| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I tend to assume that there's more or less a treaty between the gods that stop them from intervening directly, my own setting even has a major war that basically demonstrated how it was essentially worse for everyone if the gods intervene and square up as a result, even if its for a good cause-- war is hell on the innocent, and much much worse when the super powerful but ideologically opposed forces actually clash. Even the most depraved evil gods know there'd be nothing left to control, and the good gods know it would be a terrible atrocity.
Its actually a big reason the world has monsters at this point, and why one of the continents has an inland sea and channels that essentially extend like cracks out of it, deific power in a state of total war.
Certainly not my idea, I'm pretty sure that treaty was more or less explicit in Dragonlance (despite Takhisis's penchant for breaking it). But the other way my setting solves it is by making most gods more minor, but also a lot more active and present in the world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is difficult to be truly in awe of something you can kill.
First, why?
And second, just because something isn't omnipotent doesn't mean it's killable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I don't think "extremely powerful beings affecting the setting" is that big an issue. Many mythologies have room for both meddlesome gods and great heroes. I think the problem with D&D is this idea that deities have to be especially powerful in a fight, as if "could beat you up" is what makes a deity worth worshiping. It's very much a holdover from the days when "low level -> mid-level -> high-level -> epic level -> godhood" was seen as the sort of trajectory PCs were supposed to take.
Many mythologies have gods that are not only vulnerable, but downright petty, and are still very much important, because they have a symbolic or spiritual significance that goes beyond combat ability. I dunno, I think we take for granted that gods need to have the highest CR in the game (or "they're too badass to even get a CR") in order to be compelling.
I was going to comment powerful entities mucking about making heroes irrelevant, but I see what you mean now. This is some of the same vibes behind the mortal Azlanti warrior who cut the head off the serpentfolk god Ydersius. Ydersius is still out there alive, as I gather, though I forget if he still grants spells. It would be rather different from the Lost Omens setting to apply this vibe on a larger scale, but this idea has compelling implications. In war with your rivals, sending a legendary hero to defeat your opponent's God, perhaps cutting their clerics off from clerical magic becomes a means of indirect warfare, like attacking supply chains or poisoning their water supply.
Maybe even once this has been done to your own god you have to go on a quest to recover their divine potency/heal them, or even find a new deity who is willing to adopt a few thousand new worshippers for a little divine mojo.
Personally, Im less interested in powerful but petty gods for the opposite reason you cited earlier--from a player perspective, why should I care the difference which deity my cleric worships if they're all badly behaved misanthropes? Benevolent but hands off gives me a better idea what my character believes in when they espouse their deity's ideals.
That said, notching down the divine power level a handful of degrees and putting deities glider to the mortal playing field completely changes that tone and I'm interested again.
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The Math.
Usually when I say this, someone jumps down my neck about how I'm a power gamer who can't appreciate a balanced system. For me, PF2's Math issue is that the d20 is too important. Since difficulty scales perfectly with my Level, I never feel like I'm getting better as I level up. This is in part because enemies and DCs tend to account for the highest possible proficiency rank at a given level, so if I keep my ability scores maxed and my proficiency ranks capped, I'm doing just as I did before those values rose. And if I don't, I'm objectively worse. Usually by 10 to 15%. I think PF2 needs a rebalance around assuming players are, like, a rank lower then they actually are. Design for the median so everyone can have fun, but the people who specialize do better. Not "expected."
2) Feats
I hate how class feats are split up, so there's a new category at every opportunity. It makes me feel like if I don't take a new feat from the highest possible category, I'm playing wrong. And oftentimes I would be; the power level between a 1st-level rogue feat and a 2nd-level rogue feat is pretty crazy by itself. Starfinder's system of having fewer silos (usually 2nd / 8th / 14th) is much better because now I get to pick a few choices from three silos instead of one choice from ten.
Similarly, the game doesn't give enough feats for how niche many of them are. This is evidenced by how popular Free Archetype is, in my opinion. One of the most common statements I see is, "Pathfinder 2E doesn't feel complete without free archetype," and in my opinion that means the game doesn't give enough feats baseline (or that those feats aren't meaningful, but that's another discussion).
3) Free-Bies
There are a TON of feats that feel like their benefits should be rolled into the baseline effects of the actions they modify. (Group Impression, for example.) Like, "Oh, you're an expert in Diplomacy now? Cool, when you Make an Impression, you now can target multiple creatures." The only counter I've heard to this is that doing so makes it easier for players to "forget" the rules because a feat on a character sheet serves as a visual prompt for remembrance, and I honestly don't think that's a good excuse, but that's just me.
4) Rarity
This mechanic has no idea what it wants to be. It's used for like four things all at the same time: restrict access to things that class feats give you access to (see most focus spells being Uncommon), restrict access to campaign elements that could be disruptive (see dominate), restrict access to campaign elements based on an arbitrary measure of how common Golarion's developers say those elements are in their campaign setting (see every ancestry published since the Core ones), and rituals. What ends up happening is that people see stuff like dominate and possession being rare and go, "Oh no! If this is rare, something like the shoony must be as disruptive as these spells, right?" It's not a good system and placing access traits on ancestries is sort of like giving your player to gatekeep, but specifically gatekeep Paizo IP from your games I guess? It really doesn't make sense and I would prefer to see it gone.
