| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are an adult with strong experience in board and ttrp games. As I said before, you probably think this level's about you. But it isn't. It's about my kid's junior high role playing club, which has a massive 40+ kid membership and organizes 8-10 tables of low-level play every Wednesday. Those are Paizo's 2030 customers, the people who will buy their content long after you and I stop. As a direct competitor to that other game PF2E is, yes, going after the "played once, or haven't yet played but interested" market. Not just folks like you or I with decades of experience and a 'seen it, done that' equilibrium towards tpks. Paizo does make lots of content for us. But not 100% of it. Having the early level content to be for folks like that club rather than folks like you or I simply makes a lot of sense. At least, to me.
But not necessarily to Paizo. We need to get information about their marketing goals, which population they target and such.
Paizo's 2030 customers can come from the other game. There's no need for Paizo to teach TTRPGs themselves, they can even entirely ignore kids (I must admit, I have hard time seeing how I could sell PF2 to kids).Neither Ford nor Mercedes sell bikes and still they manage to sell their cars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've got some folks saying make L1 encounters survivable without knowing all the tactics (i.e. allows for incremental learning).
There's factually no link between incremental learning curve and L1 survivability. You are reaching a conclusion based on a ton of untold assumptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I must admit, I have hard time seeing how I could sell PF2 to kids).By introducing the complex rules set incrementally. Which is kinda the whole point here, right? You've got some folks saying make L1 encounters survivable without knowing all the tactics (i.e. allows for incremental learning) and others saying no no make it tactically full-game-on right from the start (no increments; know everything all at once or you're dead). Because (at least in one opinion) 'it's good to weed out the folks who can't handle it', though I suspect the more common reason for wanting full-on L1 encounters is 'because as an experienced player, I too want to enjoy those L1-5 APs...and I don't want to have to upgrade them.'
I was able to teach my kid Terraforming Mars at age 8. But I didn't do that by forcing him to know every detailed rule in the very first run through. The first run through used some of the rules. Then the second used more. Then by the third time, he got it all. So now we play tons of games together. Had I insisted on the full rules set and just focused on whomping on his a$$ that first game, I doubt we'd be playing complex board games together today as much as we do. There is good long term fun value in giving beginners a low slope learning curve.
It's just kids. While adults have a lot more experience to lean on and are "smarter" than kids, adults also have a lot competing for their time and attention to. Not everyone wants to start on hard mode when they're new to a game.
It's better to have a game with consistent challenges (moderate encounters all being roughly equal difficulty at all levels) than to have a change mid way through the game as you level (unless you choose to go from moderate to severe or extreme encounters). But the important part is making that choice, and not having bad math give you a different experience at levels 1 and 2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's better to have a game with consistent challenges
Why?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a simple search on the Internet it looks like we learn faster when we are challenged. I don't know if it's true or not (Google is not omniscient) but I know for sure it applies to me.
So challenging first levels may actually be a very conscious choice to quickly get beginners up to par and avoid massive discrepancies in game mastery between players.
I know a lot of games who adopt this difficulty curve, with challenging early game, easy mid game and very hard end game.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's better to have a game with consistent challengesWhy?
So a GM actually understands the level of challenge they're sending to the players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a GM actually understand the level of challenge they're sending to the players.
You mean that the GM has less things to learn. Because it's a question of experience, not something you can't control ever.
I also think there's a bit of exaggeration. Level +2 solo bosses are not that deadly at level 1, I've been through many such encounters without any character death. The only ones that are really deadly are level +3 solo bosses which are qualified as "Severe- or extreme-threat boss" and I'm not sure I've ever faced one at level 1.
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is of course bringing up a lot of personally feelings in our community, and while it is always good to be yourself and feel safe enough to do so, please also remember not to insult others to get your point across. Lots of comments removed in this thread. Remember to disagree while also being civil, everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Trip H tends to post as though his opinion is absolute and irrefutable when it is their personal preference.
Stating something is bad game design as though we all can just see it and agree is a statement I'm not seeing. It's not something anyone has brought up much in the decades I've played.
Objective statements are always made by actors of subjective opinion, so when I claim "the low Lvl HP & HP growth math is bad game design" that is similar to someone looking at a newly remodeled bathroom and saying "that is a badly built shower."
I can point to objective observations for evidence, such as there being hardened grout smeared across the surface of tiles, but it is *always* possible to plug one's ears and shout "opinion, not fact!" as you keep doing. No list of factual observations can nullify such a "counterargument."
Then Trip H is stating percentages based on some calculation I'm not seeing given how different the hit point totals are for different classes across all levels. So what class is Trip H basing this on? A 10 hit point martial, an 8 hit point class, a 6 hit point caster? What is this percentage based on?
This is an especially silly thing to type when the thread is still there, and when this math was spelled out as a direct reply to you, rofl.
When you try imply that I'm making up numbers, maybe check first? I don't know if it's worse if you didn't read it/forgot, or if you are pretending you didn't, and hoping to not get called out on that.
And I don't know what you want. Less damage from the monsters? Fourty hit points at first level so you never have to worry about getting crushed?
