| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group started our first 2E game a couple months ago. All but one of us are 1E vets, with myself having played from the very start all those many years ago. We're currently level 4, and I've noticed some patterns.
Enemies almost never miss.
Enemies deal considerable damage.
Enemies almost never fail saves.
Enemies NEVER critically fail saves.
PCs hit maybe half the time.
I've been playing a cleric, recently switched to monk (same character, we just needed another combat-type since our fighter had to drop out) with the Medic dedication. With 18 dex and +1 striking handwraps, I'm looking at a +11 on my highest attack, which routinely has less than a 50% chance to hit. Anything.
In going from cleric to monk, my AC jumped from 16 to 22. "Great!" I thought. But I was wrong. It was not great. My first time in melee, with 42 HP, I got knocked out in two rounds (one hit, one crit). Which is very not great when you're the medic.
After every battle, the party has taken *significant* damage. Someone goes unconscious every other fight. Which means numerous Medicine rolls (and previously, heal spells). I knew I was signing up to be a healer, but this has gotten to be pretty tedious. I've played less deadly games of Call of Cthulhu (with a particularly merciless GM). Not totally sure how to word this, but my assumption is that Paizo wanted to foster a sense of investment by making enemy attacks more dangerous: Players will feel more engaged if their HP is constantly fluctuating. In practice, this just means more bookkeeping, and more time KO'd (and therefore, not playing the game. Or having fun).
From reading the forums for a while before actually playing, I got this idea that in 2E, you pretty much have to minmax to have a 50% chance of success at the things you're supposed to be good at. From experience, it seems even worse. In 1E, I could make a combat-focused character with no ability score higher than 14 and make it work well enough. In 2E, that seems like it would be a recipe for disaster.
So I'm just wondering, is this normal? Does the game ever reach a point where you have a decent chance of avoiding damage? Or even a decent chance of *success?* I see people saying 2e lets you play whatever character you want, but it seems like that comes with the caveat that that character must be borderline minmaxed, which is not something I enjoy.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you playing a premade adventure? If so, which one? Or is it homebrew content?
Either way it sounds like your GM is throwing mostly higher-level enemies at you, which is definitely going to make fights a lot harder.
That said, PCs will drop more frequently in 2e and checks are going to be more volatile overall. That's just part of the game's design principles.
but it seems like that comes with the caveat that that character must be borderline minmaxed
Well, yes and no. There are certain things PF2 basically demands you do, but there are fewer overall things you can do to min-max, at least in terms of character generation.
So 2e wants you to min-max in certain ways, but mostly that comes down to making sure the stat you roll to do things (i.e. attack rolls and etc.) is as high as possible in chargen.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that's business as usual. You're either as optimized as the system allows or you risk being dead weight.
There are very few things that break the curve in this game:
1. Champion and monk AC go past the curve set by normal heavy armor progression
2. Fighter and gunslinger attack bonus goes past the normal offense curve
3. Skills at full investment blow way past the curve as the game progresses
Unfortunately, enemy offense being what it is, AC is more for avoiding critical hits than avoiding being hit at all. AC dodge tanking doesn't exist in this edition.
The default assumption of the system is that you heal to full after every combat. Request your GM start handwaiving it if time is not an issue.
Sounds like you/your party are missing some general system mastery of the new system though. Generally you never want to stay inside enemy reach unless your party is setup to get full use from reaction attacks. Make them burn an action moving toward you. Nobody is durable enough to survive more than one, maaaaybe two rounds if very lucky taking a full set of enemy attacks. Since you seem to be a solo melee party, consider retreating behind your casters/ranged so you make them use up their hp since you don't have a healbot on you 24/7.
If your party is caster heavy, things are looking up. 1-4, non-cleric or bard casters are barely worth half a party member each. Starting at 5 they start to be able to pull their weight properly and should become full party members by 7.
Bonus tip for your casters: never take anything that doesn't have a good effect when the enemy makes their save and always assume they'll make their save unless they're lower level mooks.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM can use tools to turn up the "heroic feel" by blanket-reducing the CR of Encounters.
For example, From:
Party Level -4 @ Low-threat lackey
Party Level -3 @ Low- or moderate-threat lackey
Party Level -2 @ Any lackey or standard creature
Party Level -1 @ Any standard creature
Party Level +1 @ Low- or moderate-threat boss
Party Level +2 @ 80 Moderate- or severe-threat boss
Party Level +3 @ Severe- or extreme-threat boss
Party Level +4 @ Extreme-threat solo boss
To:
Party Level -5 @ Low-threat lackey
Party Level -4 @ Low- or moderate-threat lackey
Party Level -3 @ Any lackey or standard creature
Party Level -2 @ Any standard creature
Party Level +0 @ Low- or moderate-threat boss
Party Level +1 @ 80 Moderate- or severe-threat boss
Party Level +2 @ Severe- or extreme-threat boss
Party Level +3 @ Extreme-threat solo boss
A single "phase" of shift.