5) Overcorrection Mechanics
If you played highly optimized PF1, it's very easy to see the places where Pathfinder 2E overcorrects things that were overpowered in Pathfinder 1E. A great example is the pest form spell, although polymorphing in general falls into this category. In Pathfinder 1E, there was a nasty build where you basically were a swashbuckler who debuffed enemies if you shared their space, and because of how Tiny creatures worked in that edition and some poor wording on the ability's part, players would frequently use items, spells, or feats to transform into Tiny creatures to activate that ability. So Pathfinder 2E responded by making sure the default way to become Tiny (pest form) put as many debuffs on you as possible. I see the incapacitation trait similarly, as well how many spells were adapted from PF1 to PF2. My point isn't that we should bring back the OP mechanics, but I do feel that Pathfinder 2E treats players as rabid beasts who need to contained rather than people who are trying to engage with a story. Pathfinder 2E is a great game and it's extremely successful, but I also know that there are a lot of people who refuse to play it because of how the game's rules treat them.
There's sort of this design idea that games need to be catered to the GM because, "Without no GM, no one can play our game!" And I think Pathfinder 2E did a good job making a game that's legit fun to GM. I enjoy running Pathfinder 2E. But none of my local friends want to play Pathfinder 2E because of how the game treats players and character building (quantity of feats is not quality of feats), so I don't get to run PF2 unless I do it with strangers online. If a game isn't fun for players to play, they won't.
6) The Investigator Class
As someone who loved PF1's investigator so much that I levelled it from 1 to 19th in PF1, I could literally write a thesis on how angry the PF2 investigator class makes me. But, like, I get legit ANGRY about it. I played investigator from Level 1 to Level 3 in a home game, and I had to ask my GM to let me swap to mastermind rogue. I loved the setting, I loved my character, I loved the plot, I loved the people I was playing with, but every time dice rolled and I Devised a Stratagem, only to roll a 6 and have nothing to do that combat because I'd be locked into that roll.... It happened so many times that I got so salty that it wasn't good for me or my table.
To me, it feels like they took every cool ability that could have been a neat thing for the investigator to do and gave it to the rogue instead, so I wish they just didn't make an investigator and folded all those investigator feats into the rogue. Maybe make an investigator racket out of them. Which is sad, because I think there's real value in having a skill-focused class that isn't flavored as a criminal, but the investigator is just flat-out worse than the rogue in every mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I just realized that I'm a bit miffed about.
Why do the vehicles from Gamemastery Guide have immunity to crits and precision damage, while the ones from G&G and Grand Bazaar don't? Is there something about those models of machinery that makes them more easily crittable?
I had assumed that the reason vehicles couldn't be critted was so they could still be usable and relevant later on, but this seems to not be the case?
I believe that since GMG was the first time we got vehicles, they gave us all that they were immune for, and probably forgot precision damage was part of Object Immunities (but crits are not, apparently), so when they printed later ones they figured Object Immunities covered what they thought was relevant... is my best guess.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Snip
Just wanted to say this is basically a perfect summation of pf2s issues (as is evident by the number of likes it has). I have a couple other smaller ones, like how abp should have been he norm, some monsters shut classes down way too hard in an unfun way, and unclear or silly rules such as crafting, hands needed, battle form math. But really this is like a master list of the biggest issues.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assume I'm in the minority because the polls went a different way, but I really don't like the Gunslinger as it's own class. I love the feats, I love the ways, I even (mostly) love the firearm mechanics themselves. I just wish they weren't gated behind a class. I was really hoping that GnG would bring firearm/crossbow mechanics to every class. I'd love for sniper mechanics to be available with ranger's hunt prey or rogues sneak attack. I'd love to see how the drifter mechanics could interact with Swashbuckler's panache. And so on. Kind of like how many classes have access to similar TWF feats to build unique options with that fighting style for different classes.
I also really liked the idea of a more generic drifter class that could use many weapons and worked with its own unique combat system. Midnightoker's Wanderer is much closer to my wish. Especially because we then get some nice Samurai fantasy as well instead of waiting for another dedicated class.
In total what I wanted was: A class with some unique design space specifically for guns but not restricted to ranged weapons, and feats/class paths for integrating firearms into different classes.
I'm particular feeling this right now because I'm about to GM a campaign taking place in a more Wild West setting. As such, advanced firearms are more common. But there is a pressure on some players to all take Gunslinger to have access to different shooting feats. The inventor, the rogue, the fighter, all my martials (except the monk) want access to certain gun feats on Gunslinger. I know they can take the archetype, but it feels like it shouldn't be necessary. They'd rather take more flavorful archetypes than something that feels required for them.
We haven't actually started yet, so maybe it will all work out! Just wanted to vent on my current struggle.
Ye could patch that with giving gunslinger as free archetype variant rule, but yeah, I do think idea of "gunslinger's gunless version" is really valid idea. (I personally kinda liked idea of gunslinger to be about all reload weapons so it could also be about sling xD)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ye could patch that with giving gunslinger as free archetype variant rule, but yeah, I do think idea of "gunslinger's gunless version" is really valid idea. (I personally kinda liked idea of gunslinger to be about all reload weapons so it could also be about sling xD)I'm particular feeling this right now because I'm about to GM a campaign taking place in a more Wild West setting. As such, advanced firearms are more common. But there is a pressure on some players to all take Gunslinger to have access to different shooting feats. The inventor, the rogue, the fighter, all my martials (except the monk) want access to certain gun feats on Gunslinger. I know they can take the archetype, but it feels like it shouldn't be necessary. They'd rather take more flavorful archetypes than something that feels required for them.
