| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're underestimating just how much this varies in table practices, then. Most people I've played with will have most creatures attack standing targets. Some people run only specific creatures as likely to take more bites out of someone who's dying (don't go down in the middle if that zombie horde!) Some people see finishing iff downed PCs as the obvious thing to do, if it's been shown that they have healing magic.
The most egregious example I've seen was someone having a golem continue to grind a dead (not dying, dead) character further into negative HP in PF1, in order to prevent Breath of Life. That was the case where people walked out of the table in the middle of a PFS multi-table con special after the halfway through, though. (Not because of overkilling a dead character, specifically, but a lot of things added up).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're underestimating just how much this varies in table practices, then. Most people I've played with will have most creatures attack standing targets. Some people run only specific creatures as likely to take more bites out of someone who's dying (don't go down in the middle if that zombie horde!) Some people see finishing iff downed PCs as the obvious thing to do, if it's been shown that they have healing magic.
The most egregious example I've seen was someone having a golem continue to grind a dead (not dying, dead) character further into negative HP in PF1, in order to prevent Breath of Life. That was the case where people walked out of the table in the middle of a PFS multi-table con special after the halfway through, though. (Not because of overkilling a dead character, specifically, but a lot of things added up).
I agree, this is something that varies a lot.
If I'm RP'ing a bad guy that knows the PCs have healing capabilities and has just knocked a character out on attack 2 of 5 and thus can't move, he's probably going to lay into the downed character and end them because there's not much else they can do with their actions.
The only reason not to do (in that situation) is to be kind to the players. There are plenty of situations where it absolutely makes sense for the PCs to be killed after being knocked out.
Heck, animal level intelligence creatures could just be hungry and start to drag the corpse away to eat. Running away while the party continues to try to fight whatever other creatures may be still be there.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're underestimating just how much this varies in table practices, then. Most people I've played with will have most creatures attack standing targets. Some people run only specific creatures as likely to take more bites out of someone who's dying (don't go down in the middle if that zombie horde!) Some people see finishing iff downed PCs as the obvious thing to do, if it's been shown that they have healing magic.
The most egregious example I've seen was someone having a golem continue to grind a dead (not dying, dead) character further into negative HP in PF1, in order to prevent Breath of Life. That was the case where people walked out of the table in the middle of a PFS multi-table con special after the halfway through, though. (Not because of overkilling a dead character, specifically, but a lot of things added up).
Had several characters die because of similar GM behavior. Once, something that still annoys other players in my party, is that he chose to do a simple attack rather than the obvious Coup-de-grace to finish of my character because he wanted to avoid an attack of opportunity that would prevent the whole thing, that's on top of it being a human character, just a random street thug, basically sacrificing himself to kill my character, something completely unreasonable for that type of mook. I accepted my death, but every time my character's name come up, my friends show their annoyance with that GM choice.
Preventing breath of life is the most blatant form of Meta-gaming I've ever seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me it makes sense to kill a downed player in one action if that's possible and if the creature can identify that it can do so.
Wasting any more actions on a downed enemy is wasteful when there's other combatants still around that are threatening it.
There's another layer to it that as far as a creature knows, the dude that has been whacked is done for and is not an immediate threat. That's how I GM. There's no reason to believe that someone, even a "smart" enemy, would assume that after a hit landed and the enemy went down that it would need another as soon as possible, specially when there are more pressing matters at hand such as angry adventurers trying to kill you that are in a healthier shape.
When it's been established that players can pop back up after magic, then that's another matter entirely, intelligent enemies will be more inclined to finish the job, but even so this is also very debatable, since focusing on the source of healing is more productive than a threat that can come back yet again if you don't deal with the source of your trouble.
Simply put: Creatures downing them finishing off players is nothing than pure metagame from the GM's part if it's done so without any regard for circumstance or reason, just as a "general" behavior.
Agree on all counts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're underestimating just how much this varies in table practices, then. Most people I've played with will have most creatures attack standing targets. Some people run only specific creatures as likely to take more bites out of someone who's dying (don't go down in the middle if that zombie horde!) Some people see finishing iff downed PCs as the obvious thing to do, if it's been shown that they have healing magic.
The most egregious example I've seen was someone having a golem continue to grind a dead (not dying, dead) character further into negative HP in PF1, in order to prevent Breath of Life. That was the case where people walked out of the table in the middle of a PFS multi-table con special after the halfway through, though. (Not because of overkilling a dead character, specifically, but a lot of things added up).
Had several characters die because of similar GM behavior. Once, something that still annoys other players in my party, is that he chose to do a simple attack rather than the obvious Coup-de-grace to finish of my character because he wanted to avoid an attack of opportunity that would prevent the whole thing, that's on top of it being a human character, just a random street thug, basically sacrificing himself to kill my character, something completely unreasonable for that type of mook. I accepted my death, but every time my character's name come up, my friends show their annoyance with that GM choice.
