a level+2 consistently win in a competition/fight? Definitely. But just like anything else, there are other factors in play which can easily cause a loss.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that Usain Bolt's competitors are at the same proficiency level in whatever the relevant thing is (we don't really have running skill).
The difference is going to be ability scores and feats that each took.
Or at least, that's how I think it should be.
I would argue that Usain Bolt's competitors are at the same proficiency level in whatever the relevant thing is (we don't really have running skill).
The difference is going to be ability scores and feats that each took.
Or at least, that's how I think it should be.
To really make the Usain Bolt Analogy work, and envision the running of a race as an encounter, it is going to involve multiple roles over several rounds. If Usain Bolt has some kind of attribute bonus that is the equivalent of a +2 bonus over his peers, then he is regularly going to win the race, only occasionally falling victim to a series of critical failures.
Now PF2 doesn't really have the frame work for making that a fun or interesting encounter because it is more focused on the mechanics for throwing fireballs at you while you are trying to run a race, then simulating exact real world challenges of extreme competency, but it is not just one check per race. Over 5 checks, a +1 or +2 is plenty to represent exceptionalism.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, but that extension doesn't work with most combat things which are a single check to complete and thus that slight edge you have between a trained level 10 and master level 10 can be outshone by sheer luck for an entire combat.
Remember, my gripe isn't so much about some simulated skill check for running.
My gripe is, my character feels like an idiot because the success rates are too low for my personal taste, and when I compare to someone else on the same level with even basic training I'm not substantially better to where luck is a non-factor.
Maybe, but that extension doesn't work with most combat things which are a single check to complete and thus that slight edge you have between a trained level 10 and master level 10 can be outshone by sheer luck for an entire combat.
Remember, my gripe isn't so much about some simulated skill check for running.
My gripe is, my character feels like an idiot because the success rates are too low for my personal taste, and when I compare to someone else on the same level with even basic training I'm not substantially better to where luck is a non-factor.
Objectively, by the math, Combats do involve enough rolling that a single proficiency difference is a substantiative difference in player ability.
Subjectively, too much is going to depend upon the specific encounters you face and the tactics of your team for any kind of overall statement to be made, but I think that is your point as well.
Certainly if you are the fighter and everyone waits for you to go first, and then you move into position and attack, then your allies go and take advantage of your position for flanking, it is going to feel like their odds of hitting are exactly the same as yours, even though you are essentially providing them a +2 to their attacks. If they went first and you went second, the odds of success would be shifted so hard in your favor, it would be impossible not to feel exceptionally better than your allies. Which is better? In PF2 it entirely depends on your weapons.
If you have a shield and a one handed weapon and your ally is a 2 hand weapon using barbarian, the first course of action makes a whole lot more sense. If you wield a heavy pick and your alley a dagger, then the whole team will benefit from the second procession. (notice these are all martial comparisons)
That is what I mean by the situational tactical awareness of parties can play such huge role in combat effectiveness, that broad, generalized statements about the system design are usually uninformed. A good GM can feel out their players expectations for how much work they are willing to put into earning their status as heroes, and very easily make the PF2 system work for many different groups, just probably not if those groups are mixed with people who prefer a tactical challenge and people who prefer to play a hero who doesn't think much about how they are going to accomplish the enemy smash.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, but that extension doesn't work with most combat things which are a single check to complete and thus that slight edge you have between a trained level 10 and master level 10 can be outshone by sheer luck for an entire combat.
Remember, my gripe isn't so much about some simulated skill check for running.
My gripe is, my character feels like an idiot because the success rates are too low for my personal taste, and when I compare to someone else on the same level with even basic training I'm not substantially better to where luck is a non-factor.
If you want luck to be a non-factor, why do you even play a game with dice?
My gripe is, my character feels like an idiot because the success rates are too low for my personal taste, and when I compare to someone else on the same level with even basic training I'm not substantially better to where luck is a non-factor.
