
Radu the Wanderer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Hey, forums.
I'm a long time gamer, 1E veteran, and a player of numerous game systems. I love games, RPGs especially, and I'm a big fan of Paizo. I wanted to say that up front because I'm about to dive into some issues I've been experiencing, and I hope that understanding how I feel helps put things into context.
I have joined up with a new game group recently, and am joining them mid-way through the campaign they are playing. I believe they are doing some variation of one of the AP's- I think maybe Age of Ashes?
At any rate, the party is all level 7, I was given a +1 striking weapon of my choice, a +1 resilient armor of my choice, and 1500 gp budget for items to kit myself out with, which seems pretty fair.
The first character I built was an investigator, Professor Bartholomew Digby, who taught history at a gnomish college and decided to take sabbatical and do some field research. I kitted myself out to be a largely ranged support character, who used the empiricism methodology and various feats to maximize my Recall Knowledge checks and the return I could get. Idea: I strike and/or study the enemy, learn their weaknesses, and provide that to the party. If the enemy stays at range, I support with Devise a Strategem, shortbow strike, and a move action as needed to reposition. If it gets to melee, I have Dirty Trick for some unexpected debuffing and a shortsword. I had great plans of being "Indiana Jones meets Guy Fieri" with an unpredictable mix of erudite professorisms and wild excitement as I encounter something new.
It lasted all of 1 encounter in the first session. I failed an acrobatics check to cross a rickety pier, fell into the water where I was set upon by 3 crocodile-like monsters, and within 2 rounds was brought to Dying 1. I made my recovery check only to be critically hit twice the next round, straight to dying infinity. "Fun."
The next character was an Elf rogue (thief) with some swashbuckler dipping, who I wanted to play as a total goth, full of boredom from such a long life, so off adventuring we go! Lots of daring, thrill of adrenaline type things... in my imagination.
I have a +17 Deception check, but in the first battle against something that (admittedly) was a bit of a solo boss monster, I was only able to successfully Feint with a roll of at least 14. I tried to use Tumble Through, to equally unspectacular results. The enemy's AC was high enough that even if I bluffed, I still had to roll at least a 12 to hit, even with a +16 on my rapier strikes. I never bothered making secondary attacks, preferring to try to debuff, reposition, etc. I had an almost impossible time getting ONE hit in, much less follow up attacks at bigger and bigger penalties.
This enemy had a greatclub, knockdown, and an opportunity attack that meant once he hit (and he basically ALWAYS hit), he got a free trip attempt (which he nearly always made) and did a boatload of damage. WHen you're prone, you can't crawl away or stand because he gets a free attack (which also has knockdown). It only occurred to me later that I could have used my Mobility feat to crawl 10 feet away, then stand, and avoid a hit. In combat I was just frustrated.
My second character didn't die... but in 2 rounds I was dropped to 3 hit points. I very much could have. And the entire game session, I never dealt a single point of damage. I didn't do a single thing that contributed ANYTHING AT ALL except soak up attacks, and that's not really a consolation.
Is pathfinder even worth playing if you're not a caster? The Sorcerer in the party on a flying broom was the only person who made any impact at all. I don't feel like a hero, I feel like Nodwick the hireling... only not even that. At least Nodwick gets a name. I never even got to introduce myself to the party before dying in my first encounter with my investigator, and the session ended after the last completely unfulfilling, grindy, near tpk encounter with said greatclub boss dude.
So my question is this: What's the point of AC if every enemy basically always hits you? Why bother investing in skills if the one's you're the best at don't even have a 50% chance of success? Who cares what your class DC is- enemies rarely ever fail and never by 10 points so that Critical Failure on spells is essentially only there for PC rolls.
Next game I wanna play as one of the monsters and at least get to feel marginally competent. I've literally had better luck playing Call of Cthulhu characters and level 0 apprentices in prior games, because at least then I didn't kid myself into thinking my character had any real capability.
I'm extremely demoralized and discouraged, and honestly, I don't want to be! I want to be excited about Pathfinder 2 and I just can't find it, which is a shame because 1st edition was amazing and I have some of my fondest gaming memories playing it.
What am I missing? I've got a 25 AC and as high of an attack as I can manage, a +17 to my best skill, +4 Dex, and I still felt worse than useless. Honestly, it would have been a better way to contribute to the fight by NOT trying to attack and staying just outside of the monster's reach- the one thing I DID feel good about was having a 40 foot move and Mobility. Everything aside from that just seemed pointless.
I'm getting Steve Jackson Games flashbacks.... shudder....

Finoan |
14 people marked this as a favorite. |

PF2 has a very different meta-strategy and character design that PF1 does. That influences a lot of things that can be hard to make the switch because of.
That meta switch is that characters are not necessarily superheroes. They are cinematic heroes. Let me explain.
Superheroes (PF1 heroes) have superpowers. They have some trick or two that they never fail at. Their bonuses to their rolls are too high.
Cinematic heroes (PF2 heroes) are heroes because they fight even if the odds aren't always in their favor.
What does this affect:
Skills: If the GM is causing catastrophic consequences for a simple failure of a skill check, then it is no wonder that you are frustrated. PF2 characters are expected to fail their skill checks that they are fully invested in about 40% of the time. The GM needs to know how to fail forward - not kill characters for failing one skill check.
Combat: You don't solo enemies. Combat is a tactical dance where the entire party needs to not overextend - spend some thought on your defenses and putting your enemies at a disadvantage. A rushdown strategy is going to fail more often than not.
-----
Now, that said, Age of Ashes is known to be rather overtuned. The AP was written when even the developers weren't fully aware of those lessons and practical differences between the two systems that I just summarized in this post.
So in that combat where you got wrecked by the enemies, check with the GM and see if that is because the enemies are at your level +3 or so. If you are level 7 and going up against a level 10 enemy, yeah. They crush face. Just by their numbers. You aren't able to punch above your weight class like that in PF2.

Perpdepog |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also curious how an enemy had a Reactive Strike-like ability that also lets them knock someone prone? I don't think I've encountered such a reaction before, and that is an incredibly potent ability to give to a reaction, as you discovered. The ability to Knockdown is meant to also be an action, meaning that big club guy is compressing two actions into one as a reaction, which is pretty bonkers.
That makes me wonder if your GM misread the ability, or cooked it up themself, because that sounds outside what kinds of abilities you'd typically see around levels 7 to 10.
Also, to piggyback a little off what Finoan said, are you guys tag-teaming these monsters together? That can make a big difference. I'm assuming you guys are, and that dice were just being poopy, but it's generally good to repeat.
Normally I'd also point out that your high movement speed is actually pretty great, you can dart in, Strike, and then move back, forcing the enemy to chase you and eat up their own actions, but with this guy having Reactive Strike--which isn't supposed to be a very common ability, though I know it may not feel like it right now--that's not as much of an option.

Conscious Meat |
8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on what I read, your character is severely underleveled. Did the GM have you create characters that are behind the rest of the party? Because that is *not* going to work well, given how levels factor directly into proficiencies and DCs.
What you described corresponds to Age of Ashes, Book 3, D1 (a Moderate 9 encounter) and E2 (a Moderate 9 encounter as well). Characters are expected to be level 9, in other words.
Also, the GM is probably running the NPCs incorrectly. Per Pathfinder Bestiary p343 (or Monster Core p359, if migrated to using remastered rules), for instance, Knockdown still requires an action for the monster to use; it's not free (the enemy in question only has regular knockdown, not improved knockdown).

