| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You definitely want an 18 in your main stat (with a few possible exceptions from certain classes), it's the best investment you can get in terms of overall returns.
But nothing is stopping your gnoll pledge from getting an 18 Charisma so I'm sort of confused as to why you think the character is unplayable.
Also worth noting that replacing your default ancestry boosts with two free boosts instead is a standard rule now, which gives you even more flexibility with your gnoll.
Secondary stats are a balancing act. Ideally you want as much AC as possible, but doing that is going to mean less Wisdom or Intelligence or Strength or Constitution, too. 16/18 is a really tight build.
I disagree that it's required though, notably because a number of classes cannot hit max AC at level 1 anyways, though it is something you generally want to try to aim for sooner rather than later.
The broader point is that, a little bit unfortunately, because they govern aspects of your survivability, Con, Dex, and Wisdom have a somewhat excess priority when compared to Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma.
The optimized bard would want lots of Cha, Dex, Wis, and Con at the expense of other stats... but worth putting in perspective that in a lot of these cases we're talking about things that only matter on a small number of die rolls. 14 vs 16 Dex for instance only matters on two possible outcomes on a d20 at most.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I used Pathbuilder to make a quick gnoll bard with "Sponsered by a Village" to get some base stats.
You have a 16 Charrisma, which is fine, and an AC of 17 which you can get to 19 with a shield (which anyone can use).
What I don't get is why he thinks the necessary formulae for success is an 18 in your main stat, minimum AC of 18, and DPR enough to wipe out any combat in three rounds. That doesn't sound a lot of what I hear other people talking about when they talk about the game.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So there's a lot of unknowns in this situation for us as forum-goers, but I'll make some broad statements (some which may not be shared by the overall community, so take it with a grain of salt).
1. I disagree that your primary ability score should be as high as possible. It does, however, make life easier for you and is something I recommend when you're learning the system. You can absolutely play a wizard with poor Intelligence or a charm-less bard, but it take some understanding of the system to get the most out of those.
2. Tactics trump all in combat. A character who can pump out the most DPR in a round is fantastic, but is of little use if he's bleeding out on the ground dead. Taking time to think through a combat or two is something I recommend. There is no singular answer to this, but people will generally give the same advice: Don't end your turns adjacent to the big, powerful enemy. Don't spend your entire turn Striking and nothing else. Don't forget to buff yourselves and debuff the opponent.
3. Talk with your GM. Your GM is playing the game, too, and should be looking to create a fun experience for everyone. It doesn't sound to me like your GM is communicating with all of you about their expected play experience. As well, in many of these scenarios where things are going off the rails quickly, there tends to be an element of "the GM has misread or misapplied some rule." If all of you are interested in playing PF2, I think it should be key that all of you are on the same page about how it's played.
That said, a few things from me reading your post. Outlaws of Alkenstar would likely not be my first choice for a group of players who have never played PF2 before, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly deadly AP (at least in book 1). It lacks many Severe encounters and seems to focus more on obstacles rather than combat. Could you describe what problems you faced when you did have combat?
When you talk about ability boosts, it makes me feel like you might be missing an important part of the rules, namely the "free ability boost" portion. So following the A, B, Cs of character building, you've given us enough to see just what sort of stats a gnoll bard could have.
Ancestry: Gnolls gain a bonus to Strength, Intelligence, one free boost, and a flaw to Wisdom. This means that our ability scores will already look like:
Str: 12 Dex: 10 Con: 10 Int: 12 Wis: 8 Cha: 10
Now, that free boost can go anywhere except Strength or Intelligence. Now, as I said up top, you can survive without pumping up your main ability score, but it will make life easier for you if you have never engaged with the game before. So we can toss that into Charisma to get...
Str: 12 Dex: 10 Con: 10 Int: 12 Wis: 8 Cha: 12
Moving on, we go to...
Background: With [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Backgrounds.aspx?ID=226]Sponsored by a Village[/u] you gain a boost to Intelligence or Wisdom as well as a free boost. Once more I recommend the free boost going to Charisma (unless you have a goal of paying a spell-less bard, which is another topic altogether). I'll just throw the "locked" boost into Intelligence. Maybe you enjoy the flaw as a character.
Str: 12 Dex: 10 Con: 10 Int: 14 Wis: 8 Cha: 14
Class: Now as a bard, you're locked into getting a singular boost to Charisma, so then our stats will go...
Str: 12 Dex: 10 Con: 10 Int: 14 Wis: 8 Cha: 16
And finally, we can't forget the secret "D" of the A, B, Cs: "Don't forget to add these four boosts."
