|
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 minmaxedWell, 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.
that has not been my experience when i run or play, heck my staff magus is a beast
|
|
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.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.
hmm glancing at strength of 1000's ap 1 which basiclly uses milestone i counted about 5 fights and a few non fight encounters before you jump to level 2 so 5 to 10 fights /or xp non fight counters seems about right
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah - this really makes clear why PF2 Society and many conventions reliant on modules are so problematic.
The posters on this board appear to feel that in PF2 you do not really build a character rather a group builds a team so that you tweak your characters to make sure all the bases are covered
This team building is not really an option in PFS2 play since you hope that people bring a wide selection of on-level characters to allow for a balanced team rather than playing a ad hoc group of 1 fighter and 3 wizard.
The ad hoc nature of Society play is one of the reasons that I believe adding the Free Archetype rule would have been helpful in Society play. The adamant decision to never have the Free Archetype rule to allow characters to backstop weak spots in an ad hoc group is also one of the reasons the I and many other people I know stopped Society play. By extension many conventions with BYOC (bring your own character) for scenarios rather provided pregens also suffer from this frustration
yeah i wish free archetype was used
i tend to play characters with reach in pfs due to how many exploding type enemies there often seems to be and make sure they have some way to help others as well as fight in general| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine it is for whatever reason no caster gets expert casting at 5th, while most martials get it in weapons, except for alchemists who get it at 7th. I've never entirely gotten it, but I think it might have to do with spells adding the old quadratic element.Magus spellcasting isn't that bad (except insofar as that you don't have a lot of slots but that's part of the buy-in), but I do think being two levels behind on your spellcasting upgrades (which are in turn two levels behind weapon progression upgrades) can sometimes feel annoying and I'm not entirely sure what balance purpose they serve because it's only relevant for such a narrow window of levels.
... Like a level 6 Magus and a level 9 magus have identical DCs and to-hit compared to a witch or druid, but not a level 7 magus? Is there something that makes the Magus overpowered at precisely level 7 that necessitates this?
... It's not a big deal in the long run, but it feels weird.
Spells are no longer quadratic. The quadratic aspect of spells was because you had spell level + caster level. Now that they only scale with spell level the damage is more like a staggered line.
Also, you discount how bad having pnly 4 spell slots is. Imagine having full wizard spells up to 6th. Yeah you would have a smaller burst, but you would have a lot more spells for buffs and spellstrike.
Caster level was a very small part of quadratic casters.Caster level was really a linear feature like martials had-- just making you better at what you already did. It is also offset by lower level slots getting higher level DCs, and is pretty irrelevant to the magus that barely gets lower level slots.
What made casters quadratic is they could do more and more things, like teleport or build castles out of nothing. The uncommon tag did more to reign this in, though it doesn't if your GM just lets you take uncommon options. (And I think most do.)
Less spell slots does make it harder for the magus to take advantage of this, but they still gain access to bigger and better effects and more options they can prepare. A 7th level magus can Dimension Door where a 6th level magus can't.
I already said I don't entirely get these proficiency lags, so I'm not sure why you're calling me out about them. I'm just pointing out that caster power isn't as simple as proficiency.
|
|
I have to say my players want that feeling of being great at something. They don't get that in PF2.
They missed making a high AC character that was actually hard to hit.
A fighter who invests heavily in Greatsword who hits really hard with the Greatsword.
Or a caster that when he invests in casting a particular spell or group of spells, those spells do the job.
They missed specialization meaning something as it did in PF1.
I like PF2 as a DM. I think PF2 cosmetically looks like it should look. But my players want their investment and their numbers to have a meaningful impact on the game. They felt like a guy with a 20 Dex and a 20 Strength if built well basically had the same chance to hit using the same tactics regardless of build investment.
The lack of variation in things like crit ranges, effect of power attack with a two...
hmmm
okyou can make a hard to hit character
you can make a fighter that hits hard
have casters that well do great
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is a perfect example of opt-in complexity getting rewarded. The simple build just strikes, the complex build is able to strike and apply other effects above and beyond striking.
But then you have swashbuckler that gets shut down because they couldn't move, and if they fail to move they are also punished because they attempted to move. They must also repeat the attempt after every time they do they finisher, so its a repeated chance of failure. The reward is effectively the same damage they would had gotten if they attacked 2 times as a fighter.
You have melee magus that gets shut down by needing to move, by AoO from casting, by multiple conditions that either lower to hit or lower the number of action. The only reward being "maybe if they fight the right enemy and have the right spell prepared and they hit, maybe they trigger weakness". Again a fighter doing 2 strikes deals the same damage at no risk.
You have alchemist which is one of the most complicated classes. The reward is that your allies can spend 1 action to suffer some condition and gain +1 to a stat. That requires that you spend actions making the thing, then spend actions giving it to the ally, then the ally needs to decide to use it. The item is also a straight negative if the ally already is getting an item bonus of the same size from literally any source.
All casters require that they know what creatures are being targeted, that they have the right spell for that specific creature, that they are not interrupted by said creature or something else, and the creature is still more likely than not to succeed or even critically succeed. That is if the creature is not immune in the first place. Then there is the fact that 80% of people straigth up ignore actual use case when talking about casters and jump straight to white room where the caster somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just doing 2 strikes.
why is your swashbuckler being shut down by not moving? tumble is not the only way to get panache, heck i have rarely used it to get it,
same with magus , what are you doing wrong where your getting shutdown often?
certainly the fighter is the top notch well fighter and can be much simpler but that's true when comparing him to all melee classes except maybe the barbarian.
sure complex character need a little more understanding of the class but its not s very high burden to make them very fun.
