Not quite. One table having a front line and a back line and another table running every encounter like a giant cuddle pile do indeed represent different styles of play; pointing out that the cuddle pile represents a significant positioning risk that the game punishes in various ways, or that most divine casters are not in a position to be at the center of these auras on the front line, is not a "different strokes for different folks" kind of deal however, it is bringing a much-needed dose of factual grounding to a discussion that has otherwise been largely founded on white rooms and hypotheticals. Similarly, pointing to the existence of spells on the same spell lists that can be used to achieve the same effects more easily is referring to facts, facts one can choose to ignore, but that one cannot dismiss out of hand in good faith as pure opinion.
The thing is, I'm not opposed to these aura spells; as mentioned several times already I love the theme of being at the center of a team-buffing aura, and believe that's a good fit on a divine class (though again, more the Champion than the Cloistered Cleric). That is in fact specifically why I would like these spells to be altered in ways that would make them easier to use and more competitive with higher-rank alternatives. The issue I'm pointing out is that these auras fall off compared to those alternatives, and right now have the issue of being excessively short-ranged for a backliner and excessively action-hungry for a frontliner (and again, the action cost of these spells appears to be yet another fact that seems to have been ignored in a discussion a few would have liked to center entirely around the potentiality of these auras). It's not an intractable problem, and there can be situations and level ranges where these new auras will be better than other spells, but there is also room for improvement. Dismissing that as purely subjective opinion and citing different play experiences as an excuse to avoid empathizing with others doesn't strike me as terribly helpful to constructive discussion.
If your clerics are more than 30 feet behind the front line, how are they healing the front line? If your combat casters are more than 30 feet away from the enemy, do they not lose out on more than half their offensive options?
There are two ways to engage with these questions: the first is to point to simple actions you could take such as Stepping/Striding or Reach Spell if you're hovering around 30 feet from the front line and an ally moves out of your range, which ought to answer the question neatly and directly with basic game elements that would normally be obvious with to anyone with a bit of play experience. The second is to call this out for not in fact properly reading what was said, where I maintained that my back line hovered around 30 feet from the front line, i.e. within heal range. This feels more like an attempt at playing gotcha than a sincere line of questioning, and the fact that the question is both incredibly easy to answer, yet was used to extrapolate such hyperbolic conclusions as the front line collapsing because the Cleric was 35 feet away, comes across as a little weird to me. Surely you've had encounters where this happened; how did it not occur to you that you could move?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...how did it not occur to you that you could move?
It did. However, did you not indicate previously that spending an extra action in order to use a single ability was "inefficient" and therefore a weaker or wasted option? If moving and healing or moving and blasting (or using Reach Spell rather than moving) is okay, why isn't casting an aura and expanding it with an extra action not okay?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, that's great if you happen to have a bard in the party.
And these spells are great if you happen to have someone in your party who can cast them. In most Pathfinder games in which I have participated the players have a great deal of influence over the question of what classes they have in their party, and someone who wants to boost their allies, who is weighing the ability to cast some combination of Bane, Benediction, Bless, and Malediction against Bard songs can choose their class according to their conclusion.
It did. However, did you not indicate previously that spending an extra action in order to use a single ability was "inefficient" and therefore a weaker or wasted option?
It feels like I'm being made to keep repeating myself and restate what has already been said, which does not strike me as the mark of an honest conversation. Here is in fact what I've said:
If everyone's spending even just one action to get in range, that's five actions in a four-character party just to benefit from one aura, to say nothing of needing to move in range of an enemy for them to be affected by a subsequent harmful aura.
That's one action per person, which I'm sure you'll agree is different from one person spending their third action Striding as the battle lines shift. I would ask you at this point to please refrain from mischaracterizing my statements, not just because it is tiresome and unproductive, but because it is also ultimately pointless when I can simply pull the correct quote, link to the relevant comment, and demonstrate the false nature of your claim.
More to the point, the answer is itself unconvincing, and comes across as deflection more than anything else: if you had truly thought of Striding or using Reach Spell with your third action, why not at least bring up those options, even if you didn't find them efficient? Surely a little bit of inefficiency would be better than the front line "collapsing", as you put it? Again, this shouldn't be a hypothetical; having to spend a third action adapting to an encounter as a caster is one of the fundamental aspects of their playstyle.
If moving and healing or moving and blasting (or using Reach Spell rather than moving) is okay, why isn't casting an aura and expanding it with an extra action not okay?
Because these two modes of action expenditure have nothing to do with one another, and I would encourage you to try these out on a low-level Cloistered Cleric to see how they fare. If I move or use Reach Spell to heal or blast from a distance while maintaining my distance advantage, that's my divine Sorcerer spending their third action to save themselves from getting rushed by the enemy currently going up against my Fighter. If I wanted my divine caster to cast an aura, then expand it, that would only provide the aura's benefit to the front line on the second round (and given how much you value the utility of the back line, I'm sure you'll agree spending a whole turn doing nothing immediate is not a good thing), and my first round would be spent either doing nothing or serving my cloth caster on a silver platter for the enemy monster to take a nice big bite out of me.
As a matter of fact, let's perhaps ground this conversation in more specifics: please describe, in your own words, how you're expecting your divine Sorcerer or Witch, your Cloistered Cleric, or even your Battle Harbinger or Warpriest, to make the most of these auras as written. Describe the room, the enemies, the party, their builds, and so on. Because right now, the room's looking awfully white, and for all your talk of "potentially" stacking these effects, you've spent more time attacking the criticisms of others than describing any specifics of how this could benefit your own play experience.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite. One table having a front line and a back line and another table running every encounter like a giant cuddle pile do indeed represent different styles of play; pointing out that the cuddle pile represents a significant positioning risk that the game punishes in various ways, or that most divine casters are not in a position to be at the center of these auras on the front line, is not a "different strokes for different folks" kind of deal however, it is bringing a much-needed dose of factual grounding to a discussion that has otherwise been largely founded on white rooms and hypotheticals. Similarly, pointing to the existence of spells on the same spell lists that can be used to achieve the same effects more easily is referring to facts, facts one can choose to ignore, but that one cannot dismiss out of hand in good faith as pure opinion.
So much of this depends on party comp.
Things I've played with that lead to cuddle piles: Amulet Thaumaturge, Champion, Wood Kineticist (both Timber Sentinel and Pollen Aura), and Aura spells.
Things that lead indirectly to cuddle piles: Witches Familiar abilities having a 15ft range
So as a caster, if your party is going the cuddle pile route, you have various ways to mitigate that.
As previously mentioned, for a Cleric who needs to be close, I will run with Sanctuary. That's what it's for.