We haven't actually started yet, so maybe it will all work out! Just wanted to vent on my current struggle.
I agree, a Wild West game is a great opportunity for a fixed archetype-style game.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
SnipJust wanted to say this is basically a perfect summation of pf2s issues (as is evident by the number of likes it has). I have a couple other smaller ones, like how abp should have been he norm, some monsters shut classes down way too hard in an unfun way, and unclear or silly rules such as crafting, hands needed, battle form math. But really this is like a master list of the biggest issues.
With respect, I can't say my friends and I have experienced any of those problems.
The following is not a rebuttal, but rather my own thoughts.
THE MATH
The difficulty does not scale perfectly in lock step with level like many claim or believe. It is pretty close though, much closer than previous editions (and thus to what people are accustomed). There's lots of things you can do to pull ahead, both in building your character and in play. Admittedly, there are not nearly as many ways as there was in previous editions. (And that's a good thing I think!)
I find people who complain about this often (but not always) are either (1) perpetually stuck at low levels where everything seems harder, or (2) want to power game more than what the constraints of 2nd Edition generally allow.
Personally speaking, the half dozen groups I've played in, in a dozen or so campaigns, have all had an easier and easier time of it as we get to higher levels. Though the numbers have remained close during our adventuring careers, the sheer number of options with which we can bring to bare alone makes a world of difference in the encounter outcomes.
FEATS
This is one area in which the description largely matches my experiences.
FREEBIES
The current setup certainly does make the game easier I think. When it comes to determining when to roll things together into general abilities, and dividing them out to make for more varied and interesting abilities that give players a reason for wanting to progress, is a line that had to be drawn somewhere.
RARITY
Rarity is a great tool for players and GMs alike. On its own it has done AMAZING things for GM's ability to manage the game. Before, players just assumed that if it was in a published book, it could be brought into the game. Thousands of times I had to reject things with answers little better than "Because I said so" or "it's not a good fit for this campaign." It was a frequent cause of headaches for everyone, me for the battery of requests, and for the players who felt like they were being punished for being creative. Having an official system in place makes all of that go away with simple, easy-to-understand rules that keep everyone on the same page. Now when I say "Uncommon and higher must go through me" at the start of the game, everyone knows exactly what that means. I think it would be a mistake to toss it out altogether.
That being said, it could certainly use some clarification, or perhaps even be broken down into different traits denoting more clearly the difference between "potential for disruption," "occurrence within the setting," and "prerequisites required."
OVERCORRECTION MECHANICS
Frankly, the game needed it. From my observation, things are far better now in that people can have fun regardless of class or concept they play, without the fear of being overshadowed by someone else with higher system mastery, who happened to roll high on their ability scores or hit points, or simply decided to play a druid or wizard. Some things were rewritten poorly though, and are now in need of clarification, but I think overall the game is better for it.
THE INVESTIGATOR CLASS
Personally not a fan of the class. It strikes me as being too dependent on GM fiat abilities. I personally prefer hard-coded mechanics, not "GM is winging it" pseudo-mechanics. I haven't personally played one yet, so I don't have much more to say about it. The one or two I've seen played by others were low level and didn't seem like they could contribute much in combat scenarios.
Just my two copper.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Snip
My two cents. I really like what you all have had to say.
THE MATH The issues I have with the maths is that
a) success chance for typical actions lower compared to other games. Is it what 50% compared to 60%? Especially when you are fighting solo monsters (typically 2 levels higher). It gets a little frustrating for players.
b) for anything that your character doesn't focus on (Maximise the relevant ability score, and pick up the right items etc), it's just not going to be a viable tactic. So it harms improvisation a bit.
FEATS Not a major issue to me. Free archetype is more flexible and seems to be prefered. But it is better to have to make the hard choices sometimes.
FREEBIES Annoying for sure.
RARITY I'm glad some people find it useful - but I don't. I'm still happy it is in the game for them. I want to play with all the options and so ignore rarity. The game is generally so well balanced that I allow everything by default. My personal banned list is so tiny its rare I have to mention it to players.
OVERCORRECTION MECHANICS Yeah they have gone too far on this, and yes it needed to be done. It is in a much better shape than most other game systems. I have this vain hope that they will tweak a few things eventually, but I know its unrealistic. Some classic spells are just awful now, crossbows are extremely marginal compared to bows, etc etc.
THE INVESTIGATOR CLASS The concept is not going to suit all games or players - which is perfectly OK. I'm still glad we have it. Lots of the feats in this class are just not worth taking. It requires some effort to make an impactful build. For Devise a Stratagem to be a good feature you must have effective options on a bad number, or the class just doesn't work. These options exist, but are not explicit in the class.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
(2) want to power game more than what the constraints of 2nd Edition generally allow.
Man, every time someone complains about the math this gets brought up as an argument and it's really tiring.