I think this sentence alone sums up the irreconcilable difference. While I'd agree that luck being the only factor would be really bad, and make character development feel bad, I consider making luck entirely a non-factor to be the worst thing about PF1. In that respect, it's not possible for us to both like how a game handles it, though specific shifting of balance points could make either of us like a game more or less.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While low level you had a grueling fight against a boss (one player wanted to leave the moment a negative happened to them) and won because you got crits. To most people that would be an awesome memorable encounter, the nature of fights in a d20 system.
You don't like that though.
I've been reading this thread, and I am the GM who ran the encounter that is being discussed here.
Since this does discuss an AP encounter, I am going to go ahead and spoiler alert here.
This was not a "Boss Fight" This encounter was not against "the" Boss or even "a" Boss. It was a random encounter in the AP module. The encounter in question has no bearing on the module really. Just a random fight against a really tough opponent.
The player who wanted throw in the towel after become confused did NOT in any way want to leave the moment a negative [event] happened to them. That comment is disingenuous. In fact, the player (and players) stuck things out. Here is more context:
Two sessions prior to the posted fight description, the players were TPK'd by an actual boss and her minion. It was a VERY dissatisfying experience for the players following a "poor" series of save throws against a 3rd level Grim Tendrils. Air quotes are intentional there, because everyone who rolled the save was in the 25 - 35% chance of success category. That is, they didn't roll badly, they just didn't roll well above average, which is what was required to avoid the worst parts of the spell.
Two players failed, one player crit failed, and one animal companion crit failed. Oh, and the one player who avoided getting hit by Grim Tendrils crit failed against Vampiric Touch the next round and was killed instantly (max HP to 0 HP, death effect, dead). That player had a 35% of crit failing that roll btw, and even a hero point re-roll didn't save them. Bottom line, they lost a fight in two rounds because the dice didn't roll above average.
Players agreed to make new characters. So we get to the Ralldar fight. Very early in the fight here is what one player learns (he is playing an Alchemist):
Alchemist rolls a 14 on his attack roll with a bomb... and he MISSES.
Ralldar rolls a 14 on his attack... and he CRITS the alchemist. On a slightly above average damage roll he knocks the full HP alchemist out.
That player was incredibly frustrated by that reality. He just came off a TPK and this is his next encounter.
Players were mad, and eventually I just ended the session and we talked. I convinced them to give it another shot during our next session. Basically a complete redo, and to really focus on good tactics (they already were using good tactics, but more to reinforce the point). They agreed to try again.
Next session comes, round #1. Ralldar leads off with a DC25 spell against "the player [who] wanted to leave the moment a negative [event] happened". He had a +9 Will save modifier. Yep, that's right, 25% chance to avoid getting pooched by a nasty 3rd level spell. I do not blame the player in question for throwing up his hands it utter frustration:
Session A: TPK following a bad set of rolls; players had no control over this aspect
Session B: Players are confronted with a brutal meat grinder of an encounter. Die rolls that would be a miss for the PCs are not just hits but CRITICAL hits for the bad guy.
Session C: Bad guy pulls out a spell that has a 3/4 chance of screwing over a character.
In the two fights against Ralldar, quality tactics were used. The best debuffer in the party, the Alchemist, couldn't hit with his bombs. The cleric did everything he could to keep the party in the fight, but Ralldar could simply do more damage than the cleric could heal, especially with his OoA that could lock down PCs. "Oh you want to stand up after I knocked you out and your cleric got you conscious? Might want to rethink that plan buddy."
Look, I was stoked when the players took Ralldar down. I thought it would be an awesome, memorable fight. It wasn't. I debriefed folks afterward, and what it came down to was:
The fight was "won" by lucky rolls in the end. It was not because the players were mechanically better than Ralldar. Nor was it because players made superior builds. Nor was it because of superior tactics (indeed the superior tactics was a requirement for even having a chance for luck to win the day). It was just some good luck. And good luck is nice to have. But no one in my gaming group felt that good luck should be what is required to win certain fights.
I think the big issue at the heart of the dispute is "what do you do with the inherent swinginess of the d20".