For my Occult Casters, I like to go with a retributive defense that punishes opponents who target me. Blood Vendetta. Mind of Menace. At higher levels Blinding Fury and Unexpected Transposition.
I play a lot of PFS, which means adapting to team comp and terrible tactics. My casters are all built expecting that at some point they are going to be in the scrum. Casters who hang back never get to do anything because the front line keeps moving.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Teridax, honest question:
Do most or all of the encounters in the games you play happen in areas that are larger than a 20' radius?
I myself play mostly PFS, which often has a lot of encounters inside dungeons or buildings, or Museums, and so don't give the party the luxury of spreading out.
Don't mistake me, there are also scenarios that primarily take place outdoors, one of which I played last night.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, that's great if you happen to have a bard in the party.And these spells are great if you happen to have someone in your party who can cast them. In most Pathfinder games in which I have participated the players have a great deal of influence over the question of what classes they have in their party, and someone who wants to boost their allies, who is weighing the ability to cast some combination of Bane, Benediction, Bless, and Malediction against Bard songs can choose their class according to their conclusion.
This is where the difference between PFS and non-PFS games really shows up.
I've been in PFS games with no casters. I've been in PFS games with no martials. I've been in PFS games with 3 wood kineticists and a rogue.
Sometimes you have to lock your spells in before you know what the party comp even is.
(On the other hand, the encounters are rarely too tough...but every once in a while they are *brutal*.)
You learn to build characters and loadouts who can roll with whatever and don't ever assume another party member will be bringing anything specific to the table. (Except Battle Medicine. "Battle Medicine" is to 2e PFS what "Wand of CLW" was to 1e PFS -- ie absent a good reason everyone has it as a matter of etiquette.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Except Battle Medicine. "Battle Medicine" is to 2e PFS what "Wand of CLW" was to 1e PFS -- ie absent a good reason everyone has it as a matter of etiquette.)
What!!??!!
Wand of CLW was a matter of etiquette as otherwise others were paying for your healing.
But Battle Medicine is very far from it, many characters don't have it and there's nothing wrong in not having it. Actually, if you don't raise Medicine, what would be the point in taking it?
Anyway, not the conversation, but we haven't been in the same groups for sure.
So much of this depends on party comp.
Things I've played with that lead to cuddle piles: Amulet Thaumaturge, Champion, Wood Kineticist (both Timber Sentinel and Pollen Aura), and Aura spells.
Do you mean Drifting Pollen? I sure hope you picked Safe Elements, then, unless you want your entire team in the cuddle pile dazzled and sickened.
Things that lead indirectly to cuddle piles: Witches Familiar abilities having a 15ft range
Are you seriously trying to advocate for a cuddle pile with a Witch, a 6 HP/level cloth caster, and so through their familiar, i.e. the thing known for being able to move and occupy a position entirely separate from yours?
So as a caster, if your party is going the cuddle pile route, you have various ways to mitigate that.
In other words, these spells only truly start to shine if your entire comp is built for it, which does not sound terribly well-suited for PFS, which you play a lot of.
I also feel you've somewhat missed the purpose of these abilities, which are often single-use per round and don't make up for the inherent squishiness of, say, a divine Witch or Sorcerer, or just any back liner. It's not that they're meant to encourage cuddle-pile tactics, because even if you have both a Champion and an Amulet Thaumaturge on your team, that's only two hits a round they can mitigate, and still no protection from a fireball or similar AoE. If your Champion and Thaum were to form the front line, they could certainly support one another with those reactions, but past that you're getting significantly diminishing returns with additional party members on the front line, and significantly higher risk. Taking 3 damage off of an enemy crit is still not going to be encouragement enough for a divine Summoner to move themselves and not just their eidolon into the front line, especially not if the Champion already used their reaction to protect the Thaumaturge and vice versa.
As previously mentioned, for a Cleric who needs to be close, I will run with Sanctuary. That's what it's for.
So the ideal spell for providing defense to allies you're near... is not benediction? Or are you telling me you're spending one round and a spell slot casting sanctuary, then another round and a spell slot casting benediction, all to provide a +1 to the AC of a couple allies when you could've spent the same number of actions and fewer spell slots casting forbidding ward? If you wanted something a bit more substantial, Reach Spell + protection would also be your friend here.
For my Occult Casters, I like to go with a retributive defense that punishes opponents who target me. Blood Vendetta. Mind of Menace. At higher levels Blinding Fury and Unexpected Transposition.
Oo, let's talk about higher levels! How about the one where scrolls of heroism become so cheap that you can just cast them on-tap to prebuff without relying on aura spells? What about when forbidding ward lets you output better AC protection than benediction without costing a spell slot? Or when fear lets you AoE debuff your enemies' Strike accuracy from the back line? I'll happily discuss these aura spells at higher levels, because that's when they fall off particularly hard compared to alternatives on both the divine and occult lists.
I play a lot of PFS, which means adapting to team comp and terrible tactics. My casters are all built expecting that at some point they are going to be in the scrum. Casters who hang back never get to do anything because the front line keeps moving.
Wasn't your entire point about these spells that they require a specific party composition to work effectively? You're right, you never know what you're going to get in PFS... which is why you should perhaps not pick the spells that rely on the perfect party comp to work, and don't provide their benefits if your party's disorganized and doesn't huddle inside your aura. Instead, you could pick spells that you could easily fire and forget from a variety of ranges, such as forbidding ward or fear. Surely that sounds like a better game plan?
So Teridax, honest question:
Do most or all of the encounters in the games you play happen in areas that are larger than a 20' radius?
Yes, and in fact the number of encounters in extremely cramped rooms at my table are in the minority. Players don't like them, they show up far too often in very early APs, and Paizo seems to have acknowledged this by having slightly larger encounter areas in subsequent APs, though I can't speak for anyone playing mostly PFS. Many of my games are homebrew campaigns, so I or the GM have the luxury of choosing where encounters take place, and both I and the GMs I play with tend to go with a mix of indoor and outdoor spaces (and while some of the indoor spaces are tight, that doesn't describe the majority of them either).
In my game I varied the battle maps so there are some in open terrain with different elevations and some in tight dark tunnels or a slums district with lots of low precarious buildings or throne halls with long tables and columns to either side of the room. Had one on ship in a heavy storm.
I also have 7 players though. That changes a lot of dynamics. It also means I have a larger xp budget for encounters.
|
|
(Except Battle Medicine. "Battle Medicine" is to 2e PFS what "Wand of CLW" was to 1e PFS -- ie absent a good reason everyone has it as a matter of etiquette.)What!!??!!
Wand of CLW was a matter of etiquette as otherwise others were paying for your healing.
But Battle Medicine is very far from it, many characters don't have it and there's nothing wrong in not having it. Actually, if you don't raise Medicine, what would be the point in taking it?Anyway, not the conversation, but we haven't been in the same groups for sure.