Example HP gain on that example Alch level up:
L1 --> L2: 15 -- +9 --> 24 | + 37.5% max HP
L4 --> L5: 46 -- +10 --> 56 | + 21.7% max HP
L9 --> L10: 105 -- +11 --> 116 | + 10.4% max HP
L14 --> L15: 174 --> +12 --> 186 | + 6.9% max HP
L19 --> L20: 234 --> +12 --> 246 | + 5.1% max HP[...blah blah blah...]
This comes from the pathbuilder sheet for my Stolen Fate Alchemist, just opened it and clicked the level up & down while noting the HP real quick.
And yes, I will 100% stand by the claim that the % HP boost gained on level up changing by a factor of 7x is a unit of "objectively bad math." I take that factual 7x observation, and argue that this math is responsible for a lot of the commonly observed issues talked about all over pf2 discussions. This one math equation adds a huge amount of ambiguity as to what the difficulty of a PL +1 encounter means, as there is an inconsistent increase depending on which specific L we are talking about.
Among other negative consequences, with this math going on, Paizo cannot possibly make an accurate statement about how difficult a PL +1/2/etc is in the general case, lol. They would have to make a variable chart or give up and say: ~"it depends (a lot) on which level."
.
Looking at system math like this is how you find a systemic (and therefore editable) cause to "blame" for player-facing observations / outcomes.
Such as the (math) observation of single 1A Strike crit being able to drop a huge % of PCs at L1, but by L12, it requires a scenario like an HP 6 squishy to crit fail a 2A Chain Lightning to then have a 50/50 chance of one-shot.
The gap in lethality there is enormous.
The steady "decline of PC fragility" as levels go up perfectly matches this smooth decline of % HP growth. "Suspicious" associations like that are the things that game designers are supposed to notice, then investigate if the relationship is perhaps causal, and then take steps to make changes for improvement.
.
You can keep trying to bold-name call me out, it's not going to help, lol.
If you keep making dismissive "prove it" accusations, I'll keep bringing the numbers and calling that bluff.
I'll also keep ending with a reminder that you have completely failed to (attempt to) defend your own opinion on the matter with substantive claims.
As I've directly asked you before, in what way is the gameplay improved by having math with common full-->downs? How would you convince a stranger to play that game A versus game B that was different only in it's lack of full-->downs?
* Low strategy play: Inability to reliably survive a turn diminishes one's ability to form & execute plans involving the next turn.
* Fuzzy feedback(the OP topic): When raw luck during initiative can determine which side experiences a full-->down event, the ability to perceive strategic info is diminished. This is the "good tactics become indistinguishable from good luck, and bad tactics become indistinguishable from bad luck" issue.
* GM player-favored "cheating": GMs who do not desire to kill a PC in that moment will be incentivized, conditioned, and "taught to" find opportunities to twist events to prevent this mathematic over-lethality from killing PCs. Rephrased: GMs are taught by this math to protect the players from the system's consequences.
* Power gaming: After witnessing full-->downs, players are *much* more likely to power game in response. This means things like neglecting "fun" feats & archetypes and more prioritizing those they see as numerically powerful.
* Damage-focused play: High %HP damage means that all forms of non-damage effects struggle to be relevant.
* Degenerate strategies: After witnessing full-->downs, players are much more likely to use exploitative tactics the system was not designed to tolerate. Such as an Alchemist feeding the whole party a Numbing Tonic before the door kick, or PCs getting TMItem for similar maximal prebuff purposes.
* Narrative & play derailment: When PCs die, the whole narrative jerks to a halt to address this. Either the party will need to abandon their current objective to sell items and get a resurrection, or the session continues while a player is outright sidelined from playing and creating a new PC. This also can cause severe issues with time-sensitive AP/campaign considerations. A dead PC & party retreat during a hostage rescue means that said hostages likely "should" perish, even if one was plot-critical.
I can easily repost my list of cons created/enhanced by that math, but am still waiting to hear a single positive counter claim from you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a GM actually understand the level of challenge they're sending to the players.You mean that the GM has less things to learn. Because it's a question of experience, not something you can't control ever.
A GM shouldn't have to learn that the system doesn't work the same at low levels as it does at high levels.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tiers of play being different is the default rather than the exception in TTRPGs. It also isn't typically taught in video games except for things with major focus shifts like Civilization.
For the most part this can be expressed in a side bar, if it isn't already.
*Lethality and Tiers of Play*
As characters and the challenges they face increase in level, the relative challenge and risk will shift as both players and their opponents gain access to new levels of abilities. The first few levels - when player characters have fewer hit points and defensive tools - may be more lethal, so consider dialing back more difficult challenges, such as those 2 or more levels higher than the party. As players progress they will pick up new skills and tools which give them more opportunities to bounce back from a bad roll, so you can more freely lean into deadlier threats - just make sure you don't lean too hard!