Deriven Firelion |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Welcome to PF2. I felt the same way when I tried PF2 along with a lot of others. The more you play PF2, the more it grows on you.
It's easy to play. Balanced. Easier to DM than almost edition of the game ever.
But it's not as player friendly as previous editions, mostly PF1 and 3E. But it's way easier to run and players are good enough to feel power progression once you learn now to play PF2.
PF2 doesn't value individual power as highly and is built for group power.
Not sure what else to tell you as you will feel far weaker than previous versions, especially PF1 and 3E. But your DM will have a far easier time running the game leading to a better overall group experience.

Cyouni |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Now, that said, Age of Ashes is known to be rather overtuned. The AP was written when even the developers weren't fully aware of those lessons and practical differences between the two systems that I just summarized in this post.
One other thing is that it's less that it's overtuned and more that it's written for a PF1 design ethos. I think it's also overtuned in some spots as well, but the main consideration is more the structural issues.
So there's a lot less lower level enemies than PF2 generally expects to feel good, and focuses a lot more on higher level single enemies.But yes, if you're playing Age of Ashes book 3, you're supposed to be level 9. So if you're not level 9, that's immediately going to be really rough, since you're at least -2 on where the game expects you to be. I smelled something weird when the +1 resilient armour was mentioned, as that's a level 8 item, not something usually given to a new level 7 character.
Assuming the analysis was made on the encounters was right, I'm glancing at them and I'm seeing three level 8 monsters in the first encounter, and a level 10 in the second. There's absolutely no wonder that you'd struggle in these encounters. By this point, you're supposed to be close to level 10, and have gear and stats reflecting this. A single level 7 character falling into combat with three level 8 monsters has basically no chance, especially if caught off guard and in their terrain. The level 10 enemy is supposed to be far less of a module-ending boss than he would have showed up as to you, as at the proper level he would have been relatively tough but overall not that much of an issue.

magnuskn |
23 people marked this as a favorite. |

I've read a lot of "We are getting our faces caved in!" threads over the last year here and on Reddit, and it almost always comes down to a case of "The GM doesn't know what he is doing".

SuperBidi |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

What am I missing?
You're coming from PF1.
Very strangely, pure beginners, with no knowledge of prior systems, fare much better in PF2 than players coming from PF1 and D&D5 as the latter ones bring a lot of assumptions that don't work in PF2 and actually play against them.
PF2 is a completely different game, don't bring PF1 expectations, none will be met. It's much harder, more party focused, you'll get knocked out often, bosses are super scary and play with the cheat mode on and so on.
Once you get used to it, you won't come back to PF1 ever. But before that, it will be a bit of a pain.
Also, I feel that your GM is not taking the time to include you. You are new to the system and they start by outright killing your character. It very much doesn't sound like a helpful GM who takes the time to get you onboard. I don't want to put the blame on anyone but what happened to you doesn't sound right.

Quentin Coldwater |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

People have already made really helpful comments, but I'd like to add some more:
- Yes, it feels a bit frustrating that "excelling" at something means you only have like a 50%-60% shot at succeeding. I admit, it's something you have to get used to. There's no real solution to that, other than using teamwork. Debuffing enemies and buffing your allies really helps, a lot.
- Enemies have high to hits. But that's by design. Unlike in PF1, they're not built like PCs, meaning they get a lot more power budget. You will most likely get hit by the enemy's first attack. The trick is action denial and making sure their second hit will miss. Knocking an enemy prone means they have to waste an action standing up, which they then can't use to attack. If you have three actions and you stand in reach of an enemy, hit once, raise your shield (or try a second attack), then move away. That way, the enemy can't just wail on you three times. PF2 is a much more tactical game than PF1, and can punish bad plays a lot more. But conversely, smart plays will reward you all the more as well.
- Similarly, enemy saves are (usually) pretty high as well. That's again where debuffing comes in. You're forced to work together to make things stick. Some people like that, and some people don't. Enemies will rarely crit fail a save, but with effective debuffing, you can swing that in your favour. But I agree that it feels like crit fails feel more designed for players than for enemies, and that's something you have to accept. But when those crit fails do happen, whoo boy.
- With high enemy AC, don't expect to attack three times and hit three times as well. Most enemies have an AC where you have, again, a 50%-60% chance of hitting on your first attack. The -5 multiple attack penalty means the second attack only has a roughly 25% chance of connecting, unless you swing the odds in your favour. I usually only attack a second time when I am reasonably sure I have a chance of connecting. Otherwise, do something that makes the life of the enemy harder: move away, raise shield, debuff (demoralise is a really good aciton). Flanking means that 25% rises to a 35%. A simple debuff makes that 40%. Those are decent odds.
Finally, I think Pathfinder Second Edition is just a tough game. Like other people said, you're not superheroes. But it can be if you want it to be. If you find things are too tough, ask your GM to tone things down a little. Lower DCs by 2 or 3, use the Weak template on enemies, and you'll have a much more enjoyable time if you just want to stomp enemies. And there's nothing wrong with wanting that, it's just that 2e expects a grittier game than you're used to/want.

yellowpete |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's super dependent on adventure design, as single enemy encounters play so, so differently from group encounters. They require different strategies and have more potential for frustration as a decent amount of the power differential is achieved via increased modifiers (as you've noticed). But one thing is almost always true even with monsters slightly weaker than you: that your AC is more of a measure of how often you get crit, rather than how often you get hit (on their first strike of the turn). You will get hit, and survival is more about damage mitigation, healing and focus firing (so you take less damage quicker) than about pumping AC which is very tightly limited.
As for your specific experiences:
The crocodile thing seems like a failure of the GM to onboard you as a new player tbh, or maybe just to properly communicate the stakes in general. The knockdown thing could be a mistake as it would require Improved Knockdown, which is very rare at that level range (regular Knockdown requires an action to use and so cannot be tacked onto a reaction as you're describing). But going down next to an enemy with Reactive Strike is brutal in any case unless you have Kip Up.
In the end, the next step as always is to communicate what you've said here with your GM and the other players, and to see if you can align your expectations of tone and difficulty with one another.

![]() |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

I'm a lot less knowledgeable than the others giving you advice here, but even I can spot a problem with how your GM is running things. You said you were level 7... and your sorcerer is throwing spells from a flying broom? That's a level 12 item. IF you are at the same level as everyone else, that item SHOULD NOT be there. (PF2e is very careful about flying given exactly what you witnessed). If the sorcerer is appropriately leveled for the broom (at least level 11) then you are WAY underpowered.
and to not harsh too much on your GM, if the other players didn't warn you about getting close to a creature that might have reactive strike (as a new player you can't be expected to know that) and then just left you there, never tried to get you out and help you, that's some bad team work from them. You were new, you should have gotten some help and advice, even just some table talk saying "Wait, that could be a bad idea".
Sorry you had such a bad experience with PF2e, and I definitely understand how rough that must have felt. Hopefully it won't badly color the system for you. But whatever happens, I wish nothing but fun games for you in the future, whatever you play.

