| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're back! And you're now either trolling or your GM not playing correctly. Remember this chestnut? You then went to make three more threads stirring the pot when everything boiled down to - your GM is cheating/your GM doesn't know the rules.Because I'm still looking for specifics instead of people just saying "use better tactics." For the record, the GM's using as-published Adventure Paths and we're making characters from the Core Rulebook. And if the GM is getting some things wrong, that still doesn't explain all the trouble we're having with simple same-level fights.
Example: Our Agents of Edgewatch party is at level 12. And the average damage we deal per hit is still around 12-14 hp (18 attack stat, +1 striking weapon). That can't be right, can it? Surely there's some other way to increase your damage output with level. At that level, it takes forever to bring down a level 12 enemy warrior or assassin.
This is exactly why you should have had your talk with your GM ages ago. Beyond ages ago. You should be rocking out with greater striking runes (at least one as the AP provides you with one by the point that you're at) and your main stat should very likely be at 20. Quickly mathing that out with something like a longsword and you would have about a 19 or so damage with a single hit without any bonuses. Add in your respective classes "damage boosts" (like a ranger's edge, rogue's sneak attack, or the cumulative damage of a monk's flurry - this should be around an additional 10 damage per simple Strike). So you should be hitting around 30 damage with ordinary Strikes with your martials. This, of course is without looking at feats which allow you to get two attacks without MAP or two attacks with one action, attach riders to Strike, or whathaveyou. So yes, your damage is low.
But you've spent every thread obstinately refusing to acknowledge how the game is played, likely because your GM is not actually allowing you to play it correctly. Enemies fail saving throws just about as often as martials hit with Strikes, action denial is astoundingly good (even when trading two of your actions to take one of theirs, as your actions don't carry the same weight as theirs), Recall Knowledge is essential and the DCs aren't even close to being high, Aid (especially at level 12, are you kidding me?) is amazing (spend your third action to give someone a +2 or +3 to their attack or skill check? Just gotta beat a DC 30 at level 12), Intimidate is literally bread and butter for martials and enemies should constantly be debuffed.
You're closing off every avenue of engaging with the game because either one of two things are happening.
1) You're going in with the thought that these things won't work and when the dice don't fall your way, you fall prey to confirmation bias. "I knew this wouldn't work and the game doesn't allow me to do this."
Or (and honestly, this is more likely given your post history)
2) Your GM is absolutely playing the game wrong. They're not applying penalties or fudging numbers up or adjusting encounters up (this makes no sense after "giving you a level up on the AP," but it falls in line with your other posts).
There are two major penalties to apply in PF2 and they should be at the forefront before you start blowing big spells. Status and circumstance. An opponent with frightened 2 (hello, Fear - a level 1 spell) who is prone or flat-footed (my god this one is easy to pull off) is going to be 20% more likely to be hit AND - crucially - 20% more likely to be crit.
Here's what I've gathered and allow your GM to correct me if I am wrong. You are a 6 person party. The GM went and looked at the Different Party Sizes rules on page 489 of the Core Rulebook and noted how much more XP they needed to add to encounters. Then they just slapped elite on everything and called it a day rather than manually add in more creatures or hazards fitting to the encounter. Similarly, they didn't see what was causing these problems, and just "gave everyone an extra level" to make things even out, except now your equipment isn't keeping pace with where you should be. So you're six level 12 characters sharing 11th level gear meant for 4 players because your GM didn't take that into account. You should have the money to buy greater striking runes by now, but you're splitting gold 6 ways and now everyone is left behind. So that extra level was essentially just keeping you in a holding pattern.
On top of that, your GM is handwaving things to speed the game along (because 6 players doing piddly damage to your elite creatures is hogging up all of the game time) so when you do something that isn't combat ("I'd like to disable the hazard shooting fireballs at us, please.") he isn't exactly about to check every little thing ("Why don't they just kill the things with hit points already?") and it fails because "You can't, you just can't. Kill the things in front of you already." They're glossing over rules and cutting corners at every which way and assuming a lot of things work like Some Other Game which they don't. They simply do not.
So you can take all of the constructive criticism you want here, but until your recognize that you need to have a sit down talk with your GM about where there wants and your party wants lie, then you're going to be smashing your head into a brick wall over and over again.
Also, don't make threads and start sniping back at people only to disappear. We're a small community and while we don't always have the best memory, at least someone will be able to go back and bring up the past.