Etc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in a game with my kid right now. Guess what approach we're using. Guess whether it's been working or not. That's anecdote, but I'm a bit surprised you're so negative on the thought that someone who has used such an approach in a wide variety of board and card games and yes ttrpgs must be wrong about it. Of course you can think you're right and I'm wrong. But you asked someone who does it what worked for them, and I gave you my answer.
Using a lower threat for players who don't know tactics is still challenging to them, because they don't know tactics. In fact, that's the way you keep the encounter challenge steady across the learning curve. Example: let's say you're running a written encounter, but for some reason you choose to remove all PC powers to buff themselves and debuff the enemy. But you want your modified encounter to be no more difficult to beat than the written one. You don't want it tougher - or easier! You just want it simpler. Do you keep all other enemy stats the same? Or do you lower them to account for the lack of PC abilities to buff themselves/debuff the enemy? The latter, yes? Well, that's the situation for beginners. You get the same encounter difficulty out of lower statistics, until they learn tactics.
I just want to expand on this discussion a bit, because I think it hits on an important point.
Slowly and explicitly introducing new mechanics (and I'm putting emphasis on explicitly for a reason) is a time-honored way of teaching complex games. That's how I was taught chess as a kid; play a game with pawns, then add pieces. That's how Gloomhaven JotL works: start with the basics of playing cards to move and attack, staple on more mechanics as you progress. Really, that's even how the PF2E beginner box tries to structure itself—as pointing to and teaching one part of the mechanics at a time. It's just more difficult to enforce a mechanical progression in a freeform game like PF2E, since you can intend to teach one thing but have people try to overcome your tutorial via different means. I very much agree with the point being made here by Easl.
I think some stuff Deriven is getting at, though—maybe not exactly what Deriven is saying, but some important points in the vicinity—are worth noting. To me, those points are:
1) A lot of games can be difficult to tutorialize in this piecewise manner. The rules might not build onto each other in a meaningful way, or the rules might blend together in extremely interdependent ways, making them harder to pull apart. Play might also be more messy or unstructured, as well, and that too makes a game harder to tutorialize. I think it's fair to say both apply to crunchier tabletops. A lot of the more persnickety rules of PF2E resist tutorialization and just need to be learned as relevant, and anyone who's run the beginner box knows that players want to exercise agency in ways that undermine the tutorial. Tutorialization does, as someone else (I think Superbidi?) pointed out, require a certain amount of railroading and simplification—and PF2E does resist both in actual play.
2) Tactics only matter insofar as the game needs you to use them to succeed and punishes you if you don't. Without the game pushing back on the players for poor tactics—possibly by killing them—they're given few incentives to interact with the game systems. A player can and will continue to strike three times and end turn if that's working. The gameplay itself doesn't have many levers other than player downs and kills to get people to re-evaluate their choices.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to expand on this discussion a bit, because I think it hits on an important point.
Slowly and explicitly introducing new mechanics (and I'm putting emphasis on explicitly for a reason) is a time-honored way of teaching complex games. ... Really, that's even how the PF2E beginner box tries to structure itself—as pointing to and teaching one part of the mechanics at a time.
I would second this.
It is the job of Entry level scenarios like the Beginner Box to teach the game mechanics to new players. Not the job of Player Core.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A GM shouldn't have to learn that the system doesn't work the same at low levels as it does at high levels.
Again, why?
The fact that low, mid and high level experience is different is in my opinion a conscious design choice. At low level, you really have the feeling of playing a peasant with a greatsword considering how fights are fast, deadly and random. I think it's the expected low level experience.
I'm in a game with my kid right now. Guess what approach we're using.
You haven't understood my previous post. Difficulty is not related to learning curve: If you increase or decrease the game difficulty you don't change the learning curve.
I was just stating that you were conflating 2 unrelated notions.Tiers of play being different is the default rather than the exception in TTRPGs.
That. So common that there isn't even a sidebar.
Games with consistency between the early game and the end game don't give at all the feeling of playing a peasant who rises to godhood. It's just all samey (I don't say it's bad, just that it's not Pathfinder at all).
Slowly and explicitly introducing new mechanics (and I'm putting emphasis on explicitly for a reason) is a time-honored way of teaching complex games.
But I don't expect the adventure to do that. The beginner box, why not. But most importantly the GM. I personally don't GM beginners the same way I GM experienced players: I help them more, give them advice in real time, I sometimes remove some punishing mechanics (like critical failures on Trip/Grapple) to encourage them using the abilities, and so on.
Having low level adventures structure in such a way that they always spend time teaching concepts will feel like playing the same tutorial all over again: An awful experience for experienced players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having low level adventures structure in such a way that they always spend time teaching concepts will feel like playing the same tutorial all over again: An awful experience for experienced players.
I would agree with that. Not every low level adventure should be an entry tier adventure for new players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having low level adventures structure in such a way that they always spend time teaching concepts will feel like playing the same tutorial all over again: An awful experience for experienced players.I would agree with that. Not every low level adventure should be an entry tier adventure for new players.
I also agree with this, but structured in a way to teach is different from setting up the game so that a moderate encounter at level 1 and 2 provides a similar experience to a moderate encounter at level 5 or 20 which is what I've been asking for.
