| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the players don't enjoy the encounters without the GM changing the encounter level, then Paizo is requiring the GM to do something to make it fun.
Okay, and?
GMs having to adjust published material to suit their players is not really a novel concept. It's existed as long as published material has.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a PF2 champion in my group who could do exactly what you want to do above. He literally walked into rooms full of mooks, shield raised, and held them all under control. This was at lvl 15. He rarely got hit by standard mooks, rarely got hit hard by bosses, and hammered away controlling them with Champion's reaction. He used to stand in the middle of 10 creatures swinging at him being real annoying.
I was getting really tired of that champion after a while. He made everything harder.
It really sounds like you haven't explored PF2 too deeply. There are ways to build very strong defensive classes that can control a battlefield. The game isn't all low level, easy to get smashed play.
A 3.5 Knight could do the same starting at level 3 raising their AC to 23, and adding a shield bonus to touch AC. Many of the nastier enemies at that level only hit that build on 15+. AC may fall into uselessness at higher levels, but you could start life as a tank in 3.5/PF1 rather than only getting that fantasy fulfilled at level 10+ in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The adventures do not require or even recommend that you be a level higher. No one is saying that. Folks are recommending simple tweaks that can be applied by a GM for a party who is struggling (for whatever reason).You're taking my statement out of context.
I am not saying that the "adventure" is making any explicit requirements. I'm responding to everyone saying that you just need to do X to make it fun. Graystone's point, the one I agree with is the more X the GM feels is needed, the fewer APs you're gong to sell.
No part of that assertion is dependent on comparative difficulty to GM between versions of PF.
People are only saying doing X to make it easier IF you're struggling. There's nothing wrong with needing an easier adventure, but just remember that lots of people have no problem with the adventures exactly as written. The fact that you and OP are struggling does not mean that it is too hard. Difficulty is entirely subjective.
That said, as I said my last post: I do probably agree with where you're coming from. If Paizo makes the adventures easier, it will be more accessible. However, I don't think it has much to do with the amount of "work" it takes, because that is so miniscule, but rather it's because so many people have a mental block on rebalancing content to be easier. It's completely evident in this thread in that every single person who dislikes the published adventures for being "too difficult" ardently refuses to apply Weak templates to enemies (which is literally a 1 click button on Archives of Nethys or PF EasyTool). Everyone's got a different reason but realistically it's pride.
Weak templates are an easy route to rebalance, but I have mentioned several times that I think a better a more empowering way for your players is to hand out math-breaking items and feats. Give out a feat that increases spell DCs for fire spells to your Efreeti Djinn Sorcerer, give a +2 sword to your fighter 5 levels early, or a Belt of Incredible Dexterity to your Rogue way before he could get an apex item.
These feel REALLY fun to players, are unique and can be tied to your story, and more than anything make the game a touch easier for groups that are struggling. Players will be so in love with their cool items, they won't even notice they're being given stuff that makes the game "easy mode". So instead of feeling like they're playing on easy mode when they realize they're fighting something with a Weak template, they feel empowered. It's more work though, so YMMV.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 3.5 Knight could do the same starting at level 3 raising their AC to 23, and adding a shield bonus to touch AC. Many of the nastier enemies at that level only hit that build on 15+. AC may fall into uselessness at higher levels, but you could start life as a tank in 3.5/PF1 rather than only getting that fantasy fulfilled at level 10+ in PF2.I had a PF2 champion in my group who could do exactly what you want to do above. He literally walked into rooms full of mooks, shield raised, and held them all under control. This was at lvl 15. He rarely got hit by standard mooks, rarely got hit hard by bosses, and hammered away controlling them with Champion's reaction. He used to stand in the middle of 10 creatures swinging at him being real annoying.
I was getting really tired of that champion after a while. He made everything harder.
It really sounds like you haven't explored PF2 too deeply. There are ways to build very strong defensive classes that can control a battlefield. The game isn't all low level, easy to get smashed play.
What fantasy?
Playing a heavily armored character that’s tough? Or frustrating the GM and making them have to adjudicate encounters around you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you want easier adventures, at the end of the day. There's nothing wrong with asking for that, but just remember that lots of people have no problem with the adventures exactly as written. The fact that you and OP are struggling does not mean that it is too hard. Difficulty is entirely subjective.Once again, you're taking my statements out of context. I never said I wanted "easier" encounters or that I was having difficulty. What I said is that getting constantly crit by NPCs is demoralizing, it has nothing to do with difficulty, it has to do with game-play and the associated tactics that one has to adopt to deal with it.