EDIT: This was before replies saying that you're running a new group with a new GM. Obviously that theory is bunk then. The takeaway should be debuff, actually use spells, and upgrade your weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ruzza hit the nail on the head as to why your party is underperforming I'd say.
Agents of edgewatch is a bit low on loot on itself anyways, and then if your DM doesn't apply this:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=586
Specifically this:
If a party has more than four characters, add the following for each additional character:
One permanent item of the party’s level or 1 level higher
Two consumables, usually one of the party’s level and one of 1 level higher
Currency equal to the value in the Currency per Additional PC column of Table 10–9
Then you're behind on expected gear and that's why you're hitting like a wet blanket.
Also your martials should have damage mechanics (rage, sneak attack etc) and 20 main damage stat at that point. 13-14 damage is what the level 1 fighter in my game is hitting for.
Look into automatic bonus progression for edgewatch. Honestly I'm one of the only DM's (I think, at least from the threads) who's run this scenario through from A to Z and it really isn't that bad. Some fights are hard (the butcher for exemple) and some fights are tricky (oggvrim the merciless) but it's overall well balanced and you shouldn't be struggling at level 12.
One other thing that confuses me. In one of your replies, you said that there's a paladin. That should be giving you an incentive to fight together in a tighter formation, instead of moving off to face your own individual opponents. Aside from focusing your damage being a much better way to take creatures out of the fight and make combat end quicker, like you wanted, champion reactions are incredibly powerful, but only work if they're within 15 ft of an ally who is being hit, and the enemy that's hitting them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example: Our Agents of Edgewatch party is at level 12. And the average damage we deal per hit is still around 12-14 hp (18 attack stat, +1 striking weapon). That can't be right, can it?
You should be aware of the benefits from Automatic Bonus Progression even if you don't use that variant rule. Being aware of the bonuses and increases that the game math expects you to have at the various character levels is important.
So yeah, upgrade those weapons and skill boosts using equipment as soon as possible.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, avoiding unnecessary combat is another favorite of my players, though it is a strategy rather than a tactic. They interacting with NPCs, explore unknown enemy territory, and gather information from factions to learn the lay of the land before they approach combat. And often they decide that they can skip that combat. They would be low on experience from skipping so many encounters, except that due to their mastery of tactics I beef up the encounters that they do face, and they earn extra experience from the bigger battles.Ahh, that's a good point. Our group is very fond of coming up with creative, offbeat, or (at times) downright crazy ideas for finagling encounters and challenges to bypass combat rather than fight. We love outwitting a situation or trying unexpected approaches. And the GM (not the same as the Age of Ashes GM, by the way) appreciates it... but then he unhappily informs us that, per the box text, our PCs therefore get no XP for the encounter, and certainly no treasure. And worse yet, we often fail to obtain the vital plot point needed to progress to the next stage of the story.
So maybe we need to discuss with him some greater flexibility on 'not sticking with the story sequence as written.'
Are you sure this is a different GM (rhetorical question)?
There is nothing so rigid in an Adventure Path as you are describing above. While I can't claim to have run Agents of Edgewatch, I am running Age of Ashes, there has never been any "boxed text" that says the players get no experience if they fail to solve an encounter as it is "written." Air quotes are intentional on that last part because often there is nothing specifically written about how an encounter is to be solved; instead the GM is given a set up, and is really up to the GM and the PCs to figure what happens next. Experience from such encounters should be awarded if the PCs defeat or neutralize the encounter.
For example, if a PC druid used Wild Empathy to convince an animal in the area (that was, as written, an encounter in the Adventure Path) to leave the PCs alone, I'd certainly award XP for 'defeating' the creature.
Another example, lets say the PCs find a way to use Stealth and Guile to sneak past a room full of guards they otherwise would have had to fight. This is potentially worth XP in my view.
As for equipment, if a GM notices PCs are missing loot from an encounter because of how it went down, they should be making up that loot in some other way. I've on many occasions just moved loot from one encounter to a different encounter as needed. In fact, I've often looked to make such loot 'earned' rather than found, by having it in the hands of an enemy they just fought and defeated.
How are you a level up if your GM is skipping XP awards? Which, again, they shouldn't be doing.