At it's most simplest execution of liberal prescription of the Weak Adjustment.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not so much individual minmaxing in 2E because an 18 in your class's primary offensive stat fulfills 90%+ of your potential (that's how tight the power curves are). The stat system makes that cheap (unlike previous point-buy systems) so one doesn't need to min in order to hit that max. Grab a bread-n'-butter feat for normal use, keep boosting those save stats, and after that there's room to go hog wild on fun/less effective options.
Parties, on the other hand, can develop synergy that takes tactics to a whole new level (which is why the Bard, who inherently does this, is prized so highly in PF2). And since tactics are more important than build (which used to dominant) there can be system shock in transferring over. A level 4 enemy truly can match a solid level 4 PC, meaning that "level" means something in PF2 while in previous editions it was much looser, with PCs expected to dominate those of equal (but not really) level. To put it another way, to ask for your PC to gain certain abilities (like having "a decent chance to avoid damage") as they level is to ask for monsters to gain the exact same thing so there's parity. (And if anything, both sides start hitting each other more regularly, but there are many more defensive options too.)
This balance makes GMing far easier if one respects that a difficult encounter will legitimately be difficult. Same with easy though, it'll be easy. If you want the game to get easier as your PCs level up, that's a matter of choosing easy encounters for that level. That's what the game and its rules give you in terms of difficulty. It can be tuned to suit one's desires. Which is to say many of the issues you raise come from adventure composition rather than the game system itself.
----
As to what Paizo's published adventures set their difficulty level at, APs tend toward challenging while PFS scenarios are less so (since their party compositions can be haphazard and solo PCs cannot carry the team like before). So yeah, in an AP expectations make fights rougher, and yes, y'all better Medicine yourselves in between battles. Opinions on this vary a lot! You can find many threads addressing difficulty, but in the end it's too subjective AND easy to adjust anyway.
Many people find APs fine as gritty as they are, many others plump up their PCs with Free Archetypes, and others add an extra PC (so run 5 PCs through a 4 PC adventure). One could also add the Elite array to PCs so the GM doesn't have to do lots of work weakening each encounter individually. PF2 itself doesn't have a single forced difficulty level.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a few observations I've made watching other 1E players transitioning to 2E:
Buffing and debuffing, together with tactics, can move the odds in your favor. Math is tight in this Edition. A Raised Shield and a Shield Block can be a lifesaver.
Is your GM regularly handing out Hero Points at the beginning of the Adventure, and every hour after? Those rerolls are part of 2E, too.
You replaced a Fighter with a Monk. Right there your likelihood of critting the enemy dropped 10%.
Do you Recall Knowledge during a fight? Most 1E players don't want to waste the action, IME. But it's better than wasting two actions using Electric Arc on the electricity-resistant Skeleton with good Reflex saves. Or guessing that a bear doesn't have AoOs, when they actually have Reach, an AoO, and Improved Grab *shudder*
And mindsets can go both ways. If this is a home Campaign, maybe the GMing style is still thinking 1E. Not every fight should be an epic struggle. You should have the occasional slog of low-level combats where you might only have a ten minute rest in-between. Figuring out whether Treat Wounds or Refocus is more important is part of the mental challenge.
Most of my experience is with Society, but I've encountered a lot of converts working through these same issues. The system is different, but it's manageable once you get used to it.
Although, yes, give yourself an 18 at level 1 ;-)
Party composition can make or break a group. You have to know what your group can and can't do and devise tactics that work for your group.
Champion +fighter in the group, you can tank and spank like olden times.
Monk +some other martial, you might need to invest the group in speed to skirmish, do hit and run, use control spells and manuevers.
You need to figure out what an optimal setup for your group looks like, and that might not be easy. Different classes bring different tools, you might even have a combo that doesn't work well together or a character didn't choose certain options that would work well with the current group.
Luckily if it's just pure number problems, your GM can just put the weakened effect on things to even the numbers out if everyone is having a problem. Or do that yourself, have intimidate on a couple characters, build to demoralize as it gives a negative to all rolls and DCs an enemy has. Figure out the ways to stick or reapply frightened to creatures to keep that negative on them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your party is not ending turns next to the enemy and trading blows back and forth like in 1st Edition are they? That's a surefire way to feel really weak in this edition and end up on the ground a LOT.
If so, stop doing that. Use Recall Knowledge to learn about the enemy and stack on the debuffs and bonuses (such as Demoralize and flanking). It's no secret the math is tight, so every -1/+1 makes a big difference.
That being said, you don't really need to min/max. To be bad a 2nd Edition you almost have to be deliberately building towards that end. Just make sure you got a 16 or 18 in your primary attribute at 1st-level then pump it every chance you get and you'll likely do alright no matter what class you play or what feats you take.
