I GM. And the 3 player, at the 2nd level, agent of Edegewatch... are deluse with pathfider 2e.
1 - woman, bard, the 1st and successive game, "disappointed" from the confront with pathfinder 1... (spells that in 2nd, are more weak the 1st).
2- The second... I've today heard... but player, barbarian, confess to me that you are not satisfied in the game.
3 - Cleric... disappointment in the game pf 2ed, just a cause that a cleric spell are weak...
Suggestion from resolve this problem, gamers are at their first pathfider 2ed... Eh they are pathfinder 1st gamers... How do I convince them that pathfinder 2ed is worth playing?
Suggestions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do I convince them that pathfinder 2ed is worth playing?
You don't. Some players are happier with PF1 than with PF2.
PF1 has a strong power game. Players can build extremely powerful characters who dominate the battlefield. And it is a good roleplaying game, too.
PF2 is designed with tight math for encounter balance. Players can design characters who are slightly more powerful than expected, but extremely powerful beyond average is impossible. Instead, the players earn their victories through teamwork and tactics. It appeals to strategists rather than powergamers. And it is a good roleplaying game, too.
Back in 2019 many PF1 players were terrible at PF2 tactics because they were accustomed to winning their battles during character design by finding the best feats and optimizing their characters. Winning at PF2 requires a different paradigm about the PCs being exactly as strong as monsters of the same level. I was mystified by other people's posts about the difficults of PF2 because my players kept winning, even against Extreme-Threat challenges. They are boardgame players who loved strategy and had used teamwork tactics in PF1. Their style fit PF2 already.
One suggestion I have seen to enable powergaming in PF2 is to give the PCs an extra level but keep the encounters unchanged. That makes them stronger.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the reason why I will never go back to PF1 is because I GM a lot. It is pretty important that players that only want to play and don't feel comfortable GMing for themselves understand how much time and energy have to go into preparing for a session. With PF2, if I am only going to spend 30 minutes preparing before a session, I can actually get enough material together to make a small dungeon that will fill a 3 hour session in PF2, while that would be maybe get one encounter together in PF1 (if I have to custom build a high level NPC, then it is going to take hours just for that one encounter). Now that one encounter might take 3 hours to play through in PF1, but it also might resolve in the very first turn of the first powerful caster to get to go. Eventually, it became very deflating to create content for PF1, or even to run APs, because my players were power gamers and adventures as written provided no challenge past level 3 or 4.
So the question really becomes, if the GM wants to run PF2, but the players are struggling with the mechanics, how do you resolve that conflict? If it is a case of players wanting to play casters, but feeling like spells just don't hit hard enough then 100% of the problem will be resolved just by having the characters level up early. You don't even have to tell them that is what is going on. Add in a single "adventure" to a pre existing module or campaign where the players resolve some cool but mysterious major story award, get some cool treasure and big boost of XP, and those players will probably be pretty happy for a good long while. The difference in level with spell casting is absolutely massive compared to PF1, where it was all about the specialization of the caster and the level of spells available. In PF2, it is all about tactical decision making in relationship to the difference in level between party and enemies. Shifting the level of PCs up 1 or 2 levels can remove a lot of the necessary tactical complexity of spell casting for players.
Also, you describe playing with 3 platers instead of 4. That can increase the complexity and difficulty of the game on players a lot because it is 9 total actions a turn instead of 12 to respond to encounters. Removing enemies works to balance this fairly well, but trying to apply weak templates alone to powerful monsters who have strong action denial abilities (like swallowing a PC whole, or reactions that allow them to move out of harms way) become very difficult to overcome just by lowering the modifier numbers of the enemy. Honestly, the easiest way to handle this as a GM is to change the way you play powerful enemies. Give them more complicated desires than killing the PCs, so that they spend some of their actions trying to grab someone and drag them away, rather than killing them right away. They will be good at it, and that will keep the tension high for the PCs, but it will mean facing lest turns of top level attacks that can knock someone out and really overwhelm smaller parties.
I GM. And the 3 player, at the 2nd level, agent of Edegewatch... are deluse with pathfider 2e.
1 - woman, bard, the 1st and successive game, "disappointed" from the confront with pathfinder 1... (spells that in 2nd, are more weak the 1st).
2- The second... I've today heard... but player, barbarian, confess to me that you are not satisfied in the game.
3 - Cleric... disappointment in the game pf 2ed, just a cause that a cleric spell are weak...Suggestion from resolve this problem, gamers are at their first pathfider 2ed... Eh they are pathfinder 1st gamers... How do I convince them that pathfinder 2ed is worth playing?
Suggestions?
For Barbarian player you may need to ask what he/she is not satisfied.
About spells. The things changed a lot from PF1.
Healing spells received a tremendous boost. They are ranged spells that in general are 2.5x stronger than Cure X Wounds.
Debuff spells are usually more effective (with the notable exception of Incapacitant ones) once their DC don't depends from spell level.