Teaching materials should be different from "general" play materials. Which is why the beginner box exists.
But once you have someone who has been introduced all the concepts, that doesn't mean they've mastered them. And they may also prefer an easier combat that moderate encounters provide. And within an AP it would be pretty easy to write "if you want a more challenging encounter add the following NPCs/creatures" or "add the elite or weak adjustments as needed".
It is the job of Entry level scenarios like the Beginner Box to teach the game mechanics to new players. Not the job of Player Core.That's not actually a fair claim.
If, and only if, Paizo had intentionally set up the situation so that the Beginner Box were available before the core of the game and actually had it be the basic rules of the game to then be expanded upon with other products (rather than being a one-off product featuring alternate rules that don't actually match the rest of the game) would it be reasonable to expect the Beginner Box to be carrying the weight of expectation of teaching the game to people.
In reality, though, people were playing PF2 for almost a year and a half before the Beginner Box even came out. So if the core rulebook weren't supposed to be showing people how to play the game there was literally nothing supposed to be doing that job for over a year - which is clearly nonsense.
Just because the beginner box came out well after the game doesn't mean you shouldn't have a separate teaching tool, just that it wasn't realized how important that tool is until later, or perhaps that Paizo didn't have the resources to do both simultaneously.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I was arguing against was the implication that the Beginner Box should be the only thing considered a teaching tool and anything else, even the core products for the game, defaulting to exempt from criticism of the "not great to learn the game from this" sort.
Then that is effectively a strawman argument. No one, certainly not myself, said that the Beginner Box is the only thing considered a teaching tool.
Player Core and GM Core certainly do give all of the rules. You can learn the rules just by reading those books if you feel like it.
But they aren't designed and organized to explain the implications of various game mechanics in actual play or introduce mechanics or tactics in a slow and measured approach.
It isn't the job of Player Core to teach the mechanics. The job of Player Core is to define the mechanics. So no - Player Core doesn't do a good job teaching new players how to play. That isn't the job of Player Core.
If published materials from Paizo are needed to teach the game (instead of relying on experienced GMs/players to teach new players, or trial-and-error practice games) then those published materials should be separate things such as the Beginner Box or other materials labeled and marketed as being for teaching new players. They will have a much better quality and effectiveness at teaching if they are designed and organized for that teaching purpose instead of as an encyclopedic reference book of rules.
-----
I also think that the debate about encounter difficulty changing from low level to mid level to high level play is a completely separate discussion. That difference in play experience is not at all related to the process of teaching new players how to play the game effectively.
At best, differences in appropriate tactics depending on level of play would be one more thing that needs to be taught to new players.
Even if the rules were changed such that the game experience of handling a level 1 encounter was identical to handling a level 17 encounter, that does nothing for teaching a new player how to handle either level of encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because the beginner box came out well after the game doesn't mean you shouldn't have a separate teaching toolHaving two teaching tools is not what I was arguing against.
What I was arguing against was the implication that the Beginner Box should be the only thing considered a teaching tool and anything else, even the core products for the game, defaulting to exempt from criticism of the "not great to learn the game from this" sort.
Ah, I can agree that there should potentially be more than one teaching tool.
I also think that the debate about encounter difficulty changing from low level to mid level to high level play is a completely separate discussion. That difference in play experience is not at all related to the process of teaching new players how to play the game effectively.At best, differences in appropriate tactics depending on level of play would be one more thing that needs to be taught to new players.
Even if the rules were changed such that the game experience of handling a level 1 encounter was identical to...
100% Agree that the difficultly/bad math of early levels is separate from learning/teaching the game. But the former makes the later more challenging, because there's unwritten rules/experience that you need to do a better job of running a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because Trip H tends to post as though his opinion is absolute and irrefutable when it is their personal preference.
Stating something is bad game design as though we all can just see it and agree is a statement I'm not seeing. It's not something anyone has brought up much in the decades I've played.
Objective statements are always made by actors of subjective opinion, so when I claim "the low Lvl HP & HP growth math is bad game design" that is similar to someone looking at a newly remodeled bathroom and saying "that is a badly built shower."
I can point to objective observations for evidence, such as there being hardened grout smeared across the surface of tiles, but it is *always* possible to plug one's ears and shout "opinion, not fact!" as you keep doing. No list of factual observations can nullify such a "counterargument."
Then Trip H is stating percentages based on some calculation I'm not seeing given how different the hit point totals are for different classes across all levels. So what class is Trip H basing this on? A 10 hit point martial, an 8 hit point class, a 6 hit point caster? What is this percentage based on?This is an especially silly thing to type when the thread is still there, and when this math was spelled out as a direct reply to you, rofl.
When you try imply that I'm making up numbers, maybe check first? I don't know if it's worse if you didn't read it/forgot, or if you are pretending you didn't, and hoping to not get called out on that.
...And I don't know what you want. Less damage from the monsters? Fourty hit points at first level so you never have to worry about getting crushed?