...I imagine it is for whatever reason no caster gets expert casting at 5th, while most martials get it in weapons, except for alchemists who get it at 7th. I've never entirely gotten it, but I think it might have to do with spells adding the old quadratic element.Magus spellcasting isn't that bad (except insofar as that you don't have a lot of slots but that's part of the buy-in), but I do think being two levels behind on your spellcasting upgrades (which are in turn two levels behind weapon progression upgrades) can sometimes feel annoying and I'm not entirely sure what balance purpose they serve because it's only relevant for such a narrow window of levels.
... Like a level 6 Magus and a level 9 magus have identical DCs and to-hit compared to a witch or druid, but not a level 7 magus? Is there something that makes the Magus overpowered at precisely level 7 that necessitates this?
... It's not a big deal in the long run, but it feels weird.
Spells are no longer quadratic. The quadratic aspect of spells was because you had spell level + caster level. Now that they only scale with spell level the damage is more like a staggered line.
Also, you discount how bad having pnly 4 spell slots is. Imagine having full wizard spells up to 6th. Yeah you would have a smaller burst, but you would have a lot more spells for buffs and spellstrike.
Caster level was a very small part of quadratic casters.Caster level was really a linear feature like martials had-- just making you better at what you already did. It is also offset by lower level slots getting higher level DCs, and is pretty irrelevant to the magus that barely gets lower level slots.
What made casters quadratic is they could do more and more things, like teleport or build castles out of nothing. The uncommon tag did more to reign this in, though it doesn't if your GM just lets you take uncommon options. (And I
But studious spellcasting gives two more slots. Dedications can possibly add 14 more slots.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 addresses some of the linear/quadratic issues by reigning in spell slots and high level powers... but I mean in terms of narrative capabilities and horizontal expansion, a high level caster still blows a fighter out of the water.
The biggest change is that the Fighter is now the undisputed king of Fighting and baseline skill options for most classes have improved.
It's much harder for a spellcaster to invalidate a martial... and in extremely combat focused games fighters will probably dominate, but especially at high levels some of those fundamental problems still exist, because spellcasters still expand outward much more than noncasters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 addresses some of the linear/quadratic issues by reigning in spell slots and high level powers... but I mean in terms of narrative capabilities and horizontal expansion, a high level caster still blows a fighter out of the water.
The biggest change is that the Fighter is now the undisputed king of Fighting and baseline skill options for most classes have improved.
It's much harder for a spellcaster to invalidate a martial... and in extremely combat focused games fighters will probably dominate, but especially at high levels some of those fundamental problems still exist, because spellcasters still expand outward much more than noncasters.
I don't think i agree with this. clerics are amazing, but I don't think magic is overall that amazing save for like wish. personally I think rogues and investigators with master and legendary skills can do way more than spells.
magic has very much become MMO magic. it's not underpowered, but it's very balanced, it's good for certain things like clearing out hordes of trash, or making it easier for the fighters and barbs to do their things. Casters even with the uncommon spells don't pose much of threat to the game narrative. high level rogues, now they do, some of those legendary skill feats are flat out crazy good.
AFAIK the LFQW in D&D equivalents has always been the clash between two questions (wordings might be off due to English not being my primary lingo):
1. If spellcasting is all powerful, what use are non-spellcasters in a typical party (except cleanup duty)?
2. If non-spellcasting is capable enough, what benefit(s) did the wannabe spellcasters expect when learning how to cast in the first place?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 addresses some of the linear/quadratic issues by reigning in spell slots and high level powers... but I mean in terms of narrative capabilities and horizontal expansion, a high level caster still blows a fighter out of the water.
The biggest change is that the Fighter is now the undisputed king of Fighting and baseline skill options for most classes have improved.
It's much harder for a spellcaster to invalidate a martial... and in extremely combat focused games fighters will probably dominate, but especially at high levels some of those fundamental problems still exist, because spellcasters still expand outward much more than noncasters.
I don't think i agree with this. clerics are amazing, but I don't think magic is overall that amazing save for like wish. personally I think rogues and investigators with master and legendary skills can do way more than spells.
magic has very much become MMO magic. it's not underpowered, but it's very balanced, it's good for certain things like clearing out hordes of trash, or making it easier for the fighters and barbs to do their things. Casters even with the uncommon spells don't pose much of threat to the game narrative. high level rogues, now they do, some of those legendary skill feats are flat out crazy good.
Wish has the illusion of being powerful, but it actually isn't. Really, it's only as good as spells like Remove Curse, Dispel Magic, etc. Every other 10th level spell in the game has more use than Wish, et. al. does. Time Stop to buff up and get into a favorable position? Heck yeah. It's like Time Jump, but way, way better. And Time Jump is amazing for a 3rd level spell as-is. Enemy spellcaster throws something at you that you just can't protect against? There's always Nullify. Sure, you're taking up to 10D8 damage, but it's probably a heck of a lot less worse than whatever spell they were throwing out. Just ask for a quick Medic to patch you up on their next turn, and you should be fine. Indestructibility, for those times where you know you're gonna take an insane amount of HP damage. Cataclysm is meh, but if you want to just throw something that might stick, it's got you covered compared to Wish, which can do nothing, or completely backfire on you by comparison. Shadow Army is a neat control ability, especially with things like Slowed 1, Enfeebled 2 (to make the bad guys less painful), or Clumsy 2 if Synesthesia isn't available, but even if it is, this affects an entire group of enemies, not just one. So yeah, Wish, et. al. is actually a trap in this edition. (It technically always was, but now it's more obviously labeled as such.)
