|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
like getting in someone's face and offloading a full round of attacks is fun, running round doing skill checks, casting buffs etc is the exact opposite of fun.
For you, perhaps.
For me, assuming my character is built for it, doing skill checks and casting buffs can be the exact definition of fun.
Don't assume that everybody likes the same things in games
Buffing the encounter is punishing the players,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.
I would absolutely quit a GM who did that just because someone prebuffed.
Pre buffing is an advantage, yes.
The necessity of doing so in Pf1 and 3.5 was tedious and unfun, yes.
Limited prebuffing where and how it makes sense and where players actually do have the advantage of knowing danger is in the next room, acceptable.
Players getting their scouting wrong (failed perception or not trying to scout and assuming) and pre buffing only to find the next area was only a marginal threat and a waste of resources, also acceptable.
Pre buffing into a room where foes start attempting a conversation, well players can decide if losing buff time for an exchange of words is worth while.
I guess i would just think that if the players expect they are in a fight for their lives with no other kinds of interactions possible that kind of set up encourages prebuffing.
Where any discernible information they can gain from their means of scouting ahead leaves room for doubt about what to expect then prebuffing loses its appeal.
A fun game probably has a mix of situations. Some where players have this advantage and others where they are at a disadvantage, and others still where its even, and also moments where even combat isnt an certain outcome of going to the next room or area or whatever.
If the situations are varied the players get rewarded for preparation and good rolls but have a harder time when they arent prepared. It evens out.
Again, the catch is that there is no mechanical "buff effect carry limit" where PCs can only have 3 buffs running at a time, etc.
The "upper limit" of prebuffing has no mechanical safety beyond PCs deciding that it's too much of a hassle / gp cost to perform.
The entire point of many Invested items is to gain passive buffs, many of which are much smaller in power than prebuffs. Boots of Bounding grant +5 spd while Tailwind Wand grants +10 spd.
Passive buffing magic items have limits thanks to Invested, while there is no buff limit mechanic. The game will continue to add more spells, elixirs, and prebuffs. All of which can potentially combine until every statistic is buffed in 4 different ways.
Again, prebuffs are not just "an advantage," prebuffs are hella strong. That R1/2 spell is 2x the spd of a limit-maxed L7 Invested item. It's outright *better* for PCs to buy 2 R 2 Tailwind wands instead of taking up an Invested slot on the Boots o B.
.
Without following the book's "one prebuff action" rule, or using some other house-ruled limit, you're essentially giving up the notion of combat balance to always be decided by the player's whim, when it's supposed to be the GM/story's.
That no-rule version always leaves the door open for players to spontaneously decide they want to rofl-stomp that particular upcoming encounter, so they start reading their item list of R 1, 2, &3 buff scrolls. The GM cannot predict the rare time a player makes that choice, and it is really not the GMs fault that the "fun" of said boss is utterly deflated thanks to players deciding to turn their PCs into roid monsters.
Nor is it the fault of the players for using the rules in a manner to maximize their potential for success, which is something their PCs would certainly agree with.
It *is* the fault of the GM, for not understanding that one buff rule was pretty damn important, and the consequences for not using that safety limiter are entirely the responsibility of the GM who made the choice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are trying to toss 8 hr+ spells into the pre-buff category of "only one per encounter," and then suggest players are playing wrong if they think they try to have mystic armor, false vitality, tailwind, and a mountain resilience spell active when entering an encounter, I think you are being way too hard on your players.
Pre-buffing absolutely has a number of intense limits in PF2:
1. 1 minute spells are the majority of strong combat pre-buff spells, a length of time that severely hampers the idea of players turning themselves into "roid monsters."
2. Only having 3 bonus types, and many ways of accessing them, means that it is difficult to really push the math that far out of balance, especially as +3s are very expensive, and so the vast majority of these kinds of buffs are +1s until very high level. +1s are nice. +1s matter. +1s don't break encounters, or replace the need for strong tactical play in combat encounters.