Ah, avoiding unnecessary combat is another favorite of my players, though it is a strategy rather than a tactic. They interacting with NPCs, explore unknown enemy territory, and gather information from factions to learn the lay of the land before they approach combat. And often they decide that they can skip that combat. They would be low on experience from skipping so many encounters, except that due to their mastery of tactics I beef up the encounters that they do face, and they earn extra experience from the bigger battles.Ahh, that's a good point. Our group is very fond of coming up with creative, offbeat, or (at times) downright crazy ideas for finagling encounters and challenges to bypass combat rather than fight. We love outwitting a situation or trying unexpected approaches. And the GM (not the same as the Age of Ashes GM, by the way) appreciates it... but then he unhappily informs us that, per the box text, our PCs therefore get no XP for the encounter, and certainly no treasure. And worse yet, we often fail to obtain the vital plot point needed to progress to the next stage of the story.
So maybe we need to discuss with him some greater flexibility on 'not sticking with the story sequence as written.'
Are you sure this is a different GM (rhetorical question)?
There is nothing so rigid in an Adventure Path as you are describing above. While I can't claim to have run Agents of Edgewatch, I am running Age of Ashes, there has never been any "boxed text" that says the players get no experience if they fail to solve an encounter as it is "written." Air quotes are intentional on that last part because often there is nothing specifically written about how an encounter is to be solved; instead the GM is given a set up, and is really up to the GM and the PCs to figure what happens next. Experience from such encounters should be awarded if the PCs defeat or neutralize the encounter.
For example, if a PC druid used Wild Empathy to convince an...
Because my players skip encounters or handle them differently, let me describe how I give out experience and treasure. I will use Trail of the Hunted, 1st module of Ironfang Invasion, as an example. In Part 2 of that module, the 2nd-level PCs and many villagers who escaped the invasion of their village are hiding in the dangerous Fangwood forest.
Skipping an encounter entirely earns nothing, because the PCs had no encounter. One encounter in the Fangwood was a dire boar. The PCs decided to simply avoid its territory. They had a hundred different square miles to hide in. The PCs themselves had not even seen the boar; instead, a wayward bard named Edran has spotted it and fled in fear. They received no experience points and received no treasure (the boar had a magic ring stuck on a tusk).
Solving a hostile encounter peacefully earns the PCs full experience. However, it often forfeits the treasure, because the living opponent wants to keep it. Another encounter in the Fangwood was a centaur. He pretended to be friendly, but he really worked for the invaders. The PCs succeeded at Perception checks and knew he lied. The centaur offered the PCs food: apples that had been dipped in sleeping potion. The halfling scoundrel rogue accepted an apple, spotted the coating, and pared the skin (and potion) off the apple before eating it. The centaur gave up trying to capture them through trickery and departed. This would have been a no-treasure encounter because the centaur left. However, while the centaur was occupied with apples, the gnome thief rogue pickpocketed his saddlebags. I was overjoyed, because the centaur carried a wanted poster for the party that I wanted them to see. She got that poster and three magic scrolls, too, as a bonus that I invented on the spot. The PCs received full xp for dealing with the centaur.
Some vital encounters require a little out-of-character nudging so that they don't skip it. The PCs defeated an Ironfang patrol, a combat encounter with xp and treasure as usual. They laid a false trail down to fool any patrols that would seek the dead patrol. They almost reached a good spot for a module encounter, "H1. Mutilated Body," and I encouraged them to go a little farther. They found the mutilated body of a hunter from the village that another patrol had killed. That other patrol had overlooked the bag of holding on the body, so the party claimed that as treasure. That zero-xp encounter was supposed to be their first warning about the patrols, but instead, I re-purposed it to provide a useful magic item.
Sometimes, I replaced encounters. Another encounter would have been running into an Ironfang Legion officer who was dealing with the xulgath cultists to the east. It was supposed to provide a clue about the xulgath caves, a potential hiding place for the refugees. I decided that it undermined the usefulness of the caves, since if the Ironfang Legion knew about the caves, then they would eventually search for the refugees there. Thus, I dropped the encounter myself, rewriting the story so that the Ironfang Legion knew nothing about the xulgath cultists. The PCs gained no experience and no treasure for the encounter than never happened.
Instead, I added an encounter where a svirfneblin scout had escaped from the xulgath cultists and was suspicious of all surface dwellers. When the party reached out peacefully to the svirfneblin (Gnomish was a common language between them), I gave them xp for the effort. And he could provide some information about the layout of the caves. He also confirmed that the xulgath were evil, so that the party had no hesitation about eliminating them to steal their cave. My players love information more than treasure.