The real glory shines not in the character building, or necessarily even in the numbers, but in actual strategic play. Knowing things like that a simple Step or Stride away from the enemy reduces their potential actions by 1/3 is crucial (many enemies have crazy powerful 3-action abilities, and denying them that can be a huge boon).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My group started our first 2E game a couple months ago. All but one of us are 1E vets, with myself having played from the very start all those many years ago. We're currently level 4, and I've noticed some patterns.
Enemies almost never miss.
Enemies deal considerable damage.
Enemies almost never fail saves.
Enemies NEVER critically fail saves.
PCs hit maybe half the time.I've been playing a cleric, recently switched to monk (same character, we just needed another combat-type since our fighter had to drop out) with the Medic dedication. With 18 dex and +1 striking handwraps, I'm looking at a +11 on my highest attack, which routinely has less than a 50% chance to hit. Anything.
In going from cleric to monk, my AC jumped from 16 to 22. "Great!" I thought. But I was wrong. It was not great. My first time in melee, with 42 HP, I got knocked out in two rounds (one hit, one crit). Which is very not great when you're the medic.
After every battle, the party has taken *significant* damage. Someone goes unconscious every other fight. Which means numerous Medicine rolls (and previously, heal spells). I knew I was signing up to be a healer, but this has gotten to be pretty tedious. I've played less deadly games of Call of Cthulhu (with a particularly merciless GM). Not totally sure how to word this, but my assumption is that Paizo wanted to foster a sense of investment by making enemy attacks more dangerous: Players will feel more engaged if their HP is constantly fluctuating. In practice, this just means more bookkeeping, and more time KO'd (and therefore, not playing the game. Or having fun).
From reading the forums for a while before actually playing, I got this idea that in 2E, you pretty much have to minmax to have a 50% chance of success at the things you're supposed to be good at. From experience, it seems even worse. In 1E, I could make a combat-focused character with no ability score higher than 14 and make it work well enough. In 2E, that seems like it would be a recipe for disaster.
So...
I would argue that PF2 requires more than simple min-maxing of numbers (as number manipulation is very limited, by design), it requires using optimal tactics and action economy to your advantage. It is a team game, after all, so relying on your party members to do or help with certain tasks means you are more likely to succeed than if you were to just do it by yourself. A problem in PF1 was that single characters could solo entire adventure paths if built properly, which defeats the entire purpose of this being a cooperative team game. As such, it makes sense that PCs doing things by themselves against an equal has a 50% chance of success/failure, and enemies being higher level than (and thus superior to) the PCs means the odds of success get lower and lower. It's by doing things with the help of others, or by using tactics/abilities to their advantage, that these numbers drastically shift (more) to the PC's favor.
For example, if you are with another martial buddy, have the more sturdy one (which is the Fighter here) move to a flank position while you follow up. This makes hitting the enemies easier for both of you, and force them to either move to avoid the flank (which wastes actions), and/or to beat down what is the obvious apparent threats (the frontline martials), freeing up your backline to properly contribute, and they can do so with any means; whether it be a control or damage spell, a ranged attack, healing, or a buff spell to make you guys more damaging/durable.
Just as well, the numbers/mechanics in PF1 are so broken at times that it's absurd, and there are no tactics to employ or discuss outside of ensuring you win initiative. And it's not like you can't do the same in PF2 as a GM, since the rules for enemies are literally "Here's the recommended numbers to use based on the level threat you throw at the PCs, abilities can do what you need within the following guidelines" Or one better, "Use whatever numbers and abilities you need to make the math work out for an X type of challenge," if a table and entry doesn't seem to suit your fancy.
But really, this stems from needing to tell the GM to dial the enemies/challenges back a bit. One of our groups of 5 recently had a very painful final battle, with us drained a fair amount of resources, against 4 on-level enemies as well as a Level+2 mini-boss and a Level+4 final boss (that had a second phase to it as well). If the GM didn't pity us with a GMPC (the original quest-giver) coming to save us, that was bound to end in a TPK, simply because we didn't have the resources or the power to handle those enemies. When enemy spellcasters have DCs that require our specialized characters to roll an 18 just to succeed, and had almost a 50% chance of critically failing, on top of casting spells 2 levels higher than us, that's just overpowered. Not to mention the other spellcaster miniboss (who had only a couple DC points less than the main boss,) as well as the 4 on-level mooks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. Look at the CR Rating table. Note that CR +0 is the highest level of enemy that still qualifies as a standard enemy. And borders into miniboss if they have abilities tailored to counter player's abilities or if they have advantageous positioning or terrain or something like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm just wondering, is this normal? Does the game ever reach a point where you have a decent chance of avoiding damage? Or even a decent chance of *success?* I see people saying 2e lets you play whatever character you want, but it seems like that comes with the caveat that that character must be borderline minmaxed, which is not something I enjoy.
What is decent for you? Because PF2e is meant to be challenging. Your characters are supposed to be hit, that's why you have more HP and means of damaging mitigation than in PF1e. DR 3 or 5 is just a General feat away at level 1, just grab Shield Block if your class doesn't already have it and you get extra endurance, just as an example of the difference (DR in PF1e was premium, often only available at very high levels).