Preventing breath of life is the most blatant form of Meta-gaming I've ever seen.
Strangely, it wasn't even the most blatant meta-gaming that happened in that encounter. Theres a reason I listed it separate from what I consider the more reasonable ways that attacking downed characters may happen.
At the other end of the spectrum, I've also seen a case where some pirates who were clearly going to lose a fight threaten to coup-de-gras an unconscious character to try to negotiate their escape. Another character kept shooting arrows, the couo-de-gras happened, and it was pretty much impossible to say that the GM's call was unreasonable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 is not more built based around feats than PF2 is. Its all a matter of how people decide to interact with the game. It all goes back to the idea I gave of perception being an issue.
While I am sure there were characters that went "concept first", what I can say is those characters that went "concept first" and only went for concept were almost unequivocally weaker than other characters specifically because they invested in the flavor side of the Character. It wasn't a certainty (even a horribly built Druid is still a Druid in 3.5/PF1) but it definitely didn't work out at all like PF2.
In PF1 (and 3.5), from my experience, players who had system mastery or had been playing a while would focus on a singular entity and build around that. Examples that I have seen include the following:
- Monkey Grip
- Synthesist
- Regular old Summoner Haste/Slow spam
- Kitsune Enchanter stacking DCs
- Martial Artist Fighter to cheese access to certain monk-only options and enable builds
- Humans in general because General Feats had no real level cap and only were contingent on prerequisite other Feats
- way too many to list honestly, it's a min-max heavy system
The functional reason that PF1/3.5/3.0 are drawn to this "seek a focus and build around that" is primarily due to the structure of the way General Feats were purchased for characters.
That being specifically that certain feats/archetypes/abilities would be your "focus", the over-specialization that Claxon talks about, and enable power levels that were previously not possible or opened up an exploit in the character design.
This is basically min-maxing in a nutshell, PF1/3.X systems were littered with min-max options, the max options being undoubtedly better than some other options.
In terms of your perception argument, I agree it is a perception issue, but PF1 absolutely did not support "concept first" character building at all. I would argue that Ivory-tower design outright punishes that line of building.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am quite sympathetic to Claxon's point of view. It can be really fun to combine bonuses and get those synergies running and making powerful characters. However, I think that question that needs to be asked is "Does it work for the game?"
Pathfinder (and a majority of tabletop games) are long-term and cooperative, which I think inherently causes friction with that kind of design. Where you see this kind of design shine is with the opposite traits, single session and competitive.
That is the crux of MTG, after all. I just don't think it works for a tabletop RPG, at least not traditionally. Now, I could see a tabletop rpg where this does work, but it is going to be fairly different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're underestimating just how much this varies in table practices, then. Most people I've played with will have most creatures attack standing targets. Some people run only specific creatures as likely to take more bites out of someone who's dying (don't go down in the middle if that zombie horde!) Some people see finishing iff downed PCs as the obvious thing to do, if it's been shown that they have healing magic.
The most egregious example I've seen was someone having a golem continue to grind a dead (not dying, dead) character further into negative HP in PF1, in order to prevent Breath of Life. That was the case where people walked out of the table in the middle of a PFS multi-table con special after the halfway through, though. (Not because of overkilling a dead character, specifically, but a lot of things added up).
Had several characters die because of similar GM behavior. Once, something that still annoys other players in my party, is that he chose to do a simple attack rather than the obvious Coup-de-grace to finish of my character because he wanted to avoid an attack of opportunity that would prevent the whole thing, that's on top of it being a human character, just a random street thug, basically sacrificing himself to kill my character, something completely unreasonable for that type of mook. I accepted my death, but every time my character's name come up, my friends show their annoyance with that GM choice.
Preventing breath of life is the most blatant form of Meta-gaming I've ever seen.
I'd like to say I disagree that preventing breath of life is blatant meta-gaming. In universe it's likely to be a known thing that at least some clerics can do. If you have an evil intelligent enemy, especially who knows the party has healing in some capacity, they might continue to attack an unconscious or even dead character to ensure they can't get back up.
Honestly, when I've played PCs they've done that, because I was concerned the enemy had healers.
Especially if you're in a position where it doesn't place you at additional risk and you may or may not have something tactically superior to do.
That said, it does sound like this random thug stuck around just to kill your character when he should have been running away.
Of course, if your party had developed a reputation the thug might have been aware running wasn't going to save them. So perhaps this was an in character way to spite the party prior to their expected death.
You see, there are possible ways to justify these kinds actions.
It's all very circumstantial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to say I disagree that preventing breath of life is blatant meta-gaming. In universe it's likely to be a known thing that at least some clerics can do. If you have an evil intelligent enemy, especially who knows the party has healing in some capacity, they might continue to attack an unconscious or even dead character to ensure they can't get back up.