3. It actually is a fairly heavy investment for a character to go heavy on lots of scrolls and have them accessible without blowing through actions and thus rounds of duration. A retrieval belt can only be used once a minute, even if it is a higher level version of the item, you can only have one retrieval prism active at a time and if you want to use another, it has to be attached again like any other talisman. Sleeves of Storing are pretty essential items for casters and other consumable users, but they actually do fill up if you are burning through scrolls like candy, and casting pre-buffs from scrolls and having to spend actions drawing/retrieving those scrolls means not tricking items and not concealed casting, or spending 2 rounds to cast each spell. All this leads to one or two pre-buff spells being frequently feasible, but more than 2 extremely difficult, especially if only one or two players in the party are capable of casting spells and willing to invest in being vending machines of scrolls and spells.
4. The vast majority of characters will only ever be able to use one mutagen at a time, and getting essential item bonuses from consumables, especially stuff like perception bonuses requires either a substantial amount of gold, or chugging them constantly if you want to have bonuses while engaging in any kind of exploration activity.
The issue is just not nearly as serious as you are making it out to be and it is nothing like PF1 rocket tag.
I do not know why, but you seem to consistently have selective amnesia when talking about this topic.
I literally specified that said wands are cheaper than the boots while providing more (pseudo)permanent speed, yet you wave gp cost as a defense/distraction. You still wave "pf1 was worse" as some kind of defense for pf2, when you know it is completely irrelevant.
Even when others are more opinionated, you are the one it has been the most difficult/frustrating to discuss this with.
"Every +1 matters"
Prebuffs are very strong, and add a lot of numbers.
That's the core of the issue. Combat is a numbers game, and the ability to add numbers before the fight begins makes the equation lopsided as hell.
Please stop flailing around for these weak deflections.
For the Nth time, we are talking about prebuffs, and the potential GMs who may ignore the "one prebuff per PC" guidance. This is when the action cost of scrolls does not matter.
Duration does not matter.
Just because 1 min effects tend to be more potent does not somehow delete the numbers benefits of 10 min, 1 hr, or 8 hr effects.
At L8, my Alchemists can drink/feed all day darkvision, and later throw 15ft bursts of darkness. Prebuffing darkvision, especially when it bypasses the build/ancestry feat investment, "is hella powerful" even if it happens during daily prep.
Alchemists can give PCs +1 over the normal attack stats at all levels, while still using the item bonus category.
.
I already attempted to convey this, but the way buff stacking works is due to the large number of different statistics available to buff. No, you cannot outright auto-win by stacking attack & AC buffs, but that doesn't really help much. You take one Fast Healing effect, then mix it with a Temp HP effect, then some form of reactive "restore Hit Points" effect, drinkable dmg resistance, etc. Even it's "spread out" you still become absurdly tanky before initiative.
Spells especially are notorious for giving unique, "not a status bonus" effects, and foe-side penalties are sprinkled in every buff source. I can feed people Frogskin Tinctures to poison anything that makes bite contact, and a Pucker Pickle outright imposes a -2 Circ penalty to any further rolls that would "taste" someone.
How many claw attacker PCs would pay 12 gp to get the effect of an extra damage elemental rune for an hour?
That's surely not a thing they can just do right?
It is after HotW.
Claws of the Otter is a "crap spell", except for the detail that the spell adds 1d6 bonus cold damage to the claws. And the scroll is 12 gp at its most expensive. And the Trick Magic Item DC is 18.
Again, there is no end to these spells nor items. Prebuffing as a concept will continue to get more and more powerful. 1d6 bonus damage here, "explode for __d__ damage" there, until the PC advantage stacks up to make the victory a foregone conclusion.
In a world of (always growing) limitless choice and no per-PC effect limit, it's up to the GM to make arbitrary safeties and limits for things like that.
It's just absurd to pretend there's not already enough buff options to destroy game balance. As soon as one comes to the realization that enough numbers are already there to substantially drop difficulty, it's really obvious that the book's "one doorkick buff" rule/guidance is not something that should be ignored.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to be very clear, @Trip H., you are arguing that having Mystic Armor active would be a casters 1 buff spell, and they would crossing the intended "1 buff per encounter" line if the same caster cast False Vitality?
That just seems excessively punitive and nonsensical to me, and makes playing a caster much worse. Not for this combination specifically, but because there are tons of all day spells that are clearly not meant to be exclusive. Environmental Endurance, for example is often just one part of making deep undersea exploration feasible.
So to be very clear, @Trip H., you are arguing that having Mystic Armor active would be a casters 1 buff spell, and they would crossing the intended "1 buff per encounter" line if the same caster cast False Vitality?