But yeah, Legendary Skills are far more impressive and reliable by comparison to Spells in this edition. I can just leap off of giant mountaintops and not die (Feather Fall only does so much), climb things without any need to worry about anything, while fending off potential vultures. (Yes, spellcasters have Fly, but again, not constant, and requires actions in-combat to maintain. Other forms of airborne-ness are just plain unfeasible.) I can just not breathe or eat or sleep anymore. (Not one spell encompasses this, not even Wish can.) I can hide in plain sight with no means of detecting me besides a Seek action, moving just as fast as anyone else in the group. (Disappearance does this, but isn't anywhere near as constant, and won't have as high of Stealth modifiers compared to a Rogue or Investigator if taken as skill feats themselves.) I can use any magic item I want with a passable check, meaning I can just use a spellcasters scrolls or wands or staves as needed, all without having any spells. I can stand up as a free action. So much crazy stuff that Skills can do that Magic can't even come close to replicating on the same level that Magic is pretty pitiful this edition. Short of crazy spells like Synesthesia or Heal, spells are just...blah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. If spellcasting is all powerful, what use are non-spellcasters in a typical party (except cleanup duty)?The answer to the first is that regardless of how strong a caster is, it is meaningless if they are facing a party of adventurers. This is seen in most campaigns with a high level caster as the enemy.
While you may actually be quite correct in the greater scale of world simulation, it still is a major concern intra-player-party-wise; namely spotl..limelight sharing ratio (I recently learned that the replaced word is a more fit word for "positive" attention, BTW).
As magic spells are fictional and can be up to any power level as the rules dev team see fit compared to skills, I'd rather have set up whatever limits personally cast spells have in the fictional world (like many books having a hard NO against resurrection, example only), then give out features for non-casters both in and out of combat so their "price" in XP versus spells available on equal levels would seem to be roughly fair.
Probably better than cantrips (tradeoff being that they're available on "no-gear" situations), around the level of focus spells (non-caster feats usually having situational prerequisites plus a roll), but surely not slot spells nor rituals...
2. If non-spellcasting is capable enough, what benefit(s) did the wannabe spellcasters expect when learning how to cast in the first place?The answer to the second is that a non-spellcaster gains buffs and utility from casting. Maybe an a few specific damage spells for emergency.
Yeah, buffs and utility are (literally) classic domains of magic spells. Most old fairy tale wizards were helpers, not the acting hero (usually).
A personal tangent though.
I usually do not treat "non-innate" abilities, like magic items and buffs from friends, when gauging a characters specs ("feel" wise, not game performance).
High level non-casters are screwed mathematically against "on-level" opponents if their bling (swords, handwraps, etc.) are stolen, while casters can usually throw something to try fixing such crises.
Btw you forgot the third, "what do half and 2/3 casters get out of the split?" The answer to that is same as the second but to a much greater degree due to getting more spells (if such a caster is ever made).
No personal feelings nor investments on this part.
Although, if I ever made PF1 classes, I would have started with a HD d12 class with all(3) good saves and 8+Int skill points plus no spell slots, then trade off each set of HD step and 2 SP plus a good save with a step of slot growth, ending with d6 + bad saves + 2+Int SP + 9th spell progression.
The rest of class features can be bolted on top of that.
But even then, considering the massively versatile spells of PF1, I think my hypothetical sunfish-fry-frail full caster would still be more potent compared to the somewhat tougher other classes...
* P.S. Occult really does have the best spells overall, which is a shame for the Wizard.
On this, I roughly guess that the 4 essence lore and spell functions map like Mind -> IndirectOffense (mind assaults), Spirit -> IndirectDefense (envigor our spirits), Life -> DirectDefense (includes Healing), and Matter -> DirectOffense (kaboom).
As the player casters' main goal is to survive adventures to grow further, spending spell slots on any kind of Offensive acts should feel economically worse (especially the all out "offensive" Arcane)...|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I imagine it is for whatever reason no caster gets expert casting at 5th, while most martials get it in weapons, except for alchemists who get it at 7th. I've never entirely gotten it, but I think it might have to do with spells adding the old quadratic element.Magus spellcasting isn't that bad (except insofar as that you don't have a lot of slots but that's part of the buy-in), but I do think being two levels behind on your spellcasting upgrades (which are in turn two levels behind weapon progression upgrades) can sometimes feel annoying and I'm not entirely sure what balance purpose they serve because it's only relevant for such a narrow window of levels.
... Like a level 6 Magus and a level 9 magus have identical DCs and to-hit compared to a witch or druid, but not a level 7 magus? Is there something that makes the Magus overpowered at precisely level 7 that necessitates this?
... It's not a big deal in the long run, but it feels weird.
Spells are no longer quadratic. The quadratic aspect of spells was because you had spell level + caster level. Now that they only scale with spell level the damage is more like a staggered line.
Also, you discount how bad having pnly 4 spell slots is. Imagine having full wizard spells up to 6th. Yeah you would have a smaller burst, but you would have a lot more spells for buffs and spellstrike.
Caster level was a very small part of quadratic casters.Caster level was really a linear feature like martials had-- just making you better at what you already did. It is also offset by lower level slots getting higher level DCs, and is pretty irrelevant to the magus that barely gets lower level slots.