I'm sorry, "Battle Medicine is the new Wand of CLW" is a local meme/joke, but you are right that it does not reflect reality. It is super-ubiquitous, though.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teridax, you said you didn't want White Room, you wanted actual experience. So I described situations I have actually encountered and things I actually do.
Your criticisms of my tactics are noted.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. What I was trying to prove was that Benediction had a use case.
Benediction seems more useful to me than Forbidding Ward or Protection. You can dismiss that as suboptimal if you like. I'm okay with that -- useful and optimal are not synonyms.
Teridax, you said you didn't want White Room, you wanted actual experience. So I described situations I have actually encountered and things I actually do.
Your criticisms of my tactics are noted.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.
I don't believe I criticized your tactics, unless you really think it's a good idea to cover your allies in a purely detrimental pollen aura. Part of the problem is that you did not actually cite specific play experiences or tactics here, you in fact reinforced the white-room nature of the discussion by pointing to an extremely specific party composition that requires a lot of buy-in from the whole table, which neither supports the point you are trying to make nor coheres with your primarily PFS-based experience. That you missed crucial aspects of this composition or the exceedingly particular elements you selected that would undermine the strategy you are advocating, and appear to have gotten one particular element flat-out wrong, i.e. Drifting Pollen, simply further undermines the point you are trying to make.
What I was trying to prove was that Benediction had a use case.
If that was the plan, surely it would've helped to cite a specific situation? Because so far, I'm sorry to say, what you've managed to show is if you want to play PFS, or a party composition that isn't begging to be fireballed at any given point in time, you are better off choosing alternatives.
More importantly, though: why do you need to prove anything? At the end of the day, it's clear you like the idea of casting benediction, and that is enough. You don't need the use of this spell to be objectively correct or superior to that of any other spell for your desire to cast this spell to be valid. Nobody is forcing you to prepare or learn a different spell, and now that this expansion is out, you can use this spell to your heart's content. Why does it matter to you then that this spell might be on the weaker side or that others don't like it as much as you do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also have 7 players though. That changes a lot of dynamics. It also means I have a larger xp budget for encounters.
That definitely changes a lot the value of buffing and debuffing. Between 4 and 7 players, these tactics are nearly twice more interesting. So I understand why you are interested in these new spells.
I'm sorry, "Battle Medicine is the new Wand of CLW" is a local meme/joke, but you are right that it does not reflect reality. It is super-ubiquitous, though.
I'm relieved. Yes, it's extremely common, on that I can only agree. It's hard to find a party without it on at least a member, even if I find that with the added content and the increase in the number of ways to grab a healing ability on a non healer it tends to decrease in popularity for other options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My last PFS (level 1-2) party had no one Trained in Medicine and a single Soothe prepared by the Witch.
1st time it ever happened to me. Fun overall though. Thankfully, we could rest after an encounter so the Fighter went back to full HP thanks to the single Soothe and the HP rest recovery.
I got something similar yesterday: The party healer was a Psychic (still better than a Witch).
I think a lot of players were amazed by Medicine and healing in general when PF2 got released but it ended with too many players having it. But now it has calmed down, and with the classic randomness of PFS parties you can end up with no healing at all.
I still think your Witch should have Prepared more Soothes after seeing the line up.
|
|
This is where the difference between PFS and non-PFS games really shows up.
That's fair, and a really good point. Plus, even when I was more heavily involved in PFS, it was in a fairly consistent and limited group, so there was probably an uncommon level of party planning.
You learn to build characters and loadouts who can roll with whatever and don't ever assume another party member will be bringing anything specific to the table.
Yeah, but my point was that in comparing the "support" capabilities of Bard song versus these battle aura spells, the would-be support player doing the comparison can just choose which option they take. "That's great if you have a Bard" seems like a nonsensical statement, because you can just play a Bard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That definitely changes a lot the value of buffing and debuffing. Between 4 and 7 players, these tactics are nearly twice more interesting. So I understand why you are interested in these new spells.
The action sink involved in casting multiple of these spells may not be quite as punishing with 7 PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The action sink of these spells really can, in actual play situations, be mitigated by casting the spell before entering a suspect room. This is especially true at higher levels with cheap scrolls. Pre-buffing is harder in PF2 than PF1,but not impossible and still highly rewarding.
Bless cast before combat and expanded 2 times before triggering the encounter is much better action economy than courageous anthem.
That definitely changes a lot the value of buffing and debuffing. Between 4 and 7 players, these tactics are nearly twice more interesting. So I understand why you are interested in these new spells.The action sink involved in casting multiple of these spells may not be quite as punishing with 7 PCs.
The cleric in my group starts most battles by casting bless then moving right behind the champion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The action sink of these spells really can, in actual play situations, be mitigated by casting the spell before entering a suspect room. This is especially true at higher levels with cheap scrolls. Pre-buffing is harder in PF2 than PF1,but not impossible and still highly rewarding.
Bless cast before combat and expanded 2 times before triggering the encounter is much better action economy than courageous anthem.
I agree. I honestly don't worry about it unless I expect the fight to last over a minute. If they prebuff a few rounds, just mark the spell Haste -2 then start ticking off rounds from there. Easy to track.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would strongly caution against prebuffing, or assuming that's the default in any discussion.
To some extent that's because prebuffing is not reliable as a strategy, and there will be plenty of ambushes, social preamble, etc.
I mostly recommend against (assuming or playing with much) prebuffing because the game rightfully calls out prebuffing as being dangerous for combat balancing (and IMO the text undersells this danger).
Casting advantageous spells before a fight (sometimes called “pre-buffing”) gives the characters a big advantage, since they can spend more combat rounds on offensive actions instead of preparatory ones. If the players have the drop on their foes, you usually can let each character cast one spell or prepare in some similar way, then roll initiative.
Casting preparatory spells before combat becomes a problem when it feels rote and the players assume it will always work—that sort of planning can't hold up in every situation! In many cases, the act of casting spells gives away the party's presence. In cases where the PCs' preparations could give them away, you might roll for initiative before everyone can complete their preparations.
To be clear, the biggest issue with prebuffing is that of combat balance. I'm not going to get into the hassle/jank/unfun sides of it.
Without combat actions as the main cost, the prebuff is instead a resource spend. And that resource spend becomes negligible for low R spells / items rather quickly.
While the new spell Benediction providing an outright great benefit at all levels when prebuffed should help draw attention to prebuffing as a danger/problem, I do not want the focus to be on the power of that spell specifically; its new addition should more generally serve as a reminder that this system will continue to add new spells and options over time.