Example HP gain on that example Alch level up:
L1 --> L2: 15 -- +9 --> 24 | + 37.5% max HP
L4 --> L5: 46 -- +10 --> 56 | + 21.7% max HP
L9 --> L10: 105 -- +11 --> 116 | + 10.4% max HP
L14 --> L15: 174 --> +12 --> 186 | + 6.9% max HP
L19 --> L20: 234
You're basing your math on the alchemist? That's your barometer for game design? A non-frontline marital?
What is this 7x you keep talking about? Explain it in a way that makes sense.
Nothing in this game is 700 percent difference. The damage scaling certainly isn't 700 percent different. 7x implies a 700 percent scaling. What does that even mean?
I am good at math. Pretty much maximum grades in math and statistics and the math you are basing this assertion on is all over the place. I also use math all the time for investment analysis. The math you are stating is not squaring up at all. It's simplistic and doesn't do a sound job of explaining your viewpoint or proving it. It's exaggeration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2nd Edition does an excellent job of enabling tactical play; however, it does not teach tactical play. In that sense, I agree with Fabios. I disagree about rogues sucking and about the best party. And those two misconceptions are related to tactical play.
I came to Pathfinder 2nd Edition from Pathfinder 1st Edition. But my role was as a GM rather than as a player, and my experience was turned upside-down by my players. They love tactical teamwork. They learned tactical teamwork under Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, mastered it under PF1, and seamlessly continued using it under PF2. I was mystified by many posts in 2019 and early 2020 talking about how deadly PF2 combat was compared to PF1 combat. My players had no additional difficulty.
Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder 1st Edition allowed powergaming in which clever selection of abilities could make a character much stronger than the average character. A 1st-level PC could readily survive against 1st-level challenges because the PC was really as strong as a 2nd-level character. This style is great for roleplaying power fantasties; unfortunately, it was hard on the players who did not powergame and hard on GMs trying to create balanced encounters. Therefore, out of fairness, the designers of Pathfinder 2nd Edition deliberately capped the advantage of powergaming with tight math. A well-built 1st-level PF2 character won't be as powerful as a 2nd-level PF2 character.
Tactical teamwork, on the other hand, was not nerfed. It works just fine. Thus, my players had no trouble with PF2.
But teamwork is not intuitive to learn. In contrast, powergaming is intuitive to learn. If hitting hard defeated an enemy, then hitting harder at the next level is the obvious way to go. Tactics require acting differently based on enemy strengths and weaknesses, so a single combat style is not enough.
...low levels are COMPLETELY focused on damage and innate survivability:
-the first since a crit can and probably will oneshot most
This math makes more sense. I'm wondering if Mathmuse can explain this 7x idea you are pushing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I don't know what you want. Less damage from the monsters? Fourty hit points at first level so you never have to worry about getting crushed?Example HP gain on that example Alch level up:
L1 --> L2: 15 -- +9 --> 24 | + 37.5% max HP
L4 --> L5: 46 -- +10 --> 56 | + 21.7% max HP
L9 --> L10: 105 -- +11 --> 116 | + 10.4% max HP
L14 --> L15: 174 --> +12 --> 186 | + 6.9% max HP
L19 --> L20: 234 --> +12 --> 246 | + 5.1% max HPThis math is stupid. I'm not going to dance around it with kid glove phrasings of "it's problematic", I'm going to say outright that it is just bad game design for an rpg system like this.
In almost all games where characters gain HP via leveling, PCs start with a substantial base pool, and have rather small [% total] gains. Especially during the early levels (which can even have artificially limited leveling/stat growth for the sake of tutorialization & fun; think of skill/stat trees like FF13's crystarium that cap and unlock via story progression).
Pf2 not only has the starting HP pool be way too tiny, but it also has the % total gain stay crazy high for quite a number of levels before those gains start to become more reasonable with the growing total.
And literally all of this problem can be retroactively understood as a result of the original dev not thinking of HP in a "start with a 100% base HP pool, then add to that" with things like class, species, etc, all being additions TO a base pool. Instead, they ARE the base pool.
That single originating dev didn't know or brain-farted that math, and that missing step is how you get such a low starting HP, and that crazy variance in % total gains across the game's levels.
.
This is so blatant, that I'm willing to flatly say this HP norm is the result of copying a math/design error from 40+? years ago, because "that's what they did" back then.
I'm no longer going to be delicate about how absurdly obvious this error is to anyone with game dev experience....
Now that I read this a little closer, you make this example of percentage of maximum hit points without discussion damage scaling of creatures and PCs? How is that even a good analysis?
You are trying to analyze this so focused on hit points that you are ignoring damage scaling of PCs and creatures.
PF2 has other goals if you really wanted to discuss game design:
Keeping fights in a certain round range. The one thing I noticed about PF2 is they want a fight to last maybe 1 to 3 rounds at level 1 to 4 or 5, then 3-5 rounds at level 20.
Are you calculating the damage scaling for both PCs and monsters based on how long PF2 wants fights to last?
A discussion of hit points absent damage scaling with a focus on keeping fights fast and furious in PF2 so combats are not overly long as might have happened in the past is part of the design.