Someone thinking the game leans too much into failures doesn't necessarily mean they just want to powergame.
PF2 is a game where nonspecialists kind of suck at a task. For you, that might be a good thing. For other people who want more dilettante characters, it can be really frustrating.
But that doesn't make them dirty rotten munchkins... Usually the opposite from my experience, powergamers tend to stay in their lane, whereas PF2 punishes you for stepping out of it.
From my observation, things are far better now in that people can have fun regardless of class or concept they play, without the fear of being overshadowed by someone else with higher system mastery
PF2 definitely lacks most of the excesses of PF1, but I think to some extent the conservatism buried in PF2's design principles (post-core) actually recreate this environment to some extent.
I've had a lot of new players drawn to more esoteric edges of the system: A 5e player who's drawn to flexible preparation casting because 'traditional' prepare casting feels so clunky... only to flounder against how few spell slots that leaves their witch with.
An inexperienced player who sees that Demon Sorcerers get a unique melee attack and assumes, foolishly, that he's intended to actually use it. A final fantasy player trying out tabletops who heard PF2 has gunblades... Someone who really thinks crossbows are cool. A brand new player who's intrigued by the idea of dashing around the battlefield building panache and unleashing finishers.
And then all of the above just get violently outclassed by a more experienced player running a fighter with a big weapon.
The foundations of the system are solid, but it feels like whenever you drift into some of the weirder corners of the game, there's an overwhelming sense that someone was profoundly afraid that a player might have too much fun and needed to put the kibosh on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, every time someone complains about the math this gets brought up as an argument and it's really tiring.
Someone thinking the game leans too much into failures doesn't necessarily mean they just want to powergame.
PF2 is a game where nonspecialists kind of suck at a task. For you, that might be a good thing. For other people who want more dilettante characters, it can be really frustrating.
But that doesn't make them dirty rotten munchkins... Usually the opposite from my experience, powergamers tend to stay in their lane, whereas PF2 punishes you for stepping out of it.
PF1 used skill points, which were very limited in number for certain classes. I'm not sure how you are more specialized in PF1 than PF2 when even trained means level+2+stat+item bonus.
Unless the DM in either system is building to make something difficult which could be done in PF1, then not sure why you need to be specialized.
I think when someone brings up the math and then uses an example, it's usually a power gamer example of not wanting to ever miss the enemy or the skill check. In essence, an exceedingly low failure chance. PF2 is set about a 50 to 60% failure against to level enemies.
What is an appropriate level of failure risk for top level enemies in an RPG? What should that number be set at to ensure a strong challenge while making the player feel strong as well?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think rarity is important since it puts many things into "ask your GM" territory which, while potentially irksome for players, is vastly preferable for the GM to vet specific options that players want than to preemptively evaluate every single option someone could choose in order to figure out the troublesome ones.
That Paizo doesn't seem to want to engage with it besides establishing this framework is where the problem lies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think when someone brings up the math and then uses an example, it's usually a power gamer example of not wanting to ever miss the enemy or the skill check. In essence, an exceedingly low failure chance. PF2 is set about a 50 to 60% failure against to level enemies.
What is an appropriate level of failure risk for top level enemies in an RPG? What should that number be set at to ensure a strong challenge while making the player feel strong as well?
If my memory is correct, for 4E it was something like a hit for on level targets on a natural 8, so 65% success / 35% failure. BTW, said edition lets you only make 1 weapon swing per turn, AFAICR.
Whether that ratio is acceptable or not is up to each player, though. For me, it seems OK, as it lines up with the current meta in which only the first two attack actions are expected to score a realistic hit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) Feats
I hate how class feats are split up, so there's a new category at every opportunity. It makes me feel like if I don't take a new feat from the highest possible category, I'm playing wrong. And oftentimes I would be; the power level between a 1st-level rogue feat and a 2nd-level rogue feat is pretty crazy by itself.
This whole section speaks to me on a cosmic level. But especially this part I’m experiencing first hand. There are very few class feats that feel good taking if they aren’t on-level. The exceptions are often innately unique or part of feat chains/trees.
Just wanted to say this is basically a perfect summation of pf2s issues (as is evident by the number of likes it has). I have a couple other smaller ones, like how abp should have been he norm, some monsters shut classes down way too hard in an unfun way, and unclear or silly rules such as crafting, hands needed, battle form math. But really this is like a master list of the biggest issues.
The only other major unaddressed issue I can think of is Recall Knowledge rules. Both in terms of clarity and structure.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The Math.
2) Feats3) Free-Bies
4) Rarity
5) Overcorrection Mechanics
6) The Investigator Class
Eeeh, for my tastes your post feels bit too angry and defensive(about how people will get mad at you for disagreeing), so it kinda feels like it provokes anger reflex in my brain which makes me worried it will cause thread to get derailed again somehow from the "respective" part if people start arguing about this. (in general that seems to be danger with long list posts, I think it would be better to break down the points individually in multiple different posts)
Still though my two cents on this because I like sharing my opinions too:
1) I think math itself is good(I personally haven't felt like my character is useless for having stat be lower by one at least), but game often uses it wrong on purpose. I believe game's math should be balanced around "success relatively common, crits are rare" especially when it comes to skills. Lock picking is good example, its really frustrating to roll 10 times to gain 4 successes to open average lock when it really feels like specialized rogue should easily lock pick it and maybe crit twice to open it.