What made casters quadratic is they could do more and more things, like teleport or build castles out of nothing. The uncommon tag did more to reign this in, though it doesn't if your GM just lets you take uncommon options. (And I
I feel a comparison between 2 systems as different as PF1 and PF2 cannot really work. After all, all casters lost slots between editions.
What matters most IMO is the fun, which comes from 2 sources : the feeling one gets when playing the PC, the overall balance so that everyone in the game keeps having fun.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel a comparison between 2 systems as different as PF1 and PF2 cannot really work. After all, all casters lost slots between editions.
What matters most IMO is the fun, which comes from 2 sources : the feeling one gets when playing the PC, the overall balance so that everyone in the game keeps having fun.
Honestly, the number of slots isn't so important in my opinion. But rather how effective the spells you can use our of those slots are.
But it's not a simple analysis. For example, your spell DC applies to all the spells you can cast. Spell level is no longer a part of it. So in PF1 where low level spell slot were offensively useless, they became great for buffing and utility. A high level caster would be running around with many long lasting buffs all day. In PF2, that low level slot can still have an offensive spell, but lower level spells in PF2 just do less than a higher level spell (generally speaking). So the lower level slot has an equal chance of success, but a lower impact than a higher level slot.
But! Buffing is way different in PF2. Buffs are almost all short term. They're going to last for one combat. You have to be a lot more selective because you can't just cast all your buffs at the start of the adventuring day and expect that you're good.
Honestly, the biggest downgrade in spellcasting (in my opinion) was that durations all took a huge hit such that buffing before a fight had to be limited to a turn or two before you expect to fight and you had to accept you were giving up a significant portion of spell casting for the day to do this thing that would only help for this one fight.
PF2 characters are mostly balanced against one another. But the balance point of PC vs the enemy is radically different than PF1. And that difference is most people's complaint (I think).
|
|
If the whole party is balanced and they do not have fun with the difficulty of fights, the GM has many options to make them feel far better.
Now, if the whole party is balanced and only one player has a problem with the difficulty of fights, the GM might need to work specifically with this player to help them feel better.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
AFAIK the LFQW in D&D equivalents has always been the clash between two questions (wordings might be off due to English not being my primary lingo):
1. If spellcasting is all powerful, what use are non-spellcasters in a typical party (except cleanup duty)?
2. If non-spellcasting is capable enough, what benefit(s) did the wannabe spellcasters expect when learning how to cast in the first place?
The Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard debate revived quickly in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition playtest with Colette Brunel's August 2, 2018 post, The return of linear martials and quadratic casters, and how to address it. The playtest began the day before, August 1, though Paizo had provided a few months of preview articles in their blog.
But the numbers said something different to me, so I responded in The Mind-Boggling Math of Exponential Leveling, The "mind-boggling" is a warning label, because I dig deep into the mathematics. The short version is that no characters in Pathfinder are linear or quadratic. They are exponential.
A character grows twice as powerful every two levels, where combat power is measured in how many opponents (of unchanging level) the character can defeat. For example, if a 2nd-level party can handle two Hell Hounds as a Severe-threat encounter, then a 4th-level party can handle four Hell Hounds as a Severe-threat encounter. That comes out to a 41.4% increase in power with every new level.
Making a primary caster twice as powerful every two levels is straightforward: make each new level of spells twice as powerful as the previous level. This is not necessary an easy design challenge, because the caster needs to cast the lower-level spells, too, in order to conserve their best spell slots for the most deadly challenges, so the low-level spells need utility at higher levels, too. To keep low-level PF1 spells relevant, their duration or damage increased with caster level, though their saves remained low. In contrast, the duration and damage of unheightened PF2 spells remain constant, but their saves improve.
Making a martial character twice as powerful every two levels relies on balancing bonuses and DCs. Consider a 2nd-level champion with Str 18, giving her +8 to hit with a longsword. Against the AC 19 of the 3rd-level Hell Hound, in two attacks per turn she would have on average 0.65 regular hits and 0.1 critical hits. Next time the champion fights a Hell Hound, she is 4th level and has a +1 weapon potency rune on her longsword. That gives her +11 to hit. In two attacks per turn she would have on average 0.85 regular hits and 0.2 critical hits. The ratio of hits is (0.85+2×0.2)/(0.65+2×0.1) = 1.25/0.85 = 1.47, a 47% improvement in damage per turn. Likewise, the Hell Hound 's jaws attack has a +13 to hit against a 2nd-level champion AC 18 versus 4th-level champion AC 20. The ratio of Hell Hound hits in two attacks per turn is (0.9+2×0.25)/(1.0+2×0.35) = 1.4/1.7, but from the champion's point of view it is 1.7/1.4 = 1.21, a 21% improvement. Thus, her combat prowess has improved 1.47×1.21 = 1.78, a 78% improvement. That is not quite the 100% improvement needed for twice as powerful, but I assume that more hit points, the Divine Ally feature, and a few feats make up the difference. The 4th-level champion has 52 hp to the 2nd-level champion's 30 hp, but that difference matters only at the end of combat rather than every turn, so I don't multiply it into the 1.47×1.21 = 1.78.
Regardless, the 1.47×1.21 = 1.78 multiplies two linear improvements together, resulting in a quadratic improvement. So a martial character is not linear in PF2. Practically, when we have only two data points, a 2nd-level contest against Hell Hounds and a 4th-level contest against Hell Hounds, the curvature of the increase does not matter. Everything looks linear with only two points. If we added a third point, say a 6th-level contest against Hell Hounds, then we could see the curve.