HammerJack |

Is it an extra-large group of PCs? I've run Age of Ashes, and I know that the general encounters in that area would go from Moderate to "each is a TPK-risk" with a party of 4 level 7 PCs. It makes me wonder if the GM has kept a very large party underlevelled, instead of levelling them at the expected rate and adjusting encounters for the party size, or something.
(It isn't an approach I'd advise someone to take, but I could see how someone might think it was a good idea.)
The way Knockdown was being run was definitely an error, though. That NPC doesn't have Improved Knockdown.

Easl |
You said you were level 7... and your sorcerer is throwing spells from a flying broom? That's a level 12 item. IF you are at the same level as everyone else, that item SHOULD NOT be there. (PF2e is very careful about flying given exactly what you witnessed).
I started thinking the same thing, but Fly is rank 4 so then I wondered if this was just a Fly spell with the PC and GM adding in a fun special effect.
Solo boss fight probably means L+ 1 or 2, so that could be why OP was under 50% at most checks.
But whatever happens, I wish nothing but fun games for you in the future, whatever you play.
Me too! Hopefully the GM will throw some L- mobs at the group in future sessions, let the OP cut his teeth on some easier foes.

R3st8 |
Superheroes (PF1 heroes) have superpowers. They have some trick or two that they never fail at. Their bonuses to their rolls are too high.
Cinematic heroes (PF2 heroes) are heroes because they fight even if the odds aren't always in their favor.
I would disagree with the notion that risk-taking is inherently heroic. For instance, we typically do not consider gamblers as heroic figures. Risk-taking becomes particularly problematic when the lives of others hinge on one's decisions.
Consider a scenario where a pilot opts for a risky flight path over a war zone in hopes of arriving faster to save a little girl’s life. While the girl and her parents may perceive this action as heroic, the other passengers—whose safety is jeopardized—might label him reckless. In reality, such a decision could lead to severe consequences for the pilot, including legal action and revocation of his license.

Finoan |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Finoan wrote:I would disagree with the notion that risk-taking is inherently heroic.Superheroes (PF1 heroes) have superpowers. They have some trick or two that they never fail at. Their bonuses to their rolls are too high.
Cinematic heroes (PF2 heroes) are heroes because they fight even if the odds aren't always in their favor.
That is fine. Especially since that isn't what I said.
I didn't say that PF2 character are required to do things in a riskier manner than expected.
I said that PF2 character are heroes because they do what is needed. Even if the odds aren't favoring their success.
For example, flying the plane through the safer designated areas and doing more medicine checks in turbulent terrain and with low supplies to keep the the little girl alive. That is still heroic.

Mathmuse |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Radu the Wanderer wrote:What am I missing?You're coming from PF1.
Very strangely, pure beginners, with no knowledge of prior systems, fare much better in PF2 than players coming from PF1 and D&D5 as the latter ones bring a lot of assumptions that don't work in PF2 and actually play against them.
PF2 is a completely different game, don't bring PF1 expectations, none will be met. It's much harder, more party focused, you'll get knocked out often, bosses are super scary and play with the cheat mode on and so on.
Different but not completely different. My players had developed a teamwork style of playing PF1 that worked without change in PF2. As Deriven Firelion said, "PF2 doesn't value individual power as highly and is built for group power." My players would observe their opponents' strengths and weaknesses and adjust their tactics to nullify the strengths and exploit the weaknesses. Different PCs received a chance for glory whenever they were the key to an effective tactic.
Once you get used to it, you won't come back to PF1 ever. But before that, it will be a bit of a pain.
Two of my players are also playing in a PF1 Tyrant's Grasp campaign. They still enjoy PF1.
Consider Radu the Wanderer's investigator, Professor Bartholomew Digby. He fell into the water and faced three-crocodile-like monsters. Let me assume those monsters were Crocodiles with Elite template, a 3rd-level creature. Three elite crocodiles would be 30 xp, a trivial encounter against a 7th-level 4-member party. But against a single 7th-level investigator, they would be the equivalent of a 120-xp Severe-Threat encounter. And PF2 crocodiles are designed to grab and cripple a single target, based on the hunting style of real crocodiles. A single 3rd-level crocodile will have difficulty grabbing a 7th-level character, but with 3 of them, one is going to roll lucky. The weakness of a PF2 crocodile is that while it is dealing with its single victim, the rest of the party is unimpeded and busy attacking it to save their fellow party member.
Where was that sorcerer on the flying broom? They should have been hitting the crocodile with Ray of Frost or some other ranged cantrip. And the party should have had a martial character pulling out a bow and shooting arrows into the crocodiles. The investigator would be highly injured but the 3 crocodiles should have died to rapid teamwork within the 2 rounds. Afterwards, Treat Wounds should restore the investigator to full hit points.
The next character was an Elf rogue (thief) with some swashbuckler dipping, who I wanted to play as a total goth, full of boredom from such a long life, so off adventuring we go! Lots of daring, thrill of adrenaline type things... in my imagination.
I have a +17 Deception check, but in the first battle against something that (admittedly) was a bit of a solo boss monster, I was only able to successfully Feint with a roll of at least 14. I tried to use Tumble Through, to equally unspectacular results. The enemy's AC was high enough that even if I bluffed, I still had to roll at least a 12 to hit, even with a +16 on my rapier strikes. I never bothered making secondary attacks, preferring to try to debuff, reposition, etc. I had an almost impossible time getting ONE hit in, much less follow up attacks at bigger and bigger penalties.
Wait, why was the rogue feinting? Surely another party member was flanking opposite the rogue, right? Also, one of my players played a swashbuckler and gaining panache against a single lone boss by Tumble Through or other methods was unlikely. Paizo redesigned the swashbuckler to reduce that flaw in Player Core 2.
Needing to roll 12 to hit a level+3 boss enemy is typical. This balances against 4 party members attacking or debuffing the boss.
Next game I wanna play as one of the monsters and at least get to feel marginally competent. I've literally had better luck playing Call of Cthulhu characters and level 0 apprentices in prior games, because at least then I didn't kid myself into thinking my character had any real capability.
In my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign the PCs recruited the 12th-level paladin/summoner Colga into the party. Some details are at Summoner: How well does it perform? comment #22 and So in 2E, is it normal to just feel... really weak? comment #89 and that later thread as a lot of discussion of tactics. Colga was built by the monster rules, since she was an adversary until the party proved they were on her side and asked her to accompany them. Thus, she hit as well as the 14th-level party members, but was short on skills and feats.
Those skills and feats matter during teamwork tactics. They let the party adapt to different kinds of opponents. But the monsters are designed to be easy to play, so they have good numbers for two or three different tactics instead of good feats that enable a dozen tactics. My players try to never let the opponent use their favorite attacks. They stay at range against a melee expert, stay hidden or close in against a ranged expert, get Reactive Strike in the face of a spellcaster, etc. Colga could hit, protect with her champion's reaction, and guide them though dwarven ruins. Her eidolon Rathan could scout. Those four uses were all she brought to the party, so she was quite limited.