If you didn't play previous editions to know that fights could last hours due to slow combats involving long duration buffs, really high ACs, powerful defensive options, and lots of back and forth counter-play leading mainly by casters leading to long, drawn out combats that PF2 was seeking to eliminate by scaling hit points and damage in a way to to keep fights in a sweet spot time range that scaled slightly up as you level.
When you over focus on hit points as you are doing, you miss the other elements of game design incorporated into PF2 to make the game faster, more deadly both ways, and allows for better scaling than previous editions.
So at low levels, we're looking for fights in the 1 to 3 round range. If a fight is going to end in one round, then one shots are going be possible both ways. Which they are.
You want to eliminate this and increase the length of combats? Or what is the plan? Did you even notice that combat was accelerated in PF2 so you can finish more of them faster than in previous iterations of the game due to the way they scaled hit points and damage.
Which is why some of us consider one-shottability in the early levels, mostly 1 and 2, a feature as that is what accelerated low level combat looks like. Everything can end very, very fast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Percent change in alchemist HP is meaningless on its own. What does it matter if a 15 goes to a 24 or that its a 37.5% gain if your not comparing it to the damage that HP would have to contend with.
It needs to be a comparison of HP per level vs the damage a creature can do.
I compared +2 creature high max damage crits to the HP of a fully invested in HP holdscar orc barbarian, a fighter with modest HP investment, and an elf wizard with no HP investment.
Thats two characters that should be able to take a hit and 1 that shouldn't be able to.
Thats max damage crits, not all crits will be max damage so keep that in mind.
From this there are some design outcomes to note.
The elf wizard cannot take a single max crit ever at any level from a +2 high damage creature. The design is that if you don't invest you can't take one of these no matter what level you are without mitigation.
The Holdscar Orc barbarian can start taking 1 of these and not die at level 2. By level 8 they can take 2 max crits and not die. By level 19 with a con apex item they can take 3 max damage crits from a High damage +2 creature without dropping to 0 hp.
The fighter with modest HP investment. without a shield can take a max crit by level 3. They can take 2 of them by level 14. With a shield its 1 at level 3 still but 2 max damage crits starts at level 11.
There is a benefit for level of investment and growth increases the benefit of the investment. No investment in HP (which the elf wiz represents) gets none of the survivability benefit even as they level.
And remember this comparison is against max damage crits from high damage +2 creatures. Not all crits are max damage, not all creatures are high damage, and not all creatures are going to be +2.
Comparison to any degree of damage variation lower it only gets better for the HP investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll limit myself to a single resultant math consequence:
That 7x variance of 37% | 5% means that a PL+1 foe will expect that amount of HP that the -L PC does not have, that is how much the "above norm damage" one can expect to be incoming during a PL+ engagement compared to an on-level foe.
If the foe is PL+1 versus that L1 PC, then the PC is 37.5% short of the "expected" max HP.
If the foe is PL+1 versus that L19 PC, then the PC is 5.1% short of the "expected" max HP.
.
Basically, think of the level minus of a PL+1 fight as a debuff imposed upon an on-level PC. You'd have the -1 to all stats, at most a -3 during a prof gain.
That's all relatively smooth across the levels. But the "HP down" penalty is extremely severe at low level, and steadily becomes less of a concern with rising level.
This HP loss is a multiplier on the difficulty, as all those stat minuses make it easier to take damage, yet you have less room to survive that damage.
.
This is a large part of why those low levels are so unstable. This also gets dramatically more severe when checking the PL+2 math;
that L1 PC is 15 actual, 33 expected at L3. Meaning there is a 18 expected:actual HP gap, for a gap greater than the actual HP.
That's absurdly massive; it's like the PC is starting the fight with less than half HP left, on top of all the other statistical disadvantages.
The PL+2 of L18 --> L20, meanwhile, is 222 --> 246 HP, for a 24HP gap, and an 10.8% jump. Only a 2x jump from the PL+1 HP gap, which is much more inline with what one would expect.
.
So a L1 PL+2 matchup has a "120% missing expected HP" danger,
but a L18 PL+2 matchup has a "10.8% missing expected HP" danger.
Again, this HP number is the core most number for matters of difficulty and death, as HP is the final number that ends all typical combat scenarios. So it really does matter a whole lot.
Edit: fixed the math and removed the +1 CON from gradual ability boost as that's not the norm.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty trivial to show that time-to-kill is significantly lower at 1st level, if we're doubting that maths:
- A 1st level character with average con (+2), 8 HP/level from their class, and 8 ancestry hit points: 18 HP
- High damage on a level+2 strike for that character: 12, or 67% of their HP; ~2 hits or 1 crit brings them down.
- The same character at 5th level, having raised their con to +3: 63 HP
- High damage on a level+2 strike for that character: 20, or 32% of their HP; ~3 hits or ~2 crits are now needed to bring them down
- The same character at 10th level, having raised their con to +4: 128 HP
- High damage on a level+2 strike for that character: 30, or 23% of their HP; ~4 hits or ~2 crits are now needed to bring them down.