Because 1-20 is a significantly larger range than other dice, this is not a great way to model things like "athletic competition" where everyone is liable to succeed but some people are going to succeed more. If we wanted to model a competition where one person wins most of the time (Usain Bolt won 45 sprints in a row once) you can't really do that with a d20 unless you want that person's modifier to exceed that of their opponents by 19 or more.
But we're not trying to model something like "archery competition" with Pathfinder (this is hard, since good archers are going to miss the target entirely much less than 5% of the time); we're trying to model stories like "4 heroes go in a dungeon and beat up a lich".
I think the essential conflict is "if I want to be good at something, I do not want to run the risk of failing in a big spot, that would make me feel like I'm not good at it" and more "there's no point in telling stories about people who are rarely challenged and succeed at whatever they try." Indeed "the heroes do not immediately succeed" is generally a source of drama.
But in PF2 you can adjust the numbers enough to get the desired probability for success if the baseline isn't what you want, but it's a herculean task to make PF1 as easy and fun to GM as PF2 is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like saying that encounter is not a boss isn’t true.
Like if a 14 missed they must have been at least as low as level 5 because a +10 is the only way that misses without minuses.
Also if the reverse was a critical hit, then your alchemist must have had a 21 AC, which at level 5 with appropriate AC as an alchemist and potency means they either didn’t max DEX at Five or we’re missing a potency rune.
And all that being said, who would say a CR+2 isn’t a boss? Boss doesn’t mean inherently narratively important encounter, it means a challenging solo enemy that is, well, a boss. Side bosses are a thing and one off bosses happen in video games and other games frequently (the collector in DD comes to mind).
Not to mention CR+2 as defined in the book is a “moderate to severe threat boss”. That’s by definition a boss, it’s not even in the “standard encounter” territory.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My gripe is, my character feels like an idiot because the success rates are too low for my personal taste, and when I compare to someone else on the same level with even basic training I'm not substantially better to where luck is a non-factor.I think this sentence alone sums up the irreconcilable difference. While I'd agree that luck being the only factor would be really bad, and make character development feel bad, I consider making luck entirely a non-factor to be the worst thing about PF1. In that respect, it's not possible for us to both like how a game handles it, though specific shifting of balance points could make either of us like a game more or less.
I thought we knew this from the beginning of this conversation?
I'm not here to be convinced to like PF2 or to try to convince others it's bad. I'm here to state my experience with it, which is negative. It doesn't provide what I desired in a game, the way PF1 did.
Of course we have irreconcilable difference, I've known that from the start? Didn't everyone?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It felt like it had gotten lost from the conversation, after being clear earlier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading this thread, and I am the GM who ran the encounter that is being discussed here.Since this does discuss an AP encounter, I am going to go ahead and spoiler alert here.
I just wanted to say I really enjoyed the read. I am little surprised that they came to the conclusion "lucky rolls" is what determined the fight. Especially since some weren't even that lucky/unlucky...
Just for examples missing when you require a 14+ isn't even unlucky, yes the monster hits more but that is what makes them tough!
Main difference I feel are APs in PF2 difficulty is just too high for a lot of groups. I am almost positive if you just increased every player level by 1 or even 2 players would have felt a lot better in this regard.
Since I feel that would give the same feeling as PF1/5e. We also felt battles were just crazy difficult sometimes in Extinction Curse.
I feel like this isn't really a PF2 problem since if players enjoy these types of combats you can leave it as is but there are like 100s of ways to make these players happy. I bet even using proficiency without level would help because then boss fights or big monsters wouldn't feel so crazy.
Out of curiosity did your players enjoy the on level or lower battles? I feel PF2 really pushes monsters 2+ party to be tough opponents
In my experience I feel players really enjoy beating up monsters lower level than them :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading this thread, and I am the GM who ran the encounter that is being discussed here.
Since this does discuss an AP encounter, I am going to go ahead and spoiler alert here.