Radu the Wanderer |

I think, after reading through this, maybe it's a combination of several factors. One is that when only 3 people show up, the game is tougher anyway.... another is that we appear to be under-leveled for the threats we're facing. Both good points, and I take them under consideration. I did really try to look for ways to debilitate the enemy, whether through feinting to make it off-guard, tripping or disarming to burn actions, and eventually, running away and using my 40 foot move to stay out of its reach. SUPER HEROIC!!! I ran away and did nothing!!! (this is sarcasm, but accurately conveys the emotional truth of my experience.)
I see many many good points being made about the value of tactics, varying your play, and team work, and I take that to heart. I do appreciate that party buffs, debuffs, positioning, and combos are what makes the game hum, and I like that.... to a point.
What I really hate is the feeling that even with the maximum Deception check I could get at level 7, I don't even have a 50/50 chance of doing the thing that I'm best at. That's incredibly demoralizing, and leaves me feeling useless. If I can't feint to get them off-guard and get a panache going, I can't use my finisher, I can't deal sneak attack damage, and I can't even hit! And, of course, I only have a +11 Athletics check, so if a +17 Deception won't work, why would I even BOTHER trying to trip or disarm my opponent? I'm 6 points down from my best skill, which is already going to fail 65% of the time. So... shooting for a nat 20? Really? That's what being a PC in this game is? No, thank you.
If this is what the math truly is, then it may be that this isn't the game for me. I don't need to be an infallible super-hero, but I do feel like numbers need to matter. And I truly don't feel like they do.
Enemies miss so seldomly that there's little point in trying to get your AC high- even if I had a shield, that +2 would have made absolutely ZERO impact. I still would have been hit by that club, still would have been dealt about 40% of my HP from one hit, and still would have been knocked down. I guess all my AC is doing in that case is making it so that I die in 1 1/2 turns instead of in 1, because he needs to hit me (auto success), trip me (auto success), and then MAYBE roll (which will have a decent chance because now I'm prone). Yep. Sure am glad I have that good ol' 25 AC. What's his attack? +22? Oh. Yeah. Nevermind. I'll start working on the next character to die in the first fight, I guess.....
If my best skill only succeeds 35% of the time, why bother investing in any skill at all? I guess the only point is to get access to the trained only actions, because the numbers do not seem make an iota of difference.
It could be that I'm just demoralized from dying and nearly dying while feeling like an absolute useless lump of HP, but at this point, I don't know if Pathfinder is the game for me. I love the character generation, and how many options and feats you get, and all the cool ways you can create synergies.... but none of that matters when you need it to. Does the math really amount to "Unless you're a fighter, don't bother trying to strike. Unless you're a caster, don't bother trying to do anything else?"
This is like the worst "innovation" over 2nd edition dnd ever. I remember playing a thief in those days. I felt just about as useful then as I do now.
Maybe this impression will get better over time. At the moment, I feel overwhelmed with useless options/actions when I look at my character sheet. There's nothing I can count upon as reliable, which is ironic, since I took assurance in skills which I thought I'd be using a lot.
The GM clued me in on trying to use assurance with Deception against the club dude, saying I should roll instead. What I wish I would have known is that it didn't matter what I did, I just needed to not die long enough for the sorcerer to do the work, and literally any character I could have made could do that job. I don't need all the glory... I am glad to share in it... but I want to feel like I'm more than just a talking hp reserve, and so far nothing I've experienced in this game has led me to believe that I have anything like agency, competency, or relevance. I made a rogue/swashbucker for the fantasy of being a dashing "man in black" type from the Princess Bride. I didn't realize I had made a Keystone Cop instead.

NielsenE |

Radu the Wanderer wrote:What am I missing?Consider Radu the Wanderer's investigator, Professor Bartholomew Digby. He fell into the water and faced three-crocodile-like monsters. Let me assume those monsters were Crocodiles with Elite template, a 3rd-level creature. Three elite crocodiles would be 30 xp, a trivial encounter against a 7th-level 4-member party. But against a single 7th-level investigator, they would be the equivalent of a 120-xp Severe-Threat encounter. And PF2 crocodiles are designed to grab and cripple a single target, based on the hunting style of real crocodiles. A single 3rd-level crocodile will have difficulty grabbing a 7th-level character, but with 3 of them, one is going to roll lucky. The weakness of a...
Pretty sure those are Krooth's so it was 3 level 8 characters, not level 3-creatures. So yes, they will tear apart a level 7 who falls into their environment.

HammerJack |

I notice one other minor detail in that last post, which I don't think would have changed your larger problems (the extra level disparity is THE largest possible thing that causes skill actions, attacks, etc to be unreliable and if your game keeps running PCs underlevelled for their opposition there's no way around that), but which you should probably be aware of. You seem to be using an outdated version of how Panache works. If you Fail, but don't Critically Fail a Bravado action (one that can give you Panache, it is now a trait), you gain Panache that will only last until the end of your next turn.

Errenor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...What I really hate is the feeling that even with the maximum Deception check I could get at level 7, I don't even have a 50/50 chance of doing the thing that I'm best at...
Have you missed that part where people said that you did all that against your level +3 (+4?) creature? Levels matter in PF2. No, you can't avoid that*. Lvl+3 creature is basically a boss. No, you probably won't get even 60% success rate against it. Unless it's debuffed and you somehow target a weakness (bad save or something like that). That's a 'boss' for you. 'On level' creatures would be much easier. Less than your level would be easy to affect.
*There're variant rules to almost remove that though. Not very frequently used though. Obviously it's GM's (and partly players') decision.

Radu the Wanderer |

I notice one other minor detail in that last post, which I don't think would have changed your larger problems, but which you should probably be aware of. You seem to be using an outdated version of how Panache works. If you Fail, but don't Critically Fail a Bravado action (one that can give you Panache, it is now a trait), you gain Panache that will only last until the end of your next turn.
Oh, that is very helpful. Thank you! That will make attempting finishers easier, at least. :)

Quentin Coldwater |

If my best skill only succeeds 35% of the time, why bother investing in any skill at all? I guess the only point is to get access to the trained only actions, because the numbers do not seem make an iota of difference.Quote:Okay, the fact that you seem behind in level does not help. But assuming a level-appropriate challenge, you should be succeeding 50%-60% of the time. Why invest in it? Because otherwise that would sink even lower. If you use the skill increases, item bonuses, and max stats available to you, you should be slightly ahead of the curve, I think. People who aren't specialised will have odds around 25%.
Also mind, most bosses are higher level, meaning your odds inherently go down. It's supposed to be hard to deceive an epic boss. Don't take your character's effectiveness on a boss character as a measure of how effective you are in general.