Receiving experience points for doing nothing works only in a milestone leveling system, where the party ought to be at a certain level at particular points in the story. My players alter the plot too much for milestones. Instead, I view each dangerous encounter as a problem to be solved. If the party solves the problem, by any means, then they earned the xp. Treasure is harder to provide, since that comes from the setting, but I find ways to tuck extra treasure in places if the party needs it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because my players skip encounters or handle them differently, let me describe how I give out experience and treasure. I will use Trail of the Hunted, 1st module of Ironfang Invasion, as an example. In Part 2 of that module, the 2nd-level PCs and many villagers who escaped the invasion of their village are hiding in the dangerous Fangwood forest.
Receiving experience points for doing nothing works only in a milestone leveling system, where the party ought to be at a certain level at particular points in the story. My players alter the plot too much for milestones. Instead, I view each dangerous encounter as a problem to be solved. If the party solves the problem, by any means, then they earned the xp. Treasure is harder to provide, since that comes from the setting, but I find ways to tuck extra treasure in places if the party needs it.
This is why I stopped using XP 20 years ago.
X amount of Players either spend too much time chasing XP or worrying about XP, instead of enjoying the game.So I ditched it.
Sure, there are some who bow out when they find out I don't use XP, s'okay.
We don't want to enroll in a military academy and become combat specialists; we want to make combat go away faster.Well, if you know what you want (less/no combat), that's good! But maybe the solution is not to be playing a combat-focussed game? Pathfinder, and D&D more generally, have a lot more rules devoted to combat than anything else, because combat is expected to be important. If you don't really want the combat, I suggest talking to your GM and getting a new setting and system with less of it.
Nah, combat has become a sacred cow for far too many PF/D&D players/GMs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.
100% this, along with everything people upthread have been saying to the same effect.
We live in a golden age of ttrpgs. If PF2 provides the experience you and yours want, that's awesome! If it isn't, though, the world is bright and broad. There's something out there that does what you want, more or less how you want it.
Beating your head into a system that isn't making you happy is just self-harm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can also play different systems while using the same lore and artwork. I still feel like out of combat stuff doesn't need as many rules, and rules can in fact get in the way, so it's fine to do a roleplay heavy game using a combat-heavy system, but there's no reason to stick with PF2 if you just cannot stand the combat in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an exemple for what other posters have said.
We had a DM once who ran a very fun planescape campaign (using the multiverse of planescapeas established by WOTC) that was done entirely with the FATE rules.
We found loot, fought monsters, had incredible RP and changed scenes with our aspects every fight. It was a blast !
I prefer the pf2e rules over this, but they're really not all thats out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.
Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?
Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.
It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rule 2 is flat out wrong on so many levels I can't even fathom.
First, there is no "rule of thumb" in this aspect, because action economy is highly dependent on the kind of encounters. If you sacrifice two actions to deny one action from a boss monster (Party Level +2 or +3) then it is MASSIVE, alternatively, against weaker enemies the deal gets worse fast, but it is against weaker enemies that you will have higher success chance, thus having good odds of "suck" effects (stuns, mind control, trips, etc) and sometimes even doing stuff automatically (Assurance Athletics).
Also, my groups got into very rough scrapes several times (and I'm talking about 240XP encounters or more), some of them were simultaneous while others were back to back. They were gruesome but we won in the end. Fyi, this was in Age of Ashes, a notoriously dead AP (including "mooks", Charau-ka Butchers, with +2 in all of their stats because of wrong printing).
Seems like this is yet another case of veteran players thinking that they are playing well by applying their acquired knowledge from different systems.
My party doesn't even min-max and we just used our stuff correctly, spent our hero points proactively and survived despite my GM rolling a critical hit every round in some battles including by using his "villain point" mechanic that screwed us over more than once (boss enemies missing hits and turning them into hits or critical hits).
In short: Git Gud (/jk). And play PF2e, not PF1e, 3.5 or D&D5e.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?
Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.
It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.
Way to compare pizza and hamburgers.
What are most spells in the game composed of? Combat spells.
“Lowest hanging fruit” is a complete non-sequitur, all it shows is you’re heavily biased against combat and you’re painting it as a negative.
The last part is just laughable, that you’re saying it’s the easiest, to you claiming they just use combat as filler.
The entire game is built around combat, you can do other things of course within the rules of the system, but that doesn’t make it not be what the system is built around.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?
Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.
It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.
