| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then maybe this isn't the game for you, because 50-60% odds of success is par for the course in P2e.Ugh. Maybe you're right.
But it feels as if you still have to heavily optimize in this version-- but rather than being god-tier, optimization makes you decent. If you, say, play a fighter with only a 14 in Str and Dex, then you are pretty bad.
Say what you will about 5e-- believe me, I have issues with that system as well-- but at least I can play a character that doesn't require constant work just so that I can maybe have 50% odds of not getting hit.
I think I just don't like that this system seems to be based around avoiding getting crit, rather than avoiding getting hit.
My fighter fantasy of playing the dashing lightly armored fencer who dances between his foes seems pretty unobtainable when every enemy can casually eviscerate you.
Again, I'm not complaining about getting hit, I just don't like how much effort you have to put into being halfway good at avoiding hits.
I'm not experienced in 5e but from what I've heard there is a different perspective to combat. I believe in 5E you have a certain amount of encounters per day that are meant to wear your resources down by the end of the day. In PF2E conversely you are expected to go into combat at full health because you will get hit more. You also can heal back up with greater ease between combat.
I can see how it might feel more heroic in 5E to rarely get hit and have every individual combat be much less risky for your character. However in 2E combat is much more balanced and you will be hit more, you will be challenged more, and it can feel as if you aren't as heroic.
Personally I really like 2E combat in that it's tactical, it rewards teamwork and smart decision making more than it rewards min/max character building (because it's tuned so you can't break the system and diminish all the encounters).
I played a Barbarian in Hell's Rebels (converted to 2E)...
PF1 you can make unhittable characters.
5E bounded accuracy made characters hittable often. 5E mobility options made that game easy to play. It was super easy to kite monsters. And popup healing made it easy to get knocked out, get a bonus action healing word, pop back up, full attack, and rinse and repeat.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have an issue with getting hit; it comes with playing a game like this. My issue is with how often you get hit, and how hard. I guess I don't agree with a game design that is based around having *maybe* a 50% chance of getting hit if you optimize that way.
As it stands, if almost feels like if you don't have max points put in Dex or Con, you are dead meat most of the time.
Getting hit and crit a lot both ways was a decision made to ensure combats don't last overly long. It is the main reason why PF1 combats fast, furious, and deadly, but the PCs are still put in a position to win.
When I and my group first started playing PF2, it was jarring to get hit so often. It takes some getting used to as it is a paradigm shift from PF2.
Over time we've found ways to mitigate:
1. Not many creatures have AoOs, so you can back out of the fight forcing the creature to waste actions moving if it wants to attack. Your 3rd attack isn't great anyway, so it is often not bad to use it to move out of range.
2. Invisibility or concealment is useful. You can reduce the probability of getting hit by being invisible or concealed. Then they have to roll to hit you, then make the flat check to land the hit.
3. Champions are your friend. Champions are one of the few classes over time that build up their AC high enough not to get hit too easily most of the time. They have a reaction ability that can block damage and force the monster to attack you or do reduced damage.
4. Action economy feats. Flurry of Blows and ranger twin strike abilities are examples where you can get an action economy advantage over the enemy by using 2 actions to move, one to attack twice, thus keeping the enemy from being able to full attack you.
5. Abilities that make the enemy waste an action. Knockdown/trip abilities usually make the enemy have to spend an action to stand up to be able to move again. If you can knock something down, you can either move away forcing it to spend an action to stand up and an action to move to you to attack. Slow spells. Stunning attacks. Anything that can force an opponent to waste actions on something other than attacking.
6. Damage resistance abilities. Blink spell. Armor specialization DR. Ironblood form for monks. Shield blocks. Temporary hit points. Dodge attack feats.
7. Healing. 2 action heals are very powerful in PF2. They can erase a round of damage in one cast. If you bring a hybrid caster with you, you can have a caster that can do those heals while doing other things the rest of the time.
8. Debuffs and buffs. There are abilities that buff your characters and debuff the opponent. When you combine these, it can reduce hit chances quite a bit. Frightened and sickened are both very common. And AC buff spells like forbidding ward or protection can buff you while casting a fear spell or intimidating a enemy to reduce their hit chances.
PF2 combat is extremely interactive. You have to use a combination of abilities that nearly every class has to turn combat in your favor. Once you learn how to do this as a group, PF2 combat becomes much more fun and interesting.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teamwork is all well and good if the other players cooperate. I've lost track of how many games I've been in where players forgot my bard's inspire courage bonuses, have charged the mass of mooks my wizard was about to fireball, held onto their healing font even with two PCs down, or not stayed in their flanking position to allow my rogue to sneak attack.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason people arguing for these things don't just run games with the difficulty lowered is because of their egos. They want their preferred style to be the default.
This definitely is a thing and if it is then unfortinately one of your most prominent options is not to play the game. I have found myself in this situation a couple of times, especially when it comes to computer games, and found that rather than lowering difficulty I often just quit completely while also being frustated by my own inadequacy. Note that I am not promoting not playing PF2 but if you don't have fun in a game and you are not willing to make some fundamental changes in order to have fun (for any reason) one of your valid choices is to quit.
