"Fix issues" implies that there is something wrong or something is not working properly. It is different when something is just not liked. In that situation, the onus for adaption changes from the thing not liked to the one not liking.
Look kids, Uncle Leo says not to vote unless the system is wrong, otherwise, no matter how much you dislike it you're supposed to just sit there and stew.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Fix issues" implies that there is something wrong or something is not working properly. It is different when something is just not liked. In that situation, the onus for adaption changes from the thing not liked to the one not liking.Look kids, Uncle Leo says not to vote unless the system is wrong, otherwise, no matter how much you dislike it you're supposed to just sit there and stew.
OR
You could adjust the system to fit your preferred playstyle, as it was designed to be able to do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The amount of difficulty is one thing, that was the first point. The second is not about how difficult something is but how that difficulty is presented. You can have a Moderate encounter in which you critically fail a save against a paralysis effect because your Fortitude is terrible and your team still wins quite easily in the end. The difficulty was not high, but that doesn't change the fact that spending 3-4 rounds doing nothing feels terrible and having like a 25% chance for that to happen every time you're targeted by a similar effect is something that can be felt as mandatory to avoid at all costs."...it's not just about difficulty." (and then proceeds to talk about difficulty)
This is the whole thing though. The game is intended to be the way you are describing. It is also designed to be easily toned down if the players want less difficulty. How is this a bad thing?
I definitely agree that abilities that remove you from play are just frustrating as a player - I think my ~5th ever table of a tRPG was PFS at a con where I was playing a special, and my pregen wizard got failed a Feeblemind save and I just went off and got lunch, came back 2 hours later to hear the ending of the scenario. It was not an enjoyable experience - and I do think most players will try to avoid them as best as possible.
My experience is that there aren't that many encounters where critically failing a save takes you out of the combat entirely, except via hit point damage, but they do exist. I don't quite agree that everything is designed around you being the best you possibly can be at a save or you'll be failing constantly. Putting it in a spoiler to avoid a wall of text:
Looking at the paralysis example you gave, in a moderate encounter one could fight two ghouls, or one Elite Ghast to have a moderate encounter. Against the ghouls, they have to hit you, then you need to make a DC 15 Fort save - requiring 8 con if you're one of the classes that are Expert, or 12 con if you aren't - to only critically fail on a one. The Ghast is DC 18 - way higher, definitely requiring max con/a class with good fort saves, but I don't think an APL+2 Elite enemy really counts for a situation in which "the difficulty is not high".
Carrying that on to higher levels, a Leng Ghoul is a 10th level creature with a DC 28 fort save, and 2 for a moderate encounter on-level. Everyone's at least an Expert by 10th level, plus a +1 item bonus on saving throws from armour, giving you 14 con as the value you need to avoid critically failing except on a natural 1. If you're one of the classes with Master fortitude saves, you need 10 con to only crit fail on a natural one. This isn't requiring a huge amount of optimization! :)
That being said, these saves will have a full impact on a failure, rather than critical failure - but they need that successful Strike, and they have incapacitation, so it's a little more muddled on the maths there. Ideally I'd have picked a group of paralysis-inflicting monsters that make it bad on a critical fail, but I didn't notice till I'd opened them all up, and paralysis is relatively rare amongst monsters :) A skaveling is a fair comparison here - similar ability, still requires the Strike, but is slowed 1 on a fail and paralysed on a crit fail. It's level 5, DC 22 - so if you're on-level with it and still only trained, you'd need a very optimized amount of con (18), to avoid crit-failing on a 2. On someone who is expert, it'd be possible to minimize your crit-fail chances with a 14 con - and again, it requires a successful strike first, and has the Incapacitation trait.
---------------------------------------------------------------
For these enemies with challenging save DCs, you do want your saving throw ability scores that aren't boosted by your class to be optimized, but someone like a barbarian doesn't need to have the highest possible CON to avoid crit-failing against enemies that aren't bosses. Against bosses it becomes almost impossible to minimize your crit-fail chance, but that does make sense for the balance and the design of the game - I'd just be hesitant to use bosses with abilities that easily can take PCs entirely out of the fight. It makes things highly luck-dependent, and it isn't going to be a fun time for the players.
|
|
I can understand an aversion to character incapacitating effects. Some folks are very sensitive to that. If you wish to avoid such situations, there are simple options.
1) Expand the incapacitation trait to not be level based.