I haven't been a part of any TPKs in PF2 (knock on wood) and I've only seen a fellow PC die at level 1 or so in PFS (yup, crit killed by a boss and then failed a Dying save). That doesn't change the fact that I really don't enjoy the overwhelming asymmetry of the +10 crit mechanics given the way PF2 codes the creatures. As Sherlock pointed out earlier on, there are other ways to make fights more difficult.
I've experienced near TPK's in PF1 and 5e and those were some of the most enjoyable encounters.
I have zero issue with difficulty. It's the nature or type of experience that makes me turn down some invitations to play PF2.
I had two players in a row get killed instantly in PF1 because I crit back to back with a NPC who had a 3x weapon. Not sure that's any different. In 2E the player could have used a Hero Point to stabilize or another player could have administered aid. Their death was not guaranteed.
The difficulty is intrinsically tied to the crit chance. If that mechanic didn't exist, it would no longer be an "extreme" encounter or whatever. It's why the threat is low as a PC if you fight weak creatures, you're going to hit/crit them a lot.
If you don't want to get crit except on 20s, just don't fight stuff that's higher level than you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What fantasy?
The Juggernaut-style character who doesn't seem to get hit until the actual baddy of the story shows up.
Playing a heavily armored character that’s tough? Or frustrating the GM and making them have to adjudicate encounters around you?
I've DMed for this exact character. You can honestly just let them do their thing and it doesn't break the game. Defense and a longsword swing per round doesn't exactly end fights. If it annoys you too much, just understand that smarter or better organized enemies can try for a trip or grapple just like people in real life did against actual knights.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like getting crit so much certainly sounds like your issue is with the difficulty. Trying to pin it on one specific mechanic just kind of feels like a way to save face.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What fantasy?The Juggernaut-style character who doesn't seem to get hit until the actual baddy of the story shows up.
Playing a heavily armored character that’s tough? Or frustrating the GM and making them have to adjudicate encounters around you?I've DMed for this exact character. You can honestly just let them do their thing and it doesn't break the game. Defense and a longsword swing per round doesn't exactly end fights. If it annoys you too much, just understand that smarter or better organized enemies can try for a trip or grapple just like people in real life did against actual knights.
So you want to take no or very little damage. What you're saying is, in other words, you want the threat to your character to be "Low" or maybe even "Trivial" right..?
Boy, do I have news for you! That's included in PF2E's rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you want to take no or very little damage. What you're saying is, in other words, you want the threat to your character to be "Low" or maybe even "Trivial" right..?
Boy, do I have news for you! That's included in PF2E's rules.
No, I want a defensive skew build that trades offense for defense and actually gets paid off for the trade. Against equal level foes, I could care less if I'm also doing very little damage as long as I can hold the chokepoint and force foes to cluster up on me. Incidentally, this is exactly what the 3.5 Knight class did and I had a player who loved doing just that.
He picked a Crusader in PF2 and, let's just say he didn't get the same feeling...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything has to do that. Sure you can buy a campaign in any system that fits your players needs but the players in your campaign are different than the players in mine. No one can make a campaign that satisfies everyone. Even just dropping difficulty there is balance between RP and combat, sandbox and rails and so on.
In PF1 we’ve gone over quite well so the things that needs to be done to run adventures. Mostly balancing issues from sheer amount of untuned content plus difficulty with rules interactions.
5e has its own sets of challenges because of the minimalist nature of the rules. DMs often have to invent rulings or flesh out stuff along the way since Wizards doesn’t do it for them. How much do things cost? Where can you buy or make them? Dunno figure it out yourself. Hope your players like your decisions since you can’t fall back on Wizards implementation.
PF2 is a simplified version of PF1 so it has a lot of the same issues in prepping that PF1 does. It’s just easier to do because the math is the same between classes and it’s a lot easier to make broad fixes to tune the campaign.
It is not a simplified version of PF1. It doesn't have the same issues as PF1. Not sure how you're assessing that.
PF1's problem was the math completely started to break down after around lvl 7. The modifiers, feats, and ability to judge the math went out the window. You couldn't accurately predict how the game would play without engaging in DPR calculations, looking over every caster spell list, every class ability, and double checking for some ability placed in the the game that would completely derail encounters.