However, challenging doesn't mean unforgiving or impossible. The game is well designed and the encounter challenge rating works, which is something that didn't in PF1e and it might lead PF1e GM's into thinking that their encounter-building know-how still applies. It doesn't. At all. They should adhere 100% to the guidelines at least until they have a pretty solid grasp of the system and the player's performance.
Basically, in PF2e, the enemies will hit often and hard, but your character will be able to withstand this (more so with levels) and won't instantly die (specially at higher levels,). You can't break the difficulty curve like in PF1e (such as having 30AC when enemies only have a +10 to hit), but there are things you can do to improve your math and unless you're actively gimping yourself, you can pick whatever choice you want and still have a functioning character in the end.
As I always say for newcomers: Embrace the critical hits. They are unavoidable.
As for feeling weak? My party faced two separate times encounters worth 240XP (twice the EXTREME challenge) and got out with every single member alive. The first time we had three players up (<15%HP) and one downed, the second time we had 3 players downed and my Monk at 40% health against four mooks. Not gonna lie, I felt like a god after I took all of them down with my Tiger Monk, abusing my mobility, Assurance (Athletics) and Stunning Fist against the lower leveled enemies.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compared to 5E or any other version of D&D or PF1? Yes. It is normal for you to feel weak.
This is the most balanced version of D&D/PF. That balance made it so you feel fairly weak at the lower levels, but it gets much better at higher level. My group is level 14. The stuff we fight at level 14 is more scared of us than we are of them.
You'll find PF2 is a rough ride at low level and then you steadily become more powerful.
One of my friends and me are the casters of our group in the new campaign we started a few months ago, I'm a Sorcerer and she is a Witch, we just hit level 5. Our defensive stats are atrocious (specially hers since she went for STR for lore reasons). That said, last encounter we felt like gods among men. We fought what I believe was a slighly tweaked weak Vampire Mastermind after several encounters. After a lucky Fear (we learned later that it was the highest of its saves), with Slow and an Illusory Creature triggering its weakness we made the encounter seem easy. The poor lad only had 2 turns to act.
What I'm trying to say is that you are supposed to snowball so a hard encounter gets eventually easier as you figure out the lower defenses, start stacking conditions and control the flow of combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you played PF1 before?
And are you trying to play PF2 the same way you played PF1?
Then yes, you will probably feel very weak by comparison.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'll see a lot of people giving advice on how to build characters, tactics to use, etc. And while thats helpful, know that it is simply that sort of a game. Characters feel less heroic than in 5e or pf1, it revolves around teamwork or very specific combos for a party to excel. Some people like that balance (I prefer it in a lot of ways) but it's not for everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of good advice here, much appreciated. There's a lot about the system I really like, at least on paper (particularly the three actions, Medicine actually being useful, and weapon and armor runes). But so far, I am just not really liking the combat. Maybe it is just a low-level issue, good to know we'll probably feel a lot stronger later on.
For clarity, our party consists of:
-A gunslinger and champion, run by the players with the most experience with 2E
-A wizard, played by our least-experienced tabletop player (Not sure this was the best choice, we never recommended spellcasters for first-timers in our 1e games). I don't recall if an enemy has ever failed a save against one of his spells.
-An inventor, who unfortunately is only around about half the time due to work/life schedule
-Myself, a Medic monk, formerly cleric of Zon Kuthon.
-Formerly, a fighter who had to drop out due to a new job, and who coincidentally got petrified by a cockatrice in his last session. I recall him lamenting that the petrify DC was inordinately high.
I don't know if that's good party composition or not. Probably not.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How heroic or powerful you feel is almost purely dependent upon your GM. The level of your enemies is everything in this edition. This system has given the GM a significant amount of power to tweak the challenge. If you feel things are a bit much, talk to your GM.
The default difficulty is high in PF2. But, that is not the difficulty you all have to play at. Find your sweet spot and then enjoy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there was a cockatrice it's probably AoE.
Look you're not gonna succeed on a 4 on your strong save anymore. And on level or below monsters need a 11+ to hit you rather than a 19+. Does it make it harder? Yes. Is it more balanced? Also yes.
I had the same knee jerk reaction as you my first few games, specially coming from 1e where I could end encounters in one spell and often did.
Then you get to 2e and you're just "omg look at my numbers!! They're so high!! DC 17 spells at level 1!!! I'm going to kill everything!!!"
And you realise that no .. because ennemies also have the numbers to match.
Now for your wizard. Two things:
1: confirmation bias: unless you've had like 2 encounters, the ennemy hasn't succeeded on ALL saves, you just remember the successes more. On my storm druid the GM Nat 20'd 4 out of my last 8 spell but I'm still bitter about it cause they're costly ressources and I thought I was particularly clever when I first of wind trapped a fly in a corridor only for it to roll the only number that would get it out of there.