Teamwork is all well and good if the other players cooperate. I've lost track of how many games I've been in where players forgot my bard's inspire courage bonuses, have charged the mass of mooks my wizard was about to fireball, held onto their healing font even with two PCs down, or not stayed in their flanking position to allow my rogue to sneak attack.
The problem is that due to the inherent difficulty (APs), complex combat system and tight math teamwork might easily be lost and found beyond any volutary or involuntary unwillingness to cooperate, i.e. when players are making decisions based on "realism" or roleplay, and not based on any tactical necessity currently present on the board. As such our group often found combat much easier when we hive-minded our group of characters, not unlike the GM often can (but not neccessarily has to) hive-mind any opposition. For example there easily is a difference in between the individual decision of a player of a severely hurt PC to step back from a monster to possibly not get downed once it is the monsters turn (realistic option), or to simply ignore that he will get downed and just keep flanking anyway because the additional damage of the incoming sneak attacks simply may be worth it, and because if worst comes to worst healing spells and hero points are a thing (gamist option).
As a funny anecdote please note that after two volumes of AoA both our GM as well as our party complained about the default difficulty of PF2 however from different ends of the spectrum: The GM complained that combat was not exiting for him because no matter what he did he never felt that in the end he could really endanger or touch us (mostly because of the power of in-combat Heal spells), whereas the party complained that combat was not exiting for them too, because having your HP obliberated and being beat to pulp in nearly every single combat in a "Christopher Nolan's Batman" type of gritty reality was not in line with their idea of heroic fantasy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason people arguing for these things don't just run games with the difficulty lowered is because of their egos. They want their preferred style to be the default.This definitely is a thing and if it is then unfortinately one of your most prominent options is not to play the game. I have found myself in this situation a couple of times, especially when it comes to computer games, and found that rather than lowering difficulty I often just quit completely while also being frustated by my own inadequacy. Note that I am not promoting not playing PF2 but if you don't have fun in a game and you are not willing to make some fundamental changes in order to have fun (for any reason) one of your valid choices is to quit.
I have the feeling this is the main complaint about PF2. Difficulty is, by default, quite high. It was certainly also the case in the previous editions when they were released but system mastery was ultimately getting rid of difficulty when in PF2 there's no level of system mastery that can beat difficulty all alone.
In my opinion, the Free Archetype, Dual Class and/or Ancestry Paragon optional rules should be used for APs as a baseline. The slight increase in power puts the game at a better difficulty level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is all about tactics and intelligent play at the table, not winning the game at character creation.
I used to think I wanted a game like this, but realized that this very balanced game wasn't fun for me, because I liked being the overpowered super hero.
...
my expectations are "waiting till PF3"
I'm not entirely sure that PF3 would give you what you want, either.
Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell.
PF1 was close to D&D 3.5. PF2 is close to a mix of D&D 4 & 5 (very broad strokes, not like PF1 to 3.5). Who knows how a theoretical PF3 would shake out. Or if Paizo will still be a major game player in that time. PF1 lasted about 10 years. PF2 will likely last the same, but 10 years is a long enough time that many things could happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason people arguing for these things don't just run games with the difficulty lowered is because of their egos. They want their preferred style to be the default.This definitely is a thing and if it is then unfortinately one of your most prominent options is not to play the game. I have found myself in this situation a couple of times, especially when it comes to computer games, and found that rather than lowering difficulty I often just quit completely while also being frustated by my own inadequacy. Note that I am not promoting not playing PF2 but if you don't have fun in a game and you are not willing to make some fundamental changes in order to have fun (for any reason) one of your valid choices is to quit.I have the feeling this is the main complaint about PF2. Difficulty is, by default, quite high. It was certainly also the case in the previous editions when they were released but system mastery was ultimately getting rid of difficulty when in PF2 there's no level of system mastery that can beat difficulty all alone.
In my opinion, the Free Archetype, Dual Class and/or Ancestry Paragon optional rules should be used for APs as a baseline. The slight increase in power puts the game at a better difficulty level.
IMO difficult is just because some players aren't accustomed to play little harder games.
I simply don't have this problem. Me and my players are experienced players from many different TRPGs systems. Because this high experienced we usually increased Challenge Rating to make the encounters more dangerous and for us this way having more fun! This also allow up to progress faster but also creates additional difficulties for those who GM, because the need of constant rebalance the maths due the faster progression and the required difficult of the party.
When we started at PF2 as always we do when play a new system we tried the default difficult of that system. So we started with the so infamous Fall of Plaguestone and we love it! In most part the encounters was challenging and this was fun. Sometimes someone fall by bad dice rolls but the party rapidly reorganizes to rise that player again and win the fights but even theses fall was reduced a lot when they learned how to best use the Hero Points.
Any of me players never complain seriously (but they always make some jokes) about difficult. In Plaguestone for example except from 1 encounter where they face a Blood Slime that was strangely to challenging for their specially in that part of adventure. But I rapidly noticed that this monster was too strong for the party level and for a middle boss fight and in middle of encounter I adjusted it very easily using Weak rules (reducing all it's rolls by 2 and it's HP by 15).
This also remembers me. The PF2 is the mostly easier and fun system that I have GMed. I don't loose much time balancing the things and It's very easier to improvise because is easier to understand how each skill works and how encounters difficult works.