Classes weren't at all balanced. You had a fighter with a +9 will save and a paladin with a +21 because he had a good will save, added his cloak, his charisma, and his wisdom. So you had to try to design a creature that wouldn't leave the fighter slobbering on himself for the entire fight while the paladin was happily laughing off spells and wondering why the fighter wasn't doing anything.
The wizard would scan the encounter invisibly or use clairvoyance or send in his familiar. Map out the whole fight area. Buff himself up, summon some creatures, maybe haste the party, then go in and destroy the place while the martials did some damage here and there taking pleasure in their shiny crit damage while never realizing they weren't real necessary to the wizard.
That doesn't happen in PF2.
There really aren't problems in prepping PF2. PF2 preparation for combat is almost non-existent. As a DM who spent hours prepping enemies in PF1, I can stay with absolute certainty that PF2 does not have the same issues in preparation as PF1. PF2 and PF1 are not even in the same ball park for preparation.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you want to take no or very little damage. What you're saying is, in other words, you want the threat to your character to be "Low" or maybe even "Trivial" right..?
Boy, do I have news for you! That's included in PF2E's rules.
No, I want a defensive skew build that trades offense for defense and actually gets paid off for the trade. Against equal level foes, I could care less if I'm also doing very little damage as long as I can hold the chokepoint and force foes to cluster up on me. Incidentally, this is exactly what the 3.5 Knight class did and I had a player who loved doing just that.
He picked a Crusader in PF2 and, let's just say he didn't get the same feeling...
No, what you are angling for is a stat-check character that can't be hit because the numbers on their sheet say so.
You can already trade offense for defense by taking actions such as Grapple (technically doesn't help, but most creatures will try to Escape), Demoralize, Trip, Raise a Shield, Shield Block, etc. No, you won't become immune to damage against a Moderate+ encounter, because well, that wouldn't be a Moderate encounter, would it? But you'll still be very durable.
If you want to be nigh-invulnerable because the numbers on your sheet say so, fight Trivial encounters. Done.
Only difference between that and the 1E example of it is that everyone in the party gets to feel powerful, not just the guy who looked up a cheesy build online (or poured over splatbooks and created it themselves).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're painting a false narrative. A GM does a host of things to prep an AP. The more things you "require" a GM to do, to compensate for the game design, the more GMs you are going to lose.But adjusting difficulty is nearly always required.Not in my experience. Never have I purchased content and adjusted difficulty and certainly never given the PCs an extra level.. Never happened in any version of D&D that I've played.
The material is rated for characters of a certain level and that is the level we play it at.
PFS Society as has endured nearly 10 years of GMs running scenarios as written. The scenarios are already written to adjust for the PC level and number. If I had to do that analysis myself, I wouldn't GM.
Of course we know that there were plenty of GMs who loved to make changes to scenarios in the early days of PFS1, and it was a total disaster. So much so, PFS made it an ironclad rule that GMs could not alter the difficulty level of encounters beyond what was contemplated.
Ideal difficulty varies depending on the party and players. So it's impossible to nail it for everyone (or extremely complex).I don't see any expecting that the difficulty be "nailed." Players expect some encounters to be hard and some to be easy and a range in between.
What's important is how hard it is to do these things.What it's important to me is how much time I have to invest in GM prep. The ONLY reason I run published content is because I want to dramatically reduce the effort I need to prepare.
When it comes to difficulty, PF2 makes it extremely simple to modify it.This statement only makes sense if we are comparing systems. In PF1, I never had to modify it. I don't think it gets easier than that. But I'm not trying to compare systems.
I don't think the people complaining about difficulty are really putting any work into adjusting it.Consider that the...
I have zero prep time other than reading the module as a non-PFS GM in PF2. Never happened in PF1 or 3E. I had hours of prep time.
Not sure what PFS did to make characters playable in PF1, but I'd love to see how they dealt with Come and Get Me, caster DCs, and the like.
I heard they didn't play to very high level in PFS on a consistent basis to keep the game playable. They banned overpowered options and imposed a lot of limitations on the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, what you are angling for is a stat-check character that can't be hit because the numbers on their sheet say so.
I was the DM for this character... I'm literally here telling you the build wasn't an issue. Yes, he didn't tend to take a lot of damage from mooks, and even some more challenging encounters saw him wade through without a scratch. However, he was far from broken because what is actually broken in 3.5 is ending encounters which he was pretty terrible at compared to the rest of the party.
He was playing a shiny pylon that enemies would have to spend a few turns tipping over before they could fight the rest of the team.