2: in pf2e with casters recall knowledge is KEY! When you're a spellcaster it's IMPERATIVE that you don't view the fight as "this is the spell I want to be casting on them because that's what we need" but rather "this is the spell I want to be casting on them because it's what's going to be effective on them"
Who cares if electric arc does more damage if you're fighting highly mobile ennemies with +13 to reflex that are gonna reduce your damage to nothing? Cast daze instead they only have +5 to will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the really important question is what are you playing and does the GM understand the encounter building chart?
And do they treat it like the 1E one - where is just wasn’t accurate. I remember a YouTube creator commenting on how the 2E one is actually accurate. When it says that a certain XP budget it a “severe” encounter - it really means it. Same with the descriptions of what a monster that is +2
In 1E both monster CRs and encounter building tables were more often than not simply not accurate for a variety of reasons
I played a game that modified a 1E AP. My level 10 party basically felt like gods when they busted into a room of (I think) 5 level 7 creatures. Crits everywhere. Then their level 12 leader charged in at the end and they had a torrid time and had to kite it away and it was a very close run thing (not least because it was a bit of a chained fight so they weren’t on full)
So it really is down to what the GM is throwing at you
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While some people complains about felling weak. I have the complete opposite.
I'm GMing a AoA to some friends that mostly comes from 3.5 and one from 5e. And they currently complain me about the game is being... too easy!!!
OK, almost all party is made of powerplayers and the powerplayers and me helped the non-powerplayers member to build their characters and suggests their tactics. And that's the main difference from 2e from older editions. The tactics during battle does a tremendous difference.
The party's champion paladin uses a tower shield ally always taking cover and always are moving to a position that he can protect the most allies as possible while he's build uses a returning spear to throw against the opponents and to take better support to use it's reaction to protect it's allies. Outside battle he don't hesitate to full heal all allies no matter how much time it takes. Only in a situation they need to run is when he doesn't refocus/heal spawn.
The party's fighter uses a bastard sword and a buckler. Almost always as possible doing two-handed power attacks. Some times if he thinks is a little more dangerous he rises he's bucker and used his sword with one hand. He knows that power attack usually has less DPT than attack twice but he's a big fan to take down lesser opponents before they act and power attack many times kills mostly opponents without time to they act.
The party's battle oracle is the healer of the group but rarely uses a heal due paladin protection so he starts to use his spells to bless/bane while attacking with he's great sword. But also has free spell to remove some condition and eventually heal.
The party's druid is the other healer that rarely uses it's spells he focus to attack using tempest surge as main attack while he's companion does some additional attacks. But he keeps the companion inside the paladin protection are to prevents the compation to take too much damage and to use the paladin reactions in their favor.
The party's flurry ranger does mostly ranged DPT he combed with the archer archetype to take point blank shot stance to increase it's short bow's damage per attack.
The party's eldritch archer precision ranger combos it's precision strike with it's eldritch shot combed with gravity weapon additional damage doing enormous amount of damage per shot.
The both rangers keeps out the distance maximum yet staying in first range of theyr weapons. Both of the also uses animal feature to fly and avoid becomes untouchable mostly of time.
These are their currently tactics to dominate almost all encounters.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
While some people complains about felling weak. I have the complete opposite.
I'm GMing a AoA to some friends that mostly comes from 3.5 and one from 5e. And they currently complain me about the game is being... too easy!!!
OK, almost all party is made of powerplayers and the powerplayers and me helped the non-powerplayers member to build their characters and suggests their tactics. And that's the main difference from 2e from older editions. The tactics during battle does a tremendous difference.
The party's champion paladin uses a tower shield ally always taking cover and always are moving to a position that he can protect the most allies as possible while he's build uses a returning spear to throw against the opponents and to take better support to use it's reaction to protect it's allies. Outside battle he don't hesitate to full heal all allies no matter how much time it takes. Only in a situation they need to run is when he doesn't refocus/heal spawn.
The party's fighter uses a bastard sword and a buckler. Almost always as possible doing two-handed power attacks. Some times if he thinks is a little more dangerous he rises he's bucker and used his sword with one hand. He knows that power attack usually has less DPT than attack twice but he's a big fan to take down lesser opponents before they act and power attack many times kills mostly opponents without time to they act.
The party's battle oracle is the healer of the group but rarely uses a heal due paladin protection so he starts to use his spells to bless/bane while attacking with he's great sword. But also has free spell to remove some condition and eventually heal.
The party's druid is the other healer that rarely uses it's spells he focus to attack using tempest surge as main attack while he's companion does some additional attacks. But he keeps the companion inside the paladin protection are to prevents the compation to take too much damage and to use the paladin reactions in their favor.
The party's flurry ranger does...
Please tell me that you're making the encounters ~50% harder to compensate for using a 6 person party for an Adventure Path designed for 4 players. If you aren't, then that would explain why an Adventure Path is coming across as very easy.