I'm in agreement with Rysky here - the game is built around combat. The victory point mechanics, 4 stages of success, and skill feats make for more interesting non-combat gameplay than many d20 ttRPGs, but the game is still built around combat at its core. I think an effective demonstration is to look at what characters you can build. If we're starting at level 11 for the new AP, can I make an expert diplomat who chooses to gain no knowledge in anything related to combat? Or a master trapsmith and thief who can get in and out of anywhere, but has no expertise in fighting? It's impossible to make these characters, because the game is built around the assumption that you're adventurers who fight enemies and get better at it as you level up. I've run nearly entire books of an AP without a combat! It's fun, and PF2 supports it fairly well, but it's not designed around it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in agreement with Rysky here - the game is built around combat. The victory point mechanics, 4 stages of success, and skill feats make for more interesting non-combat gameplay than many d20 ttRPGs, but the game is still built around combat at its core. I think an effective demonstration is to look at what characters you can build. If we're starting at level 11 for the new AP, can I make an expert diplomat who chooses to gain no knowledge in anything related to combat? Or a master trapsmith and thief who can get in and out of anywhere, but has no expertise in fighting? It's impossible to make these characters, because the game is built around the assumption that you're adventurers who fight enemies and get better at it as you level up. I've run nearly entire books of an AP without a combat! It's fun, and PF2 supports it fairly well, but it's not designed around it.Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?
Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.
It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.
No the APs and PFS are built around combat.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There aren't many rpg systems in this world that are worse for someone who doesn't like combat than Pathfinder. Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.
Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?
Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.
It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.
I'd certainly say combat is a core part of the game. The system can support either kinds of encounters quite well, but there's a reason we those were basically defined in the GMG while the CRB focuses so much on combat. (I'd also argue Pathfinder IS a spellcasting game. There is a reason we refer to the genre as swords and sorcery.)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No the APs and PFS are built around combat.
No? They use the Pathfinder system which is built around combat, APs and PFS Scenarios have plenty of non-combat encounters in them.
You can have nothing but social encounters in your adventures… and Pathfinder will still be a combat focused system, how you play it doesn’t change the system itself. A hammer you use to bread toast is still a hammer.
Or to put it another way, this is like claiming Barbarian isn’t a combat class just because you take the Proficiencies for the Diplomacy Skill on them.
I'd certainly say combat is a core part of the game. The system can support either kinds of encounters quite well, but there's a reason we those were basically defined in the GMG while the CRB focuses so much on combat. (I'd also argue Pathfinder IS a spellcasting game. There is a reason we refer to the genre as swords and sorcery.)Combat isn’t a “sacred cow” for PF, it’s the main part of the game. There’s other game systems that aren’t combat simulators.Sounds like you are going by number of pages spent on a particular aspect to the game. By that logic wouldn't PF be a spellcasting game?
Combat is the lowest hanging fruit in PF.
It is by far the easiest encounter in the game, it is the easiest to write in an AP/PFS. When looking through the AP/PFS it is not hard to realize it is what they use as filler.
I certainly agree that combat is a core part of the game, never said it wasn't.
There aren't many rpg systems in this world that are worse for someone who doesn't like combat than Pathfinder. Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.
You're describing the level based system design.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There aren't many rpg systems in this world that are worse for someone who doesn't like combat than Pathfinder. Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.You're describing the level based system design.
It's entirely possible to have a level-based system that has no interaction with combat at all - you could have a level-based game system about being nobles engaged in clandestine plots, and as you level up you get better at a variety of social-encounter related abilities, or the ability to determine when you're being manipulated, or your planning capabilities. The level-based system of PF/D&D always increases your combat potential more than anything else because combat is the core of these games; it's not an insult, it's just an accurate appraisal of how the game works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There aren't many rpg systems in this world that are worse for someone who doesn't like combat than Pathfinder. Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.You're describing the level based system design.
The thing is that winning a combat doesn't necessarily increase your ability to win a debate. It's entirely possible to create characters that do nothing but fight, while it is basically impossible to create a player character that can't fight at all.
The thing is that winning a combat doesn't necessarily increase your ability to win a debate.
Well apart from the classic killing everyone who disagrees allows you to win by default. Ok that is trite but sadly the way many issues have been resolved.
It's entirely possible to create characters that do nothing but fight, while it is basically impossible to create a
player character that can't fight at all.
Maybe with the right religion an anathema you could do it. I have seen some people try. Funny for a while but not very satisfying in the long run. I agree the expectation of the game design and the players is that there will be some combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that winning a combat doesn't necessarily increase your ability to win a debate. It's entirely possible to create characters that do nothing but fight, while it is basically impossible to create a player character that can't fight at all.There aren't many rpg systems in this world that are worse for someone who doesn't like combat than Pathfinder. Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.You're describing the level based system design.