Its why I say "math basis is good, but its somehow often used wrong", it also applies to how I don't think paizo has fully grasped monster math balance's basis due to how much they love to "let's give values that are +1 higher or lower just so its not identical to chart". Heck, it really helps to understand that "level 3 high strike bonus" is based on "what if its used vs level 3 character", so to accurately predict monster difficult vs party, you should compare higher level monsters' values to stat chart of monster equal to party level.)
2) Not really feeling like free archetype is necessary, I think all "give players extra stuff" stuff are popular. Never felt like I "need" to take highest level feat, but I often do because I like them better than low level ones.
3) I don't mind skill feats, but yeah I do agree that more of "when you raise profiency, you get all of these additional benefits" style skill unlock stuff would be incredibly cool.
4) Just not agreeing here since I do like rarity.
5) Don't really feel like game is against players, I think this perspective comes mostly from 1e player perspective. That said, I do feel there are SOME over corrections, but not to degree people are talking about it.
6) My biggest problem with investigator is that devise stratagem is based on how nice GM is. Lot of society gms are like "ah ah ah, you only get it vs creature you are pursuing lead on, you don't get it on any of the mooks!" which makes class feel really niche in combat because free action stratagem is what makes builds with class really potentially interesting.
I'm also worried that eventually paizo will make errata that disallows "okay so I know my strike won't hit, so instead of strike I will make athletics roll to trip since it isn't a strike!"
So basically, I agree investigator has problem, but I disagree on problem because I absolutely LOVE how devise stratagem works(and how investigator combines well with stuff like ancient elf and taking wizard archetype on level 1)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is only meant as a suggestion and not to argue but if the odds of success are too low in ones opinion, can't you use lower level tasks? Then the DC would be much forgiving to generalist characters.
I do understand that APs lean towards the hard side and that you can't always influence what your GM does.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is only meant as a suggestion and not to argue but if the odds of success are too low in ones opinion, can't you use lower level tasks? Then the DC would be much forgiving to generalist characters.
I do understand that APs lean towards the hard side and that you can't always influence what your GM does.
I mean, funnily enough APs actually for most part do the skill math right. Besides for incorrect ones baked in system(like lock difficulty I complain about. Hazards are often more balanced than they seem at first view, though I do think they still feel too punishing more often than not.)
Main problem with AP balance is that lot of APs are focused around making level 1-3 characters fight minibosses, aka when they are vulnerable and don't have lot of ways to deal with minibosses(and usually after having already exhausted resources)
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) The Math.
2) Feats
3) Free-Bies
4) Rarity
5) Overcorrection Mechanics
6) The Investigator Class
I'd really like to know which of these category are calling the most upvotes.
Even if I really like the game, I agree that there's an issue with the maths. It's not even the system that creates the issue, but the way the people use the system.
For skills, for example, difficulties go from very easy to incredibly hard. How many very easy skill checks have I experienced? Close to none. How come that recognizing an orc warrior is an "average" check, it should be very easy. Recognizing anything common should be at least easy. If the actual average difficulty was the average DC, with a mix of easy and hard checks, the game would feel less punishing.
Same for AC, you have a high and an average value. You expect monsters to have average AC on average? No, they have high AC on average. That's just silly.
The rules state that a level +2 monster is supposed to be a boss. How many bosses are we supposed to face in a single adventuring day? Because from my experience it's above 1.
The system works fine but is used poorly. I also use it poorly, far too often I use the average DC as a basic difficulty and rarely reduce it. And I don't know why...
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same for AC, you have a high and an average value. You expect monsters to have average AC on average? No, they have high AC on average. That's just silly.1) The Math.
2) Feats
3) Free-Bies
4) Rarity
5) Overcorrection Mechanics
6) The Investigator Class
You nailed it. I'm extremely frustrated that most of bestiary melee monsters are some combination of having high ac, high strike and high damage all in one package.
In general unless enemy is extremely squishy, I believe high strike means lower damage on non crit and that enemy should be easier to hit more damage they deal (and vice versa, if they are tanky, enemy should be moderate strike enemy)
Like... Its as if all melee monsters were fighters with master strike and AC profiency.
(just to note, one of reasons I'm enjoying converting jade regent to 2e is that 1e relies on a LOT of mook enemies, so when you convert mook enemies to 2e, lot of encounters work really well. In general mook encounters are much better in 2e than in 1e.)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like... Its as if all melee monsters were fighters with master strike and AC profiency.
I know a couple of players I run with have gotten really annoyed at NPC casters for similar reasons. Enemy mage throwing out spell attacks that are as accurate as a fighter with a magic weapon rather.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had really good luck with the investigator, but the class isn't worth playing if you don't pick up some non-strike combat actions. Luckily there's a ton of ways to do that between cantrips and various skill actions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. The Math - I actually kind of agree here. One mechanic I wonder, albeit maybe a bit harder for GMs to run, is essentially tuning all the "average" numbers down by 2 and then merely stating "Adjust all DC based values by the CL modifier". I get the feeling, but as a GM it has been pretty easy for me to adjust combats. One thing I find interesting, is for encounter design I am not only planning things that challenge PCs, I am planning specific portions of the terrain PCs can take advantage of in order to capitalize on their enemies. That is to say, I am creating essentially conditions that make it easier for the PCs to win if they engage with the environment around them. It's more GM work, but I find that often the "where" of a story is just as important as the who in this regard, because it can create unique stories even with the same enemies.