2) Give a +1 or +2 against these kind of effects.
3) Just don't play with such spells or effects.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game doesn’t expect the game to adjust the balance though by default. Many of the severe party killing encounters in APs have explicit write ups about monster tactics and how they won’t over Pursue parties. The assumption that every encounter can be defeated and that a party will never lose a character that gets in over their head is not built into game, it’s players bringing it with them.
If a level +2 monster doesn’t have a 25% chance of taking out 1 PC each round (at least for a couple of rounds), it is really not much of a serious threat if it is supposed to be able to hold its own alone against a party of 4. If it is your character going down every time, then there probably is a party wide issue to talk through, but the diversity of monsters and their tactics give a lot of different builds time to shine.
The designers that write APs have talked about their own learning curve with the system and dialing in encounters, especially low level ones. There are so many different ways to approach balance in PF2. Many of them require no official support at all, and steps have been taken already to balance APs differently.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
To Verdyn's point about "there's no straightforward math for noobie GMs to use if it's over tuned" or whatever the exact phrasing was, the first or second page of every Bestiary ever, and the GMing section of the CRB, has the "weak/elite" templates, and the "easy adjustment chart for DC" with the +/- 2,5,8,10 values of whatever is in question at the moment respectively. Both forms of the GM Screen also tout the +/- chart and DCs by level chart, making it painfully easy to find the math to move the power curve to something more appropriate to the party's capabilities, up OR down.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To Verdyn's point about "there's no straightforward math for noobie GMs to use if it's over tuned" or whatever the exact phrasing was, the first or second page of every Bestiary ever, and the GMing section of the CRB, has the "weak/elite" templates, and the "easy adjustment chart for DC" with the +/- 2,5,8,10 values of whatever is in question at the moment respectively. Both forms of the GM Screen also tout the +/- chart and DCs by level chart, making it painfully easy to find the math to move the power curve to something more appropriate to the party's capabilities, up OR down.1) Not everyone has or uses a GM screen. I certainly only started using it now after a year of GMing, and only because I knew they existed.
2) Even if the game does provide ways to adjust things. That does not mean a new GM will know when to do it. Much less by how much.
3) Most people assume that the book is correct and that they don't need to change anything for pre written adventures. I am 100% sure new GMs that have little experience with the hobby would more likely assume changing stuff is for making your own campaign and not for pre-written campaigns.
I think you're severely underestimating new GMs and the ease with which information can be accessed these days. I had never played a TTRPG in like 20 years and never GM'd one and I had no problem finding or using this info. It's all throughout the books and in every single online resource for pathfinder. Even outside of pathfinder there are a lot of resources suggesting that GM's modify prewritten material for their group. Sure if you went and bought the Core Rulebook and a module or adventure path and didn't look at anything online prior to or after your purchase you might not know, but that has got to be the minority of people in 2021.
For GM screens specifically - they've been around forever and they're sold for most if not all systems suggesting they're not this super-secret thing no one would know about. Almost any time you see a depiction of people playing a TTRPG there is a GM Screen involved. Even better for pathfinder 2e the entire thing is on AoN.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are Weak and Elite options for monsters in Foundry VTT. I click on them often to rebalance encounters. Just because I'm running an adventure path with 6 instead of 4 characters. I always have to tweak monster numbers to be a challenge.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archive of Nethys and PF2.easytool both have automatic weak/elite adjustments as well.
Also everyone should have a screen. It should really be at the top of every GM's purchase list, arguably above rulebooks. You can get most of the relevant content from online, but you can't get a GM screen. Pathfinder is too crunchy a game to not have that information in front of you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the missing piece here is that new GMs will make mistakes. So will 20 year veteran GMs. When your players are clearly frustrated and struggling with encounters, it is time to pay attention and look for ways to make the game more fun again for everyone.
This is stuff that is talked about in the GM section of the core rulebook though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are confused.
The First 2 APs had overturned encounters, especially in the first couple of levels. These are lessons that the AP writers have been learning from and do not require changing the mechanics of the game to adjust. AP writers were too used to old systems where over powered monsters were not as much of a challenge as they are in PF2 and threw too many severe encounters at groups, combined with GMs not reading the tactics closely enough on the creatures and playing those powerful enemies far more lethally than they needed to be.
It is really easy to just let an extra player in on your game, or even just adjust encounters down to be a better fit for 3 PCs if your specific party is struggling. These are very basic adjustments that even new GMs should learn how to make quickly because you will not always have exactly 4 players in your party anyway.