![]() |

PF2e is definitely system that feels drastically different based on encounter design. Like level 7 party facing level 10 creature alone or 6 level 5 creatures are both severe encounters and can be tough, but they feel really different.
Severe solo monster is boss fight where pcs want to figure out as soon as possible what is creature's weakness and even then exploring it can be hard depending on party, party will take lot of punishment in progress and slowly wear down the creature, solo monster can go down fast with really good luck, but more likely players will ones going down and then standing back up with healing. If soloboss monster is designed with balance, they usually do have some weakness to exploit that feels meaningful.
Severe six mook encounter on otherhand is where casters with aoe or incapacitation effects shine and martials will more often feel powerful due to crits and hits being more common, and if party target monsters weaknesses, its even more effective. The monsters aren't pushovers, but and can still do good damage or spend party's resources, but the different in type of threat is clear.
To illustrate difference, let's say level 7 character with master skill and 4 in skill's stat, but doesn't have item bonuses or other buffs thus they have skill bonus of +17. When rolled against level 10 creature's high save dc without debuffs, it needs about 15 on dice to succeed. Agaisnt same boss' low save it needs about 9.
With level 5 mook's high save dc, the character needs to roll 8 to succeed and with low save dc they need 2 to succeed. So yeah the difference in feeling of power is massive based on whether creature level much higher or much lower, and that's why I prefer to use solo monsters more sparely.
(so that's why people are quick to comment on either gm or adventure, because system can be hard to judge based on single campaign or with less experience with system. If campaign favors solobosses, its much more stressful experience overall because soloboss is a single creature that can compete with four other creatures fighting it at same time.)

WatersLethe |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the game is built assuming that the majority of enemies you fight are supposed to be lower level than you. APs are bad at this, but it's the logical conclusion from the encounter building rules.
From the rules:
"Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of enemy creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters."
To have four enemies in a Moderate encounter they have to be APL-2. APL-1 for Severe, and only at Extreme (50/50 chance of death) encounter can it have four APL+0 enemies.
Once you throw in Trivial and Low threat encounters (which you should include, they let the players feel like total baddies) you realize that you should be fighting a lot of enemies that you'll have high success rates against.
This all sets up the solo enemies as the brutal, stressful fights that they should be. Any solo enemy that you can reliably land effects on quickly becomes a joke due to action economy deficit.

Perpdepog |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be that I'm just demoralized from dying and nearly dying while feeling like an absolute useless lump of HP, but at this point, I don't know if Pathfinder is the game for me.
I know this feel, and sorry to hear it's affected you so much. I can think of games I've been in where I bounced off the system for similar reasons, and a couple where I would have bounced off if I didn't already have experience; PF1E was one of those, as it happens.
I don't know how to help with being demoralized, but what I can say is that not all PF2E is like you've described. I'm running two games right now, an AP and a module, and playing in two more, and the general trend I've been seeing is people enjoying playing their characters and being effective at the stuff they wanna do.
(Granted, this is with the caveat that what they want to do has a couple different options, picking a couple different actions you wanna be good at, but it also sounds like you've built your character with that breadth in mind and are just being hosed by level disparity like others are saying.)

Unicore |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |

a three player party, with under-leveled characters, facing higher level enemies in groups is about the most sure fire recipe for players feeling like they can't do anything and that the game is too difficult that I can imagine.
Also, and this is a bit unfortunate, but PF2 is a challenging system to jump into at higher level for the first time. Getting practice with your low level feats, and figuring out which ones do what you feel like they should, and which ones don't takes time and is a lot easier when they are the only abilities you have. Figuring out what skills you use all the time in combat, for example, would help you realize that you really want to get some items to help you with the feinting if you are going to be doing that a lot as a rogue, or that there might be much easier ways to get an enemy flat-footed that will work better for how you want to be playing.
The rogue in our Age of Ashes party started off trying to melee things, but found the survivability tough, and as a party we realized that playing as a sniper team with one tank that could fight well in difficult terrain, darkness and other unfavorable conditions allowed us to power through some very difficult encounters piled on top of each other that would have annihilated us early on.
In all the games I have run or played though, rogues tend to be the ones who die the most because they end up with huge targets on their back from doing lots of damage, and, as you have found, they can't very easily stand up to focus fire.
It is refreshing to hear a newer player come in complaining about how effective casters are in the game compared to martials. My guess is that mostly has to do with the sorcerer player having been in the game a while and having had time to dial in their feats, spells and abilities to do the things that they want to do the most.

Easl |
What I really hate is the feeling that even with the maximum Deception check I could get at level 7, I don't even have a 50/50 chance of doing the thing that I'm best at. That's incredibly demoralizing, and leaves me feeling useless.
So, that's somewhat related to adversary level. A 'boss fight' combat scene where the boss is higher level is the exact worst scenario in terms of your likelihood to succeed at rolls.
Maybe your timing was just bad and you walked into that sort of session, and future sessions will have a lot more scenes containing adversaries of your level or lower. If so, you may be happy making most of your rolls in future sessions.
But maybe, that's the sort of encounter this play group really likes and so they do that often. If you think this is the case, you should talk to the group and the GM about it.
If I can't feint to get them off-guard and get a panache going,
IIRC, under remaster rules you gain panache even if you fail at the activity. You just have to do the activity to get the panache. But check with someone else, I'm hazy on it.
I only have a +11 Athletics check, so if a +17 Deception won't work, why would I even BOTHER trying to trip or disarm my opponent?
Deception and Athletics will go against different DCs (will and reflex). For some foes, deception will be easier, for others, tripping will be easier.
One thing the rules suggest is that PCs use Recall Knowledge checks to figure out the adversaries strengths and weaknesses, and then target the weaknesses. Different players and commenters have different views on how well that works in practice. But RK is one way to figure out that this boss you are fighting has "is known to be very fast" (i.e. has a high reflex DC) or "is known to be really stubborn and strong-willed" (i.e. has a high will DC)
Enemies miss so seldomly that there's little point in trying to get your AC high- even if I had a shield, that +2 would have made absolutely ZERO impact.
Second edition has crits happening if you exceed the difficulty by 10, not just on a natural 20. So raising AC lowers your chance of being critted, and thus lowers the damage you will take over multiple hits and encounters.
But, if you're playing a rogue, as one of the other commenters pointed out, raising your AC by Raise a Shield might not be as good as using your mobility to move out of melee range. Even if the enemy follows you, that's one less action they have to attack.
Radu the Wanderer |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |

After a bit of coffee and some lunch, I'm feeling much more chill about this. Thanks to all who responded- I appreciate your input and perspective.
Pathfinder 2 may be a good GAME for me, but this may not be THE game of Pathfinder that's good for me. I think that jumping in mid-campaign can often be tricky, and a combination of poor rolls, poor attendance, and a misapplication/misunderstanding of some key rules (reactive strike, knockdown, panache generation) I had an especially bad session, and sometimes these things DO happen.
(As an aside, I've also got some personal stuff happening so I will admit it is 100% possible and even likely I'm not in the greatest baseline to judge the impact of this stuff, particularly when I'm looking at the game as a fun escapist hobby and not a source of additional stress.)
I might need to just have a chat with the group and respectfully bow out of this game and join when they begin a new campaign so I can start from the ground floor, and while I'm at it, I may ask if I can re-tool my rogue to be a sniper instead of a melee duelist- quick swap from the Man in Black to Robin Hood, with maybe a Ranger dip instead of Duelist (I was an Ancient heritage Elf).