Don't Forget To Add These Four Boosts (seriously, everyone seems to forget these their first play through): On the forums, you will often hear the adage of "Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom, and then your main ability score," which is good advice, but I don't emphasize it as I think players can enjoy the game without worrying about defenses overmuch. So let's throw those four boosts around...
Str: 14 Dex: 12 Con: 10 Int: 16 Wis: 8 Cha: 18
I went with Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Charisma here just because. Despite me saying to make simple characters to start with, this would be a strange character to play, but not one that is all that far off from what most players would want from their bards.
I typed that all out to say this: Are there any of these steps that you have missed or have skipped? Saying that you couldn't take your preferred background because it didn't give you Charisma caused me to raise an eyebrow. And it follows that I am curious about some of the other math you may be using. Are you making sure to add your level and proficency to armor class, spellcasting, and attacks? That's something that seems to come up when people are having trouble in the system.
I don't want any of this to sound like I'm talking down, just curious about what your situation is. Could you tell us how these combats tend to go?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would very much disagree that 18 AC is required. Maybe if you plan on getting into melee often and staying there, but even my wizards hover around 15 AC at level 1. It sounds like your GM read some general, helpful advice on Reddit and then took that to be iron-clad law. You can almost see the exchange playing out.
"My players keep going down in combat, what should I do?"
"Make sure they have max AC for their level, that means 13 for proficency and 5 for armor and Dex."
Which is sort of accurate, but misses the nuance of things like why the PCs are going down, what the class composition is, what enemies they're facing and so on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
enough DPR to clear the first encounter in 3 rounds or less or we will die. One of our other players has also been convinced that surviving comes down to pumping out as much DPR as possible, mid-combat heals or battlefield control spells be damned.
I think this is what concerns me the most about that entire first post.
The party needs to attack more than just the enemy's HP. They should be attacking their stats and actions too.
Action denial is huge. Removing one action from an enemy that has a brutal 3-action ability means that they can't use that ability that round.
-----
Coming from a D&D3.5/PF1 background is rough. That is known to be a hard transition. Read the other recent thread on the subject too. And maybe some of the other threads about how to stop TPK'ing the party. There have been several of those in the past too.
The summary is: the tactics and strategies that you learned from PF1 are actively punished in PF2.
* Blitzing down enemies full-attack style doesn't work. They have too much HP for that. You will end up swinging for a 3rd full-MAP attack (and almost certainly missing) and ending your turn in ideal position for the enemy to counterattack.
* Save or die spells have been removed by the Incapacitation trait and the 3 degrees of success.
Instead:
* Spend some actions on defense when it is appropriate. It really does help. Using your third action to raise shield or step/stride away from an enemy is great.
* Spend some thought and character build on teamwork. If you can spend an action setting up success for an ally, that is an action well spent. Often much more impact than a 3rd or even a 2nd attack.
-----
Also, check your relative level and other things for encounter design. This probably isn't a problem in the more recent APs like Outlaws of Alkenstar or Strength of Thousands. Make sure that the GM isn't looking at the printed encounters and going, "Huh, I wonder why it lists this as a moderate encounter? All of the enemies are one or two levels lower than the party. Strange, I'll just fix that real quick..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TBH with our GM also being new I don't think they would even know how to bump them up. I will say the encounter that wound up ending us was a level 4 clockwork and level 3 alchemist versus a level 3 party.
I did see that other thread recent thread, and between that and a few other things... part of me wonders if my GM and the other player are maybe getting their info from sources about 1e? Might that explain some of the suggestions from them that feel so at odds with everything else?
Certainly a good question, though I imagine PF1 advice and suggestions would be far more concrete (like, "Make sure you have invested heavily into accuracy feats," "Use this particular build," or "Ignore any and all non-damage actions." - Alright, they may be looking at that advice). I took a look at the encounter in question and saw that it was indeed a Severe one, but it seems manageable for a level 3 party. In particular, the more difficult of the two, the clockwork, is particularly weak to some basic spellcasting.
I know it's hard to say "this is exactly what happened in the combat," but are there any tried and true tactics that your party went in with? I'm sort of trying to picture where the pain points are and if they're GM-side or tactics-side.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Needing to recruit more members ate into our time and we were informed the alchemist was ducking town that day, so we couldn't afford to just rest up and come back another day after breaking through the defenses.Yeah this right here is just your GM being antagonistic.
Still, what concerned me was my GM seems convinced the game is just supposed to be super hard and punishing, and that we need to min-max if we want to see past the first book. Little bit of "I hope they're wrong." and a little bit of "How did they get this idea and how do I break them of it?"