** spoiler omitted **...
That most definitely was "a" boss, in the sense that it was Level 7 going against a Level 4 party. There generally is agreement that this particular fight is too hard as written, particularly if it uses all of its tactics. I thought it was too hard, too. And yes, it is not telegraphed as a boss and it's not narratively important.
As this was Paizo's first PF2 AP, I believe this reflected Paizo's lack of understanding then of how best to tune boss encounters against low-level groups. The much-lauded math of PF2's encounter building system does not extend to low-level parties against APL+3 opponents, I'm afraid.
(I noticed that the Beginner Box features a solo boss encounter that actually is 2 levels above the party, while awarding 120 XP. Seems to me like the design team has scaled back its use of APL+3 opponents.)
That particular encounter was:
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That most definitely was "a" boss, in the sense that it was Level 7 going against a Level 4 party. There generally is agreement that this particular fight is too hard as written, particularly if it uses all of its tactics. As this was Paizo's first PF2 AP, I believe this reflects Paizo's lack of understanding of how to tune boss encounters against low-level groups. The much-lauded math of PF2's encounter building system does not extend to low-level parties against APL+3 opponents, I'm afraid.I've been reading this thread, and I am the GM who ran the encounter that is being discussed here.
Since this does discuss an AP encounter, I am going to go ahead and spoiler alert here.
** spoiler omitted **...
Uh yeah, if this was a level 4 party, then idk what to say. CL+3 is TPK territory and it's been that way in basically every edition, that's not at all unique to PF2.
Now that's not to say you couldn't win encounters in PF1 at a CR+3, but you can still win (as happened eventually in said encounter example) in PF2 as well.
It seems like every time we pop the lid on the "monsters are too hard!" can it turns out the monsters we're talking about are supposed to be hard because of their relative power to the party.
"Why can't my party of X level beat creatures of X+3 easily?" is not a valid question IMO.
Now, can we critique the building of the AP? Absolutely, critique away, but at the same time, as a GM sometimes you have to evaluate whether or not you should run everything exactly as written. Especially if the party isn't having fun in the given AP.
This is probably why I haven't had as many issues with the game as others are mentioning, since I'm running almost exclusively non-APs (or heavily modified APs/scenarios) and therefor I'm only putting things I feel comfortable with into the adventure. I'd say a CL+3/4 is a once per entire "book" of my adventures type of event (one each anyways) if at all. CL+2 or multiple CL/CL+1s is generally where I like to live on "challenging encounters". Exceptions of course, but that's been where I've found people are happy and feel good.
I would even go so far as to say that particular encounters CL is on the low-side to its relative difficulty (it's almost a CL8 to me) but nonetheless.
But none of that is the editions fault, that's a product of the adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Why can't my party of X level beat creatures of X+3 easily?" is not a valid question IMO.
this campaign is the first time in years I haven’t routinely, consistently punched above my weight class
if it is not the PCs, then who is supposed to be punching above their weight class?for clarity:
Boss to me equals the adventure’s narrative villain
Severe-threat encounter is four L4 characters vs one Creature 7
on that last L4 vs C7 note ...
Alchemist Hit bonus was +10
L4 + DX3 + Tr2 + 1item
and a roll of 14 misses that C7 AC25
Alchemist AC was 21
Base 10 + L4 + Tr2 + DX/Arm5
and that C7 +17 attack crits on that same roll of 14
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While low level you had a grueling fight against a boss (one player wanted to leave the moment a negative happened to them) and won because you got crits. To most people that would be an awesome memorable encounter, the nature of fights in a d20 system.
You don't like that though.
I've been reading this thread, and I am the GM who ran the encounter that is being discussed here.
Since this does discuss an AP encounter, I am going to go ahead and spoiler alert here.
** spoiler omitted **...
The player who wanted throw in the towel after become confused did NOT in any way want to leave the moment a negative [event] happened to them. That comment is disingenuous.
Early in the battle the monk failed his save vs confusion, and the player was ready to quit right there on the spot.
Your exact words.