You're ignoring that even in PF you are able to gain multiple levels without using combat, yet your combat skills increase. So why is winning a debate automatically increasing your combat skills?
Because PF is a class/level based system design.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that winning a combat doesn't necessarily increase your ability to win a debate. It's entirely possible to create characters that do nothing but fight, while it is basically impossible to create a player character that can't fight at all.There aren't many rpg systems in this world that are worse for someone who doesn't like combat than Pathfinder. Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.You're describing the level based system design.You're ignoring that even in PF you are able to gain multiple levels without using combat, yet your combat skills increase. So why is winning a debate automatically increasing your combat skills?
Because PF is a class/level based system design.
You basically just said the same thing Arachnofiend did but drew a very different conclusion. This tangent is feeling more and more like semantics.
You basically just said the same thing Arachnofiend did but drew a very different conclusion. This tangent is feeling more and more like semantics.
No, I reversed what he said.
"Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.Because I defeated something in combat I, also, am now able to win more debates, see things more clearly, jump higher, know more about stuff like; religion, or magic or Klingon Lore, climb a wall, jump on tables, survive in a city...and so on.
See winning in combat also make you better in a social encounter. So why does things always lead to initiative eventually? It doesn't, that's a Players/GMs issue.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You basically just said the same thing Arachnofiend did but drew a very different conclusion. This tangent is feeling more and more like semantics.No, I reversed what he said.
"Winning a social encounter makes you better at combat in this game, the game is expected to lead to initiative eventually.
Because I defeated something in combat I, also, am now able to win more debates, see things more clearly, jump higher, know more about stuff like; religion, or magic or Klingon Lore, climb a wall, jump on tables, survive in a city...and so on.See winning in combat also make you better in a social encounter. So why does things always lead to initiative eventually? It doesn't, that's a Players/GMs issue.
*She
You're completely ignoring my second post here. None of those things are necessarily increased by level; a Fighter may stay untrained in all social skills, while a Sorcerer may always be pitiful at trying to open heavy doors. Both characters will always get more powerful in combat - hell, the Sorcerer will even get better at hitting things with a stick! You have to choose to opt-in to any non-combat stuff you take, but you can't opt out of combat boosts.
|
|
Aiding is a good example. It doesn't make sense to Aid all the time. Sometimes, Aiding has a higher DC than the actual DC. Sometimes, it's not worth the two actions.
Aid only requires one action to set up, so especially for a character who lacks a reaction it may be a better choice than a strike with a high MAP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aiding is a good example. It doesn't make sense to Aid all the time. Sometimes, Aiding has a higher DC than the actual DC. Sometimes, it's not worth the two actions.Aid only requires one action to set up, so especially for a character who lacks a reaction it may be a better choice than a strike with a high MAP.
Probably conflated if with Ready, which is two actions and reaction.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Calybos1, have you had a game since and used the advice everyone has been talking about here? And if it hasn’t worked for you, can you describe in as much detail as possible what happened in your encounters (including level of characters and enemies, classes, enemies, and terrain)? Maybe there is something that has been overlooked because the rest of us are used to the system, and I think we would all like it if you enjoyed playing as much as we do.
You're completely ignoring my second post here. None of those things are necessarily increased by level; a Fighter may stay untrained in all social skills, while a Sorcerer may always be pitiful at trying to open heavy doors. Both characters will always get more powerful in combat - hell, the Sorcerer will even get better at hitting things with a stick! You have to choose to opt-in to any non-combat stuff you take, but you can't opt out of combat boosts.
One question.
Do you're trained skills increase with level even if you never use them?| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're completely ignoring my second post here. None of those things are necessarily increased by level; a Fighter may stay untrained in all social skills, while a Sorcerer may always be pitiful at trying to open heavy doors. Both characters will always get more powerful in combat - hell, the Sorcerer will even get better at hitting things with a stick! You have to choose to opt-in to any non-combat stuff you take, but you can't opt out of combat boosts.One question.
Do you're trained skills increase with level even if you never use them?
You can be untrained in all social skills though. You have to specifically take options to become trained in those skills, as opposed to attack bonuses, saves, and AC which you can't opt out of.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're completely ignoring my second post here. None of those things are necessarily increased by level; a Fighter may stay untrained in all social skills, while a Sorcerer may always be pitiful at trying to open heavy doors. Both characters will always get more powerful in combat - hell, the Sorcerer will even get better at hitting things with a stick! You have to choose to opt-in to any non-combat stuff you take, but you can't opt out of combat boosts.One question.