So, the case I'm talking about, with the breath of life prevention, wasn't an intelligent enemy or actively receiving orders from one. It was just an example of a game run really badly, which stands in contrast to the good reasons to kill downed characters. Because those definitely exist.
(And I do mean badly. Like "people walking into giant swarms and taking massive damage because the swarm of moving things was never part of the described scene" badly. Or "character never got a chance to perceive an enemy standing on the ceiling and casting spells, even when they were flying 10 feet away from it" badly).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean ultimately once the gm learns to handle things, any game is fun. Let’s not forget GMs of the 3.X and beyond systems had nearly 2 decades of system similarity to run on in terms of adjustment.
It’s no surprise to me at all that in the first two years of a monumentally new system there’s a smidge of a learning curve. I’m already loving the meta and we’re only in year 2! And considering how PF2 is structured in terms of new options effectively expanding character concepts of old options, that means the ceiling only goes up.
Who knows maybe the system will be slightly cheesier in a few years and Claxon will be able to pull together some nugget builds that really swing for the fences. The dust is still up on the meta IMO, at least for me. I learn new things about play almost every time I sit down at the table.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll share a very recent PF1 experience.
Our group of 3 (witch, swashbuckler and bloodrager) is struggling against a dragon, to the point that we had to hastly teleport away twice: the first time we were surprised and unprepared, but on the second attempt we had several appropriate buffs on, and they still didn't help. The dragon was hitting on a 6, while the bloodrager (with heroism and haste on, but also shaken) needed a 17. I know that dragon is APL+3.So, we have very low chances to inflict damage, while the enemy is easily mauling us (a single round was enough to leave the swashbuckler with low enough HP that another hit would have had a serious chance of killing him outright; during the first encounter the witch went down from 90% to zero with a breath only). Spells are failing all the time due to very high SR paired with high saves. A summoned Shadow Demon didn't help much, because while it was mostly impervious to the dragon's attacks, it also couldn't beat neither the SR with its spells, nor the DR with its attacks. Hexes work, but the dragon saved against Retribution, and we really didn't have the time to start stacking Evil Eye since the martials were taking such a beating - and by the way, staying within 30ft of the beast may not be a good idea - it has got See Invisibility too. Dispelling its buffs is not going to work easily due to the CL difference. Also, it has much better mobility than the group.
The feeling is that if the GM decides to play it smart (since it has basically toyed with us so far), we have absolutely no chance.
I'm quoting myself to provide a reference for what I'm going to add.
Yesterday, after retreating for the third time against the dragon, we finally dispatched it.The GM kindly gave us an occasion to utterly surprise it while it was sleeping. It wasn't granted: we were clever in teleporting past solid barriers, dispelling alarms and true seeing past illusions.
But the battle was really anticlimatic: the two martials destroyed the fearsome dragon before it could even stand to fight back. To the point that we felt bad, and not heroic at all despite all the difficulties we had earlier. Well, now the adventure can go on I guess.
What was highlighted by our last PF1 session is that the presence vs absence of buffs, together with a single round of surprise, can move the difficulty of a fight in extreme ways: from absolutely desperate, all the way down to cakewalk. I find no fun in either of these extremes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad we agree there.
I never expected my opinion to have as much value, considering I am just one person. Certainly, though I might be wrong if someone one showed me wrong. Yet to see it, but someone might actually do it.
It depends on what you mean by perception.
In both systems, if you don't give a hoot at all, you don't have to build either character with any amount of thought or reason just by randomly rolling your options out.
And in PF2, you choices would be on average actually playable, while in PF1 they would more than likely result in a terrible character simply because in order to be any amount of functional in PF1/3.X you had to at least try to build a character to bring anything worth playing to the table. This forces the GM to adjust regardless, either adjust down because of UP characters, adjust up because of OP characters, or some sort of juggling act to satisfy the two coexisting in a party.
On the inverse of that, a properly sculpted and cultivated build in PF1/3.X could massively outperform even a "standard" build, especially if you were taking advantage of known OP options (Emergency Force Sphere, that stupid Math metamagic feat, Synthesist, etc). PF2 on the contrary generally doesn't allow this to break anything, there are of course strong/versatile/formiddable combos that can really excel in their respective roles/niches, but nothing that's going to make the GM change anything outside of potentially tactics.
This alone already means that it's not a perception issue, there were huge differences in what you bring to the table based on the way you approached the building process in PF1 in terms of power. In PF2 it doesn't necessarily change the power, only channels it into certain circumstances aligning (basically stronger in a niche moment(s).)
As for "you could start concept first in PF1/3.X, no you really couldn't. You had to have at least a solid grasp on what was strong or else your concept simply wouldn't be worth bringing to the table.
Like a Rogue that takes all the Skilled General Feats is absolutely going to be worse than a Rogue who invests in combat options. That's why PF2 changed that, because virtually everything was competing in the same space (General Feats).