But I understand when some people complain about the game difficult. The game is naturally challenging and if you aren't a experienced player/GM you/the party may have some complains about difficult but it's just until their and the GM knows how the game balance is and is how to make use of good tactics. As GM you can easily diminish the challenge even in middle of an encounter and as player you will learn in some way how important are you positioning the usage of action economy and yours strategies.
So finally I have to agree with WatersLethe. There's little reason to complain about PF2 difficult it's very easier to adjust or you can allow your player to be stronger has SuperBidi proposed just improving the players levels or giving the Free Archetype, Dual Class, Ancestry Paragon, more feat per level or whatever you want. And sorry but complains that's the game isn't for your because their default difficult is too high/low is just shows the inability of some players and GM to understand how to balance the game because PF2 is one of the mostly easier systems that I already played to do these balances changes.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I say I really resent the statements that intertwine gaming experience and experience of difficulty?
If anything, if you have a lot of experience with D&D 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 you are highly disadvantaged coming to PF2 because of the radical change in difficulty. Your experience does you a disservice if you try to play it the same way.
For me, those older editions were "Medieval" Fantasy Super Hero games. But that's not what PF2 is by a long shot.
I'm not saying right or wrong, but PF2 doesn't scratch the same itch (for me) that PF1 did.
I liked it as a weekend game to get together and mindlessly destroy my enemy. The change in the game play has made it not what I looked forward to.
I guess my point here is that I don't a lack experience is the factor here.
Lack of experience, no? It seems that most of the complaints are from people coming from a different game and basing their opinions of pf2e against that vs looking at it as a new game.
There's this too. But here we can separate the complains about those who came for others systems in 2:
1. Complains about difficult
2. Complains about the things not working like they expected (usually when the player comes from PF1)
Complains about difficult is how I said before. If the game is too easier or too difficult probably someone is making something wrong. Or the GM is taking too hard using too strong encounters or don't allowing the players to refocus and reprepare between fights or players still are't experienced enough into the game they aren't using the available tools, tactics and strategies to survival. Maybe not using the action economy too well or not using medicine/using and recovery focus points between battles and so on.
Complains about things not working like they expected is other thing I commonly see here in the forum. Many players try to replay their experience from PF1 in PF2 and falls in frustration! They usually complains that some abilities don't work or aren't implemented how they expected. Usually these players fails to notice that PF2 is a completely different game from the 1º edition and if you don't see the game like this you always will fall in comparisons like "this class are better in earlier edition" or "the AC of my martials in old versions make me almost untouchable by physical attacks here I can't do this" and may be frustrated and also makes it difficult to see how the game creates new different solutions and perspectives of how to play with your char.
A good tip I give for players that come from other systems is. Don't compare! The games are too different. You may use some mechanics or abilities from other games as suggestions during playtests but beyond this don't do comparisons you only will be frustrated because your preferred abilities don't exist or don't work like you like and probably forget that everything in PF2 is way different from other games. If you want to do some comparison only do they to things of the same system, like comparing a PF2 class/ancestry with other PF2 class/ancestry don't do this between different systems this just don't work like this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not getting crit is mostly what a "tank" does in this edition, and every point of AC reduces the chances to be crit by an actual, significant amount.
Quoted for truth. The way the math works out, Raising Your Shield often doesn't reduce a monster's first Strike having a regular success against you at all, but it often reduces their chance to crit by 20, 30, 50, or even 67 percent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teamwork is all well and good if the other players cooperate. I've lost track of how many games I've been in where players forgot my bard's inspire courage bonuses, have charged the mass of mooks my wizard was about to fireball, held onto their healing font even with two PCs down, or not stayed in their flanking position to allow my rogue to sneak attack.
As someone who enjoys the combat to be difficult and has been defending it this whole thread, I don't feel anything needs to change with the core design of the game, but I do think Paizo should make a conscious effort to make APs easier. Have some tough bosses, sure, but the average encounter should be easier I think. Experienced groups can do traditional things like combine encounters or scale up enemies to get more of a challenge.
I get that they need a certain XP budget per page or whatever so that people get level 20 by the end, but you can always say "this adventure is recommended for Fast XP track" or give more generous quest XP to get around that.
My understanding is that the adventure RollForCombat is putting out is supposed to start easy and scale up from there. I think that's a nice middle-ground.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked it as a weekend game to get together and mindlessly destroy my enemy. The change in the game play has made it not what I looked forward to.
What is stopping you from rolling a party 2 levels higher than expected and mindlessly destroying your enemies?
I say this as a GM who *regularly* tunes the game to be easier for my players because they don't generally handle character death well. We use free archetype or double class feats. They fight way more at level threats than above level. The enemies surrender or flee. I almost never attack a downed player.
I also play video games on easy if I feel like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good tip I give for players that come from other systems is. Don't compare! The games are too different.
PF2 isn't D&D 5e, it doesn't have that must-play factor going for it. Instead, PF2 has to compete against any other game you and your group might want to play. Thus it must be compared to them and should be compared via whatever criteria a potential player wishes to use.