For other side damage spells are way more limited. Attack Spells are no more touch so are much harder to hit (but still are useful for SpellStrikes). Also the spell damage dices now depends from spell level and not more from caster level meaning that, depending from your casters abilities, only the top 3 level spells are really significative. Also during first half of the game (lvls 1-10) only top levels worth and they are too few forcing the player to use alternative moves instead just try to blow up the opponents.
Even in highest levels (lvl 13 and more) do a blaster still are complicated. Wizards depends too much from spell bending or staff nexus while sorcerers depends from they focus spells and improve their focus recharge feats to allow blasts to be sustainable in adventures with too many encounters per day because you have about 50% less spellslots than PF1, you need alternative sources of power like these focus spells.
Also long duration buffs spells don't existe anymore and buff allies during encounters are pretty inviable in terms of efficiency.
For Bards specifically have their strong point into composition spells. Mostly occult spells are more effective to debuff opponents than to try to attack. So specially in the first levels they maybe forced into a boring mechanics of Inspire Courage and cast some attack cantrip or to use weapons and heal (Soothe). They begins to become more interesting in highest levels when they have some more composition spell options, gives extra allies actions and have a significant number of AoE damage and debuff spells.
About Clerics. With exception for kill fiends and harm spell, the entire divine tradition is supportive and divine font makes it even more significative. Clerics are primary strong healers, have access to all remove "condition" spells, supportive summons (celestials). They are no more part of that Strong CoDzilla that does everything in the game very well trivializing almost everything.
Try to talk more about this with your players. They probably are creating wrong expectations from their classes and choices.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do I convince them that pathfinder 2ed is worth playing?You don't. Some players are happier with PF1 than with PF2.
PF1 has a strong power game. Players can build extremely powerful characters who dominate the battlefield. And it is a good roleplaying game, too.
Seconding this.
PF1 was won or lost at character creation. PF2 character creation only influences how you win, not if you win.
Tactics and strategy play a higher role in whether the players win the fight or not.
And relative level is the biggest factor.
-----
The one thing that I am aware of that will help is changing the relative level of the players vs the enemies. Either give the players an additional level above what the rulebook is written for them to have at that point, or apply the Weak adjustment to every enemy that is of higher level than they are.
Free Archetype is fun, but it doesn't really add any power. It won't generally make encounters easier to win. It does help to round out the team if there are fewer player characters so that they have all of the needed roles filled, but that is for mostly out-of-combat things like healing up after the battle, or talking to town NPCs.
People will like what they like. But more often they will like they know and then make up logic to explain it. Which is why it is usually impossible to convince someone to change their opinion.
if you're determined to try, then I'd look at that party composition and adjust.
You're running with what is essentially a DPS, a debuffer, and a heal bot.
And they're probably not picking the ideal abilities or spells.
I don't know barbarian all that well - but I imagine if they get a maul or a greataxe they can have more fun with either shove or sweep actions. If it's an orc there's an orc weapon designed to do both. Once you've got that you've opened up choices in maneuvers beyond just rage and hit.
And knocking people around the battle map is always fun - shove. But being an AoE melee can also be a thrill - sweep.
For the Bard - this is someone who's asked to bring the detective, whether or not they realize it. The occult spell list suffers in it's offensive choices. I'm playing an occult witch as our groups offensive ranged and I eventually just took adapted cantrip to get electric arc (which is primal and arcane).
If the Bard is martial focused - then you're looking at getting rapier or shortsword combined with shortbow and your combat is based around what is likely your number 2 stat (dex) and you dump stat (str).
Your primary purpose in combat as a bard is to maintain Inspire Courage and in a 3 or even 4 person party that's a bit lacking.
Bard is not really an ideal choice for a 3 person group.
The Cleric, if cloistered is a decent caster. If warpriest is a subpar martial. But both get the healing font.
As a caster - there are some good spells in there for support, and some very brutal offensive spells if the campaign is fighting a lot of undead. Even without undead, if the player wants more offensive ability strongly consider letting them use Torturous Trama:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=1270
- It's an uncommon cantrip from an Adventure Pack. But it's an ideal single target attack spell because it doesn't require a spell attack roll.
Otherwise, if they play a gnome or elf cleric, or a Varisian or New Thassilonian human they can get Electric Arc. Beyond that - any cleric can get it at level 2 by taking the 'druid' devotion archetype.
Beyond those choices, you're looking at being a support.
And this is the problem your party composition has. 2 supports and a DPS.
Because these classes are, I gather from the other comments, not in those same roles in PF1E - the players are upset because things are different now.
Played for support - the Bard and Cleric have a lot of things they can do. But in a 3 person group it's a bit 'tilted'. And the Barbarian gets interesting or boring depending on the choices one makes. Give it a big sword and you can play just repeating the same action every turn of combat from level 1 to 20. Give it different weapons and things open up. But it's not going to have much beyond being a combat bruiser unless the player takes good feats / archetypes.
I GM. And the 3 player, at the 2nd level, agent of Edegewatch... are deluse with pathfider 2e.