Do you're trained skills increase with level even if you never use them?
One question.
Did you miss the part in my post where I specifically said the word "untrained" or are you being obtuse on purpose?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like bickering is missing the point.
Is PF2 primarily a combat oriented game? Yes - easily visible from the class-level system, which is set up to make sure characters remain in the same ballpack for what they can deal with in combat.
Does that make PF2 bad for running non-combat things? No, that conclusion does not logically follow.
---
In fact PF2 has a good framework for designing and running non-combat challenges. You have the very customizable victory point minigame framework from the GMG which can be used in many different ways. And you have a scale of level-appropriate DCs that allows you to pit skills against saves against Perception against attacks against spell DCs and get sensible results. If someone proposes an unorthodox approach, it's not that hard for the GM to improvise a way to roll a check for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One question.Did you miss the part in my post where I specifically said the word "untrained" or are you being obtuse on purpose?
No.
I added the part you are deliberately ignoring.I feel like bickering is missing the point.
Is PF2 primarily a combat oriented game? Yes - easily visible from the class-level system, which is set up to make sure characters remain in the same ballpack for what they can deal with in combat.
Does that make PF2 bad for running non-combat things? No, that conclusion does not logically follow.
---
In fact PF2 has a good framework for designing and running non-combat challenges. You have the very customizable victory point minigame framework from the GMG which can be used in many different ways. And you have a scale of level-appropriate DCs that allows you to pit skills against saves against Perception against attacks against spell DCs and get sensible results. If someone proposes an unorthodox approach, it's not that hard for the GM to improvise a way to roll a check for that.
Exactly.
I wish Paizo would utilize these other avenues way, way more in their AP/PFS products.| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
One question.Did you miss the part in my post where I specifically said the word "untrained" or are you being obtuse on purpose?
No.
I added the part you are deliberately ignoring.I feel like bickering is missing the point.
Is PF2 primarily a combat oriented game? Yes - easily visible from the class-level system, which is set up to make sure characters remain in the same ballpack for what they can deal with in combat.
Does that make PF2 bad for running non-combat things? No, that conclusion does not logically follow.
---
In fact PF2 has a good framework for designing and running non-combat challenges. You have the very customizable victory point minigame framework from the GMG which can be used in many different ways. And you have a scale of level-appropriate DCs that allows you to pit skills against saves against Perception against attacks against spell DCs and get sensible results. If someone proposes an unorthodox approach, it's not that hard for the GM to improvise a way to roll a check for that.
Exactly.
I wish Paizo would utilize these other avenues way, way more in their AP/PFS products.
This is a really weird hill you've decided you have to die on, especially now that you've backpedaled to agreeing that Pathfinder is a primarily combat focused game (which it pretty transparently is), which was the entire point in contention in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly.
I wish Paizo would utilize these other avenues way, way more in their AP/PFS products.
Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, while primarily a fighting tournament, does include a whole chapter dedicated to winning over a patron using the Influence mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, while primarily a fighting tournament, does include a whole chapter dedicated to winning over a patron using the Influence mechanics.Exactly.
I wish Paizo would utilize these other avenues way, way more in their AP/PFS products.
Age of Ashes also had several of those.
Designer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Age of Ashes also had several of those.Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, while primarily a fighting tournament, does include a whole chapter dedicated to winning over a patron using the Influence mechanics.Exactly.
I wish Paizo would utilize these other avenues way, way more in their AP/PFS products.
Strength of Thousands also has a lot of skill/social challenge type encounters that can be resolved through non-combat methods as well. We've also got quite a few PFS scenarios that are more focused on non-combat systems / exploration mechanics, like Tarnbreaker's Trail and Burden of Envy. Lodge of the Living God does have a big "fight the undead horde" sequence in the latter half, but has a heavy focus on base-building and recruiting in the first half. There's several others as well, because the combat-lite adventures tend to do a bit better with the PFS market than they do in other demographics.
Honestly, there's a lot of developers, designers, and freelancers who are really excited about writing these types of adventures, but there is a fundamental truth to the fact that the skill-heavy, combat-lite style of adventures tend to get great reviews and then they just... Don't sell very well. There's almost a direct correlation between focus on combat and a product's success, though we are seeing some changes in the specific breakdowns there as PF2's audience continues to grow and draw in a larger and younger crowd than we've had previously.