This is not something like a 6 hp/level class with a -1 CON getting one-shot, it's a decent HP character - either a more tanky backliner, or one of the squishier frontliners like thaumaturge, magus, etc. The numbers wouldn't be very different for a 10 HP/level class either - it'd be 60%, 27%, and 20% respectively.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The table below is from the same three examples above but against average high damage crits instead of max damage crits from +2 creatures.
The value is the HP they have divided by the average crit damage.
So when a character is not completely unlucky enough to sustain a max damage crit everyone gets some benefit from leveling. The design is actually a steady progression, with characters growing at the rates they invested in HP mainly from class choice and con investment.
Wiz - Fighter - Barb - level
0.92 - 1.54 - 2.08 - 01
0.95 - 1.68 - 2.21 - 02
1.04 - 2.04 - 2.61 - 03
1.07 - 2.14 - 2.71 - 04
1.13 - 2.44 - 3.03 - 05
1.17 - 2.56 - 3.17 - 06
1.20 - 2.65 - 3.28 - 07
1.23 - 2.73 - 3.36 - 08
1.25 - 2.79 - 3.44 - 09
1.27 - 3.04 - 3.50 - 10
1.29 - 3.09 - 3.55 - 11
1.28 - 3.08 - 3.54 - 12
1.29 - 3.12 - 3.58 - 13
1.30 - 3.16 - 3.62 - 14
1.32 - 3.19 - 3.86 - 15
1.36 - 3.31 - 4.00 - 16
1.40 - 3.42 - 4.35 - 17
1.44 - 3.52 - 4.48 - 18
1.43 - 3.49 - 4.44 - 19
1.43 - 3.73 - 4.45 - 20
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
looking at the average damage crits instead of max damage crits there is a serious difference in survivability for tougher front line PCs to the lowest HP character you can make at level 1.
And just to put it into perspective if that wizard started with a +1 con instead of -1 they would be able to take 1 average damage crit without dying leaving them at 1 hp at level 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll limit myself to a single resultant math consequence:
That 7x variance of 37% | 5% means that a PL+1 foe will expect that amount of HP that the -L PC does not have, that is how much the "above norm damage" one can expect to be incoming during a PL+ engagement compared to an on-level foe.
If the foe is PL+1 versus that L1 PC, then the PC is 37.5% short of the "expected" max HP.
If the foe is PL+1 versus that L19 PC, then the PC is 5.1% short of the "expected" max HP.
.
Basically, think of the level minus of a PL+1 fight as a debuff imposed upon an on-level PC. You'd have the -1 to all stats, at most a -3 during a prof gain.
That's all relatively smooth across the levels. But the "HP down" penalty is extremely severe at low level, and steadily becomes less of a concern with rising level.
This HP loss is a multiplier on the difficulty, as all those stat minuses make it easier to take damage, yet you have less room to survive that damage..
This is a large part of why those low levels are so unstable. This also gets dramatically more severe when checking the PL+2 math;
that L1 PC is 15 actual, 33 expected at L3. Meaning there is a 18 expected:actual HP gap, for a gap greater than the actual HP.That's absurdly massive; it's like the PC is starting the fight with less than half HP left, on top of all the other statistical disadvantages.
The PL+2 of L18 --> L20, meanwhile, is 222 --> 246 HP, for a 24HP gap, and an 10.8% jump. Only a 2x jump from the PL+1 HP gap, which is much more inline with what one would expect.
.
So a L1 PL+2 matchup has a "120% missing expected HP" danger,
but a L18 PL+2 matchup has a "10.8% missing expected HP" danger.Again, this HP number is the core most number for matters of difficulty and death, as HP is the final number that ends all typical combat scenarios. So it really does matter a whole lot.
Edit: fixed the math and removed the +1 CON from gradual ability boost as that's not the norm.
What do you mean missing expected hit point danger? What does that mean?
Let me see if I can figure out what you're trying to say.
I don't like alchemist. That class is terrible, the Remaster managed to make it worse for my particular table and the way we play.
So I'll go with an 8 hit point bard with a 14 con.
Level 1 starting hit points for human: 18
Level 2 hit points: 28
Level 18 hit points with Con boosted to 18 and toughness: 242 hit points
CR 3 creature damage: Ogre warrior: +12 to hit. 13 average damage. 50 hit points. Pretty brutal fight for a level group.
It can easily one shot the bard with a good hit or crit. But it's a single creature going against a 4 person party.
So the PCs have an action advantage of 12 actions to 3 actions. That's if a 4 person party.
I would have to look at a damage comparison of the party versus the ogre warrior.
Ogre warrior has a good chance of taking out a single character in this battle before it is likely killed.
CR20 enemy. Balor.
30 damage per hit. +40 attack roll. With a fire aura.3d6+10 fire aura for an average of 17.
So average per attack 30 plus a base 17 damage. So if one hit with the 17 damage fire aura doing 47.
Average damage attack by ogre of 72 percent of the level 1 bards starting hit points.
Average damage per attack 12.4 percent of the bard's hit points at level 18 -17 for the fire damage which boosts the first round to 18.4 percent of total hit points, not including the aggregate damage the balor will inflict on the group.