There's nothing a prospective PF2 player is missing if they bounce off the system. Just because people who care enough to post here like it doesn't mean that everybody should keep giving it chances until they enjoy it too.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, people should feel free to enjoy whatever it is they enjoy and dial in what works for them. It's entertainment after all.
Though it's weird that there are a bunch of folks around here who don't like the system, don't play the system, and have bounced off of it who keep posting.
Axes, grinding, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though it's weird that there are a bunch of folks around here who don't like the system, don't play the system, and have bounced off of it who keep posting.
Axes, grinding, etc.
I've given statements explaining exactly why I'm here often enough. Check my posting history and you too can be enlightened.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lack of experience, no? It seems that most of the complaints are from people coming from a different game and basing their opinions of pf2e against that vs looking at it as a new game.
]
No. This is just unfair.
PF2 plays significantly differently than PF1, than 5th edition, than AD&D, etc.
While it DOES take time to adjust to the new PF2 paradigm that does NOT mean that everybody likes the new paradigm.
Claxon has a completely valid point and I am also very tired of people trying to dismiss his point.
PF2 is NOT for everybody (no game is).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 isn't D&D 5e, it doesn't have that must-play factor going for it.Genuinely interested in what the "must-play factor" in 5E is
Said from the perspective of a Year Zero Engine/Forged in the Dark guy who GMs 5E and PF2 for friends that prefer d20 systems
I tend to favour PF2 over 5E because I find monster design more interesting
It isn't anything special from a rules perspective but the fact that 5e is THE TTRPG makes it a must play. Being able to compare things to it could even be key to getting people to play the system you actually want to run.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 isn't D&D 5e, it doesn't have that must-play factor going for it.Genuinely interested in what the "must-play factor" in 5E is
Said from the perspective of a Year Zero Engine/Forged in the Dark guy who GMs 5E and PF2 for friends that prefer d20 systems
I tend to favour PF2 over 5E because I find monster design more interesting
It's the fact that it's named D&D 5e. That's the must-play factor.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's an issue with difficulty. Plenty of other games (pf1 included if you know what you're doing) can have very tough encounters that aren't also frustrating.
PF2 is rough because it's designed to make you fail individual rolls extremely often. This creates the perception that your characters are incompetent and sucks the fun out of the game.
A better way to add difficulty is by adding resistances and health, rather than AC and saves. That way you get the sense of hitting your enemy, of making them fail their saves, but in the background the effects are reduced. You can keep encounters the exact same length and difficulty but make them far more fun just by increasing the rate while reducing the impact of success.
I had this happen in the Starfinder game I ran. About halfway through, the players were getting really discouraged by how often they just missed (even with SFs reduced AC, the lack of ways to boost attack means you fail pretty often, and enemy saves way outstrip spell DCs). I started paring back saves and ac a couple points, boosted hp and tossed in a couple resistances. Result was that enemies died in the same time, provided the same challenge, and everyone was a lot happier.
Basically, having the "difficulty" be implemented primarily by using RNG (since it depends solely on whether you have good rolls) makes for a frustrating game. Other methods are less painful to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is always a bit funny to me when people talk about Pathfinder being so hard or so deadly. Outside of this game, I tend to lean most towards horror (a la Call of Cthulhu) or the OSR. PCs in Pathfinder feel incredibly tough and durable, rarely getting punished for being overly aggressive with dangerous enemies, etc.
Just feels like the opposite perspective to many. The assumption that fights are expected to happen and be won, that enemies are rationally intended to be challenging but ultimately fall to the party, sometimes just feels really odd to me. It's okay! My players and I love it. But some days I wonder why "combat as sport" makes people extra frustrated compared to if they just assume from the get go that things won't be tailored to their ability and power level every time.
It's just about what you're into. Pathfinder 2e is less superheroic than 5e or PF1, perhaps, but it still seems to be in that category when I'm coming from the outside of the modern D&D play style.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked it as a weekend game to get together and mindlessly destroy my enemy. The change in the game play has made it not what I looked forward to.What is stopping you from rolling a party 2 levels higher than expected and mindlessly destroying your enemies?
I say this as a GM who *regularly* tunes the game to be easier for my players because they don't generally handle character death well. We use free archetype or double class feats. They fight way more at level threats than above level. The enemies surrender or flee. I almost never attack a downed player.
I also play video games on easy if I feel like it.
The people who are willing to GM the games in my friend group like the direction PF2 moved to, and because the default difficulty of APs (what my group almost always ran) is on the high end that's what they want to do.
I understand that if I can convince them to lower the CR of encounter by 2 or increase the player character level by 2 I'd probably get the experience I'm after. But it requires a level of persuading I'm not capable of.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's an issue with difficulty. Plenty of other games (pf1 included if you know what you're doing) can have very tough encounters that aren't also frustrating.
PF2 is rough because it's designed to make you fail individual rolls extremely often. This creates the perception that your characters are incompetent and sucks the fun out of the game.
A better way to add difficulty is by adding resistances and health, rather than AC and saves. That way you get the sense of hitting your enemy, of making them fail their saves, but in the background the effects are reduced. You can keep encounters the exact same length and difficulty but make them far more fun just by increasing the rate while reducing the impact of success.