Now on skill math, I totally agree but I think the skill system, in general, feels very rough (to go with your second point). Like I'll be honest it's exactly what I want (Skill Feats were basically Skill Tricks, scaling proficiency, proficiency gated actions, etc) but it feels unrefined in a way like certain consequences were deemed "necessary evils" in the name of its design.
Like the fact that it's too optimal to scale all your skills to Legendary which essentially means all characters end up Legendary x 3 Trained x Y Untrained x Z is weird an inorganic. The fact that some skills were just completely forgotten in value (Crafting is borderline useless for what its major themes are supposed to evoke) or weren't leaned onto as heavily as they should have been (Recall Knowledge should literally be something people can do every turn like raising a Shield).
I get why it's designed the way it is and it is probably my favorite skill system I've played in (3.5 is probably close, but it was so complex it meant you had to have system mastery) but one more pass on refining the structure I think would have maybe found ways to alleviate the issue.
2. On feats I straight up agree, though I do think 3 silos would be too little. Now 1-5, 6-10,11-15,16-20, that I could get on board with and makes sense for measuring the status of a persons journey.
In fact, I daresay the entire game should have been organized around breaking through these level tiers of play, because they for the longest time were used as defining points in adventuring careers. Now I'm not saying go full blown gurps, but "I get to pick a proficiency increase at level 6,11,16" or something to that effect would have been an interesting design too I think.
I wonder if a PF2.5 would have potential to lean into level silos across different mechanics as a means of making it easier to account for numbers/abilities at each tier.
3. I think they should have done what they did with pickpocket and just made penalties for all the things that skill feats remove. AKA "For each additional person you attempt Make an Impression on you take a -1 circumstance penalty to your check" and then Group Impression is simply you ignore circumstance penalties to your Make an Impression for targetting multiple people. Then if a person is a Master level 10 person, they can still do it and probably succeed, but the Trained politician who has a lot of group speaking experience can also pull it off.
People always say ignoring penalties doesn't feel good, but I don't know that I agree. Being able to ignore penalties feels great to me and having penalties in the case of multiple Make an Impressions does make sense.
This again goes back to the skill system. I think all actions and structure with a second pass would have maybe helped. I'm not even sure what I'd change (the biggest problem with changing the skill system is the Rogue honestly, because you basically have to account for it with any change you make) and since it works reasonably well as is, idk that it's worth the effort to make a lot of houserules for something that works fine.
That's what I love about it, it works fine, well even. I just think it could have been perfect (or damn near close) for me personally.
5. I think battleforms were definitely an overcorrection, but I really like how casters play and any non-PF1 player I've played with has not only loved playing them straight out of the gate, they have never complained about power. Even my PF1 players didnt because they were the ones breaking the game with casters in PF1 so they got it.
I do wish that casters weren't designed with so little narrative budgeted into their classes though, which feels like it was done as an overcorrection because "spells do that". The issue is that you can't really spend your spells on that stuff until you reach 8+, so for the first 7 levels of the game your a person in a robe throwing offensive spells which really sucks (and to be honest, most of the non-damaging cantrips prior to SoM were bad, but SoM definitely helped).
The whole harder to play 1-5, even 6-13, more powerful 14-20 finally exists for casters, that's literally exactly how they play now which I personally like and think makes sense. The skill floor is high, but the ceiling is also high.
I can't say I agree with 4, and I heavily disagree with 6 (I really fail to see how Rogue is anything like Investigator) but I suppose that's how things go sometimes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(wait does something in rules prevent rolling recall knowledge every round or multiple times in same round? I was under impression that since in combat you are in stressful situation it represents remembering something with few more moments of thinking about it
Like its just one action combat activity, nothing prevents it being spammed on same target)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's this line in additional knowledge.
I just ask characters to try and recall knowledge about a specific aspect like a troll's regeneration rather than the creature in general if they've failed and want to know more. Changing the topic this way seems to sidestep the issue if there's something particularly interesting about the creature.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's this line in additional knowledge.
I just ask characters to try and recall knowledge about a specific aspect like a troll's regeneration rather than the creature in general if they've failed and want to know more. Changing the topic this way seems to sidestep the issue if there's something particularly interesting about the creature.
There does seem to be ways gm can sidestep that yeah if they want to
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know a couple of players I run with have gotten really annoyed at NPC casters for similar reasons. Enemy mage throwing out spell attacks that are as accurate as a fighter with a magic weapon rather.
Like... Its as if all melee monsters were fighters with master strike and AC profiency.
Yeah, players often have to use their hero points to get the same chance of success.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There does seem to be ways gm can sidestep that yeah if they want toThere's this line in additional knowledge.
I just ask characters to try and recall knowledge about a specific aspect like a troll's regeneration rather than the creature in general if they've failed and want to know more. Changing the topic this way seems to sidestep the issue if there's something particularly interesting about the creature.