Changing the rules to balance around preliminary encounter building is a very, very backwards approach to game design.
It's not about balancing around preliminary encounters, it's the fact that the descriptions the guidelines give to certain difficulties are only accurate if you have a party where everyone has well built characters with the correct stats maxed and the rest well distributed, well thought out tactics and at least a decent knowledge of how the "meta" of PF2 works (like how important numerical buffs and debuffs are). Otherwise everything is much harder than the label says. Or at least, that's what I've seen in 2 years playing the game with tons of different people.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about balancing around preliminary encounters, it's the fact that the descriptions the guidelines give to certain difficulties are only accurate if you have a party where everyone has well built characters with the correct stats maxed and the rest well distributed, well thought out tactics and at least a decent knowledge of how the "meta" of PF2 works (like how important numerical buffs and debuffs are). Otherwise everything is much harder than the label says. Or at least, that's what I've seen in 2 years playing the game with tons of different people.
Odd. That's almost the exact opposite of what I've seen. Unless they're intentionally building gimpy characters, I've seen newbs and veterans alike do extremely well (have lots of fun) over and over and over again,, all the while being afforded the unique ability to run almost any concept they want.
I've only ever seen complaints about the general power and balance if PF2e online; never in actual games (at least not any I've experienced or witnessed).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about balancing around preliminary encounters, it's the fact that the descriptions the guidelines give to certain difficulties are only accurate if you have a party where everyone has well built characters with the correct stats maxed and the rest well distributed, well thought out tactics and at least a decent knowledge of how the "meta" of PF2 works (like how important numerical buffs and debuffs are). Otherwise everything is much harder than the label says. Or at least, that's what I've seen in 2 years playing the game with tons of different people.
My party involving the 10 Wis wizard, 10 Wis rogue, and 10 Cha druid who nevertheless likes to use Wild Empathy and invested a bunch of skill ranks in would say otherwise.
It's not about balancing around preliminary encounters, it's the fact that the descriptions the guidelines give to certain difficulties are only accurate if you have a party where everyone has well built characters with the correct stats maxed and the rest well distributed, well thought out tactics and at least a decent knowledge of how the "meta" of PF2 works (like how important numerical buffs and debuffs are). Otherwise everything is much harder than the label says. Or at least, that's what I've seen in 2 years playing the game with tons of different people.My party involving the 10 Wis wizard, 10 Wis rogue, and 10 Cha druid who nevertheless likes to use Wild Empathy and invested a bunch of skill ranks in would say otherwise.
10 wisdom wizards are a common occurrence at start, but never boosting wisdom is a strange choice for a player who plays the game and starts to feel like they are failing a lot of will saves. Rogues get some ways around the problem too. The 10 CHA Druid is only an issue because the player has a thing they want to do, that they are not building for or boosting. This is a strong argument against over optimizing your character for being able to do only one thing.
10 wisdom wizards are a common occurrence at start, but never boosting wisdom is a strange choice for a player who plays the game and starts to feel like they are failing a lot of will saves. Rogues get some ways around the problem too. The 10 CHA Druid is only an issue because the player has a thing they want to do, that they are not building for or boosting. This is a strong argument against over optimizing your character for being able to do only one thing.
Yeah. Actually, this is an important thing to say. I don't think starting with 10 Wisdom is a huge issue. Even 10 Con can be manageable. The issue is that if you don't keep boosting those stats as you level, you get to the point where you crit fail saves on 6s or 7s. Those four boosts per 5 levels look a lot less freeing when you take that into account.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's more of a spectrum. Teamwork helps a lot in mitigating weird stats, but it's simply a true statement that a lot of enemies have very high DCs designed to make them reasonable threats against optimizers and that can make them feel pretty bad if you aren' that.
There's some real asymmetry in how vulnerable a Str/Int/Cha + X character can feel compared to a Dex/Con/Wis + X character and it's not an asymmetry that I feel is compensated really by... anything. It's just kind of bad balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me like getting a little too deep into the weeds.
Honestly I would prefer the attribute-less approach Paizo was toying with.