But the third point that would define the curve is obscured by more significant points. Pathfinder has a feature nicknamed The Treadmill and The Red Queen's Race. Hell Hounds would be a mere minion in a 6th-level encounter and no longer qualify as a point of reference. Instead, the 6th-level party would fight 5th-level Karinas or 7th-level Hellcats. With the Karina's AC 21 and the Hellcat's AC 25 the curve resets itself to a fresh new 78% improvement or so. The power curve of the character is really a bunch of short strokes of linear or quadratic curves spliced together to mimic an exponential curve.
The exponential growth of the characters does care that whether the underlying curves are linear, quadratic, or exponential. The Red Queen's Race lets the designers build long-term exponential growth out of any curve.
Let me return to spellcasters and Lucas Yew's question about whether spellcasters are still all-powerful. The answer is in the title of this thread, "So in 2E, is it normal to just feel... really weak?" The Red Queen's Race means that spellcasters are weak compared to higher-level opponents and strong compared to lower-level opponents. And Pathfinder 2nd Edition design also means that tactics matter more than power.
To have the best tactics available to the party, the party members should have different individual tactics. Some foes are best defeated by a sword and other opponents are best defeated by a spell. When swords matter, the spellcasters switch to buffing and healing the martial character who can win. When spells matter, the martials switch to protecting the spellcasters who can win and cleaning up surviving enemies after the spells.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL; DR (sort of, I've been skimming/spot checking):
PF2 player characters are individually less "powerful" relative to monsters/NPCs than in PF1. Specifically, a single PC vs. a monster/NPC of the same level is around a 50-50 fight (40-60 to 60-40 depending how optimized the PC is and the tactics used in the encounter); this is by design balanced differently than 3.x/PF, where an optimized PC could solo a monster/NPC of the same level with a significant chance of success. This different mechanical balance point needs to be considered when creating campaigns and adventures; PCs can't just overwhelm on-par or even higher-level opponents.
One other difference with the mechanical balance is that success is less dependent on "the build" for a PC. As long as a PC starts with a 16 or 18 in their most important stat and doesn't make completely inappropriate choices, then they will be within the "expected" range of mechanical effectiveness in PF2. It's really hard to make "bad" characters in PF2.
Success in PF2 is almost entirely dependent on tactics and teamwork. Some of those can be made more effective by "build" choices (such as pairing a barbarian with Raging Intimidation and Intimidating Prowess with a rogue with Dread Striker). All the PCs should be using their third actions (or first actions to set up their second and third actions) to add bonuses to their allies/themselves or impose conditions/penalties on their opponent(s). Efficient and appropriate use of action economy, tailored to the specific circumstances in play at a given time, is the most important determining factor.
Making a martial character twice as powerful every two levels relies on balancing bonuses and DCs. Consider a 2nd-level champion with Str 18, giving her +8 to hit with a longsword. Against the AC 19 of the 3rd-level Hell Hound, in two attacks per turn she would have on average 0.65 regular hits and 0.1 critical hits. Next time the champion fights a Hell Hound, she is 4th level and has a +1 weapon potency rune on her longsword. That gives her +11 to hit. In two attacks per turn she would have on average 0.85 regular hits and 0.2 critical hits. The ratio of hits is (0.85+2×0.2)/(0.65+2×0.1) = 1.25/0.85 = 1.47, a 47% improvement in damage per turn. Likewise, the Hell Hound 's jaws attack has a +13 to hit against a 2nd-level champion AC 18 versus 4th-level champion AC 20. The ratio of Hell Hound hits in two attacks per turn is (0.9+2×0.25)/(1.0+2×0.35) = 1.4/1.7, but from the champion's point of view it is 1.7/1.4 = 1.21, a 21% improvement. Thus, her combat prowess has improved 1.47×1.21 = 1.78, a 78% improvement. That is not quite the 100% improvement needed for twice as powerful, but I assume that more hit points, the Divine Ally feature, and a few feats make up the difference. The 4th-level champion has 52 hp to the 2nd-level champion's 30 hp, but that difference matters only at the end of combat rather than every turn, so I don't multiply it into the 1.47×1.21 = 1.78.
So why is that Champion waiting till level 4 for the Weapon Potancy Rune? It's a Level 2 item. Can be used at level 2 so why wait?
That means that level 2 Champion would have a +9 to hit, better than a +8 narrowing the gap between Level 2 and Level 4. So not as big a jump as you write about
Just because its a level 2 item does not mean you get it at level 2. It depends on the campaign and location.Making a martial character twice as powerful every two levels relies on balancing bonuses and DCs. Consider a 2nd-level champion with Str 18, giving her +8 to hit with a longsword. Against the AC 19 of the 3rd-level Hell Hound, in two attacks per turn she would have on average 0.65 regular hits and 0.1 critical hits. Next time the champion fights a Hell Hound, she is 4th level and has a +1 weapon potency rune on her longsword. That gives her +11 to hit. In two attacks per turn she would have on average 0.85 regular hits and 0.2 critical hits. The ratio of hits is (0.85+2×0.2)/(0.65+2×0.1) = 1.25/0.85 = 1.47, a 47% improvement in damage per turn. Likewise, the Hell Hound 's jaws attack has a +13 to hit against a 2nd-level champion AC 18 versus 4th-level champion AC 20. The ratio of Hell Hound hits in two attacks per turn is (0.9+2×0.25)/(1.0+2×0.35) = 1.4/1.7, but from the champion's point of view it is 1.7/1.4 = 1.21, a 21% improvement. Thus, her combat prowess has improved 1.47×1.21 = 1.78, a 78% improvement. That is not quite the 100% improvement needed for twice as powerful, but I assume that more hit points, the Divine Ally feature, and a few feats make up the difference. The 4th-level champion has 52 hp to the 2nd-level champion's 30 hp, but that difference matters only at the end of combat rather than every turn, so I don't multiply it into the 1.47×1.21 = 1.78.