A L10 party that wont kick in a door until a few scrolls of Haste are burned will be *much* more potent in combat than a no prebuff party. Attempting to downplay the power of even a single prebuff round is really not cool IMO. Letting a PC get 2 turns of 1 min buffs started? Good effing luck having a meaningful combat encounter after that.
Each time "every +1 matters" is thrown around and quoted about pf2, that should help remind us that popping R1 scrolls like candy really does affect combat balance.
Don't forget that the more that players over-prepare/optimize, the more the GM has to compensate and make the foes more dangerous in some way.
While this issue is a big deal for casters, there's another class that was just recently "oopsed" into being the most dangerous prebuffer due to the remaster.
Now that VVs are recharging and infinite, I've had to arbitrarily limit/prevent my Alchemists from prebuffing because of how stupidly powerful it is.
Giving PCs a 10 tHP buffer that recharges every turn at L9 is completely nuts as a prebuff, and there are other contextual effects potentially more powerful than that one. The removal of a hard resource limit has turned the Alchemist class into a GM nightmare that depends on the player not abusing meta-mechanics like prebuffing to remain balanced. The class and its item list were NOT designed with recharging VVs in mind.
New Alch suffers both from poor combat use of it's VVs due to Quick Alch's action cost (+ touch range, etc), and the class also suffers from those very same items being completely busted when used *before* combat.
(a big reason why this Alch issue is going to take a long time to boil is due to Bombers being most Alchs, and they'll save those VVs for combat. As more not-Bombers figure out non-VV combat routines, more will use the VVs for prebuffs.)
.
To reform and restate my core point. Pf2 already has enough optimization potential to reach "rocket tag" levels of power/danger where fights are decided in the first 1 or 2 turns.
And this state of affairs is also completely avoidable if there is a "gentleman's agreement" where the balance-stretching/breaking options & strategies are willfully not abused by the players.
Prebuffing, as an exploit to use combat buffs without spending the combat action cost, is perhaps the "mechanic" that offers the single largest power spike if used/abused. A single "prebuff turn" before a door kick becoming "standard" is already plenty to completely reshuffle the power of different spells/classes/options. People with different assumptions on prebuffing will unknowingly talk completely around each other even when attempting to be as objective as possible.
The 2A combat buff effects are just not conceptually compatible w/ prebuffing; the gap between using most of a combat turn vs being free is just too wide.
While tempting for PCs/players to utilize, I highly recommend GMs openly talk about the balance concern of it, and go over the table to outline and limit when it's okay and when it's not.
(And to be clear, this requires breaking immersion to accomplish. +0 INT PCs prebuffing only when it makes sense in-world would still break combat balance.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our experiences are certainly different. At my tables, fights collapse in on each other all the time and encounter difficulty swings wildly as the tactical situation changes.
As a GM, I definitely let PCs pre-buff, but if enemies can hear them, then we might start the encounter with doors closed and both sides only loosely aware of where the other side is. Basically, when progressing in combat encounter mode makes sense. 10 minute rests tend only to come between close groups of encounter areas and consumables tend to be essential for handling the unexpected.
So, no, rebuffing isn’t always possible, but burning resources frequently is generally expected and enemies tend to play up to their potential intelligence, and intelligent casters tend to prebuff as well (this is common in PF APs too, especially older ones).
I would strongly caution against prebuffing, or assuming that's the default in any discussion.
To some extent that's because prebuffing is not reliable as a strategy, and there will be plenty of ambushes, social preamble, etc.
I mostly recommend against (assuming or playing with much) prebuffing because the game rightfully calls out prebuffing as being dangerous for combat balancing (and IMO the text undersells this danger).
Casting advantageous spells before a fight (sometimes called “pre-buffing”) gives the characters a big advantage, since they can spend more combat rounds on offensive actions instead of preparatory ones. If the players have the drop on their foes, you usually can let each character cast one spell or prepare in some similar way, then roll initiative.
Casting preparatory spells before combat becomes a problem when it feels rote and the players assume it will always work—that sort of planning can't hold up in every situation! In many cases, the act of casting spells gives away the party's presence. In cases where the PCs' preparations could give them away, you might roll for initiative before everyone can complete their preparations.
To be clear, the biggest issue with prebuffing is that of combat balance. I'm not going to get into the hassle/jank/unfun sides of it.
Without combat actions as the main cost, the prebuff is instead a resource spend. And that resource spend becomes negligible for low R spells / items rather quickly.
While the new spell Benediction providing an outright great benefit at all levels when prebuffed should help draw attention to prebuffing as a danger/problem, I do not want the focus to be on the power of that spell specifically; its new addition should more generally serve as a reminder that this system will continue to add new spells and options over time.
A L10 party that wont kick in a door until a few scrolls of Haste are burned will be *much* more potent in combat than a no prebuff party. Attempting to...
Our table does a lot of advance scouting across editions. We build up stealth. Scout/Point Man is a group role usually occupied by someone with a high perception and any feats or items to improve it. We use spells if we can too.
Maybe this is uncommon as I have no way to know what percentage of groups scout. I know that I always encourage it in any group I'm in.
Best way to gain an advantage is to be the one ambushing, not the one being ambushed.
If a group doesn't do much scouting or prep, then yes, pre-buffing will not be common and they should adjust accordingly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both points are true imo. Prebuffing can happen quite easily if the PCs play for it and the game isn't arbitrarily structured in such a way as to prevent it.
But it also shouldn't influence the evaluation of a class, archetype or spell almost at all. It's much more useful to look at the worst case of a particular circumstancial factor there, not the best – it's the one in which there is an actual chance of failure. At least when that worst case has a good frequency of occuring, such as not getting to prebuff does.
Spells are a real PitA to try to talk balance on because they exist in multiple contexts and use-cases simultaneously.
When the caster has a specific spell option at a high R for them, it is a precious resource to even slot/memorize, as well as expending the cast.
The possibility of "wasting" some or possibly all of a 1 min buff spell by pre-casting it has a genuine effect on keeping the 0A benefit balanced when that's a top or top -1 slot.
Yet, spells also exist in a context where not only is the opportunity cost of "will I occupy one of my limited slots with a buff?" rendered minor with levels going up, but scrolls completely obliterate that worry.
You just buy 5x of a good R1/2/3 scroll and throw them in magical storage. This dichotomy between slots and scrolls is a balance nightmare.
The mental effort and resource spend to have whatever R1 spells on-hand that you want is just so damn small, I do think that factors into the discussion of the low R spells, whether we like it or not.
.
.
Our table does a lot of advance scouting across editions. We build up stealth. Scout/Point Man is a group role usually occupied by someone with a high perception and any feats or items to improve it. We use spells if we can too.
Maybe this is uncommon as I have no way to know what percentage of groups scout. I know that I always encourage it in any group I'm in.