You can already trade offense for defense by taking actions such as Grapple (technically doesn't help, but most creatures will try to Escape), Demoralize, Trip, Raise a Shield, Shield Block, etc. No, you won't become immune to damage against a Moderate+ encounter, because well, that wouldn't be a Moderate encounter, would it? But you'll still be very durable.
It could be tough if your character is the only thing in the party left standing but doesn't have the punch to actually down the enemy.
If you want to be nigh-invulnerable because the numbers on your sheet say so, fight Trivial encounters. Done.
Only difference between that and the 1E example of it is that everyone in the party gets to feel powerful, not just the guy who looked up a cheesy build online.
If you think an AC stacking Knight is cheesy you never played the game...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As you say, PFS banned a lot of stuff and played a lower levels. They still had rampant issues with munchkin builds dominating tables. Just like anyone who played 1E did unless your whole table was novices or munchkins. A mix always resulted in some characters overshadowing the less-optimal characters.
|
So you want to take no or very little damage. What you're saying is, in other words, you want the threat to your character to be "Low" or maybe even "Trivial" right..?
Boy, do I have news for you! That's included in PF2E's rules.
No, I want a defensive skew build that trades offense for defense and actually gets paid off for the trade. Against equal level foes, I could care less if I'm also doing very little damage as long as I can hold the chokepoint and force foes to cluster up on me. Incidentally, this is exactly what the 3.5 Knight class did and I had a player who loved doing just that.
He picked a Crusader in PF2 and, let's just say he didn't get the same feeling...
You can do this in PF2 with help from your party. Not alone though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 3.5 Knight could do the same starting at level 3 raising their AC to 23, and adding a shield bonus to touch AC. Many of the nastier enemies at that level only hit that build on 15+. AC may fall into uselessness at higher levels, but you could start life as a tank in 3.5/PF1 rather than only getting that fantasy fulfilled at level 10+ in PF2.I had a PF2 champion in my group who could do exactly what you want to do above. He literally walked into rooms full of mooks, shield raised, and held them all under control. This was at lvl 15. He rarely got hit by standard mooks, rarely got hit hard by bosses, and hammered away controlling them with Champion's reaction. He used to stand in the middle of 10 creatures swinging at him being real annoying.
I was getting really tired of that champion after a while. He made everything harder.
It really sounds like you haven't explored PF2 too deeply. There are ways to build very strong defensive classes that can control a battlefield. The game isn't all low level, easy to get smashed play.
Doesn't alter the fact you can make a defensive character in PF2 as well.
At least you admitted that AC fell into uselessness at high level. Exactly why all my players bought +1 Heavy Fortification armor before anything else.
You can make a good AC character at higher level if you make a stat stacking class with stat enhancing items. I made a paladin/monk that had an amazing AC and when smiting added his charisma as well which often exceeded his ring of protection.
Most classes did not have this option. AC was a poor defensive statistic. For casters better to be invisible and not close to combat. For martials better to have a powerful healer backing you up in case you couldn't kill something before it hit you.
I've seen in PF2 you can build some nice defensive builds that can control a battlefield and can be a real pain for the DM. Champion is the best class for this. Monks can be nasty too depending on how you build.
I want to make sure people know that PF2 isn't all this game of taking a beating and everyone is some kind of soft target. There are defensive builds. They do work. They are powerful and impressive. I found that out the first time I DMed a PF2 champion to high level.
One thing you can't do in PF2 is build up your saves high enough to resist everything like you could in PF1. My same monk/paladin had insane saving throws. That is not something I've seen in PF2. You get some nice save boosts where you can mitigate the negatives for some saves, but the actual saving throw is almost always in that range you will miss half the time or more against boss creatures. That's been rough for my players to accept at times because you save against a lot of creatures in PF2. Almost every creature has some save ability. It can be a little annoying to save that much at times.
|
|
So you want easier adventures, at the end of the day. There's nothing wrong with asking for that, but just remember that lots of people have no problem with the adventures exactly as written. The fact that you and OP are struggling does not mean that it is too hard. Difficulty is entirely subjective.Once again, you're taking my statements out of context. I never said I wanted "easier" encounters or that I was having difficulty. What I said is that getting constantly crit by NPCs is demoralizing, it has nothing to do with difficulty, it has to do with game-play and the associated tactics that one has to adopt to deal with it.
I haven't been a part of any TPKs in PF2 (knock on wood) and I've only seen a fellow PC die at level 1 or so in PFS (yup, crit killed by a boss and then failed a Dying save). That doesn't change the fact that I really don't enjoy the overwhelming asymmetry of the +10 crit mechanics given the way PF2 codes the creatures. As Sherlock pointed out earlier on, there are other ways to make fights more difficult.