Enemies never critically fail saves? I suspect you're being hyperbolic, as this should be happening about 5% of the time an enemy rolls a saving throw. In a recent session I ran, a PC hit ten foes with chain lightning and two of them critically failed, while none critically succeeded. The PC dealt 654 damage with one spell. He felt pretty damn powerful and the party voted him the MVP for the session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please tell me that you're making the encounters ~50% harder to compensate for using a 6 person party for an Adventure Path designed for 4 players. If you aren't, then that would explain why an Adventure Path is coming across as very easy.
Yes. I follow all rules and books suggestion to improve the encourages difficult. Always as I can I change monster to elite versions (this improve the monsters power a lot), add some more monsters (but usually this doesn't increase the difficult too much, as the players simply starts to use their positions and AoE to do the job) or even change some monster for others more stronger.
The only thing I don't do is select monsters based in players weakness. I didn't fell this is right. I always chooses the monsters based in scenario only.
But the big party maybe help them a lot due their good teamwork. But sometimes some players can't play and we continue with 5,4 or even 3 players in a game session. But as PF2 is very easier to balance I change de "difficult" like a Diablo's game 😝
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, players can build characters that are less than optimal. Yes, they can use less optimal tactics. But, despite all of that, a GM can still easily adjust challenges to suit the crew. They can even adjust things down initially and then back up later when the players are more proficient.
The game is quite customizable, mainly from the GMs side. It is one of its best features.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enemies never critically fail saves? I suspect you're being hyperbolic, as this should be happening about 5% of the time an enemy rolls a saving throw. In a recent session I ran, a PC hit ten foes with chain lightning and two of them critically failed, while none critically succeeded. The PC dealt 654 damage with one spell. He felt pretty damn powerful and the party voted him the MVP for the session.
Well, again, we only just reached level 4, so we haven't been in dozens of battles, but no, enemies have literally never critically failed a save in that time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those asking, this is a homebrew game. I was aware of the general consensus that early 2e APs are surprisingly hard/unbalanced, so I guess I figured it was just baked into the system. We're still fairly early in our adventure, so I'll ride it out for a while, see if things change, and talk to the DM if needed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is quite customizable, mainly from the GMs side. It is one of its best features.
Indeed! It's super easy for the GM to make the PCs feel incredibly heroic simply by using encounters one level lower than the norm, or to adjust encounters for larger parties simply by adding more minions. (Such that if they would normally fight a vampire count and two vampire spawn, they are now fighting a vampire count and three vampire spawn, for example.)
It's never been easier to tailor the game to your table's desired play style.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1-4 single monster +2/+3 encounters are basically a study in TPK too.
Our group of 5 almost died to a wood golem in SoT last thursday. We were basically doing a fighting retreat when the ranger/sorcerer got lucky on produce flame and finally managed to bring it down.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, 'feeling powerful' is a rather subjective term. You gotta remember one thing: Your party may have struggled with your victories, but you were victorious, on the flip side, everything that ever challenged you suffered a TPK.
This reminds me a bit about D&D 3.X/PF 1 supposedly being balanced around a 15 point buy, everybody playing with 20 or even 25 point buy and then complaining that the encounters are not challenging. Like, well duh, you did this to yourself!
Remember: If the fight is 'fair', it is also fair for your enemy. You do not really want 'fair' fights, even if you're not the Rogue. But it is like with band-aids:
'There are only two kinds of band-aids: One doesn't stick, the other doesn't come off.'
With combat balance, it is similar: Either you get to feel 'powerful' because you can roflstomp every encounter, but that gets boring fast, or you really have to work for every victory, and people dropping happens regularly.* That may not be as 'powerful', but it is a lot more heroic then vanquishing foes whose demise was all but a foregone conclusion.
But seriously, what the others said: If your attack bonus is +11, I am assuming you are playing at 4th level. The average/moderate AC for monsters is about 20, so you should be hitting with a 9+, or about 60%. Get a flank going and that goes up to 70%. If your Monk does not score these success rates, the opponents are over-levelled. And that is something to talk to your GM about.
*Or, you know, some encounters are harder then others, depending on lots of variables. Hyperbole and all that. But the principle stands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enemies never critically fail saves? I suspect you're being hyperbolic, as this should be happening about 5% of the time an enemy rolls a saving throw. In a recent session I ran, a PC hit ten foes with chain lightning and two of them critically failed, while none critically succeeded. The PC dealt 654 damage with one spell. He felt pretty damn powerful and the party voted him the MVP for the session.Well, again, we only just reached level 4, so we haven't been in dozens of battles, but no, enemies have literally never critically failed a save in that time.
You may also want to adjust expectations here. Critical failure is not something to expect to have, equivalent to a critical hit on the melee side. Failure is what you're aiming and building for, with the Critical failures acting as a bonus. With your team, I might even suggest choosing spells with the assumption that creatures will always succeed (though hopefully not critically succeed) against your spells. There's several spells with a decent effect on a success, like Hideous Laughter. It might not feel great to hear "he succeeded against your spell", but taking reactions off the board can make or break some fights.