It was also undoubtedly more powerful as an Aasimar to have Glitterdust once per day over Daylight (which tbh, is mostly useless). It's not really a debate, you will guaranteed get a solid use out of Glitterdust SLA once per day that you would not get on Daylight (especially for the early levels).
And I do think experience in both systems is necessary to be making decrees like you're making. It also didn't really help your case that you said earlier that Vital Strike wasn't the absolute trash that it was (literally one of the worst Feats in PF1 IMO because at least the Skill Feats actually made you better at Skills, Vital Strike literally made you worse at fighting).
That is true, but when I sat down to play some 2e with people and someone can't hit anything, there isn't any advice I can offer him aside from "Well, roll better.*" At least in PF1 you can minimize the impact poor dice rolls have on your character.
*There are tactical level decisions players can make to increase their chances of hitting in combat, but even then there's only so much you can do depending on party makeup.
I mean I understand your point but the game tries to make a good challenge so I feel it is only logical monsters + players have somewhat similar chances to hit.
The game of course could have done the route of giving higher hit % for both players and monsters. I actually have no idea if this would be better or worse. All I know is crowd control spells with high % chance to hit can really break games. I have seen this a lot of times in tactical video games too.
I think it is kind of strange to think players should eventually get huge advantages over monsters in hit/dodge percentage. PF1 it definitely felt like you could do this if you just focus your feats good.
Oddly two players in our campaign had the complaint of "We never get stronger the monsters AC keeps up with our attack so our hit% never goes up". I really am surprised people would expect to be better than monsters at equal challenges.
I admit it is actually fairly common in both TTRPGs and video games that players actual do progress better than enemies. It isn't uncommon in video games where players have like a 70% chance to hit at low levels in games than all of a sudden have 99% chance to hit by the end.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is true, but when I sat down to play some 2e with people and someone can't hit anything
Can we stop with hyperboles like this?
Against on level opponents, you know the "low threat boss" threshold, its 40% generally.
"I don't hit more often than I miss against CL and above creatures" is not "I can't hit anything".
Lest we forget that rolling thrice on the same action, despite minuses, still increases your odds of hitting considerably. That's why Misfortune/Fortune effects are so good in PF2.
On two separate attacks, you have greater than 50% odds to land a Strike and then still have the option to spend another action doing whatever else.
That's practically better than PF1 all on its own, if only for removing the stagnant "5ft step + full attack".
It's like, you can't have it both ways. We can't argue "you could do more than 5ft step!" and then simultaneously argue that "you had ways to mitigate these downsides in PF1!" because the ways that you mitigate the issues in PF1 directly conflict with being able to do anything but min-max and the same set of actions.
At least in PF1 you can minimize the impact poor dice rolls have on your character.
*With extreme system mastery that not everyone can or even wants to do.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is true, but when I sat down to play some 2e with people and someone can't hit anythingCan we stop with hyperboles like this?
Against on level opponents, you know the "low threat boss" threshold, its 40% generally.
"I don't hit more often than I miss against CL and above creatures" is not "I can't hit anything".
It is technically hyperbole, but also represent player experience (or at least my player experience to a degree).
You feel like you can't hit anything. It is entirely possible to go through a fight a miss every attack you make. Sure you might contribute to flanking that helps someone else hit. You might threaten an area that causes enemies to stay in a position rather than attack the wizard. Those are important contributions, but they're much less satisfying than being able to directly attack and hit.
So yes, it's hyperbole, but that feeling is also important. And this was the thrust of my posts in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is technically hyperbole, but also represent player experience (or at least my player experience to a degree).
It's blatant hyperbole. No question about it.
It is entirely possible to go through a fight a miss every attack you make.
Literally practically and statistically mpossible if you two turns of attacks. And that's not even with the 3rd action going towards attacks.
And if "everyone always misses", then you sure aren't clearing encounters on turn 2...
So yes, it's hyperbole, but that feeling is also important. And this was the thrust of my posts in this thread.
Feeling is important, I agree, but your feelings of "I can't ever hit" aren't based on facts or math.
The truth is that if you Flank alone on a target, the percentage of you missing a CL equivalent opponent are lower than your chance to hit. And you can make up to 3 Strikes (with basic actions mind you) during your turn.
You want to say that it "feels like you never hit", by all means, but it isn't representative of the actual way the game plays or the math works.
I have players that are designed to miss a lot simply because of the sheer amount of attacks they get, and they have absolutely never gone "an entire combat without hitting" ever.
I'd more than welcome math that supports the contrary, but I doubt I'll see any because it's just not accurate.
Just out of curiosity to those that are making these claims about the system I have questions:
How many hours have you played in the new system?
What did you play?
What are your actual statistics if you kept track of them?
Are there members of your group that do not agree with your take on PF2?
I am not at all trying to discount personal feelings on a system, you are absolutely entitled to them, but what you're not entitled to is making up things just to emphasize your displeasure with hitting <50% on your first attack.