So why is that Champion waiting till level 4 for the Weapon Potancy Rune? It's a Level 2 item. Can be used at level 2 so why wait?
That means that level 2 Champion would have a +9 to hit, better than a +8 narrowing the gap between Level 2 and Level 4. So not as big a jump as you write about
Thanks for the prompt reply Mathmuse
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also returning to the original topic:
In my experience, you really do feel weak in PF2E. That's not to say the game is difficult to succeed in as a whole, or that the system is prone to deaths and TPKs. In fact, I think it's far *less* prone to those things than several other systems, including PF1E. In a lot of ways, the superior balance actually makes the game feel like the PC's victory is more inevitable than ever before: they compensated for the tight balance by adding numerous systems that give security blankets against death, long term disadvantages, and general variance. However, the path to your party's seemingly inevitable success feels grueling far too often. If I had to point out several reasons why it seems that way, I'd say:
PF2E often feels too easy as a whole, and lowering the difficulty by adding levels to the PCs or the weak template to foes would only make that worse, taking away the reasons to use tactics. But at least to me, the *feel* of play from round to round is that my character is getting battered and beaten and often failing at what I imagine them to be good at.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making a martial character twice as powerful every two levels relies on balancing bonuses and DCs. Consider a 2nd-level champion with Str 18, giving her +8 to hit with a longsword. Against the AC 19 of the 3rd-level Hell Hound, in two attacks per turn she would have on average 0.65 regular hits and 0.1 critical hits. Next time the champion fights a Hell Hound, she is 4th level and has a +1 weapon potency rune on her longsword. That gives her +11 to hit. In two attacks per turn she would have on average 0.85 regular hits and 0.2 critical hits. The ratio of hits is (0.85+2×0.2)/(0.65+2×0.1) = 1.25/0.85 = 1.47, a 47% improvement in damage per turn. Likewise, ...So why is that Champion waiting till level 4 for the Weapon Potancy Rune? It's a Level 2 item. Can be used at level 2 so why wait?
That means that level 2 Champion would have a +9 to hit, better than a +8 narrowing the gap between Level 2 and Level 4. So not as big a jump as you write about
Because the +1 longsword that I put in the treasure is on the other side of the Hell Hounds. She will receive the +1 weapon potency rune at 2nd level, but not at the very beginning of 2nd level.
And for analysis purposes, if the champion gained items exactly at their level, then the 4th-level champion would have a Striking rune on her longsword and I did not want to throw in a third effect about increasing damage along with increasing strike bonus and increasing AC. The jump between the 2nd-level and 4th-level champion does not narrow.
Just because its a level 2 item does not mean you get it at level 2. It depends on the campaign and location.Thanks for the prompt reply Mathmuse
I have no objection to Temperans giving a correct answer in my stead. Thank you, Temperans.
But it could happen, right? like say in PFS. Or any campaign where it does. And your math doesn't account for that. So we only accept math from your percespective not all perspectives. So very useful.
|
|
I have no objection to Temperans giving a correct answer in my stead. Thank you, Temperans.Just because its a level 2 item does not mean you get it at level 2. It depends on the campaign and location.Thanks for the prompt reply MathmuseYour welcome.
Also Tristan the guidelines for loot distribution is that you get level appropriate items halfway through the level, not before it. Specially in PFS where they are even more strict about what you can get.
Not to mention that if you get a rune, you are more likely to give it to a martial that is more focused on making attacks then the Champion who is more of a tank.
Paladin.
And yet any part of second level is still second level.
And I reject your martial hypothetical with and if a Champion is the group's only martial you'll give it to the wizard?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also Tristan the guidelines for loot distribution is that you get level appropriate items halfway through the level, not before it. Specially in PFS where they are even more strict about what you can get.
It's pretty easy to afford a weapon potency rune (35gp) at level 2 in PFS, assuming you get all your treasure bundles (which is the case 90% of the time), but it does require the majority of the gold you possess (42, not including 15gp to start).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it could happen, right? like say in PFS. Or any campaign where it does. And your math doesn't account for that. So we only accept math from your percespective not all perspectives. So very useful.
I gave one example to illustrate my concept. That example is representative but not comprehensive. To be comprehensive, I would need a barbarian, champion, fighter, gunslinger, inventor, investigator, monk, ranger, and swashbuckler with a variety of ancestries and gear against all the possible stats and abilities of 2nd- and 3rd-level monsters.
My point that Pathfinder lacks the Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard problem does not need a comprehensive analysis. The combat prowess of melee combatants depends on (strike bonus vs enemy AC) times (weapon damage) times (armor class vs enemy strike bonus). The product of three linear functions is a cubic function.
Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard does fit into a thread about characters feeling weak. In that situation, spellcasters start out weak and grow strong, and martials start out strong and become weak. But that situation is not the case in Pathfinder, neither 1st Edition nor 2nd Edition, because the Paizo designers focused on balance. And they applied the ingenious idea of exponential leveling, which eliminated the Dead Level problem in Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition, where a class gains no interesting new features in a level. Paizo made a lot of excellent design decisions.