This isn't a system issue, this is a GM issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 should not be a punishing ordeal - I mean, it is a game after all, not a nightmarish slog. I'm hoping that your GM is applying the rules for Grab correctly. I know that my first foray into PF2, I had mistakenly assumed some rules.
So to start with, the clockwork in question has a lot going against it. This one in particular is using the buzz-saw blade and nail gun, which don't seem nearly as bad to me - sort of wavering between the high to low end of expected damage. But things take a turn when the champion gets grabbed, really. This is where there's the "GM-side"/"tactics-side" tipping point (though if it's tactics, I would actually look more at some unfortunate rolls in this case).
So if the champion ends their turn next to the fabricator, it's a bit of a tactics problem. The fabricator can then...
1 Action - Strike: Pretty good odds to hit the champion there with the first attack (even if that champion has their shield up, we're talking +14 to hit here), but the damage is very much on the low end (about 11 damage, an easy Shield Block for the champion).
1 Action - Grab: Here's where there could be a GM thing. I've seen and heard of many GM's running Grab as a free action, which it emphatically is not. Not much you can do about this once you've been hit.
1 Action - Constrict: 2d4+4 damage with a Fort save for half - something the champion should be well suited to do. Low damage, low chance of failure. If the dice did turn against the champion here and they ended up with a critical failure, they should still take at most 24 damage, which a champion should be alright with.
From here, it sounds like the champion wasn't able to Escape, which is some more bad luck. What could then follow is another of the same turns. The GM should be aware that Grab falls off at the start of the turn for the clockwork, so it would need to either Athletics to Grab again and double Constrict or Strike/Grab/Constrict again.
Spellcasting here with only the bard isn’t really much of an issue - I mostly brought that up as the clockwork is weak to electricity and almost everyone I know seems to rush out a grab electric arc. It’s quite useful in this scenario.
The dice most certainly could be going against you, but it sounds like your GM might have gotten something wrong in the rules. And, I don’t necessarily blame them because they are easy to forget (especially if you come from PF1 or 3.5 where things like Improved Grab and the grapple rules functioned in that way).
Also, a few things to quickly add so you aren't feeling crazy or anything.
I, personally, don't think there's anything wrong with the heavily armored champion rushing up to the front lines and staying there, especially if they are keeping their AC up as best as they can. I wouldn't say that a champion being on the front line is a tactical failure.
The bard investing in heavy armor is a bit of an odd choice, not because it's bad, but just because it really doesn't increase their survivability. If anything, it tends to hamper it. What heavy armor proficency gives them is a +1 to AC and the ability to completely forget about their Dexterity. If they have a build looking to do that, it's entirely understandable! But just grabbing Armor Proficency isn't enough to say "I am now tanky." It feels like maybe this idea that AC should be at X level is missing out on the fact that it's very easy to get there without optimizing and that Armor Training is emphatically not optimizing - quite the opposite.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like your GM is still learning, too. And that's okay! It seems as though they're being a bit hardnosed about it. Part of the learning process is making mistakes just as much as it is really preparing and reading through the material. Being able to stop and say, "Y'know what, I made the mistake, let's try this again," is a good thing (and, admittedly, not easy to do).
As you'll note at the top of the clockwork's entry, they can indeed be identified with Crafting to Recall Knowledge, which should in the very least tell you that you can remove the arms or that they have a weakness to electricity (and resistance to physical).
I remember playing in PF1 and 3.5 and occasionally making mistakes, but they could be glossed over because... well, sometimes it didn't truly matter. I may have forgotten about a creature's weakness, but my players had builds that ended combats before they even started. In PF2, the rules truly do matter and something as small as "the creature Grabbed for free" can wildly unbalance a fight.
Quick edit: Also, it is endlessly entertaining to me how much of a glass cannon this creature is. Sure, 50 HP is quite a bit to chew through, but that AC means that it should be getting crit quite regularly even if your group is only doing basic tactics like flanking or Grappling. A gunslinger should have a field day even with the 4 resistance. By my math the gunslinger's got around a +11 to hit, meaning a 15% crit chance. Toss in a single trip or grapple and that jumps up to a 25% chance to crit!
Some things that came to my mind about the Setup
The Champion might have been to static, mit moving enough to force the enemy to move too (although the Grab isnof course a Problem)
Did the Champion have a shield, did He raise it?
What about the Champion reaction?
Maybe it would have been tactically better for the group to first down the enemy Alchemist
(And possibly easier)
Alchemist/Monk sounds like an oder Combi at first
Alchemist mutagenist with Monk archetype I would assume?