As for requiring good luck, the game has always required that, it doesn’t matter good you are if you roll multiple 1s in a row.
|
"Why can't my party of X level beat creatures of X+3 easily?" is not a valid question IMO.this campaign is the first time in years I haven’t routinely, consistently punched above my weight class
if it is not the PCs, then who is supposed to be punching above their weight class?for clarity:
Boss to me equals the adventure’s narrative villain
Severe-threat encounter is four L4 characters vs one Creature 7on that last L4 vs C7 note ...
Alchemist Hit bonus was +10
L4 + DX3 + Tr2 + 1item
and a roll of 14 misses that C7 AC25Alchemist AC was 21
Base 10 + L4 + Tr2 + DX/Arm5
and that C7 +17 attack crits on that same roll of 14¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So, misses by 1 and crits by 1.
Sometimes the dice are just not on your side.
My PC usually takes that as a sign of their deity's displeasure.
Of course abundant high rolls are a sign of their blessing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Why can't my party of X level beat creatures of X+3 easily?" is not a valid question IMO.this campaign is the first time in years I haven’t routinely, consistently punched above my weight class
if it is not the PCs, then who is supposed to be punching above their weight class?
This logic makes no sense to me. "Punching above your weight class" is CL or CL + anything.
CL + 3 is not "punching above your weight class" so much as it is "punching at someone multiple magnitudes stronger than you".
In PF1, a party of level 1s would TPK to a Shadow (CR 2) because they have no means to beat the dang thing half the time and they are busted strong.
You're not going to convince me that CL+3 losing easily is even remotely good for any game, as it devalues the entire purpose of the system.
Why use numbers? Let's just have CL + carrots, because apparently it doesn't matter what that number represents.
for clarity:
Boss to me equals the adventure’s narrative villain
Severe-threat encounter is four L4 characters vs one Creature 7
It's a severe or extreme threat boss, and I'm afraid your personal definition of what a boss is doesn't really matter. That's not what a boss is, as defined by the book.
statistics
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I stated that, but I also thought they were level 5 when I quoted those statistics.
A level 4 party vs. a CL 7 is TPK territory. The game is intentionally designed for that.
In PF1, you could easily die to a +3 encounter, I've had it happen plenty. Why is the expectation that you should be trouncing +3 encounters?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... as a GM sometimes you have to evaluate whether or not you should run everything exactly as written.
at this time, for our group, for our GM, the time needed to run the AP as published is the limits of available diversion time
I tell him to ignore the rest of his real life and focus his time on AP-revising for session preparation yet he keeps balking at thatI wish we all had more time
but given RL commitments, investing the time to pre-vet, then adjust the AP is a non-starter
I’d love to full blown homebrew GM a game for our group
currently not viable
so we are playing ‘straight out of the box’
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Why can't my party of X level beat creatures of X+3 easily?" is not a valid question IMO.this campaign is the first time in years I haven’t routinely, consistently punched above my weight class
if it is not the PCs, then who is supposed to be punching above their weight class?
No one.
Nobody is supposed to routinely punch above their weight class aka far exceed what they’re supposed to.
for clarity:
Boss to me equals the adventure’s narrative villain
Severe-threat encounter is four L4 characters vs one Creature 7
This logic doesn’t mesh not only with Paizo’s adventure path design they’ve been doing since the beginning, but with any game really.
Adventure Paths had always had multiple bosses in addition to their Big Bad/Final Boss.
A Boss is a super tough fight, not just a narrative villain.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
but given RL commitments, investing the time to pre-vet, then adjust the AP is a non-starterI’d love to full blown homebrew GM a game for our group
currently not viableso we are playing ‘straight out of the box’
I mean what's wrong with adjusting on the fly? It's pretty easy to look down see CL 7 against a Party of 4th level characters and go "Hmm... this might be too strong, better take a little mustard off this guy. -1 across the board.'
It's not like modifying an encounter takes some huge rework in PF2, almost always "-1 to everything" translates to a CL X - 1 (at least most of the time).