Which is absolutely what I do, but my opinion is that Recall Knowledge every turn should be specifically codified into the game as an assumption.
For one, it gives Casters a meaningful action to perform as their third action almost as a default (because caster's by their very nature get one knowledge skill for free at least).
For two, it would require a lot less house rules on how to run it turn by turn. I don't want to "side step" to make a rule work, it should just be something I can actually do as an assumption.
And Lastly, monster design is extremely complex, interesting, and engaging in PF2. People refer to PF2 as a very tactical game, talk about targeting saves, targeting creatures with specific tactics, etc. What action would help facilitate more engagement with creature designs simply by letting the PCs know how they actually work and their values? Recall Knowledge.
In general, I find there's several points of failure in skills/skill actions due to "half-measures". Great ideas and concepts that don't quite go the distance they could.
Now sure, easy enough to house rule your way past RK (I do that), but until the Monster Parts system was introduced in Battlezoo Bestiary, Crafting had no easy fix without pages of house rules just to entice a player to try your system. I've seen some decent homebrew of Crafting+Monster Parts system though, which is at least something.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general I love 2nd ed. My GM did stumble on a hazard they hated and scrapped its involvement in the encounter we just did in the AP we're playing in. Later the GM showed us what exactly he scrapped.
I have to say I agree, the Darkside Mirror is a bad idea.
Darkside Mirror.......................Hazard 14
Complex, Magical, Mechanical, Trap
Complexity: Complex
Stealth +24 (master) to notice it isn't a regular mirror
Description A magic mirror replaces characters with evil mirror duplicates from another dimension.Disable Thievery DC34 (legendary) to retrieve a creature from the other dimension within 10 minutes of the switch (possible only if their mirror duplicate is dead), Thievery DC 39 (master) to permanently disable the mirror once all mirror duplicates are dead, or dispel magic (7th level; counteract DC 32) to counteract the mirror for 1 minute and prevent additional replacements during that time
Bolded are the first problems here. A level 14 hazard, and retrieving a trapped person REQUIRES legendary in thievery?
If thrown at parties of equal or lower level the group's trap guy MUST have master in thievery + trap finder, a feat that generally is one of those "useful but not necessary and facing stiff competition from other feats." if you're a rogue or investigator. Or you have to take Archaeologist and get that feat. Doable? Yes. Is every party going to have one guy who did this exact combination? Heck no!
If thrown at parties of higher levels, well there's still no guarantee that thievery was the first skill they picked to bump to legendary. And assuming they do encounter it and have legendary is this going to be the first thing that's obvious to the party? It seems that whether the poor sap absorbed into the mirror lives or dies is dependent on every person in a group not choosing to smash the evil mirror that just ate someone first, and that's assuming that the person who is legendary in thievery wasn't the victim who got trapped in the first place.
AC 34, Fort +25, Ref +20
Hardness 1, HP 4 (BT 2), the mirror can’t be damaged while any mirror duplicate is alive
Reflection of Evil Reaction (arcane, conjuration, teleportation); Trigger A non-evil creature is reflected in the mirror. Effect The mirror absorbs the creature into the mirror, replacing it with an evil mirror duplicate (DC 34 Reflex to avoid being absorbed into the mirror), and rolls initiative.Routine (1 action) The mirror absorbs another reflected creature into the mirror and replaces it with a mirror duplicate. Mirror duplicates attack on their own initiative, using the same statistics as the original creature, but with an evil alignment (changing only abilities that shift with the alignment change). A mirror duplicate can spend 3 actions in contact with the mirror to return to its original dimension and release the creature it duplicated, but most mirror duplicates prefer not to.
So not only can you not rescue your party member while the duplicate is alive, you can't even destroy the mirror while the duplicate is alive? More on why that's a HUMONGOUS problem in just a bit.
So it seems there is another option to save a trapped victim right? Well sure, if the duplicate can be coerced to do it, or isn't killed first. Or if the entire party isn't absorbed in the meantime because there is no clause that says the mirror can't keep trying to absorb the same target over and over again. This thing can just keep trying while the party tries to fight the duplicate, and any duplicates that come out as a result of eating more party members, and then keep on trying to eat them while they rescue any party members that got eaten; again this is assuming the person in the party with the appropriate level of thievery isn't among those that got eaten! Thus this hazard potentially wipe out the party on its own.
But aren't they still alive on the other side of the mirror? Well...
Reset The mirror is always ready to absorb creatures into the other dimension. Ten minutes after a creature is sucked into the mirror, if an ally doesn't rescue the creature with Thievery, it reaches the other dimension, where it might be captured or killed. In the mirror dimension, it counts as a mirror duplicate, so the denizens of the other dimension can't destroy the mirror on their side while the absorbed creature is there. These dimensions are alternate realities, not planes, so even spells like plane shift can't reach them.
Okay so the "might be" leaves some narrative wiggle room, which I HOPE any decent GM will use because this thing never needs resetting! It can keep trying to eat PCs until there is no one left! And it seems that this trap was written to deliberately close off other avenues of rescue if the party failed to have a character with specific skill and/or feat choices, or if that character got eaten!
From the GM'ing side of things does a PC counting as a mirror duplicate mean they can also spend 3 actions to return to the other side? Can it be done before they're captured/killed? So many ambiguities here!