Also the Combo would be very multi ability dependant, having int for alchemy and dexterity for Monk stuff does not leave much room for strength (for grappling)
Bards are usually better off with light/medium Armor but are great Support for the Party with inspire courage
|
I think the Monk should have gone with the Champion to down that opponent faster and enable the Champion to use their reaction.
I once put my Bard in melee just so that the Paladin could get his free attack.
It is extremely important in PF2 to choose your target enemy as a group and work together to defeat them as fast as possible. Then proceed to the next target.
I also think AC18 is not required for a caster and finishing all combats in three rounds is nigh impossible. Not to mention focusing only on HP attrition is often a losing strategy, as mentioned previously.
From what I read about it Strength of Thousands has many non-combat solutions to encounters. I think your concept of a kholo (gnoll) Bard should work perfectly
Yeah, I would very much disagree that 18 AC is required. Maybe if you plan on getting into melee often and staying there, but even my wizards hover around 15 AC at level 1. It sounds like your GM read some general, helpful advice on Reddit and then took that to be iron-clad law. You can almost see the exchange playing out.
"My players keep going down in combat, what should I do?"
"Make sure they have max AC for their level, that means 13 for proficency and 5 for armor and Dex."
Which is sort of accurate, but misses the nuance of things like why the PCs are going down, what the class composition is, what enemies they're facing and so on.
In my games, the AC 18 at 1st level more routine than required. PF2 puts that AC within reach for most characters.
A character with Str 10 and Dex 18 and trained in light armor can put on leather armor for AC 18 = 10 + 3(trained proficiency) + 4(Dexterity) + 1(leather armor).
A character with Str 12 and Dex 16 and trained in light armor can put on studded leather armor for AC 18 = 10 + 3(trained proficiency) + 3(Dexterity) + 2(studded leather armor).
A character with Str 14 and Dex 14 and trained in medium armor can put on scale mail for AC 18 = 10 + 3(trained proficiency) + 2(Dexterity) + 3(scale mail).
A character with Str 16 and Dex 12 and trained in medium armor can put on a breastplate for AC 18 = 10 + 3(trained proficiency) + 1(Dexterity) + 4(scale mail).
A character not trained in any armor is either a monk or is supposed to avpid being the target of a Strike. A bard is trained in light armor and is trained in a few martial weapons such as the rapier, so they are expected to be in combat risking an enemy Strike.
A gnoll bard is harder to design than a human bard, because the gnoll's ability boosts are to Strength, Intelligence, and one other, and a bard favors Charisma and Dexterity. A relatively new optional rule is that any character of any ancestry could gain two free boosts from ancestry rather than their standard ancestral boosts, but let's assume that Urthdigger's GM did not allow that option. A gnoll's ability boosts suggest favoring Strength instead of Dexterity. Training in medium armor won't be available until 3rd level when the gnoll bard can take the Armor Proficiency general feat. Before that, the gnoll bard should use a shield. The gnoll has the advantage of a natural jaws attack, so he can skip carrying a weapon. One hand carries a shield and the other hand casts spells.
Sponsored by a Village is another odd choice for a bard, but it can provide training in Crafting. The gnoll bard might skip Armor Proficiency as their 3rd-level general feat and take Shield Block instead. Using Shield Block regularly requires Repairing the shield regularly.
One of our other players has also been convinced that surviving comes down to pumping out as much DPR as possible, mid-combat heals or battlefield control spells be damned. Naturally, this has made character creation rather strict.
Oh, that is bad advice, especially for a bard. Bards enhance the party and debuff enemies. They deal enough DPR to carry their weight in combat, but that is not their main purpose like with a fighter, barbarian, or blaster spellcaster. Since the players already had trouble with survival in Outlaws of Alkenstar, they need tactics more suited to staying alive, such a battlefield control.
The plan was for our champion to go in, tank it while making use of self-healing, while the bard tried to help me fish for crits and... some other stuff, didn't quite get all that they were doing.
,,,
There's undoubtedly plenty we could have done better tactically. Still, what concerned me was my GM seems convinced the game is just supposed to be super hard and punishing, and that we need to min-max if we want to see past the first book. Little bit of "I hope they're wrong." and a little bit of "How did they get this idea and how do I break them of it?"
PF2 thrives on teamwork. Teamwork thrives on knowing not only what the other PCs are doing, but also on knowing what the players like having their PCs do in the future. Strangely, the easiest way for the players to know what the other PCs are likely to do is to build for character-driven roleplaying, such as a gnoll bard who is beloved by their home village. Then roleplay that bard's personality so that all the other players know what to expect and to figure out how the bard fits into teamwork.