I had this happen in the Starfinder game I ran. About halfway through, the players were getting really discouraged by how often they just missed (even with SFs reduced AC, the lack of ways to boost attack means you fail pretty often, and enemy saves way outstrip spell DCs). I started paring back saves and ac a couple points, boosted hp and tossed in a couple resistances. Result was that enemies died in the same time, provided the same challenge, and everyone was a lot happier.
Basically, having the "difficulty" be implemented primarily by using RNG (since it depends solely on whether you have good rolls) makes for a frustrating game. Other methods are less painful to play.
100% this. I can't believe I missed this before, but this is what I wish would have happened. If enemy AC and saves were lower, but had more HP, resistances, and special defenses that upgraded certain kinds of saves (depending on factors of the specific enemy) from crit fails to fails, and maybe even failure to success would make the game feel much different for me.
The perception of my character as individually incompetent is what ruined the game for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's about right, creatures that are comparatively higher level are designed to hit/crit correspondingly more often. This means that enemies higher level than individual party members should take the effort of at least 2 of them to take down. And the opposite is true, fighting a lot of lower-level enemies ends up with each player critting often.
Your characters are meant to be that fragile compared to creatures that are higher level than them; "Boss fights" (including any creature higher level than you) are designed to require teamwork or luck to win.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it turns out that bosses have a higher chance to hit/crit you, in the same way that you have a higher chance to hit/crit mooks.
That's what being higher level means.
(And even then, that's not enough to save higher-level bosses from action economy. RIP my poor boss who rolled a nat 1 vs slow on T1 of the final fight.)
I had a pretty good sense that this game was somewhat more about mitigating the amount of hits and crits you take than outright preventing it but we lost our fighter, our champion, and a druid and now we are running into a problem that we have no strength characters and this game does have bad choices you have to learn not to make. Our fights keep bogging down, we literally have to stop after every fight and medicine check ourselves back up, etc.
You're supposed to be taking that 10-minute break (and maybe more) after each fight, as a note. If you weren't doing that, there's no wonder you had people dying.
Another thing that I'm wondering about is Hero Points, and if your group was using them.
Really, I'm just wondering what happened overall, since fighter/champion/druid is one of the least likely comps I'd expect to lose three members on.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I say I really resent the statements that intertwine gaming experience and experience of difficulty?
If anything, if you have a lot of experience with D&D 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 you are highly disadvantaged coming to PF2 because of the radical change in difficulty. Your experience does you a disservice if you try to play it the same way.
For me, those older editions were "Medieval" Fantasy Super Hero games. But that's not what PF2 is by a long shot.
I'm not saying right or wrong, but PF2 doesn't scratch the same itch (for me) that PF1 did.
I liked it as a weekend game to get together and mindlessly destroy my enemy. The change in the game play has made it not what I looked forward to.
I guess my point here is that I don't a lack experience is the factor here.
Not sure how old you go back, but 3E was the first edition of Medieval Fantasy Superhero game of D&D.
Basic and Expert were very low powered. Advanced only became high powered once you started making up your own stuff and making your players into gods. The default game was very gritty with THACO and saves set on a table. 2nd edition uped the power quite a bit, but you still die on a whim to a save or die spell no matter what level you were. And casting was powerful, but you didn't do it near martial enemies and segment casting could make spells very long casting.
3rd edition and every system built off 3rd edition was fantasy superheroes. It's the only edition of D&D built that way. 5E sort of follows in that tradition. PF2 is a return to the older school of D&D where death could happen and the game wasn't easy.
It's not quite the throwback to First and Second edition where one bad saving throw and you're dead occurred, but somewhere between 1st/2nd edition and 3rd edition in terms of difficulty.
D&D used to be a brutal game. I still remember in 2nd edition feeling bad when my buddy's lvl 12 paladin (back when lvl 12 was not easy to get to) died to a banshee wail because he missed his death save.
The most deadly module we played in 3rd edition was Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, we had death after death after death. That was mainly because Monte Cook made the Madness Domain insanely tough.
3E was the first edition of D&D that gave the players so much power that they crushed the world as written. PF1 continued the 3E paradigm with some reductions in power. PF2 has finally taken it back to where D&D games are dangerous and challenging, though not quite as bad as 1st and 2nd edition. Those editions were brutal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't anything special from a rules perspective but the fact that 5e is THE TTRPG makes it a must play. Being able to compare things to it could even be key to getting people to play the system you actually want to run.
PF2 isn't D&D 5e, it doesn't have that must-play factor going for it.Genuinely interested in what the "must-play factor" in 5E is
Said from the perspective of a Year Zero Engine/Forged in the Dark guy who GMs 5E and PF2 for friends that prefer d20 systems
I tend to favour PF2 over 5E because I find monster design more interesting
I quit playing 5E. It's too easy a game for my tastes. There monster design is interesting, but set to too easy by default. Their mechanics consist of get advantage and give disadvantage somehow, then you're all done. Every single power and skill could be named, "Get Advantage" or "Give Disadvantage" and you'd be all done.
And bless is a lvl 7 to 9 spell handed to players at 1st level that is used in nearly every fight because of how good it is in a game with Bounded Accuracy.