This hazard is either a TPK waiting to happen or a monumental waste of in-game and out-of-game time. I'm thankful my GM read this hazard through and decided that was one part of the AP worth leaving out, and I pity other groups whose GM didn't have the foresight and thus wiped them out!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That particular trap does have the glaring weakness of Hardness 1, HP 4 which can be exploited before it activates, but getting caught unawares by the mirror can be rough. My party didn't notice it until too late but the reflectee made the Reflex save and someone else beat it in initiative to destroy it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That might be the most amazing hazard ever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the intended methodology for dealing with Hazards is supposed to be to spot them and deal with them before they trigger, rather than trying to facetank them.
But as a GM you should adjust things to make sure the party (who you are presumably familiar with) can handle them. If the party has nobody who does Thievery at all, and somebody gets mirror duplicated, the presumed solution I would go with is "after they get beat up for a while, they try to run back to the mirror."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the intended methodology for dealing with Hazards is supposed to be to spot them and deal with them before they trigger, rather than trying to facetank them.
That's the ideal. And that ideal doesn't always happen.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, all the math arguments fail because they do not take into account that the GM has full autonomy on setting the DCs. Whether you are a group of highly specialized PCs or pragmatic characters with a wide, general set of abilities, the GM can, and should adjust the campaign to meet the unique conditions of the PCs. This isn't an MMORPG. I find the math works just fine. For a game that is supposed to appeal to such a wide range of interests, it simply cannot be "perfect" for everyone. We have to be willing and able to vary the crunch or we will be unhappy a lot more often than not. Remember, the point of the game isn't to follow some rigid set of rules, it is to collectively experience an interesting story. If your rules do that, great. If not, you have an obligation to adjust them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the intended methodology for dealing with Hazards is supposed to be to spot them and deal with them before they trigger, rather than trying to facetank them.
The big problem is players insisting on facetanking hazards. That is always the most difficult/deadly option.
Running away, regrouping, waiting it out, or coming up with a better plan are all ways to survive hazards.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with spotting hazards is that they can also be gated behind skill proficiency levels. You can't "notice it isn't a regular mirror" unless you are a master in stealth, for example.
You need master Perception, not master in Stealth to spot the mirror.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to be willing and able to resort to some degree of handholding as a GM. There are groups, who when given "the solution is a four letter word" and you spot them 'M' "I' and 'K' are going to settle on MIAK and not move off of it.
But there's generally better ways to deal with foolishly stubborn PCs than "just skip the thing they can't/won't in the intended way."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to be willing and able to resort to some degree of handholding as a GM. There are groups, who when given "the solution is a four letter word" and you spot them 'M' "I' and 'K' are going to settle on MIAK and not move off of it.
But there's generally better ways to deal with foolishly stubborn PCs than "just skip the thing they can't/won't in the intended way."
I'm a big dummy and don't know the four letter word. Now I gots to know...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are groups, who when given "the solution is a four letter word" and you spot them 'M' "I' and 'K' are going to settle on MIAK and not move off of it.
The word is clearly KIMA, a traditional Greek style spaghetti in meat sauce. ;)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the intended methodology for dealing with Hazards is supposed to be to spot them and deal with them before they trigger, rather than trying to facetank them.
Which is why I really dislike the Second Chance and Banshee's Symphony traps.
Legendary requirement to detect them, which means if you don't have one of a couple specific classes in the party they're actually outright impossible to see.
Becuase Paizo decided you're just Not Allowed to be good at perception if you pick the wrong class.
IMO, all the math arguments fail because they do not take into account that the GM has full autonomy on setting the DCs.
I mean not really. I can change any rule to make it better, but that doesn't mean the rule isn't a problem... that I'm being told to go change it after the fact suggests the opposite, really.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a big dummy and don't know the four letter word. Now I gots to know...You have to be willing and able to resort to some degree of handholding as a GM. There are groups, who when given "the solution is a four letter word" and you spot them 'M' "I' and 'K' are going to settle on MIAK and not move off of it.
But there's generally better ways to deal with foolishly stubborn PCs than "just skip the thing they can't/won't in the intended way."
Milk
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, all the math arguments fail because they do not take into account that the GM has full autonomy on setting the DCs. Whether you are a group of highly specialized PCs or pragmatic characters with a wide, general set of abilities, the GM can, and should adjust the campaign to meet the unique conditions of the PCs. This isn't an MMORPG. I find the math works just fine. For a game that is supposed to appeal to such a wide range of interests, it simply cannot be "perfect" for everyone. We have to be willing and able to vary the crunch or we will be unhappy a lot more often than not. Remember, the point of the game isn't to follow some rigid set of rules, it is to collectively experience an interesting story. If your rules do that, great. If not, you have an obligation to adjust them.This is also a game where people rightfully assume that the developers gave us the right numbers, before even trying to think that the numbers are wrong.
Not everyone is an experienced GM that can change the rules freely as you suggests without causing problems. Not everyone is even average at it meaning that even if they try they might make the whole thing worse.
If you are selling a list of game rules as being "complex" the selling point should not be "you have to change the rules or else they don't work". At the point you might as well just call it a rules light game and don't bother making new mechanics (what 5e does).
There's literally instructions on modifying DC's, 'the numbers,' in the CRB.