Decide on what the gnoll bard favors in combat. For example, he could go high DPR and take the Crunch gnoll feat 1. Tell the other PCs, "Home village honors its doughty fighters. I might sing songs about battle more than I engage in battle, but I can crunch bones like the best of them." He could select the Enigma muse and boast, "We gnolls are highly intelligent. I know the weaknesses of almost any species. And if I don't know the weakness, my true strike spell lets me hit them anyway." In contrast, with Maestro muse, the bard would brag, "I am a great songmaster and a great spellcaster. I will cast spells during combat and heal you afterwards." Let the other players know so that you all can mesh together as a team.
|
|
A gnoll bard is harder to design than a human bard, because the gnoll's ability boosts are to Strength, Intelligence, and one other, and a bard favors Charisma and Dexterity. A relatively new optional rule is that any character of any ancestry could gain two free boosts from ancestry rather than their standard ancestral boosts, but let's assume that Urthdigger's GM did not allow that option. A gnoll's ability boosts suggest favoring Strength instead of Dexterity.
The new rule is an option for the player. Not for the GM. Just like the rule it replaces (optional flaws).
Training in medium armor won't be available until 3rd level when the gnoll bard can take the Armor Proficiency general feat. Before that, the gnoll bard should use a shield.
Sentinel or Champion dedication at 2nd level gives Training in heavier armors.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The plan was for our champion to go in, tank it while making use of self-healing, while the bard tried to help me fish for crits and... some other stuff, didn't quite get all that they were doing. Meanwhile our alchemist/monk went into grapple the other alchemist and keep him out of the fight. The clockwork proceeded to hit the champion, get an automatic grab, proceeded to basically saw him in half (believe it got a crit), bard tried to help get him out, failed, clockwork finished him off, took out the bard in another turn (and this bard was specced out in heavy armor too), I realized things were hopeless and called for the other monk to flee with me so at least some of us would survive, but we got taken out with ranged bombs as we tried to escape down the corridor. I can probably point to the bard as our only real caster (We trusted the handbook for that AP, and it kinda discouraged having any), but I believe they already used up their spells on the trip down Hellside. Needing to recruit more members ate into our time and we were informed the alchemist was ducking town that day, so we couldn't afford to just rest up and come back another day after breaking through the defenses.
There's undoubtedly plenty we could have done better tactically. Still, what concerned me was my GM seems convinced the game is just supposed to be super hard and punishing, and that we need to min-max if we want to see past the first book. Little bit of "I hope they're wrong." and a little bit of "How did they get this idea and how do I break them of it?"
Reading between the lines here a bit, do you get a chance to rest up in between fights, or are you going into the next fight wounded and with low resources?
One of the things that adventure paths have a bit of a problem with is setting expectations of how hard the party has to push from encounter to encounter. The story often sounds like you can't afford to wait because [someone's been kidnapped/the bad guys are preparing to do something bad/the bad guys are fleeing]. Although if you read closely, there's no actual timeline written into the adventure saying "if the players take more than X time, the bad guys get away with it".
When called out on it, Paizo writers have generally said that the GM should be in control of that, and increase or decrease the hurry so that it works well in their campaign and with their group. But that is often not at all clear to a new GM.
PF2 tends to estimate encounter difficulty in isolation. A "moderate" encounter is moderately difficult for a group at full health and with a fair amount of spells left. If the group was already wounded from a previous fight, and didn't have time to heal, that would be a lot harder than moderate. Also, "moderate" sounds like a relaxed middle ground, but that's not what it means. It means moderately challenging but doable, not "easy". And "severe" really means that it's going to be hard.
As a GM, if the adventure doesn't specifically tell you that a pair of encounters need to be run quickly after another, then they don't have to be. That's just your decision as a GM, and you should keep in mind that that makes the encounters harder than designed.
---
TL;DR - I think the GM might be making things harder by insisting on "realistic" hurry more than the adventure is really balanced for, or than is actually asked for by the adventure as written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2 is a group game. You absolutely can't succeed indefinitely by playing it like D&D or even PF1. You have to work as a team. Debuff (using things like the Demoralize action). Flank. Aid another.
It can't be done like an MMO where you have one guy stand there and tank while his health bar goes up-down-up-down and being chain healed.
Use your actions for things besides 3 attacks.
Trip. Reposition.
PF2 is a robust game with lots of options.