OrochiFuror |

There's a lot of moving pieces and info that could all be issues compiling to your problem.
Every level matters, especially before level 10, being behind the intended level or different from the rest of your party is an issue.
Being down a player is a HUGE issue.
Age of Ashes has issues, my group got crushed by several encounters that were clearly poorly designed.
Not knowing what to prioritize for a character build and how to work with your party is an issue.
All these issues can be dealt with by a GM who sees them and knows how to compensate. Each issue alone can make things much more difficult, combining them could make it nearly unplayable.
For specifics, I don't see what swash dedication would give a rogue, it's not really doing much for you, just giving you terrible hoops to jump through for very little or no reward. Get gang up and stand next to the party front liner.
Knowing what the rest of the party is would help. Stick next to a champion if you have one. Gang up will also help your fighter or barbarian. Sorcerers are one of the better damage dealers but casters are bad at damaging bosses, they are better at buffing and debuffing in those situations. Slow is always a prime tool against bosses, taking actions away from a boss severely limits their threat. Big bosses tend to have lower reflex so can be tripped. Try to have someone in the group who can frighten(make sure someone has a dread rune) or better yet sicken. Then any buff to hit and you'll see a big difference in hitting that boss.
A +2 to +4 boss will almost always feel like you are moments away from being crushed and if the dice don't favor you then your dead. You need to find ways to even the number difference, take away actions and exploit weaknesses.
A bit of a side note, APs in general especially the first few years worth are all set to HARD difficulty. They all have some seriously difficult mini boss encounters.

Radu the Wanderer |

I don't remember what the full party is like, but I believe we have a barbarian, a sorcerer, my character, and a monk, and they said that there's an occasional bard player, too.
EDIT:
Yeah, it seems like ancient elf into swashbuckler was more of a trap than a benefit, and without gang-up and that dodge reaction feat I'm suffering for it.

Mathmuse |

Mathmuse wrote:Pretty sure those are Krooth's so it was 3 level 8 characters, not level 3-creatures. So yes, they will tear apart a level 7 who falls into their environment.Radu the Wanderer wrote:What am I missing?Consider Radu the Wanderer's investigator, Professor Bartholomew Digby. He fell into the water and faced three-crocodile-like monsters. Let me assume those monsters were Crocodiles with Elite template, a 3rd-level creature. Three elite crocodiles would be 30 xp, a trivial encounter against a 7th-level 4-member party. But against a single 7th-level investigator, they would be the equivalent of a 120-xp Severe-Threat encounter. And PF2 crocodiles are designed to grab and cripple a single target, based on the hunting style of real crocodiles. A single 3rd-level crocodile will have difficulty grabbing a 7th-level character, but with 3 of them, one is going to roll lucky. The weakness of a...
Three Krooths!? They would kill the entire 7th-level party, not just a single character. And that explains how Professor Digby was critically hit twice in a turn--I had thought that that was merely extreme bad luck. That is bad encounter design. If a failed Acrobatics roll on a rickety pier is meant to be fatal, then the GM ought to give more clues to not go out onto the rickety pier.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is balanced with tight math. If a monster is listed as 8th level, then it is exactly as dangerous as an 8th-level player character, which is 44% more powerful than a 7th-level player character. Three krooths rate at a combat power of 180 xp while four 7th-level PCs rate at 160 xp, so the Krooths are more powerful. The PCs might win if they prepared anti-krooth tactics in advance or if the terrain favors the party, but falling into the water favors the krooth.
The tight math lets the GM design encounters that the party can win. The flip side of that coin is that the GM could also set up encounters that the party cannot win. If the GM has set up an unwinnable encounter with the intention that the party will avoid it, then the GM has a responsibility to warn the party with clear clues to avoid that encounter. "As you look down at the heat waves above the lava in the caldera of the volcano, you realized that climbing down into that heat would be fatal."

arcady |

Pathfinder combats are radically different depending on good TEAM comp and good TEAM play, or the lack of either.
It looks like you group lacks both. They're playing DnD action heroes in a team game.
Think... being in a World of Warcraft raid and bringing Lara Croft from Tomb Raider. If you solo play a raid as a DPS - expect bad results. Bring a pile of solo heroes, same bad results.
You need to bring a raid comp, an overwatch team, and then have a coordinated effort where each person does things to boost the others or debuff the enemy to the benefit of the others.
One 'lone wolf' on the team can wreck the group, or worse; wreck things for another player's PC.
That said, martials usually do better than casters when the team has bad comp and bad tactics. Not enough better to be able to get away with it long term; but they will have moments where they shine.
Once you have good team comp and good play strategy, casters can begin to shine, and if things are really well planned - they can really shine.
Investigator is more like a 'caster in martial's clothing'. You're going to be as effective as the teamwork. And if they and you work together well; only then will you really shine. That said your GM basically rpghorrorstoried your investigator so you never got to see that.
Swashbuckler is a DPS, not a tank. If the 'boss' is ever hitting you outside of a random 'oops' now and then someone else on your team who is your actual frontliner is not doing their job right. If you don't have someone in that frontliner role... then yeah: you just brought a 'outcast rogue' (or whatever they call it in WoW) to tank a raid boss and learned why MMO players don't do that. ;)

Radu the Wanderer |

Yeah, I don't know if I got a good example of what an Investigator can actually do. I got to make a few Devise a Strategem rolls, some Recall Knowledge rolls, and even a few failed unarmed strike escape attempts (unarmed strike was higher than athletics on Prof. Bart). I managed to pick out some interesting info on the Krooths who had me in their jaws a turn before they turned my little guy into coleslaw. "Ooh, they go into a blood frenzy when they get hit hard! How inter--oh there goes my arm!"
I'd scarcely call that a representative sample of what the class really does. :)
---
Funnily enough, I came to the table ready to play a team game and to look for chances to buff/debuff/strategize alongside my party. I was excited to use Dirty Trick, Bon Mot, and Demoralize to debuff and use Devise a Strategem, Recall Knowledge, Known Weaknesses, Strategic Assessment, and Shared Strategem to assist the party and hone in our targeting. I built an Investigator specifically because I like playing a party support/force multiplier type, but didn't want to deal with spells.

Deriven Firelion |

HammerJack wrote:I notice one other minor detail in that last post, which I don't think would have changed your larger problems, but which you should probably be aware of. You seem to be using an outdated version of how Panache works. If you Fail, but don't Critically Fail a Bravado action (one that can give you Panache, it is now a trait), you gain Panache that will only last until the end of your next turn.Oh, that is very helpful. Thank you! That will make attempting finishers easier, at least. :)
You were playing a version 1 PF2 swashbuckler? They are not great. Use the Remaster Swashbuckler, they are much better.
Avoid some of the weaker classes early on like the wizard or investigator until you learn the game more.

magnuskn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Three Krooths!? They would kill the entire 7th-level party, not just a single character. And that explains how Professor Digby was critically hit twice in a turn--I had thought that that was merely extreme bad luck. That is bad encounter design. If a failed Acrobatics roll on a rickety pier is meant to be fatal, then the GM ought to give more clues to not go out onto the rickety pier.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is balanced with tight math. If a monster is listed as 8th level, then it is exactly as dangerous as an 8th-level player character, which is 44% more powerful than a 7th-level player character. Three krooths rate at a combat power of 180 xp while four 7th-level PCs rate at 160 xp, so the Krooths are more powerful. The PCs might win if they prepared anti-krooth tactics in advance or if the terrain favors the party, but falling into the water favors the krooth.
The tight math lets the GM design encounters that...
The encounter is a moderate 9 in the book, so either the group was doing that encounter way ahead of schedule or the group has not uniform levels or the GM is doing some other bad GM stuff.

magnuskn |

Swashbuckler is a DPS, not a tank. If the 'boss' is ever hitting you outside of a random 'oops' now and then someone else on your team who is your actual frontliner is not doing their job right. If you don't have someone in that frontliner role... then yeah: you just brought a 'outcast rogue' (or whatever they call it in WoW) to tank a raid boss and learned why MMO players don't do that. ;)
While the Swashbuckler definitely is a DPS class, I am not that sure it also isn't at least partially a tanky one. It has shield block variants, decently high AC, a reaction which procs off critical misses and a good amount of debuffs for the enemy. Yeah, the armor proficiency progression is not the best in the game, but it's still decent enough. Outside of Champion and Monk, it can hang with the other secondary tank classes, IMO.

