Since there's going to be, or there already is, a stream of new players coming to the game i think that this argument is not at all unproper to discuss.
in my opinion the game fails at teaching new players how they should play the game: low levels are COMPLETELY focused on damage and innate survivability:
-the first since a crit can and probably will oneshot most enemies, and heavily injure some bosses; plus there aren't really any worth debuff spells to use, focusing wholly on damage is therefore not only the most effective strategy but highly incentivized by the fact that enemies WILL also do that! "three fighters and a bard" didn't come out of thin air.
-by innate survivability i mean the survivability of the base chassis of the class, in later levels thanks to items and abilities almost everyone will have resistances and means to significantly reduce damage taken, at lower level the best you have it's shield block which, while incredibly effective, doesn't really permit any serious stalling. (a high level kin can tank a boss due to abilities, a low level barb can tank a boss due to his enormous hp pool).
these two factors, coupled by the fact that some classes genuinely get an enormous spike around level 7+, have new players focus on raw numbers and come to conclusions such as:
-rogue suck (sorry, had to :p)
-casters suck
-the best party is 3 martials and a buff oriented caster.
what do you think?
what do you think?
That there's no One True Way to play the game.
I personally find that buff and debuff are sold over and over again and damage is not sold enough. Your post is another one that feed this feeling.
Combat ends when someone reaches a certain hp threshold. So leave damage be.
|
I would question the idea that (early) rouge sucks but I don't want to get too off-topic immediately.
IMO the biggest problems I've had with the teaching the system has been, and I'm not even being hyperbolic with word choices here, deprogramming habits from DnD 5e.
Even if players read the rules or the truncated versions I give them, I don't think the books do enough to stress the idea that skill actions are worthwhile, and standing around trying to land 3 hits every round will get you killed.
It's not as bad now I know to really stress it to players, but my first campaign was a trainwreck for several sessions as players just didn't do anything except 2/3 attack turns.
Also, even at early levels, debuffs are helpful. If, as you say, early levels are all about crits, debuffs and buffed players have a much higher chance of landing that crit. It's why demoralise can be great.
I've never seen a player come away from early levels and decide that it's not worth debuffing enemies. I've seen them come away not realising they can do it with things that aren't spells, which goes into my point above.
And again, never seen one come away and decide that casters "suck" either. Weaker than they'd like them to be? Sure. Especially if they really wanted to use spell attack rolls. But never seen someone decide they're all worthless.
I've not seen many people come to the conclusion that rogues suck.
And casters sucks seems to come up more from people experienced in other version of fantasy RPGs, especially PF1.
The biggest folly I see new players make is trying to use 3 actions with the attack trait (MAP really is that bad). And not picking up good reactions and other action economy/compression abilities. Abilities that don't look that great on paper but are very effective.
Sudden Charge is an example (sometimes) where people don't realize why it's good. It's 2 actions, to move twice your normal movement distance (which would cost 2 actions) and attack. It's a staple of practically any melee build which has access to it, but I've seen new players ignore it because they're not thinking of the 3 action system their characters have to exist in.
Edit: Hey, look at that poster above me talking about this issue
Action compression is incredibly powerful, but overlooked because "you can already do that".
I think that the game does NOT do a good job of teaching new players how to play it. Only other players and GMs can do the job of teaching how to play it. Yes, low levels are deadly and all you are trying to do is survive and get a little more power. Maybe that’s why there aren’t heroes overwhelming Golarion - it’s a deadly occupation!
Seriously, let’s take a look at each of your concerns in turn. Correct, low level combat is brutal and short (18-30 seconds, kinda like real life). You have to maximize your strengths and also help your comrades to hit, damage, and stay alive. Following that, your next three points aren’t really the outcomes that I have witnessed.
Rogues are pretty awesome martials and make a nice alternative to those characters who just stand in one place and hit things.
Casters are more difficult to play because their spells and abilities provide subtle but critical factors to party success, whether that’s buffs, debuffs, area damage (very strong and underestimated in multiple enemy encounters-which are nearly all of them), or battlefield control (which maximizes your martials’ damage and minimizes that of the enemy).
I’ve seen some very interesting games in Pathfinder Society at a table of 3 or more casters and one non-optimal martial like a monk or rogue. Even these ‘bad’ tables do well and often make for a very fun / exciting game. I don’t know what kind of games you are playing, but it doesn’t match up with my experience at all, which means ‘the game’ is doing a fine job of teaching people how to play it.
It's kind of weird to see people pretending we didn't have literal years of "casters are worthless" discourse predicated along the OP's point of issues with low level play and a lack of experience with the system. Discourse that has somewhat faded as people have gained more knowledge about the system and experienced the game at a wider variety of levels.
Some of the posters in this very thread have been involved in those debates, and in fact have pointed to the way casters mature as they level up in previous discussions.
I think the OP has a reasonable point: Level 1 Pathfinder players wildly differently than the game does at pretty much any other breakpoint. Even level 2 changes a lot of assumptions about the game and by level 5 and up you're in an entirely different world.
Yet lots of new players have washed out because of those very specific low level experiences, or had their entire view of the game defined by them.
We've had each of those discussions so many times it's kind of wild to me to see people arguing that it's not true. Is it just that it's framed as a criticism of the system and people are having a kneejerk reaction to it?
The way things scale, survivability and martial effectiveness between all classes is definitely something I could see throwing new players.
I introduced someone to the game and they quickly decided the best class is rogue and he would never play another class, skill feats meant that much to him.
Another new group from 5e had a hard time understanding the basic math expectations. One didn't want any armor or Dex because it didn't fit his character.
Since you can easily play anything from society games to APs or even harder home brew it's hard to say if those issues are a system problem or just getting to know what your GM expects of you and what system knowledge you need to meet those expectations.
It is an RPG. You learn to play from the experience. These games are not simple bored games. You want the players to develop their own play-style and think about building a character mechanically and creatively including personality, motivations, and getting into doing a bit of acting. When they first start, you want them to get into the spirit of the game, which is playing make believe with rules.
Some of the posters in this very thread have been involved in those debates, and in fact have pointed to the way casters mature as they level up in previous discussions.
I think the OP has a reasonable point: Level 1 Pathfinder players wildly differently than the game does at pretty much any other breakpoint. Even level 2 changes a lot of assumptions about the game and by level 5 and up you're in an entirely different world.
Yet lots of new players have washed out because of those very specific low level experiences, or had their entire view of the game defined by them.
We've had each of those discussions so many times it's kind of wild to me to see people arguing that it's not true. Is it just that it's framed as a criticism of the system and people are having a kneejerk reaction to it?
Has the OP been involved in those conversations? Sorry, I didn’t check and was just trying to summarize for them. You might be correct that many people have washed out at first level, which is why it’s important for other players and GMs to teach them about the vast differences between first and other levels.
I’m not sure who you say is arguing that 1st level play is not difficult and bland. As you point out, by 2nd level (or 5th or 7th) the game has changed significantly. That holds true once you get to 10th or 15th. Each tier of play brings its own challenges and rewards. That’s a boon not a bug. Once again, I’m not sure who is arguing that the OP’s experience is untrue. It seems that people are just offering other experiences that don’t match with that OP. Isn’t that how you teach the game, by talking about it?
The "teaching" part would be in the introductory boxed set. I think there's a lot of room for creating some examples of clever combats, but that's not much different than just asking the community or reading examples and guides.
At a certain point players need to read the rules enough to understand them rather than just follow them.