The best way to get more adventures that have a lighter touch on combat and use other resolution systems instead, is to buy them, review them, and recommend them. The more sales they get, the easier it is for us to do it again, just from a budgetary standpoint.
Also, personal reminder here, remember to give your players opportunities to resolve things presented as combats in ways other than combat! If it can reason and talk, there's a pretty good chance the party can resolve the situation without having to resort to violence, if they want. PF2 gives experience for completing encounters, not for killing monsters, so award players full XP for that ogre they convinced to become a caravan guard just as if they'd beat it in a fight. Don't let the adventure writer's assumption that the most likely resolution to a conflict is combat deter you and your group from pursuing other avenues of resolution (and then talk about what your group did do, so you can inspire others to try similar alternative tactics!)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's bizarre to me that people buy up combat focused APs so much more. Combat is so easy to prep for, I usually add combat as filler if I think a session might go short.
Locations, NPCs, motives, plotlines, and backstory is what takes all the time.
Maybe it's weighted by GMs who are only really comfortable GMing combat...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's bizarre to me that people buy up combat focused APs so much more. Combat is so easy to prep for, I usually add combat as filler if I think a session might go short.
Locations, NPCs, motives, plotlines, and backstory is what takes all the time.
Maybe it's weighted by GMs who are only really comfortable GMing combat...
I have two of my four players that mentally check out whenever we're not actively doing exploration or combat. Social interaction just doesn't interest them much within the game. The other two tend to enjoy it, so I make sure to include it, but I do tend to speed it along a bit faster than normal, because I'd rather not have a completely disengaged couple of people for 2 hours when the other two are unraveling mysteries and discovering clues as to where the party needs to go next.
I've talked to them about it, and they say they don't mind that the 'other stuff' is in there, but they're just not engaged. Even when I attempt to bring them into it, by having their character be the lynchpin in a particular plot point, I still can't really get much of anything out of them.
On the other hand, everyone is engaged when it's initiative rounds and they're punching bad guys in the face and collecting loot afterwards. So that's what we mostly tend to do.
I get the feeling a lot of people just aren't comfortable actually role playing, and really just want to play a video game with people rolling numbers instead of an RNG. That's why combat heavy things sell well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Age of Ashes also had several of those.Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, while primarily a fighting tournament, does include a whole chapter dedicated to winning over a patron using the Influence mechanics.Exactly.
I wish Paizo would utilize these other avenues way, way more in their AP/PFS products.Strength of Thousands also has a lot of skill/social challenge type encounters that can be resolved through non-combat methods as well. We've also got quite a few PFS scenarios that are more focused on non-combat systems / exploration mechanics, like Tarnbreaker's Trail and Burden of Envy. Lodge of the Living God does have a big "fight the undead horde" sequence in the latter half, but has a heavy focus on base-building and recruiting in the first half. There's several others as well, because the combat-lite adventures tend to do a bit better with the PFS market than they do in other demographics.
Honestly, there's a lot of developers, designers, and freelancers who are really excited about writing these types of adventures, but there is a fundamental truth to the fact that the skill-heavy, combat-lite style of adventures tend to get great reviews and then they just... Don't sell very well. There's almost a direct correlation between focus on combat and a product's success, though we are seeing some changes in the specific breakdowns there as PF2's audience continues to grow and draw in a larger and younger crowd than we've had previously.
The best way to get more adventures that have a lighter touch on combat and use other resolution systems instead, is to buy them, review them, and recommend them. The more sales they get, the easier it is for us to do it again, just from a budgetary standpoint.
Also, personal reminder here, remember to give your players opportunities to resolve things presented as combats in ways other than combat! If it can reason and talk, there's a pretty good chance the party can...
My players want to fight. They play these games to feel like some powerful warrior or sorcerer, not a diplomat or professor. Keep the glorious, epic battle APs coming. That is what my players like the most.
Though I did have one player that really enjoyed building and managing a kingdom like Kingmaker. He was a fan of the video game Civilization. He liked the game within a game of building a kingdom. He liked building and planning the cities and troops.
Though Kingmaker was fun for all the players to imagine themselves as the rulers of a land they get to build. That was immense fun. Really gave that feel of being old world conquerors settling a land and building it into a powerful civilization. Game systems where the players get to establish themselves as a power are fun.
I wouldn't mind having an AP where the players to get take over an established kingdom and become the rulers of said kingdom with some interesting and fun system for breaking the current regimes power and establishing your own within the city and nation. That would be fun.