And I reject your martial hypothetical with and if a Champion is the group's only martial you'll give it to the wizard?
I have been running a PF2-converted Ironfang campaign since October 2019. The party started as two rogues, a ranger, and a druid, so I could view the difference between the martial ranger, the spellcaster druid, and the skill-monkey rogues. At later levels a champion, a monk, and a sorcerer joined the party.
The Ironfang Invasion adventure path has the party reach 2nd level due to a large story award at the end of Part 1: NIGHT OF IRON FANGS, where the Ironfang Legion invaded the village of Phaendar. Part 2: BENEATH THE HEMLOCK BANNER has the party hiding in the Fangwood Forest, searching for food and shelter for fellow refugees from Phaendar. (That four 1st-level characters could not stop an army is not a spoiler.) They find a few treasure caches at abandoned homesteads and in monster lairs, which were their only source of magic items, because the only nearby town is Phaendar under enemy control.
Their first magic weapon was a +1 kukri, which they had to give to the ranger because he was the only character with martial weapon proficiency. Most of the magic weapons were martial weapons rather than simple weapons, which left the rogues underequipped. Fortunately, the champion joined the party at 3rd level (with level-appropriate gear, so she had a +1 shortsword), because the champion had Magical Crafting and could transfer runes to the ranger's longbow and the sniper rogue's shortbow. The magical trickster rogue had given up on weapons by then and attacked with cantrip spells.
Magic weapons are not always conveniently available.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it could happen, right? like say in PFS. Or any campaign where it does. And your math doesn't account for that. So we only accept math from your percespective not all perspectives. So very useful.
Why are you so riled up about this.
In my experience, you really do feel weak in PF2E.
It's funny because from your post I wonder if the issue would be the system feeling not punitive enough.
If at 0hp a character had real chances to die, combats would need to be entirely rebalanced: The difficulty would have to be toned down to take that into account, characters would drop far less often but the tension would still be there as a downed character would be a real issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, you really do feel weak in PF2E.It's funny because from your post I wonder if the issue would be the system feeling not punitive enough.
If at 0hp a character had real chances to die, combats would need to be entirely rebalanced: The difficulty would have to be toned down to take that into account, characters would drop far less often but the tension would still be there as a downed character would be a real issue.
I wouldn't call the problem the system not being punitive enough, though it depends on your definition of punitive.
I think better statistics/success rates accompanied by less HP and less forgiving dying rules (and probably no hero points) would go a long way to addressing the weird punching-bag feel. But those changes don't necessarily play nice with the crit system. It's not an easy or straightforward change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think better statistics/success rates accompanied by less HP and less forgiving dying rules (and probably no hero points) would go a long way to addressing the weird punching-bag feel. But those changes don't necessarily play nice with the crit system. It's not an easy or straightforward change.
The increased statistics/success rate can be easily achieved by giving the PCs an extra level.
For the less forgiving dying rules, removing the ability to stabilize through hero points is a first step but I'd also force the PCs to take a long rest to get rid of the Wounded condition. So the first time you drop is not so much of a big deal, but the second time you drop you are now a critical away from death, pushing you to play safe (or to take a long rest).In my opinion it's enough, but you can also remove hit points, even if it's harder to balance depending on classes.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think better statistics/success rates accompanied by less HP and less forgiving dying rules (and probably no hero points) would go a long way to addressing the weird punching-bag feel. But those changes don't necessarily play nice with the crit system. It's not an easy or straightforward change.The increased statistics/success rate can be easily achieved by giving the PCs an extra level.
For the less forgiving dying rules, removing the ability to stabilize through hero points is a first step but I'd also force the PCs to take a long rest to get rid of the Wounded condition. So the first time you drop is not so much of a big deal, but the second time you drop you are now a critical away from death, pushing you to play safe (or to take a long rest).In my opinion it's enough, but you can also remove hit points, even if it's harder to balance depending on classes.
Those all strike me as very sensible and easy to implement house rules to achieve that desired style of play.
That's what I like about 2nd Edition. It doesn't take much to get it working for most anyone.
Fun fact: I actually thought that was how the dying system worked for the first year of playing.
No one died, but everyone played cautiously.
Fun fact: I actually thought that was how the dying system worked for the first year of playing.
No one died, but everyone played cautiously.
I wonder why the Wounded condition is so easy to remove. Wounded doesn't sound like something you remove by spending 10 minutes resting. I feel it was the way it was first implemented.
Can you give more details about your experience? I think it'd be really interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder why the Wounded condition is so easy to remove. Wounded doesn't sound like something you remove by spending 10 minutes resting.Not just resting. Someone has to do a successful Treat Wounds.
... Not that that is generally hard after a few levels. But it does mean that someone needs to be trained in Medicine and have Healer's Tools. And that it takes 10 minutes per person to be recovered.
Not only. If you are full in hp, you just need 10 minutes of rest.
I wonder why the Wounded condition is so easy to remove. Wounded doesn't sound like something you remove by spending 10 minutes resting.
Not just resting. Someone has to do a successful Treat Wounds.
... Not that that is generally hard after a few levels. But it does mean that someone needs to be trained in Medicine and have Healer's Tools. And that it takes 10 minutes per person to be recovered.
Fun fact: I actually thought that was how the dying system worked for the first year of playing.
No one died, but everyone played cautiously.