The fact is that you hit greater than 50% of the time if you attack twice against a "low threat boss" as defined in the system, and even more so if you just Flank them.
That's not "never hit", it's not even "mostly miss".
I'm sorry. Should I put it in quotes? The player's actual complaint was that "I can't hit anything." I'm sure that hyperbole never happens in conversation at your table and that everyone is perfectly rational in response to not being able to enjoy their leisure time because of bad luck.
The actual math of the scenario is actually irrelevant. If I say 'Over time, you have statistically even chance to hit...' I get 'Oh shut up.' Because at a table, no one cares about the percentages over time. Or the average. The only thing that matters to players is their immediate experience.
The most perfect, mathematically balanced game...that no one wants to play.
"That no one wants to play", LOL. Sure buddy. Sure. We're all here pretending to play the game!
I was pointing out how its not only a hyperbole, it's literally just straight up a lie.
You hit greater than 50% of the time on any turn in which you make two attacks OR if you flank an on-level target.
You hit greater than 50% of the time if your allies aid you, debuff the enemy, grant buffs, etc on an on-level enemy on ONE action.
It would have been a hyperbole to say "you miss more of than you hit on your turn", to say you "never hit" is ludicrously false.
The fact is during a turn you are attacking, you hit more than you miss under a LOT of circumstances and stating you "never hit" is just straight up hogwash.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be completely fair, I have gone combats where I completely failed on attacks.
This may have to do with the fact that my dice refused to roll anything above a 3, but that's on my dice. I recognize that. If I kept rolling that badly and still hit, I'd be more worried about the system.
(Also the fact that I'm playing a swashbuckler, and so generally make a lot fewer attacks.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 suffers this as well. And like Claxon has mentioned, you only have to optimize once in PF1. In PF2 you have to optimize every single battle.
I am incredibly concerned about the difficulty comparisons with regards to PF1 to PF2 because I don't get many chances to convince my group to keep playing PF2, but I also am not going rebalance every single encounter for an AP because that defeats the entire purpose of buying an AP. I have enough to do as it is. Either combat works as printed, or it doesn't.
I mentioned it earlier but it does take almost no effort to just raise players level by X to make the game easier and have players hit more in general.
I think it is crazy to expect APs to run perfectly without any changes for every group. To expect a group of PF2 Veterans and PF2 newbies to have a good challenge and fun without any adjustments just seems impossible to me.
I haven't played enough PF1 but depending on the players I bet some of those APs were hard for players too.
I would say PF2 APs are okay for newer players and leaning more on the hard side so far. Truly though there are some players that just hate not having a high hit chance by default.
Stacking debuffs/buffs in PF2 can easily get you to a good hit/crit but some players want the reverse where by default you have a good hit chance and stacking buffs/debuffs can put your chances to amazing. That has kind of been my experience in 5e/PF1 where characters have a pretty good chance to hit but once you start stacking buffs/debuffs their hit chances can hardly miss or as high as 80% hit chance.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup the whole never getting ahead feeling is definitely true in Adventure Paths. Two of our players felt that way.
Oddly I find this to such a strange thing to complain about since mostly coming from video games I kind of expect monsters to scale the same as me otherwise it just isnt fun.
I dont have huge experience in PF1 but from my limited experience from level 1-17 in Iron Gods it just felt like the monsters kept getting easier and easier.
Monsters tend to only hit on a near 20s and players can hit on like a 2 against most monsters.
Monsters in many AP's in PF1 were definitely under tuned. A lot of that comes from the sheer breadth of options, and stacking buffs, available to players in the system. My group played through Wrath of the Righteous, and by level 10 our GM skipped 2 books and took us straight to the end boss (spoiler omitted). We thought he was crazy, until he showed us that statistically, any one of us could defeat the big bad in single combat, even my Alchemist.
This would never happen in PF2, simply because of how the system scales with level. Some don't like it, I happen to enjoy it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no character class in PF2 that has only a 40% chance of doing something effective with the core class abilities in a round against an average opponent.
If accuracy matters to you, there are many classes that are good at being accurate, and there are many classes that are not dependent on high rolls to do do things, the alchemist being a very strong example of the later.
The goblin alchemist / MC Oracle (level 4) in my party causes significant persistent fire damage with splash damage. He very frequently has 75-100% of enemies on fire by the end of the second round. Very few people choose to just fight on regularly while they are burning alive. It is almost disruptively good, but the party has figured things out enough that I compensate by adding additional enemies and collapsing encounters onto each other all the time, and this party of alchemist, druid, rogue and champion love fighting mobs of lower level enemies. It makes them feel more powerful and get the most out of their AoE abilities. They absolutely feel like heroes after struggling a little for the first few levels of play.