Kudos to 5E D&D for having Critical Role pick it up and run it and appealing to the masses again as a simple game like Basic D&D when it first came out. But for gamers like myself, that level of ease is just boring.
I'll never forget running Out of the Abyss and having demon lords turned into enemy monsters from Saturday Morning Cartoons that look fearsome, but are so easily defeated that a lvl 4 sorlock can kite them around. Terrible design.
Critical Role makes 5E look so much better than it is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Understand what this means. Classes and builds are secondary to what you do. PF2 is all about the actions you take and the chassis to do those actions takes a back seat. If you are playing PF2 because you want to build cool PCs which are meaningfully different from other builds of the same class then play PF1. In PF2 it is not until 10-12th level where you can see any real difference between different builds of the same class. (e.g. skill feats with very few exceptions don't do much)
I don't agree. You can be easily mechanically distinct by level 4, if not earlier.
Let me give a very quick example, using two characters I'd previously built at level 4:
1. Tengu Wit Swashbuckler, Stormtossed/Storm's Lash, One For All/Tumble Behind/Twin Parry, Bon Mot/Steady Balance/Cat Fall/Group Impression, Adopted Ancestry (Human)
2. Elven Fencer Swashbuckler, Woodland/Nimble Elf, Dueling Parry/Goading Feint/Impaling Finisher, Forager/Charming Liar/Confabulator/Lengthy Diversion, Feather Step
Even though they're using the same weapon (rapier/whip vs rapier), and are on Swashbuckler (a skill-based Dex class), they're extremely different in build and play, which you should be able to see from the feats they've taken.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having played AD&D, 3.5, PF1, and 5e, combats in this game tend to feel demoralizing. Getting crit repeatedly is demoralizing for people and it's one of the reasons I stopped GMing PF2 for younger players.
I do the opposite - I wouldn't dream of GMing older games for today's kids.
When we old fogeys played D&D, it was uncool. Groups were small and relatively stable. People really invested a lot into each character.
Fast foward 30 years, RPGs are ... kind of cool. It's in popular media, it's socially acceptable. My son's D&D club at school has 60 (!) kids in it. People have different groups they play with and multiple characters they switch between. Nobody wants to spend hundreds of dollars on splat books just to keep up with ever-escalating power levels. People seem very fine with pregen characters. There's a "just play" attitude, now.
Popular media has also gravitated towards the antiheroes and flawed characters, just look at how Superman and Batman have changed. I don't think kids mind getting crit repeatedly, unless an adult teaches them to mind.
I agree that PF2 would have not worked out very well for me as a kid. But it works out very well for my children now, and all my kids' friends, too.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some things that most players don't get to experience in PF2 if you play to low level is the math changes as you level.
You start off at 1st level pretty weak. You will get your butts handed to you and your party can die pretty easy for the first 5 or 6 levels. Crits can take down even the toughest fighter. Casters are meat and can't do much. Your damage is ok, but not great.
Around lvl 7 you get a boost with striking weapons. Your caster proficiency goes up. You get access to some better spells. You get specialization. You just got stat boosts.
Around lvl 11 or 12 you get greater striking weapons. Your armor proficiency goes up. You get access to higher level spells with more powerful effects. Your focus spells get better.
15th level more overall boosts. The math starts to shift in your party's favor. You can take on tougher things. You are a pretty brutal group.
By lvl 19 you're reaching that super heroic stage where your casting spells to wipe out groups of creatures. The martials are only getting hammered by bosses and murdering everything else. You can haste the entire group with 2 actions.
I doubt many players will experience this, especially with PFS stopping at lvl 8 or so. That whole idea of stopping at lvl 8 needs to go. PF2 can be played across all levels and is still manageable. The characters do start to feel more powerful, but it doesn't happen unless you play to higher level.
My druid and barbarian at lvl 16 feel beastly strong. The barbarians hits are brutal. He can sweep away trash monsters, while taking a beating.
The druid is an elemental machine of destruction. Once the druid starts lighting up the enemy, it's usually all over.
You don't really get to experience this power increase unless you play a while. PF2 isn't the power fantasy of PF1, but you still feel extremely powerful at high level. What you can square off against increases substantially. Casters still feel uber powerful at higher level.
It's way more like 1st or 2nd edition D&D in terms of the progression of power. Start off real weak, then progress to really powerful at the high levels. It's more difficult to get to those levels as you have to tough out a lot of levels where you feel very challenged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also just need to note that I find it extremely hilarious that others are talking about feeling incompetent, when my luck is so bad my group turned it into a drinking game at one point.
There was literally a session where I rolled above 4 in combat maybe once. Against a bunch of level-2 enemies in one combat, my swashbuckler failed to get panache for 3 turns. I'm the one who's built for not getting hit (with the ability to swing a +3 effective AC) and yet my GM will unfailingly roll a 19 on the second or third attack, and barely ever rolls low enough for me to get a riposte despite making second/third attacks constantly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...math changes via level...
The only thing that I have asked myself about this is: Why? What is the reason behind starting tough and having an easier time later on? Was this done intentionally or is this merely a byproduct of the system rebuild?