I've experienced near TPK's in PF1 and 5e and those were some of the most enjoyable encounters.
I have zero issue with difficulty. It's the nature or type of experience that makes me turn down some invitations to play PF2.
I do not remember crit from opponents being that frequent in PF2. At least not that much more than what we gave when the dice were on our side. That was playing mostly PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't alter the fact you can make a defensive character in PF2 as well.
Can you though? A PF2 defensive character still has things to fear, a PF1 defensive build could get to where you'd be better off just walking away because you simply weren't killing it.
At least you admitted that AC fell into uselessness at high level. Exactly why all my players bought +1 Heavy Fortification armor before anything else.
Yeah, AC is only a defense against a few spells and some physical attacks. Past level 5 or so those started to fall off as the main threats to your character's safety and saves started to mean a lot more.
I cut the rest because there wasn't much to respond to. I may have to try building out the ultimate defender on a day off just as an exercise to keep my 3.x muscles in tune.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was the DM for this character... I'm literally here telling you the build wasn't an issue. Yes, he didn't tend to take a lot of damage from mooks, and even some more challenging encounters saw him wade through without a scratch. However, he was far from broken because what is actually broken in 3.5 is ending encounters which he was pretty terrible at compared to the rest of the party.He was playing a shiny pylon that enemies would have to spend a few turns tipping over before they could fight the rest of the team.
I'm fully aware of what made 1E boring and easy. I maintain that an invulnerable character is boring, regardless. I have played a 1E Monk with very high AC. I had a Shaman that never missed an attack except on a 1 and had 9th level casting to boot. It was a power fantasy, sure, but the gameplay was not engaging.
It could be tough if your character is the only thing in the party left standing but doesn't have the punch to actually down the enemy.
Sounds like a lot of fun for everyone else at the table! Hope someone brought snacks while your character gets to have her little power fantasy.
Did the other players not have a min-maxed build of some sort too? What about the Barbarian pouncing around one-shotting enemies? He went down? The Control Wizard that could have won the encounter right-off, was did her player fall asleep watching your character get missed a dozen times? If we allow your power fantasy, why not these?
Regardless, in your example, it's still trivial. Walk over and heal your allies. Kill the enemies with your BO. It doesn't really matter because you're so hard to hit, you're not going down unless the dice are against you.
If you think an AC stacking Knight is cheesy you never played the game...
I played 1E for almost 10 years. Maybe if you're only talking about low level play, you can get nice AC with pretty basic options, but if you wanted a high AC build at anything beyond 10-ish you needed a cheesy build. Granted, cheesy is subjective. I don't judge, as I said above, I built lots of cheesy characters. Maybe you don't consider the options you'd take cheesy. Whatever, the semantics don't matter and you know that, so if you're arguing semantics, it means you have no substance.
Finally, nothing you have said has refuted the basic premise: your entire idea is 1) boring gameplay (there's no interactivity, it's stat-checking a sheet) and 2) the difficulty is trivial, just like nearly everything in PF1E if you knew what you were doing and made it beyond like level 3.
Can you though? A PF2 defensive character still has things to fear, a PF1 defensive build could get to where you'd be better off just walking away because you simply weren't killing it.
Like I was saying.. trivial difficulty...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of confused by the idea that you can't build a tank in PF2. A champion with heavy armor and a raised shield has +3 AC over most optimized martials, and you can do that by level 2 at the latest. That doesn't make them immune to getting hit but it makes it a heckuva lot harder to substantially hurt, especially with shield block and Lay on Hands, and they can punish attacks on their allies.
By level 7, their AC can hit 30 pretty easy, at which point a grizzly bear needs a 19 to land it's first attack. Yes, you're gonna get progressively better odds if you raise the level of the monster relative to the PC... but that is what level means.
|
|
Stacking the multiclass in PF1 to get all those juicy +2 starting bonuses to saves was fun TBH. Building for Halfling Opportunist, my PFS PC was a Ninja/Fighter/Monk/Wizard programmed to stack all the sneak attack prestige classes for offense. Such joyful nonsense.