I run 3 tables in PF2 for grown ups and one table of a modified version of No Thank you Evil to make it even more rules lite for a group of my friends kids. I ran 5 books of PF1 APs. Even in the super rules-lite kids game I run, I find myself incorporating the structures of many of PF2's systems for handling different kinds of encounters because it honestly makes narrative heavy playing a lot more fun to think about 4 tiers of success instead of binary yes/no advancement. There are some specific subsystems that don't work as well as they should and need more work, (for example, I have found that the swimming rules are fine for it as an action that is one part of a combat encounter but I had to completely thrown them out for making a skill challenge encounter that involved centered around the challenge of being in the water, for example). But if you familiarize yourself with the victory point system in the GMG, throwing together non-combat encounters on the fly is incredibly easy and rewarding in PF2. I wouldn't say I do it perfectly yet, but it is not uncommon for my players to get so into a social encounter that we only get through half of it in a 3 to 3 and a half hour session. Make sure that you keep things moving and don't have the spot light hang in one place for more than 5 minutes of play time, but adjusting on the fly is fun and easy.
The most important thing to remember though is to make your PCs the heroes of the story. If that means talking to them about choices that are just not going to be fun for them in the campaign you are going to run, be clear about that. If it means changing some elements (especially treasure and rewards) to fit the characters your players want to play, then do that too. If you are a player, listen to your GM. Ask questions about things that are not fun for you and look for ways to focus your play on to the things that are. Keep giving feedback to the developers about your experience and what was fun and what was not, but it is a much better idea to focus your "fixing" the system into the Homebrew threads than it is to strike up a confrontational tone about what the developers need to do to fix the game. That is when other players tend to get defensive and it discourages developers from wanting to read your feedback threads.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in PF1 if your character you made is having trouble hitting things the answer is "you made your character bad but don't worry the rest of the party will auto win anyway, and if they don't you'll die and can make a new one. Probably better use a guide or just have me do it next time. Then we can play on auto pilot better."
Like unless you are into system design mastery, what is PF1 offering you? You functionally get other people to make your characters through guides and then you don't make any functional choices during the game because after level 4 you've specialized into 1 set of actions.
The answer in PF2 to your character isn't hitting things is "have you tried one of this listen of a dozen things you could do on your next turn to help with that?"
This is kinda where I'm at too.
Like if you want to say tactics shouldn't be required to be good in PF2 (they aren't, but sure) then how is it even remotely fair to discredit the amount of sheer work you have to put in just to be viable in PF1??
There is a learning curve for tactics in PF2 to some degree, I won't argue against that, but the level of value a character has even without tactics is still relatively reasonable to play (and when you do exhibit clever tactics, IME, people feel like they are actually doing well).
Whereas in PF1 the learning curve for building a character is much much steeper, full of "trap" options, and even in the case of crafting an exceptional build you would still be behind the best Classes in the game (Druid/Cleric/Wizard past 7+). And you still have to use tactics, they just amount to a much smaller subset of tactical options so it seems "easier" (when your options are A or B, you have a 50% chance to get it right).
Just seems like rose-tinted glasses to me. There is nothing that PF1 offers if you don't enjoy ivory-tower character building where the actual play during the game matters much much less than what you built while away from the table.
In that sense, PF1 is basically a build simulator more than it was an actual game unless your GM was putting in a LOT of work.
As a constant GM, I appreciate not having the burden of "Well I have a player who doesn't optimize and a min-maxer on the other end, how do I present a challenge that doesn't result in a bad time for one or the other?"
I admit PF2 really fits perfect with me. Before I played PF2 I probably would have really been into PF1.
After playing PF2 I feel it really is great being able to easily make characters that are good and fun.
I personally find PF2 character creation more rewarding than PF1.
Overall it is definitely interesting hearing everyone's opinions in the thread.
This is my primary interest in wanting to give PF2 an extended period of play (year+ campaign) because I just finished Wrath of the Righteous and that was an exercise in throwing my hands up and saying 'Whatever. Of course your +70 attack bonus hits Deskari's touch AC.' (Everyone had a good time, overall.)
I won't GM another system until PF2.5/3 releases. Now that I have a solid grasp on the meta/system it's just too valuable to ever go back.
I am still adjusting as I learn new things, but its a nice breath of fresh air in terms of prep and management. Which is awesome because even though I have less time than previous years to actually play TTRPGs as I get older, I am running more games simultaneously than I ever have!
And let me tell you, trying to introduce people to 3.X/PF1? I basically didn't know where to start.
Introducing people to PF2? Here's Pathbuilder 2 or give me a general gist of what you want to play and wallah! We're off to storm the castle!
Now I do think PF2 is a game where the value of play is vastly increased by action cards and cheat sheets (which I provide myself atm).
If I had any mind to learn how to use Foundry or other VTT properly, I feel like I could enhance the game even further, but alas I am too used to old school paper + grid and throwing bones than the virtual stuff (which during a pandemic is big sad).
Playing is fun as hell too though, when I get to, but then I suppose I'm so grateful to be a player when I do get to that it's hardly unbiased.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Overall, PF1 Core Rulebook is leagues better than the 3.0 PHB. It is a remarkable improvement over the 3.5 PHB, with more HP for casters and classes beefed up at 1st level compared to what D&D had in 3.5.