I am asking me this because in my humble opinion it would make much more sense the other way round. Starting strong but getting tougher as levels increase. Firstly this would wastly increase the new user experience, secondly you could learn the game (and deal with the increasing difficulty) more easily while gaining first hand experience "on the job" and thirdly (but this is my personal opinion) it also makes more sense regarding the narrative. I mean, why should a rookie fighter have a harder time versus a skeletal champion than a legendary fighter has versus a demon lord?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also just need to note that I find it extremely hilarious that others are talking about feeling incompetent, when my luck is so bad my group turned it into a drinking game at one point.
There was literally a session where I rolled above 4 in combat maybe once. Against a bunch of level-2 enemies in one combat, my swashbuckler failed to get panache for 3 turns. I'm the one who's built for not getting hit (with the ability to swing a +3 effective AC) and yet my GM will unfailingly roll a 19 on the second or third attack, and barely ever rolls low enough for me to get a riposte despite making second/third attacks constantly.
This is what pisses my group off more than anything else. It's not the difficulty, it's the series of terrible rolls.
We play on a virtual table top. So all the rolls are seen. When you roll double 1s or something equally irritating, you start to feel like the dice roller is glitching.
Then you see the monsters rolling high all the time. It really starts to drive you nuts.
Some of the players have had some bad nights on the dice roller. As a gamer you start to get irrational and wonder if some secret AI knows you're rolling and it wants to see the monsters win.
Super frustrating. I told my players they can roll with physical dice and tell me what they get. But they like the transparency and ease of the built in dice roller.
We've had some nights where want to quit playing due to the RNG of the dice roller. It gets so bad sometimes.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...math changes via level...The only thing that I have asked myself about this is: Why? What is the reason behind starting tough and having an easier time later on? Was this done intentionally or is this merely a byproduct of the system rebuild?
I am asking me this because in my humble opinion it would make much more sense the other way round. Starting strong but getting tougher as levels increase. Firstly this would wastly increase the new user experience, secondly you could learn the game (and deal with the increasing difficulty) more easily while gaining first hand experience "on the job" and thirdly (but this is my personal opinion) it also makes more sense regarding the narrative. I mean, why should a rookie fighter have a harder time versus a skeletal champion than a legendary fighter has versus a demon lord?
The actual reason is that as you get higher, you have more options to shift the numbers. +3 heroism, for example, and being higher level also lets you optimize your numbers further past the assumed baseline. Since PF2 doesn't assume anything past standard equipment (and a certain level of proficiency), the escalating power of buffs/debuffs lets you shift numbers a lot more.
Really, it's just the natural consequence of getting more powerful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was a bad decision on their part to make the default difficulty higher. After all, who will have an easier time adjusting the content? Savvy, experienced players or novices? Requiring novices to make adjustments to every published adventure or AP is too much of a burden for them.
I don't know. When I first started playing the game, the default difficulty was hard. You started with 6 hit points and one hit from an orc took you down. I kept playing for 30 plus years with most of those years playing a game where one bad save or one bad round of getting hit would put me down. When you won, you felt like you really beat something powerful and dangerous. Those are the fights you remember when you won, but almost died doing so.
PF2 is a D&D derivative. The game lasted most of its existence as a game where players could die quite easily. Only 3E really changed that substantially.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also just need to note that I find it extremely hilarious that others are talking about feeling incompetent, when my luck is so bad my group turned it into a drinking game at one point.
There was literally a session where I rolled above 4 in combat maybe once. Against a bunch of level-2 enemies in one combat, my swashbuckler failed to get panache for 3 turns. I'm the one who's built for not getting hit (with the ability to swing a +3 effective AC) and yet my GM will unfailingly roll a 19 on the second or third attack, and barely ever rolls low enough for me to get a riposte despite making second/third attacks constantly.
This is what pisses my group off more than anything else. It's not the difficulty, it's the series of terrible rolls.
We play on a virtual table top. So all the rolls are seen. When you roll double 1s or something equally irritating, you start to feel like the dice roller is glitching.
Then you see the monsters rolling high all the time. It really starts to drive you nuts.
Some of the players have had some bad nights on the dice roller. As a gamer you start to get irrational and wonder if some secret AI knows you're rolling and it wants to see the monsters win.
Super frustrating. I told my players they can roll with physical dice and tell me what they get. But they like the transparency and ease of the built in dice roller.
We've had some nights where want to quit playing due to the RNG of the dice roller. It gets so bad sometimes.
I think part of the problem is confirmation bias - once you start thinking you are getting terrible rolls, you start looking for the terrible rolls more and unconsciously not factoring in the good rolls, which reinforces the perception of bad rolls and so on.
Some players unknowingly solve this problem by jailing bad dice (not that it does anything to stop bad rolls) - they think that they have done something to fix the problem, so they start paying more attention to good roles to confirm their bias that they fixed the problem by jailing the bad dice.
Roll20s dice roller gets its results by sending a request to the roll20 server, where a dice roll is made by a "true" random number generator using fluctuations in the power of a beam of light as a source of entropy. I don't know what other VTTs use, but I can guarantee that Roll20s dice roller is hundreds or thousands of times more random and fair than any physical dice ever made.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking on this further, I think the difficulty is down to tactics.