I still very much prefer PF2 though :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you want easier adventures, at the end of the day. There's nothing wrong with asking for that, but just remember that lots of people have no problem with the adventures exactly as written. The fact that you and OP are struggling does not mean that it is too hard. Difficulty is entirely subjective.Once again, you're taking my statements out of context. I never said I wanted "easier" encounters or that I was having difficulty. What I said is that getting constantly crit by NPCs is demoralizing, it has nothing to do with difficulty, it has to do with game-play and the associated tactics that one has to adopt to deal with it.
I haven't been a part of any TPKs in PF2 (knock on wood) and I've only seen a fellow PC die at level 1 or so in PFS (yup, crit killed by a boss and then failed a Dying save). That doesn't change the fact that I really don't enjoy the overwhelming asymmetry of the +10 crit mechanics given the way PF2 codes the creatures. As Sherlock pointed out earlier on, there are other ways to make fights more difficult.
I've experienced near TPK's in PF1 and 5e and those were some of the most enjoyable encounters.
I have zero issue with difficulty. It's the nature or type of experience that makes me turn down some invitations to play PF2.
In PF1 PCs could build 20 to 30% crit ranges in PF1 regardless of AC while reducing their chances to be crit by 90% with heavy fortification armor. While monsters that weren't designed using PC rules critical hit on a natural 20 and had no critical hit resistance. Magus often did this while casting a 10 dice shocking grasp. No one cared when this was demoralizing to DMs to run the game.
Not sure why players feel demoralized getting critical hit. Are you saying all those years PCs were demoralizing DMs by destroying their encounters with insane critical hits in PF1 was a problem?
So you want to take no or very little damage. What you're saying is, in other words, you want the threat to your character to be "Low" or maybe even "Trivial" right..?
Boy, do I have news for you! That's included in PF2E's rules.
No, I want a defensive skew build that trades offense for defense and actually gets paid off for the trade. Against equal level foes, I could care less if I'm also doing very little damage as long as I can hold the chokepoint and force foes to cluster up on me. Incidentally, this is exactly what the 3.5 Knight class did and I had a player who loved doing just that.
He picked a Crusader in PF2 and, let's just say he didn't get the same feeling...
I had a Champion player who was able to do this.
Not invincible, but very tough. Very effective. And made things very difficult.
Still not sure what your knight did to keep them attacking him. Why don't you explain it to us? Why couldn't they just ignore him and attack the other players?
You can't ignore a champion in PF2 or they will block a bunch of damage.
If I were Dming against some knight that was doing very little damage, I would ignore him and kill his companions. Leave him for last.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big difference between this edition and previous ones is that opponents that are the same level as you are supposed to be a big deal and have a fair chance of winning, whereas in previous editions equal CR opposition were just speed bumps.
This does make sense, just not coming from previous editions, since if you were fighting like an evil magic copy of yourself, you figure that you'd have like a 50/50 chance of winning, and what level should that thing be if not "your level."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As you say, PFS banned a lot of stuff and played a lower levels. They still had rampant issues with munchkin builds dominating tables. Just like anyone who played 1E did unless your whole table was novices or munchkins. A mix always resulted in some characters overshadowing the less-optimal characters.
I never played PFS. I played lots of PF1 and 3E. I was the primary DM because no one else wanted to DM PF1 or 3E after it became so big, bloated, and ridiculously full of overpowered options that it became a huge chore to DM. Even I gave up during Mythic Adventures. I literally quit tired of the prep time while Paizo was giving the players options that weren't manageable.
Then we moved to 5E for awhile. Enjoyed that. Then we played Out of the Abyss with Demon lords that were pathetic and I quit 5E. I'm not running demon lords a party can easily kite and kill. That was ridiculous.
So far PF2 is holding up well to players trying to break it. My prep time consists of reading the module and rewriting story parts to my tastes. I haven't had to rewrite any monsters. I've boosted some hit points or numbers for party size, but that's it.
Two other people in my group have DMed, one guy regularly. He hasn't done that since 5E and before that 2nd edition. A couple of guys who haven't DMed since 2nd edition are thinking of DMing again because the players insanely overpowered.
It's been a nice change. I hope it maintains.
Well, at least the "price/budget" of Level means something predictable in PF2...
Whatever the precise compositions would be, two PF2 entities of an equal Level (including item/potency bonuses) should be at roughly equal chance of winning against each other.
----
Tangent questions:
Is it that anathema to start play on a Level higher than 1?
What kind of class(or character archetype) fantasy would(/not) be eligible right from the lowest Level(s)?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end it's about the preferences of the group which game style you apply. I mostly play with my family including 6 yrs old kids. They can handle PF1 easily enough with some benevolent guidance and thus feeling like a hero is one of the main intentions. PF2 seems to rely heavily on intricate team work. As mentioned, this is rather a hindrance when you play with young kids.