PF1 is also a continuation of the brand's progression, where D&D deviated from that progression with their new edition (both 4th edition at the time, and the simplified 5th edition that was nothing like the "Playtest)
Over time, it began to suffer the same fate as 3.5, where the "rules glut" was making the ever expanding ruleset even more complicated. With various point pools with some classes, different rules to use as other classes tried to stay tied to the PF1 paragam, like the Kinestist, or even the touch attacks of guns or the headaches of the PF1 Summoner. I still like the system, but sometimes you hear the question way to often.
"How are you doing that?"
PF2 is built with the building blocks in place to never get to bogged down in rule variants that would step on the material that came before. As more books come out, it will expand the choices without making the earlier material obsolete.
Someone with a Core Rulebook can keep up with the rest of the table with no problems, in my mind. Something that was farther and farther away in PF1 as it got further along. I still will tell everyone that will listen, you can not wield two earthbreakers at the same time. Ever! They are the same size as the wielder, and both need that main hand to wield the weapon. Arguments like this was ongoing for years as PF1 continued to get more material.
I don't believe you will have this trouble in PF2.
Now, I still like PF1, and the classes and how the races give you a lot more than they do now in PF2. (Just look at the Tengu... ) PF2, however, cleans up a lot of rules that was just niggled and adjusted from 3.5 in PF1. PF2 also has the underlining mechanics that is simpler to understand and use.
I believe it is the natural progression of the game and was much needed 10 years ago, when we got 4th edition instead, hence why PF1 became a favorite for us all in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any good sharable ones? I figured I'd have to make some myself sooner or later.
Now I do think PF2 is a game where the value of play is vastly increased by action cards and cheat sheets (which I provide myself atm).
The main one I use for general actions is this one
But what I've started doing is straight up copy pastas from the PDFs of the books (and Playtest PDFs) onto a single sheet, printing the sheet out, and then my wife and I glue them to colored construction paper to make our own cards.
If that sounds ridiculous, that's because it is, but it has severely helped new players (and in particular the playtest went much smoother).
I might at some point create some kind of program that outputs all of the players actions/spells/etc to a single sheet so I don't have to shop everything together in advance, but I usually end up just writing in my freetime since I code all week (to you coders that can go nonstop, idk how the heck you do it I need breaks!).
The one above though definitely helped a lot and it's at least expanded my more comfortable players into using different actions (in particular when they want to go outside their routine, they give the sheet a quick scan at least).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2.5
I just had a wave of happiness at the thought of Paizo doing a backwards compatible next edition.
If I had any mind to learn how to use Foundry or other VTT properly, I feel like I could enhance the game even further, but alas I am too used to old school paper + grid and throwing bones than the virtual stuff (which during a pandemic is big sad).
I play like I do at the table, paper, pens, dice, with the exception that I use Roll20 to do combat. Scribble really half assed maps to fight in. Use default tokens as enemy stand ins. (Last time they fought several loaves of bread) Basically minimally interact with the virtual table top.
VTTs just blow for any kind of off-the-cuff GMing. They try to force you to do all kinds of prep work. My prep time before each session normally is like half an hour. If I tried to get real maps set up with dynamic lighting and stuff not only does that encourage railroading but also takes hours.
VTTs just blow for any kind of off-the-cuff GMing. They try to force you to do all kinds of prep work. My prep time before each session normally is like half an hour. If I tried to get real maps set up with dynamic lighting and stuff not only does that encourage railroading but also takes hours.
This. This so much.
Like don't get me wrong, prep is necessary, but the sheer level of prep you have to do for the VTTs I see forces you into one of two worlds:
1. Stick your players in the tiniest conceptual narrative box and DONT YOU DARE COLOR OUTSIDE THE LINES!
2. Do an insane amount of prep on top of the prep you already have to do as the GM
And I just don't want to do that lol
I just had a wave of happiness at the thought of Paizo doing a backwards compatible next edition.
Imagine it. Alchemists will be the Druids of the 3.0/5 switch and become GOD tier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
VTTs just blow for any kind of off-the-cuff GMing. They try to force you to do all kinds of prep work. My prep time before each session normally is like half an hour. If I tried to get real maps set up with dynamic lighting and stuff not only does that encourage railroading but also takes hours.This. This so much.
Like don't get me wrong, prep is necessary, but the sheer level of prep you have to do for the VTTs I see forces you into one of two worlds:
1. Stick your players in the tiniest conceptual narrative box and DONT YOU DARE COLOR OUTSIDE THE LINES!
2. Do an insane amount of prep on top of the prep you already have to do as the GM
And I just don't want to do that lol
I just had a wave of happiness at the thought of Paizo doing a backwards compatible next edition.Imagine it. Alchemists will be the Druids of the 3.0/5 switch and become GOD tier.