That just seems excessively punitive and nonsensical to me, and makes playing a caster much worse. Not for this combination specifically, but because there are tons of all day spells that are clearly not meant to be exclusive. Environmental Endurance, for example is often just one part of making deep undersea exploration feasible.
FFS dude, stop engaging dishonestly.
No, I have not argued that at all.
My claims:
1. Prebuffs are powerful enough to imbalance combat to the point of greatly altering the outcome ("breaking" combat balance).
2. The game's own rule/guidance of "one doorkick(pre-fight) prebuff" is super important.
My claimed consequence / needed action created by 1 & 2:
Because prebuffing (combat breaking) is at the fickle whim of player behavior, GMs are responsible for talking through that table's "gentleman's agreement" as to the arbitrary (as in, not mechanically limited like Investment) rules around prebuffing.
Doorkick rules are the most important/balance-breaking, but that's one common expression of the root problem.
Which is unlimited prebuffing.
.
Do note that this is the same core issue that causes some GMs to ban Tailwind Wands. Different specific case, and one that many choose to address via a single item ban. The root problem is not the wand, but prebuffing.
Prebuffing is a big splinter in the very foundation of pf2, and is something that all savvy GMs should beware.
And doorkick/pre-fight prebuffing is such a natural tactic/compulsion that it's something that all GMs should have a rule for, or at least create one in reaction to the first time the players dump their bags and throw a buff party outside a boss door.
And yes, a "no, you guys can't do that, because: because" type of rule sucks balls, but as soon as players perform a big buff dance, that demonstrates that it's needed for the sake of numbers integrity.
And lastly, despite all your mischaracterization, I've not imposed any personal rule once, and the only "actual rule" I've repeated with any degree of "should" weight is the guidance/rule of the damn book!
It's just completely nuts to me that I have to argue for the rule of "one doorkick prebuff" to actually be considered the default when that's exactly what the text instructs.
While I can guess that the strong opposition to limiting prebuffs is often related to those who've "experienced worse" in pf1 and are scared of loosing that power source, it's still astounding how many chained mental backflips are being performed to keep dodging the exiting rule guidance itself being the source of the "one doorkick buff" idea (yet, the dodges are always done without directly opposing said rule).
If you disagree with the "one doorkick prebuff" thing, please actually share your unobfuscated rule/opinion on how "the prebuffing question" should be handled, instead of attacking "mine" (the book's) from every angle, once your smokescreen attempts fail.
If you think so, just say ~"I think that is a bad rule/guidance, and do not have any limits on prebuffing" and maybe elect to share a "because ____ __ ___" and be done with that point.
I will call out the books being stupid and advocate for homebrew when I think it's appropriate, even when it's the minority take. There is no need to be shy about that on a pseudonymous internet forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my reading, the one prebuff suggestion is talking about general guidance for parties that are taking no precautions and using spells with one minute duration. I don’t think it is nearly as balance oriented as you do and I think reading all day buffs, like tailwind, false life, mystic armor, elemental endurance, etc into “only 1 prebuff” is highly problematic behavior for a GM to engage in.
Getting +1s to every possible combat statistic with consumables is nearly impossible and highly dependent on what kind of bonuses we are talking about. A GM that always has every enemy standing up and alert in a dungeon is narrative breaking problematic behavior on its own, but having PCs prebuff and then having aware enemies grab weapons and take up defensive piositions is a very easy way to balance these things. At higher levels, many humanoid NPCs often have consumables listed in their gear. GMs can have them use them too for narrative continuity. PCs can dispel spell buffs. Enemy casters can do the same. What level of this will be fun for each table is highly subjective, which is where the 1 rebuff advice probably comes in as a starting place until the whole table is ready, but it certainly does not include long duration spells and consumables. That kind of stuff is a part of those classes power budget and will absolutely decimate their comparative power levels if you just strike it down.
The key to all of this as a GM is don’t make boring dungeons where the exact same tactics and strategies work every time, over and over again. Paizo already takes care of this pretty well in their own adventures. As your players learn to cooperate and accomplish more, you can start to adjust some challenge knobs more, but you want to stay behind their learning curve, not ahead of it, and have sensible, narratively compelling back up plans to keep the story moving when the dice are being rough. That is always valuable advice, but it does double work when the table is able to stop playing PF2 like a video game and play it like a cooperative story telling game.