This adjusting of expectations thing comes up in PF2 sometimes. For instance, Alchemists mathematically have the least ability to actually hit what they aim at when they throw their bombs. They ALSO have the weakest critical hit effect and are the only weapons that natively "hit" on a miss. If you are willing to settle for a slew of misses to achieve chip damage, you'd probably have a lot better time playing a Bomber than someone that wants to have That One Big Explosion. Which, mind, is still possible, but takes a lot more work and luck.
But, having said all that, if you're Not willing to settle, then you'd feel weak as a kitten playing an alchemist and bomber should be avoided at all costs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1 it was well-known that actual success during the gaming session itself was about 75%-90% due to your build design. A reasonably built character would overcome almost all scenarios with little difficulty. The differential between a well-built character and a poorly-built character was immense and impossible to overcome in creating a scenario which would challenge both.
In Pf2 it is about 0%-10% due to your build design. You can take any character and give it 1 class feat, 1 skill feat and 90%-95% of the time it will play the same to the identical character with the additional class, skill, general, and ancestry feats. For example, you can play a daredevil fighter who sweeps low-level mobs with non-lethal takedowns and do a saber dance with the Big Dude with ANY fighter build and have virtually the same chances of success.
My TLDR on this:
Comparative level determines if you win.
Character build determines how you win.
Tactics determine how well you win.
For those asking, this is a homebrew game.
For homebrewed encounters, be sure to pay attention to the details of the encounter design. About the same number of enemies as there are players, and don't fill it out with only higher level enemies. A CR -2 creature is still a significant threat - not on its own, but in company with some on-level enemies too they are certainly pulling their weight on their team.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The following is my opinion and are probably not be shared by the hardcore pathfinder players on these boards.
You are correct. Combat in PF2 is brutal and bloody and there is not much you can due to change it. The system in very lock-stepped in terms of using level to determine power. Once you realize that you need to use a more mobile playstyle for all characters it becomes easier, especially when you understand that actual character design is virtually meaningless.
In PF1 it was well-known that actual success during the gaming session itself was about 75%-90% due to your build design. A reasonably built character would overcome almost all scenarios with little difficulty. The differential between a well-built character and a poorly-built character was immense and impossible to overcome in creating a scenario which would challenge both.
In Pf2 it is about 0%-10% due to your build design. You can take any character and give it 1 class feat, 1 skill feat and 90%-95% of the time it will play the same to the identical character with the additional class, skill, general, and ancestry feats. For example, you can play a daredevil fighter who sweeps low-level mobs with non-lethal takedowns and do a saber dance with the Big Dude with ANY fighter build and have virtually the same chances of success.
TL;DR: PF1 was about creating a character to fit a play style, PF2 is about a player using a play style regardless of character. This means that the difference in system BUILD mastery is virtually meaningless. System PLAY mastery is what is important. You can do many things regarding movement, placement, attack types but the vast majority of these choices can be done regardless of feats or with the investment of a single feat.
As an aside, this makes the job of the GM very difficult. The goal of any session is to let the individual player AND character shine as both a part of a team AND as individuals. The GM has to ensure that the choices in character design allow each player’s character to...
TBH I do not share this point of view, like at all.
I feel build mastery is still important, like 30-50% depending on whether the PCs are built to maximize synergies in the party or not.
And a very good thing in PF2 is that PCs can only succeed as a team by design. No single PC can be good, or even average, at everything. They all have some needed things they will be bad at. Which allows another PC to shine. So, I honestly do not see how PF2 makes it difficult for each PC to shine.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enemies never critically fail saves? I suspect you're being hyperbolic, as this should be happening about 5% of the time an enemy rolls a saving throw. In a recent session I ran, a PC hit ten foes with chain lightning and two of them critically failed, while none critically succeeded. The PC dealt 654 damage with one spell. He felt pretty damn powerful and the party voted him the MVP for the session.Well, again, we only just reached level 4, so we haven't been in dozens of battles, but no, enemies have literally never critically failed a save in that time.
This is odd. Based on PFS standards, a PC goes through approximately 10 fights to gain a level. That makes 30 fights to get to level 4. If we make a hypothesis that you cast 2 spells with a save in each fight, that makes at least 60 saves that enemies have to roll. Likely more as many save spells have more than one target.
At least 3 of these save rolls should have been Nat 1, which is almost always a critical failure.
Zero critical failures on the enemies' side for 3 levels defies probabilities.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my view, if you take a character and give it one class + skill feat and it plays identically to a character with a different set of feats...
You are probably not actually making good use of your choices.
For those asking, this is a homebrew game. I was aware of the general consensus that early 2e APs are surprisingly hard/unbalanced, so I guess I figured it was just baked into the system. We're still fairly early in our adventure, so I'll ride it out for a while, see if things change, and talk to the DM if needed.