I play almost exclusively by VTT and yet I agree that players tend to expect really nice maps with everything on them, and it does limit changing things on the fly.
Worse though, I think it promotes a style of play where the players are like video game characters who can be rotated out willy nilly and the adventure can still run fine without them. This is great for PFS, but it is a garbage fire for APs. What GM wants to give out non-standard treasure if they are using a module that is fully loaded with all the things from the book. Or modify monsters to meaningful interact with PC abilities if it means losing out on resources you have already invested time or money into?
VTTs just blow for any kind of off-the-cuff GMing. They try to force you to do all kinds of prep work. My prep time before each session normally is like half an hour. If I tried to get real maps set up with dynamic lighting and stuff not only does that encourage railroading but also takes hours.This. This so much.
Like don't get me wrong, prep is necessary, but the sheer level of prep you have to do for the VTTs I see forces you into one of two worlds:
1. Stick your players in the tiniest conceptual narrative box and DONT YOU DARE COLOR OUTSIDE THE LINES!
2. Do an insane amount of prep on top of the prep you already have to do as the GM
And I just don't want to do that lol
I just had a wave of happiness at the thought of Paizo doing a backwards compatible next edition.I don't think thats true at all. You can totally just wing it as much as you could in real life. The paint tool does the map and you can just roll dice without a prepped monster sheet.
Yeah it won't be as pretty and it'll pretty much tell your players they've forced you into unprepared territory (which as a player I like, it basically proves you aren't railroaded) but you only need to railroad if you refuse to have non- perfect maps.
Also to Foundry's benefit (less so R20 because of the limited space) the more you've prepped in the past, the more you have already nice setups to just pull out of the bag. Like I have 4 or 5 wilderness maps I can just pull up with no prep and then every single monster in the bestiary's (and scenarios/APs) is drag and droppable.
Imagine it. Alchemists will be the Druids of the 3.0/5 switch and become GOD tier.
I wish there was a community of FOSS Foundry material, but the upfront investment feels pretty steep in terms of time (to me at least, but I hope to get there eventually).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Found the person who hasn't ever actually seen or played a swashbuckler.
The swashbuckler is an example of a class with wonky mechanics. If you use a finisher, you can only attack once per round. If you don't get panache, you can't use a finisher. Your speed is only fast if you have panache. So as a player and DM, you have to track when they have panache and when they don't. When they used a finisher and whether they can attack again. It's easier to play a rogue or fighter that plays like a swashbuckler. No mechanical...
Gee, I have only run a swashbuckler player for 16 levels. Watched his up and down rounds including strings of unlucky rolls to regain panache. Rewritten the finisher mechanic so that when he misses a finisher and can't do much else in a round, he doesn't feel like he wasted his round. Rewrote the mechanic so he starts with Panache so that his move and a single failed panache skill roll doesn't leave him watching other classes do their schtick, while he can't do much. Or heavens forbid, it requires a few moves to engage in combat as he doesn't start with panache so has a lower move to start a combat until he engages.
I have very much seen a swashbuckler in combat. It's not nearly as good as posted on these forums.
I get tired of hearing these lvl 3 players talking like they know what these classes can do.
You want some know some real simple ways to short circuit a swashbuckler? Fight flying creatures or creatures using ranged combat that don't allow you to Tumble Through them. Or caster using invisibility that prevents targeting. Or oozes immune to precision damage.
It's attempts to paint a ridiculous idea like I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't agree with a handful of folks on this forum who haven't been a Swashbuckler past lvl 6 that I find builds a false narrative for classes.
Swashbucklers have wonky mechanics that can be exploited. They can be good against simple, straightforward physical fights. But put them in situations against invisible enemies, fortified ranger fighters, creatures immune to precision, creatures with languages they can't speak, very high reflex or will saves, and you start to see the problems with the wonky mechanics.
My player almost gave up on the swashbuckler until I modified the Finisher tag and rewrote the class to start with panache after he opened up with failed rolls to get panache multiple combats causing him to lose confidence in the class. It's not real fun to have to open up with a move to the target at a slower rate, then use a Tumble through or other skill against a high reflex save enemy, fail the roll, and be stuck doing nothing.
Classes like the barbarian have no such limitations. The rogue has many abilities to guarantee the sneak attack.
I very much understand this game quite well after it must be four campaigns now. One to 17, one to 16, one to 13, one to 5. And another shorter one to lvl 9. With a multitude of classes. I can literally discuss any class at this point in a large number of circumstances against a large number of enemies.
I can say for certain the Swashbuckler in ideal circumstances can be quite strong. Those ideal circumstances are usually physical combatants on a field with good movement. But if a swashbuckler runs into less than idea circumstances, he is hurt far more than other classes. There are greater limitations on the swashbuckler's abilities than most other martial classes. This is very noticeable to both a DM and player when their schtick is short-circuited.