They wanted tactics, in-combat decisions, flexibility, and crafty gameplay to carry more weight than in previous games. Your ability to solve combat problems in pathbuilder has been largely removed--now you need to be crafty, careful, even defensive in harder fights more often.
And I think where that gets people stuck is that, as I've noticed, most players don't actually want to do that. They want to step in and maul things. Cast a spell that fries all the baddies. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But there are other games better suited to that. Pathfinder 2e, again slightly more in the OSR vein, suggests that player choices and decisions in the moment carry more weight than the character build they put together months ago.
But really, when it gets down to it, control over the difficulty in PF2 is very effective and right in the GM's hands. Unless they're one of those running an early AP but are terrified of making any adjustments, any GM should be able to say "Wow, the last time they had a +3 monster in a Severe encounter, it was brutal" and make different decisions.
Because while the baseline of PF2 is aimed to be more deadly or difficult than 5e for example... the GM has complete and definite control. This game could so very easily be played as a drama-free cakewalk through enemies if you want. And it takes little to no system mastery or research to arrive there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also just need to note that I find it extremely hilarious that others are talking about feeling incompetent, when my luck is so bad my group turned it into a drinking game at one point.
There was literally a session where I rolled above 4 in combat maybe once. Against a bunch of level-2 enemies in one combat, my swashbuckler failed to get panache for 3 turns. I'm the one who's built for not getting hit (with the ability to swing a +3 effective AC) and yet my GM will unfailingly roll a 19 on the second or third attack, and barely ever rolls low enough for me to get a riposte despite making second/third attacks constantly.
This is what pisses my group off more than anything else. It's not the difficulty, it's the series of terrible rolls.
We play on a virtual table top. So all the rolls are seen. When you roll double 1s or something equally irritating, you start to feel like the dice roller is glitching.
Then you see the monsters rolling high all the time. It really starts to drive you nuts.
Some of the players have had some bad nights on the dice roller. As a gamer you start to get irrational and wonder if some secret AI knows you're rolling and it wants to see the monsters win.
Super frustrating. I told my players they can roll with physical dice and tell me what they get. But they like the transparency and ease of the built in dice roller.
We've had some nights where want to quit playing due to the RNG of the dice roller. It gets so bad sometimes.
I think part of the problem is confirmation bias - once you start thinking you are getting terrible rolls, you start looking for the terrible rolls more and unconsciously not factoring in the good rolls, which reinforces the perception of bad rolls and so on.
Some players unknowingly solve this problem by jailing bad dice (not that it does anything to stop bad rolls) - they think that they have done something to fix the problem, so they start paying more attention to good...
We all know the idea is irrational. But we're gamers. Bad dice rolls by us and good dice rolls by the monsters are the evil pantheon of RPG fantasy gods trying to kill us.
We all know the idea is irrational. But we're gamers. Bad dice rolls by us and good dice rolls by the monsters are the evil pantheon of RPG fantasy gods trying to kill us.
I will admit that I have my own superstitions (I won't let anyone touch my dice and refuse to touch anyone else's dice for example).
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was a bad decision on their part to make the default difficulty higher. After all, who will have an easier time adjusting the content? Savvy, experienced players or novices? Requiring novices to make adjustments to every published adventure or AP is too much of a burden for them.
From most of what I've read and seen people who didn't play P1 previously are having an easier time adapting to P2 than the "veterans".
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it feels as if you still have to heavily optimize in this version-- but rather than being god-tier, optimization makes you decent. If you, say, play a fighter with only a 14 in Str and Dex, then you are pretty bad.
The thing is that you actually don't need to optimize very much. Getting an 18 in a stat isn't actually that hard. You don't have the diminishing returns of the point buy, any ancestry and background can get an 18 in any stat, and the ability boosts as you level up make it so that you will wind up being good in secondary and tertiary stats as well. And the game gives you plenty of room to make more roleplay based decisions-- most skill feats really just flesh out your character concept beyond being a war game mini, for example. Besides that, it is really just trying to buy the right armor for your dexterity score.I wrote a guide that outlines the bare minimum, which seems like it might help. .
Honestly, it probably would have been more honest if they made it so your class's key ability score automatically got an 18 and you filled in the other boosts around it, but that probably seemed like too big a departure from classic stat generation.
Tactics do also matter a lot, as well. Outside of some stuff that has been mentioned, I'm a firm believer that melee characters should still pack a decent ranged option, especially at lower levels. Low level enemies often lack ranged attacks entirely, so if you can start combat at range you can get free shots in while they close. A shortbow or an ancestry cantrip can go a long ways towards softening enemies up before they get to you. Also, if you can spot enemies ahead of time, specific preparations can be huge.
Which is not to say the game can't still be hard. Extinction Curse still suffers from some early edition issues-- that worm fight you reference is problematic because it is a severe encounter next to another severe encounter and neither is particularly important to the plot. The core rulebook actually explains how encounter levels should be used really well, but the APs don't really follow the suggestions. I'm led to believe the later APs are more reasonable. Abomination Vaults has scary encounters, but tries to sign post them and lets players run away from encounters above their pay grade.
I also think this is a really solid system for homebrewing your own campaign in, and have been kind of eager to try that myself.