10 wisdom wizards are a common occurrence at start, but never boosting wisdom is a strange choice for a player who plays the game and starts to feel like they are failing a lot of will saves. Rogues get some ways around the problem too. The 10 CHA Druid is only an issue because the player has a thing they want to do, that they are not building for or boosting. This is a strong argument against over optimizing your character for being able to do only one thing.Yeah. Actually, this is an important thing to say. I don't think starting with 10 Wisdom is a huge issue. Even 10 Con can be manageable. The issue is that if you don't keep boosting those stats as you level, you get to the point where you crit fail saves on 6s or 7s. Those four boosts per 5 levels look a lot less freeing when you take that into account.
So we need to lower those nasty high Spell DCs?!?
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I would prefer the attribute-less approach Paizo was toying with.
Maybe it would be a more balanced game. I don't see that as a good thing. But attributes need to mean something else we are we playing a totally different game.
Honestly I would prefer the attribute-less approach Paizo was toying with.Maybe it would be a more balanced game. I don't see that as a good thing. But attributes need to mean something else we are we playing a totally different game.
My point is, if you are changing INT/CHA/STR to be applied to saves, then the attribute-to-save system is the problem.
I also believe that the need to maximize an attribute makes attribute progression a bit predictable too.
It all ends up being a little bit boring in the end.
Lets not forget character image is often defined by attributes
It is a compromise between balance on one side and tradition/characterisation on the other.
Balance is required but going all the way drains the flavour from the game.
This is why I suggested having saving throws key off the highest of two stats.
If we're just straight up homebrewing, I kind of like how 13th Age bases your three key defenses on the middle one of a set of three stats (e.g. your Armor class modifier is the middle one of Con, Dex, and Wis)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is required but going all the way drains the flavour from the game.
Absolute balance would be no different than having an improve group just do whatever.
Great for the people who want to roleplay.
Horrible for the people who want to play a game.
Statements like these suggest you can't have fun with a game unless someone else is struggling and I can't wrap my head around that at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
10 wisdom wizards are a common occurrence at start, but never boosting wisdom is a strange choice for a player who plays the game and starts to feel like they are failing a lot of will saves. Rogues get some ways around the problem too. The 10 CHA Druid is only an issue because the player has a thing they want to do, that they are not building for or boosting. This is a strong argument against over optimizing your character for being able to do only one thing.Yeah. Actually, this is an important thing to say. I don't think starting with 10 Wisdom is a huge issue. Even 10 Con can be manageable. The issue is that if you don't keep boosting those stats as you level, you get to the point where you crit fail saves on 6s or 7s. Those four boosts per 5 levels look a lot less freeing when you take that into account.
At the same time, there is no reason to boost a save stat not tied to a major attack above 18. Having a 10 in a save stat by the end of the game is an active choice to leave yourself a vulnerability, especially since saves are a proficiency you can boost to keep off the absolute floor of level+trained.
There are a lot of choices the developers could have made differently. I think they got the general balance of on level creatures exactly right. I think the issue is the general expectation of too many games that high level solo monsters are not going to be that difficult of a fight. To me and my tables, this was a broken feature of PF1 and most other RPGs for way too long.
The semi lich has brutally high spell DCs for sure. They also have 2 low saves that can be brutally abused as undead creatures. Seriously, a level 13 cloistered cleric should have a spell DC of 31 or 32. That means a level +2 enemy, and thus one likely to be caught alone has to roll a 9 to succeed against heal and with only a minor amount of debuffing might have a 10% chance of crit failing. I agree that it is possible to cherry pick bad match ups and for parties to even stumble into those match ups sometimes making an encounter feel impossible. But creatures need to be scary if they are expected to fight the party alone. Teamwork can boost chances by so much in PF2 and the game needs to acknowledge that or we end up with boss fights that don’t feel all that bossy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...they should had gotten from the start...This is the foundation of it all. The assumption that the stat to damage is assumed and that to not get it is to fall behind.
I disagree.
Not having stat to damage is the standard and getting stat to damage is a bonus.
What? Most characters will have stat-to-damage built in, and monster design reflects this.
This is such a backwards take given the actual mechanical structure of the game where stat bonuses to damage are assumed by comparing creature and player statistics.
Not to mention how most sustained options have a "stat-to-damage" attachment.
looks at any non-Thief Dex characters and any characters trying to use ranged weapons
Monster design also reflects this as well - as soon as you see an agile/finesse attack on a monster, it's downgraded 1 level in damage in comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a fact that every class that uses Finesse weapons as their core has some sort of "damage booster" action or thing.
I mean, the non-finesse martials have those too.