Things will be a lot easier if you can maximize your main stat and AC, but it isn't required. I would recommend only more experienced players with a good grasp on the system (or a friend who can help them) play characters with less than the maximum in their main stat, as it requires being quite careful about feat and spell choices. As for AC, while I would say melee characters should strive to have an 18 at level 1, casters can get away with a little less if they can manage to stay at range most of the time.
I also don't know where your GM got that you should only focus on damage. Using teamwork to increase your chances of landing hits and spells (increasing other player's dpr) and using crowd control to waste the enemies actions will be very useful.
In the end, the game is supposed to be fun (though admittedly a little punishing in the early levels) and should allow you to play almost anything you want.
From other posts, it also sounds like your GM is still learning some of the mechanics and may be giving opponents too many actions and buffs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like a quick rundown of Grab is needed.
Grab is an ability that some monsters have on some of their attacks. Note, only some of their attacks - that is why the attack entry lists 'Grab'. Not because doing the grab is automatic and free.
Grab costs an action to use.
Improved Grab is identical to Grab except that it costs a free action. Note the different icon in the action entry line.
Grab causes the grappled condition. And it lasts until the end of the grabbing creature's next turn.
Grab can be used after a successful Strike, or if the target is already grabbed by them.
While a weapon with Grab is being used to grab a target, that attack can't be used for Strike. Not against the grabbed target, or against anyone else.
So, some scenario actions and turn routines:
Beginning of the monster's turn, and it has no one grabbed, but there is a target adjacent.
◆Strike (success), ◆Grab, ◆Constrict
And the target will be grabbed at the end of the turn.
Beginning of the monster's turn and it does have someone grabbed.
◆Grab, ◆Constrict, ◆Constrict
And the target will be grabbed at the end of the turn.
Beginning of the monster's turn and it does have someone grabbed.
◆Constrict, ◆Constrict, ◆Constrict
But the target will be automatically released at the end of the turn because Grabbed ends then if Grab is not used again.
Beginning of the monster's turn and it is prone and no targets are adjacent.
◆Stand, ◆Stride/Step, ◆Strike (success)
And the monster has no actions left to use Grab.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, "moderate" sounds like a relaxed middle ground, but that's not what it means. It means moderately challenging but doable, not "easy". And "severe" really means that it's going to be hard.
I would agree that the names are a bit misleading if you are using the normal meanings of those words.
But what Paizo means by these threat levels is defined here and their definitions are pretty accurate.
"Moderate-threat encounters are a serious challenge to the characters, though unlikely to overpower them completely. Characters usually need to use sound tactics and manage their resources wisely to come out of a moderate-threat encounter ready to continue on and face a harder challenge without resting."
You will have to spend resources like spell slots, consumables, or 1/day abilities in order to be successful - in addition to using good tactics. If things don't go according to plan, you will likely have to call it a day and do a full rest before adventuring more.
"Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat. These encounters are most appropriate for important moments in your story, such as confronting a final boss. Bad luck, poor tactics, or a lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open."
If you go into a severe encounter unexpectedly (the GM surprised you with one), or low on resources - you are going to be TPK'd. If your tactics are not fully on-point, you are going to be TPK'd. If the dice don't roll in your favor, you are going to be TPK'd. Unless you have some option of running from the fight if you start losing it, and can recognize that you are losing the fight early enough to start running.
I like how you demonstrate how good trip+walk away is with your last example.
Thanks. Yes, attacking an enemy's actions is a very useful thing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Monk should have gone with the Champion to down that opponent faster and enable the Champion to use their reaction.
I once put my Bard in melee just so that the Paladin could get his free attack.
It is extremely important in PF2 to choose your target enemy as a group and work together to defeat them as fast as possible. Then proceed to the next target.
I also think AC18 is not required for a caster and finishing all combats in three rounds is nigh impossible. Not to mention focusing only on HP attrition is often a losing strategy, as mentioned previously.
From what I read about it Strength of Thousands has many non-combat solutions to encounters. I think your concept of a kholo (gnoll) Bard should work perfectly
That is my vibe. Dividing and conquering was the wrong approach here. The champion and monk would both do better with a flanking buddy and someone to trigger the reaction. "Keeping the alchemist out of the fight" sounds like it mostly means the alchemist could target the party without splashing their ally. And if your own alchemist had bottled lightning they could have REALLY helped on that construct.
I'd suggest trying the Recall Knowledge action, but making sure your GM has read and recognizes a success gets you something USEFUL, which means actionable for your party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what concerned me was my GM seems convinced the game is just supposed to be super hard and punishing, and that we need to min-max if we want to see past the first book. Little bit of "I hope they're wrong." and a little bit of "How did they get this idea and how do I break them of it?"