Best way to gain an advantage is to be the one ambushing, not the one being ambushed.
If a group doesn't do much scouting or prep, then yes, pre-buffing will not be common and they should adjust accordingly.
Prebuffing *and* scouting is even more balance-breaking, and I can only imagine how thoroughly your party obliterates any opposing force in official APs.
Especially given how often APs involve maps of "foes in most rooms, all doors closed," trying to regularly scout is even more rare than prebuffing is.
Scouting also has the issue where the tactic requires a significant bar of GM skill/work to run smoothly, if at all. It is only a good thing that pf2 being so easy to run means that a lot of GMs are uncomfortable coloring outside the lines of APs, so to speak, but it is absolutely something I've noticed.
Even in a hobby as nerdy as this is, I think it is very safe to say that most players do not regularly prebuff, and even fewer scout.
I really do wish I had some window into the average age/ttrpg experience years of pf2 players, because that absolutely is the most relevant datapoint that can provide a lot of insight / be the basis for other assumptions.
Old players tend to always be outnumbered by the newer, but it's hard to say by what degree that is true for pf2 specifically.
The proportion of veteran : casual(newbie) in a system like 5e was notoriously lopsided, and there is definitely a huge filter effect for a less mainstream system like pf2.
.
.
P.S.
Reaction spells in scroll form are incredibly potent and seemingly under-utilized.
Any spellcasting PC that has learned to dodge the Draw action cost can keep some low R scrolls worn, then opt into which Reaction to hold after initiative has been rolled. Great way to milk some more oomph out of a spellcasting feature, and such PCs are the most likely to have a hand and Reaction to work with. You will certainly at least be able to cast Hidebound as many times as your wallet allows.
I do recommend the L9 version of the Retrieval Belt for any L>10 campaign, as the three slots allows you to snap your fingers and pick which Reaction (or other consumable) will be the most helpful for that fight (only can perform 1 free action item retrieval per fight per belt).
Also notable that you don't even have a Reaction until your first turn, which is right when you pseduo-slot in that reaction thanks to the Belt.
Both points are true imo. Prebuffing can happen quite easily if the PCs play for it and the game isn't arbitrarily structured in such a way as to prevent it.
But it also shouldn't influence the evaluation of a class, archetype or spell almost at all. It's much more useful to look at the worst case of a particular circumstancial factor there, not the best – it's the one in which there is an actual chance of failure. At least when that worst case has a good frequency of occuring, such as not getting to prebuff does.Spells are a real PitA to try to talk balance on because they exist in multiple contexts and use-cases simultaneously.
When the caster has a specific spell option at a high R for them, it is a precious resource to even slot/memorize, as well as expending the cast.
The possibility of "wasting" some or possibly all of a 1 min buff spell by pre-casting it has a genuine effect on keeping the 0A benefit balanced when that's a top or top -1 slot.
Yet, spells also exist in a context where not only is the opportunity cost of "will I occupy one of my limited slots with a buff?" rendered minor with levels going up, but scrolls completely obliterate that worry.
You just buy 5x of a good R1/2/3 scroll and throw them in magical storage. This dichotomy between slots and scrolls is a balance nightmare.
The mental effort and resource spend to have whatever R1 spells on-hand that you want is just so damn small, I do think that factors into the discussion of the low R spells, whether we like it or not.
.
.
...Our table does a lot of advance scouting across editions. We build up stealth. Scout/Point Man is a group role usually occupied by someone with a high perception and any feats or items to improve it. We use spells if we can too.
Maybe this is uncommon as I have no way to know what percentage of groups scout. I know that I always encourage it in any group I'm in.
Best way to gain an advantage is to be the one
If a game is balanced in a way to have a problem using a tactic that is common for any intelligent being and so common in warfare as every single military force in the known world uses it, it's a badly built game.
Special forces use it. Ancient native warriors used it. Scouting an enemy or moving cautiously and carefully in dangerous areas is done by almost any living thing capable of doing so.
A game should never be balanced around the idea that you shouldn't be using preparatory tactics that make you seem ridiculously foolish to not use them.
You very much underestimate PF2 if you think this is a problem. It isn't at all. AP creatures are easy to beat whether you scout or not if they are some moderate or lower encounter in some room.
It's up to the DM to know his party and adjust the enemy tactics accordingly to make for an intelligent enemy as well using tactics well.
I'm not even sure where this idea is coming from as it would only exist with the most neophyte of DMs running a module as written against an experienced party. DMs with experience know how to make battles interesting regardless of player tactics.
APs are material for a DM to make their own, not to run as written even if the players just completely rip it apart.
Your position is not how anyone I know plays except beginners learning the game and running things as written until they get a feel for things.
PF2 definitely provides parties who want it means to scout and to prebuff.
There are spells that can see through walls, disguise characters, make them invisible, etc. You don't put spells like that into a game and then expect players never to use them for their most obvious benefit.
Casting spells like Mystic Armor, False Vitality, Heroism, Mountain's Resistance (the new Stone skin), etc. are not spells you cast in combat, you prebuff with them. Many players write off 1 minute prebuffs as resource sinks, but the game can definitely accomodate high level casters having lots of low rank scrolls without breaking. If it didn't want to, it could have made scrolls even cheaper but require daily investment, so low rank scrolls would have been a waste of limited resources.
I promise that letting your players occasionally cast Bless outside of a door behind which they expect trouble is not going to obliterate your encounters. If you are worried about it, and your players take no precautions about spell casting within hearing range of enemies, start the encounter from a distance/through the closed door. Let the enemies draw their weapons and take defensive positions if they otherwise would have been caught off guard, and if the party has taken feats to make casting something that can be hidden, don't punish them for committing character resources to use their abilities.
Sure, learning how to have enemies do these kinds of things too takes some time and practice, and it is better to err on the side of not making your enemy NPCs overly smart and tactically proficient rather than obliterating your party that is not ready for such tactics, but if the players are the ones pushing to try out these elements of the game, it is a good sign that they are ready to start having enemies use some of them too. If one player is wanting to be incredibly cautious and spend party resources on tools for scouting and prebuffing, and the other players don't, that is a communication problem to work out with the whole table, the same as a party that has one character always sudden charging way ahead of everyone else and then getting mad if the rest of the party doesn't rush ahead to support them. One way to play isn't righter than the others, or more expected by the core game system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a game is balanced in a way to have a problem using a tactic that is common for any intelligent being and so common in warfare as every single military force in the known world uses it, it's a badly built game.
Special forces use it. Ancient native warriors used it. Scouting an enemy or moving cautiously and carefully in dangerous areas is done by almost any living thing capable of doing so.
A game should never be balanced around the idea that you shouldn't be using preparatory tactics that make you seem ridiculously foolish to not use them.