To each its own, it depends on the situation and I think it's valid to prefer one over the other. So no big deal, I guess.
Doesn't alter the fact you can make a defensive character in PF2 as well.Can you though? A PF2 defensive character still has things to fear, a PF1 defensive build could get to where you'd be better off just walking away because you simply weren't killing it.You can. It's not going to be PF1 level of AC specialization good. I will state what I saw as a DM from the champion.
They started off like the usual. Their AC was slightly better and they got hit a little less. Then their AC progressed faster than others. The champion's reaction blocked damage nicely. But it was one reaction and it competed with shield block. I didn't think much of it. It was a little annoying. He kept picking up little feats to improve things and his AC advanced.
The Champion picked up Aura of Courage at lvl 4. Frightened is an extremely common condition. This lessened that.
He got some upgraded to his champion ability where anything he Champion Reactioned to took Charisma good persistent damage. This is a little extra damage against most evil things and nutty damage against fiends.
At lvl 8 he picked up Quick Block. So he had one reaction to block damage and one reaction to Champion reaction against. So even if you attacked the paladin and hit, he could block part of the damgae.
At lvl 12 he picked up Divine Wall. Difficult terrain all squares around him.
At lvl 14 Divine Reflexes. Extra use of Champion's reaction.
So by lvl 15, he had a super high AC where Mooks of equal to level-2 had trouble hitting him much. He had 3 reactions. 1 normal, 1 extra for champion's reaction, and 1 for shield block. So he could either shield block twice and champion's reaction once or champion's reaction twice and shield block once. So you were either attacking him or having issues hurting other people.
It's probably the most annoying class I've seen in PF2 so far. Not invincible, but annoying. And when fighting things with weakness to good damage, that persistent good damage when using Champion's reaction was annoying.
I wasn't expecting the Champion to be such a pain to deal with. About the only thing that was dangerous to them was a caster out of their range.
The Champion got a little foolhardy sometimes running into the middle of large groups, getting flanked, and hit just by sheer number of rolls. When each monster can get up to 3 attacks easy and they just keep on swinging, there are bound to be some 20s.
Of course we know that there were plenty of GMs who loved to make changes to scenarios in the early days of PFS1, and it was a total disaster. So much so, PFS made it an ironclad rule that GMs could not alter the difficulty level of encounters beyond what was contemplated.
That's news to me.
One thing you can't do in PF2 is build up your saves high enough to resist everything like you could in PF1. My same monk/paladin had insane saving throws. That is not something I've seen in PF2. You get some nice save boosts where you can mitigate the negatives for some saves, but the actual saving throw is almost always in that range you will miss half the time or more against boss creatures. That's been rough for my players to accept at times because you save against a lot of creatures in PF2. Almost every creature has some save ability. It can be a little annoying to save that much at times.
I can attest to this. I was super excited to get to play an 11th-level barbarian with Juggernaut in Fists of the Ruby Phoenix. I thought "I'm going to crit succeed on SO many Fortitude saves!"
Now we're several games in and, despite my min/maxed Constitution, I haven't been able to benefit from Juggernaut even once.
It's really disheartening.
I think the big difference between this edition and previous ones is that opponents that are the same level as you are supposed to be a big deal and have a fair chance of winning, whereas in previous editions equal CR opposition were just speed bumps.
This does make sense, just not coming from previous editions, since if you were fighting like an evil magic copy of yourself, you figure that you'd have like a 50/50 chance of winning, and what level should that thing be if not "your level."
Balors became speed bumps to my party in PF1.
In the end it's about the preferences of the group which game style you apply. I mostly play with my family including 6 yrs old kids. They can handle PF1 easily enough with some benevolent guidance and thus feeling like a hero is one of the main intentions. PF2 seems to rely heavily on intricate team work. As mentioned, this is rather a hindrance when you play with young kids.
To each its own, it depends on the situation and I think it's valid to prefer one over the other. So no big deal, I guess.
It's a misnomer that PF2 relies on intricate teamwork.
PF2's teamwork is a natural part of the game. Flanking is a common tactic across editions. That's the main tactic employed by martials. Fear effects like intimidate and fear spells or enfeebling someone are an inherent use of class abilities.