Yes, that concerns me also.
Previous editions are an arms race between the players creating more powerful characters and GMs trying to outwit the players with sneaky tricks on the enemies that target the weaknesses that the player characters have. It is honestly a bit toxic of a competitive relationship.
PF2 really doesn't do that. If the GM and the players get into a competitive relationship, the GM will 'win'. And then nobody will have any fun.
The GM needs to play the characters that are the antagonists of the player's characters. But the GM needs to be an ally of the players. Withholding necessary information, pushing PCs to hurry unprepared and weakened into a severe threat encounter, and making rules rulings always be the worst possible outcome for the player characters... that isn't going to work.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the ancestry and background I picked for my bard don't directly help with being a bard. Both were purely for flavor, as I fell in love with the description of the gnolls' culture as folks who do what makes sense to them and come across as monstrous, while actually being big puppy dogs when you get to know them. And I don't exactly want to min-max either. My GM feels we have to, and I kinda posted this mostly to figure out who is right. I want to do what makes a good story, not just make Spreadsheet Joe who's just a collection of numbers to throw at enemies.
This paragraph makes me delightfully happy!
I'm new to PF2 myself, having come from D&D (amongst tastes of a variety of other systems). Sadly my playgroup ends up closer to the Spreadsheet Joe end of the spectrum, but I LOVE the approach you're talking about. It's more in line with how I build my characters as well (but also I'm too lazy to look for "best" options and just follow the Rule of Cool instead).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know the ancestry and background I picked for my bard don't directly help with being a bard. Both were purely for flavor, as I fell in love with the description of the gnolls' culture as folks who do what makes sense to them and come across as monstrous, while actually being big puppy dogs when you get to know them. And I don't exactly want to min-max either. My GM feels we have to, and I kinda posted this mostly to figure out who is right. I want to do what makes a good story, not just make Spreadsheet Joe who's just a collection of numbers to throw at enemies.This paragraph makes me delightfully happy!
I'm new to PF2 myself, having come from D&D (amongst tastes of a variety of other systems). Sadly my playgroup ends up closer to the Spreadsheet Joe end of the spectrum, but I LOVE the approach you're talking about. It's more in line with how I build my characters as well (but also I'm too lazy to look for "best" options and just follow the Rule of Cool instead).
That's why I play PF2 instead of any other system.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show your GM this thread.
Have your GM give your party a free level to make encounters easier while you're learning the game.
Build and play the character you enjoy. The difference between a fun build and an over-optimized build is really very small in PF2.
If you over-optimize against your wishes, not only will your character not fare much better but you will have far less fun playing.
The GM is as new as the rest of us, and at this point I'm chalking up prior difficulties to us needing to learn better tactics and the GM needs to learn to stop making things unintentionally harder. At this point now I suppose my biggest problem is getting everyone on board. The GM is convinced the game is just supposed to be this hard, and both him and one of the other players (the magus and bard from last game) are convinced pure DPR are all that matters. Breaking some entrenched thoughts is gonna be tough, but I fear it's either that or find a new group. In the meantime... I wonder if convincing the GM to apply the weak template to mobs may be sufficient. Phrasing it as a small handicap to help us while we're learning, since he's so eager to look at things like stamina systems and adjusting character creation to help in this "harsh and unforgiving" system as it is.
Yes, breaking out of entrenched habits is hard. Especially with the new game system looking so similar to other game systems on the surface.
It isn't the rank and file mobs that need the weak template. It is the bosses.
In looking at encounters, the threat level of the encounter as a whole is only one of the two major elements of setting difficulty. The other is the creature level of each of the creatures. Those also have a description in the Building Encounters rules that will make the 'level +/-X' a lot more meaningful.
"level -1: Any standard creature" These are the typical rank and file creatures that you are going to be facing in groups of about your own party size.
"level +0: Any standard creature or low-threat boss" Those are actually two different things. A standard creature is one that has few special abilities. They are rank and file enemies that just happen to be tougher than the level -1 ones. A low-threat boss is a creature of that same level that has special abilities. Such as Grab. Or AoE attacks. Or reactions that get triggered frequently.
"level +3: Severe- or extreme-threat boss" These are creatures so dangerous that they can drop characters from full HP to dying in one round - with average dice rolls. These are the ones that need the Weak template on them for beginners to the system.
But yes, if the GM is looking for ways to make the challenge of the game less, that is a good sign.
Previous editions are an arms race between the players creating more powerful characters and GMs trying to outwit the players with sneaky tricks on the enemies that target the weaknesses that the player characters have. It is honestly a bit toxic of a competitive relationship.