You very much underestimate PF2 if you think this is a problem. It isn't at all. AP creatures are easy to beat whether you scout or not if they are some moderate or lower encounter in some room.
It's up to the DM to know his party and adjust the enemy tactics accordingly to make for an intelligent enemy as well using tactics well.
I'm not even sure where this idea is coming from as it would only exist with the most neophyte of DMs running a module as written against an experienced party. DMs with experience know how to make battles interesting regardless of player tactics.
APs are material for a DM to make their own, not to run as written even if the players just completely rip it apart.
Your position is not how anyone I know plays except beginners learning the game and running things as written until they get a feel for things.
I'm just trying to let you know that you are not having the same experience or approach as most players, in a purely "% of playerbase" manner.
I'd personally love to get a game or two at such a crunchy table some day, but yeah dude, what you're describing is completely not in the reality of "most" pf2 play.
An experienced GM absolutely has the tools they need to keep the scales balanced, and I'm happy that it seems yours finds the pf2 system one that doesn't break when under such a heavy load being placed on both sides.
That said, even if it does not break outright, such "maximized" play has a lot of side effects. From 80%+ of listed spell/item/ect options becoming "non-viable" under such conditions, to the "combat is decided in the first round" type snowballing.
I do just want to say again, that while I agree that what you are saying is absolutely what sensible PCs would do "in universe," that is not at all how most players operate. Most players do not even read their selected class's full set of feats. Maybe they'll at least read the complete table list versions, but then again, maybe not. They are waaaaay more casual than you suspect.
To say one more time, prebuffing and scouting are not "normal".
A game should never be balanced around the idea that you shouldn't be using preparatory tactics that make you seem ridiculously foolish to not use them.
The game itself says 1 prebuff at most, because those 2A 1 min buffs are balanced around being used in combat and not around getting them for 0A.
The game is/has told you that it is balanced around "not preparing," which is against your stated desire. Scouting is far more nebulous a mechanic/concept, but we can outright say that "the game's combat is not designed to handle significant prebuffing.".
.
And as far as APs go, they, uh, are kind of a joke in regard to quality/consistency. They can include things where 1 (required to trigger) failed save or unlucky encounter table roll is pretty much certain character death. And when there was no mistake to be made, that kind of "danger" is just b!$*@@!*.
And then you get stories like what happens in Stolen Fate. There's a part with a bridge that is super poorly written / telegraphed; the author apparently expected us to start stealth murdering people we'd never met. We spent 8 rounds fighting on the bridge, and ended up simultaneously fighting 6 or 7 encounters due to some unknown whistle mechanic.
There were 4 named NPCs, 3 magi apprentices, some harpies + Queen, and lots of mooks. Mostly thanks to 2 PCs having Timber Sentinel and the Sorcerer using + counterspelling Chain Lightning, and a Bottled Night, we fought that snowballing blob for 8 rounds before running away with 0 PC deaths. That kinda 4 vs ~20 should not have been possible to survive.
But while that Stolen Fate party certainly isn't the type to scout or prebuff, they do recognize numbers when they read them (hence the Timber Sentinels). And there's plenty of silly choices for PCs to select, especially with the Archetyping system.
Because low tactics does not mean stupid, it just means low tactics.
If a game is balanced in a way to have a problem using a tactic that is common for any intelligent being and so common in warfare as every single military force in the known world uses it, it's a badly built game.
Special forces use it. Ancient native warriors used it. Scouting an enemy or moving cautiously and carefully in dangerous areas is done by almost any living thing capable of doing so.
A game should never be balanced around the idea that you shouldn't be using preparatory tactics that make you seem ridiculously foolish to not use them.
You very much underestimate PF2 if you think this is a problem. It isn't at all. AP creatures are easy to beat whether you scout or not if they are some moderate or lower encounter in some room.
It's up to the DM to know his party and adjust the enemy tactics accordingly to make for an intelligent enemy as well using tactics well.
I'm not even sure where this idea is coming from as it would only exist with the most neophyte of DMs running a module as written against an experienced party. DMs with experience know how to make battles interesting regardless of player tactics.
APs are material for a DM to make their own, not to run as written even if the players just completely rip it apart.
Your position is not how anyone I know plays except beginners learning the game and running things as written until they get a feel for things.
I'm just trying to let you know that you are not having the same experience or approach as most players, in a purely "% of playerbase" manner.
I'd personally love to get a game or two at such a crunchy table some day, but yeah dude, what you're describing is completely not in the reality of "most" pf2 play.
An experienced GM absolutely has the tools they need to keep the scales balanced, and I'm happy that it seems yours finds the pf2 system one that doesn't break when under such a heavy load being placed on both sides.
That said, even if it does not break outright, such...
I would love an analysis of playstyles and a discussion by the designers of how they account for that in design.
My group has always tried to use stealth, though it was mainly possible as a group tactic in 3E when skills were introduced as the rogue and ranger with maybe assassin and bard having move silently skills. But we've used stealth since 3E/PF1 and had no problems with this particular tactic with game balance. 3E/PF1 were already broken for other reasons.
You really think most tables with Stealth easily available don't send a stealth character as a forward scout or use magic for scouting?
Quiet Allies makes Stealth/Scouting possible for all groups now.
If it is even easier to do, wouldn't more people do it?
Quiet Allies makes Stealth/Scouting possible for all groups now.
Nevertheless, it is often considered a "feels bad" feat that few people properly understand and even less actually take.
The whole "using the lowest modifier" is VERY off-putting on the surface even though in reality it's better any time all or nothing party stealth matters.
I'm sure still others probably think that you shouldn't need a feat for something like that.
The alternative is everyone rolls and one fail is all thats needed to get caught.
Or only the stealthy character try it while the rest find a different route.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quiet Allies combined with Keen Follower now is almost as good as Stealth Synergy was in PF1.
Quiet Allies combined with Keen Follower now is almost as good as Stealth Synergy was in PF1.
Oh wow. Going to have to remember that one for later.
...PF2 combat is already stuffed with chores and frustration, don't punish trying to mitigate that dullness to get it over with.
You're going to need to elaborate, as I have no idea what on Golarion You're talking about.
What about Pathfinder combat is a chore; what do you find frustrating or dull?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could let players be rewarded for being cautious and smart...not throw all your toys out the pram while screaming badwrongfun, PF2 combat is already stuffed with chores and frustration, don't punish trying to mitigate that dullness to get it over with.
I would love nothing more than for that to be a good idea.
But, given the reality that it's a game system and not a perfectly mutating narrative that can instantly buff foes to match the 1/3 door kicks that randomly spooked a player, resulting in 2 rounds of prebuffs, your suggestion is not a good idea in practice.