Cyouni |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

What I really hate is the feeling that even with the maximum Deception check I could get at level 7, I don't even have a 50/50 chance of doing the thing that I'm best at. That's incredibly demoralizing, and leaves me feeling useless. If I can't feint to get them off-guard and get a panache going, I can't use my finisher, I can't deal sneak attack damage, and I can't even hit! And, of course, I only have a +11 Athletics check, so if a +17 Deception won't work, why would I even BOTHER trying to trip or disarm my opponent? I'm 6 points down from my best skill, which is already going to fail 65% of the time. So... shooting for a nat 20? Really? That's what being a PC in this game is? No, thank you.
If this is what the math truly is, then it may be that this isn't the game for me. I don't need to be an infallible super-hero, but I do feel like numbers need to matter. And I truly don't feel like they do.
You're right....but you're not supposed to be level 7. You're supposed to be level 9, verging on 10. So your numbers are supposed to be at least +2 higher across the board.
(I should also note that the second encounter, against a 3-person party, is literally harder than an campaign-ending final boss is supposed to be. Just making that clear. It would have been an Extreme encounter even if you had four people.)
One thing to note is that you could really have just used flanking instead to get that off-guard, and also used Acrobatics via Tumble Through as well to get panache. (That second one would have been harder given Reactive Strike in this case, however.)
Enemies miss so seldomly that there's little point in trying to get your AC high- even if I had a shield, that +2 would have made absolutely ZERO impact. I still would have been hit by that club, still would have been dealt about 40% of my HP from one hit, and still would have been knocked down. I guess all my AC is doing in that case is making it so that I die in 1 1/2 turns instead of in 1, because he needs to hit me (auto success), trip me (auto success), and then MAYBE roll (which will have a decent chance because now I'm prone). Yep. Sure am glad I have that good ol' 25 AC. What's his attack? +22? Oh. Yeah. Nevermind. I'll start working on the next character to die in the first fight, I guess.....
While you're not technically incorrect (note that this enemy is level 10! Literally a module-ending boss tier with how it was presented) one thing to consider is that when you increase your AC, you significantly lower the chance of getting crit and also lower the chance of getting hit by a second attack. So going from 23 to 25 in the example you provided a) does lower hit hit chance from 95% to 90%, which isn't that valuable...but does lower hit crit chance from 60% to 50%. And that applies to all second attacks. If he attacks you while prone on that second attack, you're at 23, but he's also swinging at +17, making it so that he only has a 75% hit/25% crit instead of the 85%/35% he would have otherwise.
That said, this "boss" is kind of a bad example because it was never designed to be as hard as you ran into it at.

Radu the Wanderer |

I'm getting that picture! It's still difficult for me to really see the benefit of a 75/25 crit vs an 85/35 crit, but I do see the main issue of "all your numbers are at least 2 points lower than they are expected to be" turning a "slightly harder than usual" encounter into a "you'd best hope RNG goes your way long enough to live, because you're basically screwed!" encounter.
May do some re-thinking and re-tooling and run a swashbuckler tank type, though- that sounds appealing. There's something I like about a tough nut to crack that isn't using the typical route of sword+board and heavy armor...

Captain Morgan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

OP: Tactically it sounded like you were doing fine. While there are certainlt mathematical realities that can take getting used to, and Age of Ashes can be overtuned... Please realize your GM was essentially cheating. Probably unintentionally. Cheating is a weird term to throw around in a TTRPG where the GM can rule zero whatever they want. But folks have highlighted several things where they were violating core assumptions of the game which the books says not to do, making PCs weaker and enemies more powerful. Since you got into the odds of success let's talk encounter math for a second.
Increasing a creatures level by one roughly increases the XP it rewards by 50%. XP rewards scale off the the paries level's level. By lowering your level by two, the GM basically cut your effective power in half. If everyone in the party was fighting at 50% of where they were supposed to be, and then you feel to 37.5% when a player missed the session, and you'd already burnt resources on prior encounters, and your GM was further boosting the encounter's power...
It's just not a fair representation of the game's math. I think you are correct to leave the table. If the other players were appropriately leveled, the fight might have been "fair" to the team as a whole, but your own contributions would lag, especially without a flanking buddy.

Bluemagetim |

Basically what most are saying is that fight was not meant for your party of 3 level 7 characters.
If you were fighting 3 level 6 creatures, a severe encounter for 3 PCs after the character adjustment is included for having a party one less than 4, the AC and saves would look more like this
AC 23; Fort +17, Ref +13, Will +11 with a +17 to hit
or
AC 24; Fort +16, Ref +12, Will +14 with a +16 to hit
If these were the stats of what you were fighting would you have had a better chance?

Radu the Wanderer |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Definitely would have made a significant impact!
It's clear to me now that I was not getting a good look at what the true math of the game looks like, but something closer to a campaign capstone, "this is the big one, so pull out the stops" level of encounter. Or at least some encounters closer to that end of things than intended.
At least against threats close to the same level, it looks like characters have a decent chance of making a difference. I don't mind taking a 50/50 or even a 40% shot if it's something that helps set someone else up for success- if I'm the first to go, I'll definitely go for a trip or disarm, for example, even if my odds are worse. The next player then doesn't have as hard of a time with their strikes and it all plays out like an exciting comic battle with one-two combos.
There's definitely a point, however, where no matter the final result it's just not satisfying to take that chance. Perhaps this recent session wasn't the greatest at demonstrating that, so I'll try to adjust my impressions and keep an open mind for the system as a whole. Being honest, however, I can't say I have much emotional space for many encounters like this in the future, so I'm not sure this campaign will be something I'm participating in. It really did feel that bad, though I was brushing it off at the table as "sometimes these things happen."
I think I'm taking a few lessons away for the future from this discussion about tactics and PF2 design philosophy. I don't know yet if I agree or disagree with where the math sits, but I see very clearly that it's pretty tight and yes, indeed, those +1 modifiers do make a difference.

arcady |

Funnily enough, I came to the table ready to play a team game and to look for chances to buff/debuff/strategize alongside my party. I was excited to use Dirty Trick, Bon Mot, and Demoralize to debuff and use Devise a Strategem, Recall Knowledge, Known Weaknesses, Strategic Assessment, and Shared Strategem to assist the party and hone in our targeting. I built an Investigator specifically because I like playing a party support/force multiplier type, but didn't want to deal with spells.
I've been in those shoes before. Bring a team build to a game where everyone else is playing lone wolf action hero.
This puts you in a bind. If folks don't want to play team comp style, they might not be playing the right game. If they want to keep playing PF2E, but not adapt to playing it, you both won't have the most enjoyable nor the most successful game.
Now... I'd personally argue other games are at fault for not forcing a team comp style. But that's me coming at this as a veteran. You go out there into a real life danger situation and try to be an 80's action hero and people on your side are going to unnecessarily die. You don't approach it like an MMO of course, the whole MMO comp is designed just for that kind of gameplay. But you do work as a team and everyone slides into a role and backs each other up.
I don't care for tRPGs that let people get away with not doing that. But some people just want to be lone hero. I'm not sure why they're sitting down to a group game - but they are. And other tRPGs reward them more for that.
Pathfinder won't.
It's one of the things I like most about it. But it's not for everyone.