Probably the most intricate part of PF2 teamwork is remembering to use your reaction abilities. Opportune Riposte activates when an ally hits someone. You have to get used to paying attention on someone else's turn to use your reaction abilities. In PF1 you did everything for the most part on your turn. In PF2 you have some abilities that occur on someone else's turn. In PF1 that was mainly an AoO, but now it's an Opportune Backstab, a Champion's Reaction, or an AoO.
Also learning to trigger AoO can take some getting used to, usually by knocking someone down and forcing them to stand up to attack well.
Very young kids would probably have trouble using these abilities. But I think even 8 year olds or so could learn to use reaction abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course we know that there were plenty of GMs who loved to make changes to scenarios in the early days of PFS1, and it was a total disaster. So much so, PFS made it an ironclad rule that GMs could not alter the difficulty level of encounters beyond what was contemplated.That's news to me.
One thing you can't do in PF2 is build up your saves high enough to resist everything like you could in PF1. My same monk/paladin had insane saving throws. That is not something I've seen in PF2. You get some nice save boosts where you can mitigate the negatives for some saves, but the actual saving throw is almost always in that range you will miss half the time or more against boss creatures. That's been rough for my players to accept at times because you save against a lot of creatures in PF2. Almost every creature has some save ability. It can be a little annoying to save that much at times.I can attest to this. I was super excited to get to play an 11th-level barbarian with Juggernaut in Fists of the Ruby Phoenix. I thought "I'm going to crit succeed on SO many Fortitude saves!"
Now we're several games in and, despite my min/maxed Constitution, I haven't been able to benefit from Juggernaut even once.
It's really disheartening.
Not even once? Damn. That is some unlucky rolling or fighting some really tough stuff and unlucky rolling. I've seen lots of crit successes from general success rolls.
Evasion in PF2 has been a huge boon. It has saved so much damage.
Yeah, I have a ranger in my (final chapter) Age of Ashes campaign, and she hasn't failed a reflex save since book 3...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still not sure what your knight did to keep them attacking him. Why don't you explain it to us? Why couldn't they just ignore him and attack the other players?
.
*Waves hand in air, all excited.* Ooh! Ooh! I know this one. It was because the “knight’s challenge “ forced many of your opponents to attack you. Aggro they called it in city of heroes. (Only mmo I ever played.)
*Waves hand in air, all excited.* Ooh! Ooh! I know this one. It was because the “knight’s challenge “ forced many of your opponents to attack you. Aggro they called it in city of heroes. (Only mmo I ever played.)Still not sure what your knight did to keep them attacking him. Why don't you explain it to us? Why couldn't they just ignore him and attack the other players?
.
What did the Knight's challenge do? I don't recall it. I know the Cavalier had something like that, but limited in scope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Waves hand in air, all excited.* Ooh! Ooh! I know this one. It was because the “knight’s challenge “ forced many of your opponents to attack you. Aggro they called it in city of heroes. (Only mmo I ever played.)Still not sure what your knight did to keep them attacking him. Why don't you explain it to us? Why couldn't they just ignore him and attack the other players?
.
They call it that in all MMOs - also, City of Heroes was amazing and it was really sad when it went away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What did the Knight's challenge do? I don't recall it. I know the Cavalier had something like that, but limited in scope.*Waves hand in air, all excited.* Ooh! Ooh! I know this one. It was because the “knight’s challenge “ forced many of your opponents to attack you. Aggro they called it in city of heroes. (Only mmo I ever played.)Still not sure what your knight did to keep them attacking him. Why don't you explain it to us? Why couldn't they just ignore him and attack the other players?
.
It depends on your level but you could usually force a creature with a weak will save to fight you. Plus at level 4 every square within your reach counted as difficult terrain so no 5ft. steps to leave your zone of control. I trust that I don't need to tell you how good this could be with size/reach enhancers and a spiked chain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They call it that in all MMOs - also, City of Heroes was amazing and it was really sad when it went away.COH was an amazing game. It was sad it ended up dying off. Paragon Studios, or whoever was in charge at the end blew it. They put all their resources in creating the expansion to let players make their own content. Biggest mistake ever.
I didn't enjoy COV as much. The archetypes just did not have the same synergism as COH. I think Paragon got led astray by the vocal minority of players who wanted o solo and they failed to realize how the magic of team ups are what really drove that game.
It ended because it had been sold to NCsoft a while before the eventual shutdown - NCsoft decided to shut it down because they where about to release Guild Wars 2 and wanted to reduce competition - the original studio offered to buy it back to keep it alive but NCsoft refused.