Doing the opposite is why my players like my GM style so much. I throw powerful enemies at the party so that the players can show how awesome their characters are by winning. They usually figure out how to target the weaknesses of the enemies.
I know the ancestry and background I picked for my bard don't directly help with being a bard. Both were purely for flavor, as I fell in love with the description of the gnolls' culture as folks who do what makes sense to them and come across as monstrous, while actually being big puppy dogs when you get to know them. And I don't exactly want to min-max either. My GM feels we have to, and I kinda posted this mostly to figure out who is right. I want to do what makes a good story, not just make Spreadsheet Joe who's just a collection of numbers to throw at enemies.
You are right and your GM is wrong. Unusual choices do not mean a weak character; rather, they mean a character who fights differently than the most common habits. That can be effective if done right. The best way to prove that to get the PCs to work together as a team. A big puppy dog gnoll with high Charisma is a good start on a band of buddies.
Back to strategy. Ched Greyfell in comment #23 pointed out that Trip and Reposition are good tactics. breithauptclan in comment #25 gave an example of how Trip can negate a creatures ability to exploit a Strike with Grab. I am going to add that the value of Trip depends on the teamwork.
Trip is a Strength-based Athletics check against the target's Reflex DC that knocks the target prone. It deals damage only on a critical hit, and that 1d6 bludgeoning damage is trivial past 1st and 2nd level. The Prone condition renders a creature flat-footed and gives a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls. However, Trip does not really open up better attacks for the character who did the Tripping, because it counts as an attack and imposes a multiple attack penalty. The -2 to target's AC is overwhelmed by the -5 or -4 from MAP. Rather, Trip is a defensive move to force the opponent to waste actions. From a single-character DPR-above-all viewpoint, Trip is useless.
However, Trip also greatly aids the offense of other party members. Consider if the party had a rogue. The tripped opponent is now flat-footed for a -2 to AC and subject to sneak attack damage. Consider if the party has a fighter. The tripped opponent standing up provokes an attack of opportunity from the fighter. The prone condition allows Take Cover against ranged attacks, but since the target was tripped outside their turn, they lack an action to Take Cover so that advantage is moot. If the other party members are ready to gang up on the tripped opponent, then Trip is a powerful offensive move. If the other party members have the view of letting the bard handle their own fights, then the Trip would have no offensive advantage.
The bard needs a team to really shine. A gnoll bard who keeps the natural Strength of a gnoll and trains in Athletics would be a good character for tripping opponents to set up other PCs for effective attacks. In an uncooperative party the team can be as small as the bard and one other PC willing to work with the bard. So Urthdigger needs to convince only one other player about teamwork.
I have a good example of a decisive trip in a real game. I threw a 4th-level barbarian against my 3rd-level party. The party included 2 rogues and had an NPC rogue assisting them, so this should have been an easy battle. But the barbarian had Deny Advantage, so he did not become flat-footed from flanking. The rogues did not deal much damage due to the lack of sneak attack. The Scoundrel-racket rogue tried his Feint, but the roll failed. Then the ranger in the party, who happened to wield a +1 kukri with the trip trait found as treasure, tripped the barbarian. Suddenly the barbarian was flat-footed to three rogues. He did not survive long enough to stand up again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Build and play the character you enjoy. The difference between a fun build and an over-optimized build is really very small in PF2.
And with tactical play, the fun build wins more than the over-optimized build, because fun encourages creative tactics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk of tripping made me have to check... Yup, bards are proficient with whips, a reach weapon with trip. Might make for a good way to trip without remaining next to them and still have an action for inspire courage ya?
Yesssss. Now you're thinking.
I have a Witch with a +1 strength. I picked up (non increasing) martial weapon proficiency from an ancestry feat, put a skill boost or two into athletics (often a good idea in general anyway) and snagged a whip. I don't use it for dealing damage. It is for tripping enemies from a 10 foot reach.
|
One thing about the champion—moving is often a good action to force the enemy to use an action to get in range but the champion also needs to be cognizant of where their allies are. They need to keep their position within 15' of both the enemy and their allies.
The champion reaction is fantastic. In heavy melee, they should be using it virtually every round. The monk and champion splitting up is a mistake. The champion's Achilles heel is they can't use their reaction for themselves, only for allies. So entering melee in a way that the champion is the only available target of the enemy in range of the reaction means you're guaranteeing the reaction isn't going to get used.
A lot of people have given great advice here. So I'll just agree with the general idea—tactics are more important than DPR.