Based on what you've said, I'd be mildly concerned about how the GM is assembling encounters. That said, if you're going up against single enemies frequently, their base numbers being higher than yours can definitely make it a constant struggle. This is even more true if your GM is building with PF1 assumptions and PF1 vets, where you had to increase the difficulty of encounters past the book recommendation to get a basic level of power - if your GM is doing this, that's the reason you're struggling so hard.
I'm going to add to everything others have said and assure you of one thing, Pathfinder 2e is a game you can learn to succeed at, my group wrecks house and, in our regular group whose been playing, didn't take that long to master the system to the degree that they can go toe to toe against extreme encounters and expect to win, and once you learn the strategies, they're things most builds can execute-- its like, teamwork things, and its very hard to build a team that doesn't have the pieces.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enemies never critically fail saves? I suspect you're being hyperbolic, as this should be happening about 5% of the time an enemy rolls a saving throw. In a recent session I ran, a PC hit ten foes with chain lightning and two of them critically failed, while none critically succeeded. The PC dealt 654 damage with one spell. He felt pretty damn powerful and the party voted him the MVP for the session.Well, again, we only just reached level 4, so we haven't been in dozens of battles, but no, enemies have literally never critically failed a save in that time.This is odd. Based on PFS standards, a PC goes through approximately 10 fights to gain a level. That makes 30 fights to get to level 4. If we make a hypothesis that you cast 2 spells with a save in each fight, that makes at least 60 saves that enemies have to roll. Likely more as many save spells have more than one target.
At least 3 of these save rolls should have been Nat 1, which is almost always a critical failure.
Zero critical failures on the enemies' side for 3 levels defies probabilities.
We've been milestone leveling, so I guess we're in fewer fights than normal. Honestly though, ten fights per level sounds like an absolute slog.
But yeah, no crit fails.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is odd. Based on PFS standards, a PC goes through approximately 10 fights to gain a level. That makes 30 fights to get to level 4. If we make a hypothesis that you cast 2 spells with a save in each fight, that makes at least 60 saves that enemies have to roll. Likely more as many save spells have more than one target.
At least 3 of these save rolls should have been Nat 1, which is almost always a critical failure.
Zero critical failures on the enemies' side for 3 levels defies probabilities.
Two notes. First, the rule of large numbers is a thing, i.e. it may very well be that no natural 1 has come up yet at any given table for a very, very long time. Second, not all crit fails are equal, neither by ingame effect, nor by memorability. The crit fail of a mook to Electric Arc during the clean-up phase of a fight - while probably already being on his last leg and who would have died anyway even without receiving double damage - might techically count as one but will probably not be registered as one. A miniboss or boss crit failing his save versus Slow during the first round of combat, possibly even before having had a chance to act himself, is an entirely different story.
In regard to my original point of PCs missing so often, it occurs to me that must be from us doing three attacks per round, so that makes sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are fighting enemies that are significantly lower level, that third action is almost always better spent doing something other than attacking. Raise a shield, Step away, or even just switching your grip on a weapon.
I really like Bon Mot or Demoralize (as a 1st-action rather than 3rd) personally.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
In regard to my original point of PCs missing so often, it occurs to me that must be from us doing three attacks per round, so that makes sense.
For the love of all the gods.. Why didn't you say this before?
Going for three attacks per round (or MAP -10) is not what you want to be doing with the vast majority of builds in the game. You have to build around many attacks in order for it to become a reasonable option instead of just a throw away roll.
You guys should be flanking, moving around, using recall knowledge, feinting, sneaking, hiding, taking cover, using Aid, raising shields, using Demoralize, Bon Mot, Metamagic feats, drawing items, using class special actions.
Attacking three times means you're not using the battlefield, which means that stronger monsters are spending all their actions attacking instead of maneuvering, which means lots of hits and critical hits.
This makes the game so much harder, because you're not engaging with the system.
The game encourages (and expects) your players to do that. Giving an enemy Frightened 1 is more valuable than a throwaway attack that only hits on a 19. Using Aid can be a great boon for your ranged friends that can't rely on flanking to benefit from the Flat-Footed Condition, depending on how you propose it, you can even help spellcasters with their Spell Attack Rolls (a great way to enhance Nature/Arcana/Occult/Religion mid-combat).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add to lightning ravens point:
What they're saying is even more egregious on a Monk, who's sole benefit is to be able to attack twice with 1 action.
If you're then using those 2 other actions to attack twice at -8 then of course you're flurry of failing.
Monks REALLY benefit from finding other things to do, like moving around to help with a flank, casting cantrips, raising a shield (yes I know) or simply stride+flurry+stride.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think nobody's bothered with demoralizing or any other in-combat skill stuff because we just kind of figure we'll fail the check anyway.
On a related note, though, dumb question: When Frightened mentions a penalty to checks, that doesn't include attacks, right? My knowledge of 1e says no, but I've learned that 2e is very much not 1e, and similar terms don't carry over.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frightened is a penalty to
Saves
Skill checks
AC
Attack rolls
Special power DC's
Spell DC.
Basically anything that you roll or that is derived from something you roll.