1 - woman, bard, the 1st and successive game, "disappointed" from the confront with pathfinder 1... (spells that in 2nd, are more weak the 1st).
2- The second... I've today heard... but player, barbarian, confess to me that you are not satisfied in the game.
3 - Cleric... disappointment in the game pf 2ed, just a cause that a cleric spell are weak...Suggestion from resolve this problem, gamers are at their first pathfider 2ed... Eh they are pathfinder 1st gamers... How do I convince them that pathfinder 2ed is worth playing?
Suggestions?
Looking at this, the two consistent complaints are with spells being weak(er), and unfortunately, that's basically a symptom of PF2 gameplay. Spells have taken (more of) a backseat in this edition simply because they were far too dominant in the previous edition. They still have their moments, but they are certainly reduced in power and frequency. Granted, the spells were designed with more of a "fail forward" paradigm, which doesn't help a player feel like their character is competent or heroic when enemies succeed at saving against your spells (what feels like) all the time, or it becoming hard to hit enemies due to the weird scaling of spell proficiencies and lack of potency runes, but it's ultimately an expectations adjustment; when you cast spells with the expectation of a successful save, enemies that fail it instead will make you (and your character's actions) feel that much more impactful, and even if they do succeed, then it's still a feeling of you doing what you intended to do, which I feel is what is more important in determining how happy you feel about being a spellcaster. (It also helps to target an enemy's weaker saving throw value, but that's a combat strategy issue, not a gameplay expectation issue, if that makes sense.)
Speaking for the Bard specifically, they are one of the most powerful classes in the game, not only because of their spell list, but because of their composition cantrips shifting the math to the PC's favor in constantly unique ways. If your group had even a 4th PC who was a martial, the Bard is making your fellow martials far more competent in hitting and damaging enemies, which in turn makes them feel more heroic (and the Bard feeling like they are doing their job).
The Cleric is also most likely going to be capable of finding traps, snuffing out lies/deception with Perception due to their Wisdom, and capable of in-combat and out-of-combat nonmagical healing with Medicine and the relevant skill feats. If they were a Warpriest Doctrine, then they would feel adequate when benefitting from the Bard's Inspire Courage composition cantrip and performing things like Channel Smite for that huge burst damage against tough enemies. Yes, the Warpriest Doctrine peaks at 11th level or so, then falls apart afterward, but that is more of a failure of class design than it is a failure of spells being bad.
The Barbarian is honestly the one I find the hardest to support simply because they are hard to build without having glaring flaws/issues or feeling like they are "missing something." On the one hand, being able to be a big, scary, intimidating character is practically the bread and butter of a Barbarian, and many such classes build this way. On the other hand, going this route in particular requires specific build choices or exposing blatant flaws in the character's defenses (most notably, AC and Reflex Saves). That being said, since you already have a Bard and Cleric in the group (whom are already going to have awesome/decent Charisma anyway), having to build that way seems hardly required for this character to function well, so unless your character specifically needs to be Intimidating (which is really the only reason you'd want to have higher Charisma), it's not the end of the world.
At the end of the day, though, if the players don't like the system, they don't like the system. Trying to force them to play something they don't like isn't really doing yourself or them any favors. The golden rule of "No gaming is better than bad gaming" rings true here. I would instead suggest that you either recruit other players to "redo" or continue the adventure path, or find another table to play at that has like-minded individuals that enjoy the system like you do.
Two facts, that I have forgotten,
1 - 3 player, but I "created" an Investigartor, "pg" like the 3 players + Investigator.
2 - 4-5 session, he make at leval 2.
I make tentative. I'm not attack 3 times a round, enemey what he another action 3 attacks, they don't serve (3° -10, he does't funcion).
They are, pf1: attack, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and player that have pf1 can get in "modality" pf1, like pf2 is different.
@Darksol the Painbringer: they are at 2nd level...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One issue with players who are used with PF1 (or D&D5) is that they first need to unlearn what they already know before starting PF2. Many players expect the exact same things that worked in PF1 to work in PF2 and unfortunately they don't.
I've seen more players who were playing PF1 or D&D5 before struggling (and die) than players who were completely new to Pathfinder/Dungeons and Dragons.
Let them pick new characters ( Alchemist, Swashbuckler and Witch ), and all will be over in a blink.
Boo.
In defense of Alchemists, after CRB 4º print and TV they become way more interesting and useful (but I still need to test).
So I suggest to switch for a Superstition Instinct Barbarian!
Ah, but unless the witch is divine or occult, the not accepting spells part isn't going to be that relevant. There will actually be class synergy. This is why I would suggest 3 divine witches, for minimal synergy and maximum overlap.In defense of Alchemists, after CRB 4º print and TV they become way more interesting and useful (but I still need to test).
So I suggest to switch for a Superstition Instinct Barbarian!
Primal too. Only arcane one maybe safe against the Superstition Instinct Barbarian "Rage"!