There is no way in-system to prevent (or worse, punish) prebuffs. Alchemy does not have the common "bright and noisy" baggage of spells, and all spellcasters have access to Conceal Spell anyway.
There's just no denying that the game itself warns you explicitly that prebuffing is balance-breaking.
Casting advantageous spells before a fight (sometimes called “pre-buffing”) gives the characters a big advantage, since they can spend more combat rounds on offensive actions instead of preparatory ones. If the players have the drop on their foes, you usually can let each character cast one spell or prepare in some similar way, then roll initiative.
Casting preparatory spells before combat becomes a problem when it feels rote and the players assume it will always work—that sort of planning can't hold up in every situation! In many cases, the act of casting spells gives away the party's presence. In cases where the PCs' preparations could give them away, you might roll for initiative before everyone can complete their preparations.
Once a player puts the pieces together and "unlocks" the knowledge of "advanced pre-buffing" via scrolls + storage |+ Trick MI |+ Conceal Spell,
that's permanent player knowledge they'll carry forever.Every PC after that player discovery either needs a personal character reason to not think of something that would be obvious to actual in-world adventurers, or said PC "should" be doing everything they can to survive, especially prebuffing.
Derivan's bit on the PCs not being dumbasses, therefore scouting & prebuffing is a completely valid take. It's just one that over-pressurizes the game's integrity, turning every foe round into a potential pipe bomb of danger. One player brain-fart of *not* casting that obvious spell can get the whole party killed.
And while a skilled GM can make rocket tag combat fun for some, *every* game system is unable to provide a pure "narrative natural" play due to the context of a game being expressed in numbers. Both players and GMs will always have to leave possible actions unused to preserve the game's fun. Both in combat, and *especially* outside of combat; there are just soooo many chore-like yet effective ways to wreck/manipulate NPCs, and the APs provide more than enough "greater good" justification.
.
.
Prebuffing does not have to be a super sticky issue, and my most strict GM didn't spend much time on it. It was a simple "one turn before door-kick" type rule established early.
The rule was not sold to the players because that "made sense" for the PCs or in-world (like with the noisy magic excuse), but because that was the compromise between the system of numbers needing to hold up, and the narrative desire to "not be a dumbass" via charging into the danger room without buffs, only to then use the same spells/elixirs right after combat begins.
.
As a side note, scouting is honestly pretty damn cool and mechanically synergistic. I've only had a single sorcerer take the remote eye spell, and the poor guy only had one good chance in Abm Vlts to use it. Aside from that, "scouting" in my experience is mostly limited to my own PCs interrupting with "Wait! I quietly approach and put my ear to the door first."
I don't think the APs really take the tactic into consideration, but a Stealth master going ahead of the group is great way to give the party meaningful info to prepare from. It enhances the tactical fun of the game while rewarding the Stealth-invested PC & without technically touching the math of combat in any way. A triple gold star, IMO.
Though, if said PC is a Toxicologist and starts using contact poisons... that could break 1/3 combats before initiative is even rolled, ugh (and that much detail would definitely get into "solo play" table issues).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another idea here. If players fail on getting the drop dont the enemies do smart things too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so some things:
1. The exact rule you quote talks about letting players each get one spell off before rolling combat. That is exactly what I was talking about with Bless sometimes being better action compression than courageous anthem.
1.5. The reason why I personally as a GM don't give one free spell before rolling initiative, and instead will just have the players roll initiative before casting the spell or open the door unless the PCs can cast stealthily, is because that builds in limits to how effective it can be. If the party plays smart, and doesn't rush ahead, they can give themselves several rounds of preparing but it is within combat rounds and the enemy might be doing sneaky stuff too if the party doesn't have the ability to observe them. Lock has been another spell I have used to great success to buy extra time for the party to prepare.
2. Trick magic item and conceal spell are not happening in the same round, and thus any GM is well within their right to say no to the two being used together.
3. Conceal spell is available to witch and wizard only. The bard and druidic version of this ability both involve making noises that are not particularly common in dungeons. Multiclassing to pick up conceal spell requires a caster boost INT to 14, doesn't become available until level 4, and is a pretty heavy investment for most characters playing the game without variant rules like Free Archetype.
4. I played PF1 caster rocket tag. I played a Divination Wizard who couldn't lose initiative, not even to a surprise attack. Who could cast dimension door (and all my brutal encounter ending spells) silently, next to a cleric who laid down silence spells on the paladin and we would teleport in and wreck encounters. I do understand how difficult that was to GM and how cat and mouse encounters became, with each side trying to prebuff and trap the other side, while the otherside would usually just bug out as soon as they realized they were caught off guard. "Cast bless before you open the door," is not that. Not even "cast bless before opening the door, have one PC keep listening at the door to see if anything happens when the caster casts a spell loudly, and maybe give it an extra round or two of listening/casting spells before opening the door." This is because the 1 minute durations pretty well cover this. If you try to spend 5 rounds pre-buffing silently outside the door, and then the enemy doesn't rush to engage you, you very well may end up wasting spells, especially if the NPCs spend a turn or two getting into advantageous positions and calling in back up, (things that are definitely written into many AP encounter tactics).
5. Even with alchemist consumables it is very easy to over commit to using expendable resources and the fight not happening where the party expects it to, or for unseen forces to cause things to go sideways. As a GM letting the PCs succeed with careful planning/strategies AND adding complications that keep things spicy is not that difficult in PF2, and APs often have great advice for how to do this written in. GMs can also come here and post questions about it in the various AP threads and folks like James Jacobs are amazing in how often they respond and give ideas and support. Sure you might get it wrong occasionally, and overwhelm the party. Have enemies take captives instead of ruthlessly slaughter everyone, and it doesn't have to end your campaign. The GM core talks about this, APs have these kind of suggestions near tough enemies, and you will get similar advice for many GMs here. One of the most fun tricks I have ever pulled as a GM during an encounter that was clearly getting out of hand was to have a low level minion grab an important piece of loot and start to run off with it when they saw their chance, and their boss was preoccupied. it. divided a too difficult encounter and got both sides moving through the encounter space again, as well as gave the players a round to heal
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another idea here. If players fail on getting the drop dont the enemies do smart things too?
They kinda "should", from an in-world logic PoV, but "for the sake of fun," they don't at most tables.
In Strn o Thousands, we cleared one farmhouse of hostile boggards, then rested for 10min inside to get our focus points back. If foes were smart, that would have been a lethal "mistake" for our PCs to do.
The other foes in the shed and barn did not ambush us, did not prebuff, etc. At that table, they must have heard the lethal violence, but they stayed in their designated rooms.
They always do (for most tables).
.
Foes don't act smart because players being ambushed, perhaps by the big boss encounter in the barn, right when the party is at their most vulnerable, would have a statistically high chance of killing the party.