I wonder why the Wounded condition is so easy to remove. Wounded doesn't sound like something you remove by spending 10 minutes resting. I feel it was the way it was first implemented.
Can you give more details about your experience? I think it'd be really interesting.
Basically the wounded condition stayed when players got back to full hp, which meant that usually if someone was wounded 2-3 the group would withdraw and long rest in a secure defended area before resuming.
Basically the wounded condition stayed when players got back to full hp, which meant that usually if someone was wounded 2-3 the group would withdraw and long rest in a secure defended area before resuming.Fun fact: I actually thought that was how the dying system worked for the first year of playing.
No one died, but everyone played cautiously.
I wonder why the Wounded condition is so easy to remove. Wounded doesn't sound like something you remove by spending 10 minutes resting. I feel it was the way it was first implemented.
Can you give more details about your experience? I think it'd be really interesting.
And how the players felt it? When you got back to the proper rules, were they relieved or did they miss the old way of doing?
And how casters were feeling it, as they need long rest for their spells, it should have been a power increase for them?Sorry for my questions, but I consider using it as I think it is interesting. But I want to be sure before doing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, you really do feel weak in PF2E.It's funny because from your post I wonder if the issue would be the system feeling not punitive enough.
If at 0hp a character had real chances to die, combats would need to be entirely rebalanced: The difficulty would have to be toned down to take that into account, characters would drop far less often but the tension would still be there as a downed character would be a real issue.
I don't want the player characters to die. The players and I are fond of them. Nor do I believe in punitive gamemastering.
I design challenges that make the PCs' life story exciting, but I don't intend to kill them. Sometimes they push the envelope and take extreme risks. Twice out of 14 levels bad luck during an extreme risk left one PC unconscious. But the reason they can afford to take risks is that they protect each other. The champion positions herself to prevent damage to other party members. The druid and the cleric have primal Heal spells. Those two and the monk learned Battle Medicine, too.
They roleplay as if the risk of death was high, but their tactics keep the risk low. They generate dramatic tension; yet in fact, they are so safe that they use their hero points for rerolls or an extra action (that's a houserule) rather than saving one to stabilize.
Two game sessions ago, an advanced Purple Worm swallowed the monk, who had already taken a beating in taking down another Purple Worm. The sorcerer cried, "I can't heal him inside the worm!" The monk's first action was Battle Medicine on himself. His second activity was a high-damage attack to rupture his way out of the worm's stomach. The monk and sorcerer had their drama, but even if he had failed to rupture, the rest of the party would have killed the worm and rescued him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point still stands. The guidelines say that you get items halfway through the level not before it. PFS gives the loot at the end of the session, not at the starts.Also Tristan the guidelines for loot distribution is that you get level appropriate items halfway through the level, not before it. Specially in PFS where they are even more strict about what you can get.It's pretty easy to afford a weapon potency rune (35gp) at level 2 in PFS, assuming you get all your treasure bundles (which is the case 90% of the time), but it does require the majority of the gold you possess (42, not including 15gp to start).
But you'd have it at the start of the next level 2 scenario because you got it at the end of the previous level 2 scenario. Or does that level 2 item allowable purchase for a level 2 character not count for the legal level 2 character? You use the +1 rune at level 2 if purchased during the 3 scenarios that comprise level 2.
Also from the Organized Play Guide:
You can always purchase the following items so long as you’re in a settlement of at least 5,000 residents (and scenarios might sometimes provide additional allowances or limitations):
Any common equipment in sanctioned Pathfinder content with an item level less than or equal to your character’s level (minimum 2).
Any uncommon equipment in sanctioned Pathfinder content with an item level less than or equal to your character’s level (minimum 2); your character must have access to this uncommon equipment.
Any equipment listed on your character’s Chronicles with an item level less than or equal to your character’s level + 2. Weapons and Armor found on Chronicles can be upgraded following the normal rules for upgrading. You have access to any item listed on a chronicle.
Any item or service purchased with Achievement Points.
Always, not midway through a level. Always. Boom I got enough gold for a +1 rune at the start of level 2. Always.
Basically the wounded condition stayed when players got back to full hp, which meant that usually if someone was wounded 2-3 the group would withdraw and long rest in a secure defended area before resuming.Fun fact: I actually thought that was how the dying system worked for the first year of playing.
No one died, but everyone played cautiously.
I wonder why the Wounded condition is so easy to remove. Wounded doesn't sound like something you remove by spending 10 minutes resting. I feel it was the way it was first implemented.
Can you give more details about your experience? I think it'd be really interesting.
And how the players felt it? When you got back to the proper rules, were they relieved or did they miss the old way of doing?
And how casters were feeling it, as they need long rest for their spells, it should have been a power increase for them?Sorry for my questions, but I consider using it as I think it is interesting. But I want to be sure before doing it.
I ran all of AoA and all of agents of edgewatch before I realised my mistake.
A lot of my players in those two games are new to ttrpg and gaming in general (were running kingmaker with the aoe crew and stenght of thousands with the aoa crew) I just subtly started running it the proper way and....I don't think they actually noticed ?
My girlfriend is the best rules wise in there and she noticed but was more of a "meh, cool to know" thing. Ultimately there may have been... Like... One or two encounters in early aoe (catacombs before the Skinner) where they Might have continued if they hadn't gotten laid low with a Crit?
Spell slots were definitely the most defining factor as to when to rest, not the wounded condition.
As far as houserules go, this one should be decently balanced and fun, especially if you find some way to make long rests threatening without skewing your XP budget (and time budget) by level with random encounters.