OrochiFuror |

I wouldn't consider a swash as tanky. A tank requires a few things, IMO.
At least 6AC, aka heavy armor.
Shield block with a high HP and high Hardness shield.
Legendary defense
Swash has none of these, even a 5 AC class with a +2 shield raise is still just ok, not good for defense. You can fortify a buckler for blocking but it's not going to be good at it. They also by default only get one reaction to use for blocking.
That puts them at slightly above standard martial for survivability, they aren't sacrificing a two handed weapon to do so though so the opportunity cost for it is far lower.
The only class released so far that can sit and take hits for any noticeable time is the champion. 6AC, multiple shield blocks and legendary defense progression. Even then a few good crits can wreck them.
So set your sights fairly low since no one really tanks in PF2, it's all just better survivability. You can be a lot more durable with any one of those three things, but you might not really see the difference on a per fight basis. Small increases matter, but you might not be able to feel them if you and your team don't lean into it with buffs and debuffs.
One of my big problems with PF2 is the fact there's little that just works and not a lot of setup and payoff outside of a few "must" have options, just about everything is a numbers game and you tend to be on the losing end of those numbers as a baseline. I think the overall balance and the options for characters more then make up for those issues though.

Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |

Radu the Wanderer wrote:Funnily enough, I came to the table ready to play a team game and to look for chances to buff/debuff/strategize alongside my party. I was excited to use Dirty Trick, Bon Mot, and Demoralize to debuff and use Devise a Strategem, Recall Knowledge, Known Weaknesses, Strategic Assessment, and Shared Strategem to assist the party and hone in our targeting. I built an Investigator specifically because I like playing a party support/force multiplier type, but didn't want to deal with spells.I've been in those shoes before. Bring a team build to a game where everyone else is playing lone wolf action hero.
This puts you in a bind. If folks don't want to play team comp style, they might not be playing the right game. If they want to keep playing PF2E, but not adapt to playing it, you both won't have the most enjoyable nor the most successful game.
Now... I'd personally argue other games are at fault for not forcing a team comp style. But that's me coming at this as a veteran. You go out there into a real life danger situation and try to be an 80's action hero and people on your side are going to unnecessarily die. You don't approach it like an MMO of course, the whole MMO comp is designed just for that kind of gameplay. But you do work as a team and everyone slides into a role and backs each other up.
I don't care for tRPGs that let people get away with not doing that. But some people just want to be lone hero. I'm not sure why they're sitting down to a group game - but they are. And other tRPGs reward them more for that.
Pathfinder won't.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition won't. That's actually workable in Pathfinder 1st (though not optimal) and D&D 5E.
It's also why Age of Ashes ports back to PF 1E quite well.

Bluemagetim |

Also your character built to RK can find out weakest saves and thats going to tell you what move to go for to get the best chance of success. If you want to use skills to help the team instead of magic having some options is a good idea. Maybe not everyone here will agree but this is my take.
Stat wise if you set yourself up for the best %chance of success at what you want to do you get one +4 and one +3 generally at lvl 1. If your a little more lax on your stat needs you can have a +4 and two +2s or maybe two +3 and a +2.
At level 5 your highest is still going to be +4 but you might have 2 of them one with a partial boost to go to +5 at lvl 10.
So there is an element of how good and at what level.
As an investigator I am assuming a +4 in int for the following. I am just assuming going +3 in a second stat but you can figure whats best for you (not endorsing it just using for discussion.)
Deception is cha based and if you go all in after getting that +4 in int you can get a +3 in cha. This will make a pretty fragile character though with low dex and low con. Also needing to be in melee to feint is pretty hard to survive with low dex and low con only 8 hp from class/lvl and no heavy armor.
I think deception is actually the least synergizing of the social skills too making it a very poor team skill. Feint makes creatures off guard to you only and create a diversion makes you hidden presumably to take a pop shot or sneak away.
Athletics takes str and if you go +3 you will still have the fragile issue from before and still need to be in melee.
Athletics is very helpful for others with ways to get off-guard for the team against either fort or reflex saves. Trip against reflex or grapple against fort. Takes strength but with that investment you get two saves to target. but not really incentivized much for an investigator that needs int and probably some dex.
Intimidation is the same as deception but more useful for the party. You will still be fragile and will need to be within 30 ft to use demoralize.
Its a flat negative status penalty by applying frighten. Always against will though, has synergy with bonmot.
Dirty Trick is a better option from a defensive standpoint. It takes dex so putting +3 in dex is going to effectiveness and to AC and reflex. It only goes against reflex though and clumsy helps lower enemy AC and ranged to hit and reflex saves.
Now if you went with +3 int +3 Dex +2 Charisma/or strength you would open up more options to leverage with your RK knowledge of weakest saves. It is at the cost of 5% chance on those RK checks but your shifting it into either intimidates bon mots or athletics manuevers essentially. Equally valid would be 4 int 2 dex 2 (cha or str), the difference is 1 less dex at all levels compared to only having 1 less dex for half of gameplay career due to the way partial boosts work.
With all the skill increases you have you can be good at a lot of skills and early so there is no issue with going cha and getting both intimidate and diplomacy and thievery and society and arcana and occult.
Leave nature and religion for the wise.

moosher12 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a three player party, the GM should have, at minimum, consulted the Encounter design chart and recalculated the encounters to accommodate the difficulty spike. (Which would have resulted in applying Weak modifiers or removing some creatures from the encounters)
Alike, if your characters were under-leveled, they should have had you build characters at a higher level to accommodate.

Cyouni |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

I wouldn't consider a swash as tanky. A tank requires a few things, IMO.
At least 6AC, aka heavy armor.
Shield block with a high HP and high Hardness shield.
Legendary defenseSwash has none of these, even a 5 AC class with a +2 shield raise is still just ok, not good for defense. You can fortify a buckler for blocking but it's not going to be good at it. They also by default only get one reaction to use for blocking.
That puts them at slightly above standard martial for survivability, they aren't sacrificing a two handed weapon to do so though so the opportunity cost for it is far lower.
Wit gives anyone it hits with a finisher -2 to hit against them. Fencer can give them a -2 to hit through Feint. Obviously, Braggart applies Frightened.
Your definition of a "tank" is weirdly specific, because it's literally just writing "champion" and then only accepting exactly shield champion. That's like saying no one can do damage unless they have legendary weapon proficiency with a non-reload weapon, and then going "oh huh, fighter is the only one that applies to".