Enemies don't do smart things because it's not fun, nor do the combat numbers hold up well. If those boggards were smart, there would have been a minion blocking each exit door, then the big guy would have started tounge-yoinking the PCs out the room and swallowing them within the same turn.
Intelligent foes would have taken a totally mundane side-quest and likely killed all of us. A single improved grab + swallow monster really is that powerful/lethal if "played smart."
Again, how many times have foes knocked a PC dying, but refused to spend the 1 or 2A needed to secure the kill? As soon as "smart foes" see healing magic, they know the need for the double-tap.
This is exactly what I mean by a "gentleman's agreement" of not using known power-strategies.
So long as the combat is genuinely dangerous enough to be fun, that's when players & GM stop the "tactical arms race" to escalate each side's power.
.
In the micro scale, prebuffing is one super potent tactic that can turn a planned-extreme threat into an effective moderate thanks to the party-wide Haste + Benediction + Bless + Numbing/Soothing + Life Pact + ___.
That's why one of the vanishingly few uses of gamer-speak in the rulebook is to explicitly name and warn against prebuffing as a concept. It's just that much of a known and story-breaking power imbalancer to anyone with a bit of game design insight.
It's also tedious and boring to tick down your scrolls, etc. It's *the* chief example of a "powerful and anti-fun" tactic. Sure, you can get a giggle or smirk the first time you break the balance by prebuffing. But as soon as that power boost is normalized, all the "fun" of the trick is gone, and it becomes a tax, an obligatory song and dance you "should" do every time you can.
Change up expectations sometimes. If they always believe the next room is a fight with no alternative way to get passed it the incentive is to be ready for one. If they cant count on everything starting with combat prebuffing loses effectiveness. Well unless the party act like murderhobos anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5. Even with alchemist consumables it is very easy to over commit to using expendable resources and the fight not happening where the party expects it to, or for unseen forces to cause things to go sideways.
I don't have the time atm to respond to the whole thing.
This one in specific I directly addressed as a *new* problem created by the Remaster, which inverted / reversed the existing psychology of Quick Alchemy.
Old Alch did behave as you describe, popping any item before a fight, especially one created from Quick Alchemy, had a real "guess worry," as the potential to waste those 1 min items provided a big psychological counter-weight against excessive prebuffing.
New Alch not only has infinitely recharging VVs, but trying to use those VVs in combat for buffs is stupidly "bad;" in practice, it's often a 3A ask for one Activate.
Because Paizo is so Bomber-brained, they didn't think about what that really means for the other Alchemists who don't want to turn every last VV into a bomb.
They designed a situation where New Alchs can use their most potent prebuffs before a door kick with 0 cost beyond a 10 or 20min recharge, *and* made the post-door-kick use of said items nearly non-viable. That's kinda a disaster of design.
And after my session last night, I'm begrudgingly going to change my prior "no 1 min VV prebuffing" stance.
My Alchemist PCs *are* going to prebuff, because playing a Chir is just that stupidly bad/painful if I leave that power on the table.
My new "rule" is that I'll prebuff one VV per PC at most, and resist the temptation to super charge the Monk/etc into a tanky murder-machine before every door. (prebuffs are often most potent when stacked onto one PC)
Because again, this whole thing is about combat balance and power. The entire "issue" that's getting a lot of talk without really being debated here, is that "prebuffing is very powerful."
As interesting as such side-bar discussions can be, no one here really seems to actually disagree with this issue, at best they lampshade or what-about around this core point.
Prebuffing is hella powerful. That's it, that's the issue, both with this new Benediction spell specifically, and the tactic generally.
How a table deals with that is up to them, but it's not helpful to wiggle around the real problem with "pf1 was worse" or "just make the foes more scary" type deflections.
Prebuffing is powerful enough to warrant tables making arbitrary rules about it, and that's fine.
I'm just jabbing this sensitive spot as hard as I can so that people stop looking elsewhere. The more tables understand the source of the issue, the better context they have to then think through whatever solution/response they want, if one is even needed for their unique table.
And yeah, an arbitrary "one prebuff action only" limit can easily be the "best" answer from a game design/fun PoV. It's certainly less disruptive than needing to change every future encounter for balance, ffs.
"Every +1 matters"
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Strn o Thousands, we cleared one farmhouse of hostile boggards, then rested for 10min inside to get our focus points back. If foes were smart, that would have been a lethal "mistake" for our PCs to do.
Not Strength of Thousands but a group that I was introducing PF2 to decided (well, one player in particular but the rest of the group were also unhappy) the game wasn't for them when there was a situation where, in game, they were expected to take some time to regroup/refocus/heal but it really made absolutely no sense in character to suddenly stop and spend 20 minutes or so resting.
The current "You almost always get at least a 10 minute rest between encounters" model can be a MASSIVELY counterintuitive thing in world. As in Really, Really, Really immersion breaking.
I've managed to internalize it and not notice it but it IS an issue for some players.
|
|
In Strn o Thousands, we cleared one farmhouse of hostile boggards, then rested for 10min inside to get our focus points back. If foes were smart, that would have been a lethal "mistake" for our PCs to do.
Not Strength of Thousands but a group that I was introducing PF2 to decided (well, one player in particular but the rest of the group were also unhappy) the game wasn't for them when there was a situation where, in game, they were expected to take some time to regroup/refocus/heal but it really made absolutely no sense in character to suddenly stop and spend 20 minutes or so resting.
The current "You almost always get at least a 10 minute rest between encounters" model can be a MASSIVELY counterintuitive thing in world. As in Really, Really, Really immersion breaking.
I've managed to internalize it and not notice it but it IS an issue for some players.
I do find that it's a much easier sell if you give them the slightest push towards not being able to rest in an obviously terrible place. The boggards are cleared from the house and not the barn and you're trying to rest? "You hear the sounds of the remaining boggards geting organized - do you want to risk resting here, engage them directly, try to retreat to a safer location, or something else?" If they make a basic effort - for example, retreat into the woods near the farm - then the boggards are very unlikely to come after them. Is there a big difference mechanically between "We rest for 20 minutes in the room we fought the encounter in" and "We retreat to the forest, rest for 20 minutes, and then return to the farm to finish the remaining boggards"? Not at all, but making them change plans slightly when they were aiming to do something kinda weird really helps, in my experience. Similarly, small reactions from the enemies helps - if your resting party hears the sounds of hammers, and then the remaining boggards have barricaded all entrances but one into their barn to funnel the party in, it feels a lot better, even if it doesn't change the encounter that much.
This is all a bit too much to do for a long dungeon between every combat, which is why I honestly think dungeons should either be kept a bit shorter, or should be designed for some encounters to join together.