You know you can't do his calculation justice given the ogre is pretty limited on what it can do. The ogre battle will be real fast and furious with the PCs likely killing fairly quickly depending on dice rolls.
The balor might do a lot of damage to a lot of PCs before going down with numerous tactical options other than striking. The balor could not so much one shot a level 18 PC, but it might one round a level 18 PC if it focus fires.
Depending on how the PCs are equipped and the tactical options available to the balor and the PCs, the ogre warrior will likely die faster than the balor taking down maybe once PC while the balor might take out a few PCs depending on saves.
So I'm not sure how to look at this. The balor is still a very tough fight for a level 18 party depending on tactics. The Ogre warrior is a tough fight. PCs still have a massive action advantage. They could kill the ogre warrior before it even acts if going first while the balor hit point pool is generally strong enough to withstand even a nasty round of attacks.
I'd have to play this out a few times to see how this went.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I don't know what you want. Less damage from the monsters? Fourty hit points at first level so you never have to worry about getting crushed?Example HP gain on that example Alch level up:
L1 --> L2: 15 -- +9 --> 24 | + 37.5% max HP
L4 --> L5: 46 -- +10 --> 56 | + 21.7% max HP
L9 --> L10: 105 -- +11 --> 116 | + 10.4% max HP
L14 --> L15: 174 --> +12 --> 186 | + 6.9% max HP
L19 --> L20: 234 --> +12 --> 246 | + 5.1% max HPThis math is stupid. I'm not going to dance around it with kid glove phrasings of "it's problematic", I'm going to say outright that it is just bad game design for an rpg system like this.
You're basing your math on the alchemist? That's your barometer for game design? A non-frontline marital?
What is this 7x you keep talking about? Explain it in a way that makes sense.
...
I'm wondering if Mathmuse can explain this 7x idea you are pushing.
The math is just a comparison of ratios in an arithmetic progression with some bumps due to attribute bonuses to Constitution.
Nevertheless, it has great significance to Pathfinder design, both 1st Edition and 2nd Edition. Recognizing the weakness of linear (arithmetic) and quadratic progression in Dungeons & Dragons and replacing them with exponential (geometric) progressions was one of the outstanding improvements in Pathfinder over Dungeons & Dragons. I harped on it at length in my 2018 posting The Mind-Boggling Math of Exponential Leveling and mentioned it again in an easier summary in my 2023 posting Encounter Balance: The Math and the Monsters.
L1 --> L2: 15 -- +9 --> 24 | + 37.5% max HP means that at 1st level, a goblin alchemist with CON +1 has 15 hit points. Upon leveling up, they gain 9 more hp for a total of 24 hp. 9/15 is 60%, so it is a +60% increase. The "+ 37.5% max HP" is an error--the numbers are more drastic than that.
At 3rd level the alchemist's hit points increase by 9 hp again to 32 hit points. 9/24 = 33.3%, a +33.3% increase. I don't know why Trip.H skipped this intermediate value. The next increase by 9 hp at 4th level to 41 hp is a +28.1% increase. The increase is a steady 9 hp, but the percent increase (60.0%, 33.3%, and 28.1%) shrinks because it is compared to the previous total and the previous total grows.
L4 --> L5: 46 -- +10 --> 56 | + 21.7% max HP points out that the alchemist has boosted their Constitution to +2, so the hit point increase increases to +10. But the 41 total hit points at 4th level also gets a retroactive increase to 46 hp. So Trip.H compared the increase from 46 hp to 56 hp as 10/46 = +21.7%. If the alchemist had not boosted Constitution, the percentage increase would be based on 9/41 = +21.9% increase, close to the +21.7% value. Or I myself would view the hit points as going from 41 hp to 56 hp, so the percentage increase would momentarily jump up to +36.6%.
Then in the 4 level-ups from 5th to 9th values we would have a steady 10 hp increase per level up, which gives +17.9%, +15.1%, +13.2%, and +11.6%. Tenth level has another Constitution boost, but you can see the pattern.
The Encounter Budget system in PF2 assumes that an additional level makes a character or creature 41.4% stronger. However, the 2nd-level alchemist has 60% more hit points and also gains a class feat, a skill feat, and a +1 to all proficiencies. That would make the 2nd-level alchemist at least 75% more powerful than a 1st-level alchemist. Either the 2nd-level alchemist is overpowered or the 1st-level alchemist is underpowered.
Since this power inaccuracy affects all classes, not just an alchemist, a band-aid fix would be to design negative 1st-, 0th-, and 1st-level creatures to the power level of 1st-level PCs (100%), design 2nd-level creatures to the power level of 2nd-level PCs (175%), design 3rd-level creatures to the power level of 3rd-level PCs (250%), etc. The gameplay problem is that the Encounter Budget system assumes that 2nd-level creatures are 141% as strong as 1st-level creatures. (141%)*(40 xp) = 56 xp, rounded to 60 xp in the Encounter Budget system. But really a 2nd-level creature is worth (175%)*(40 xp) = 70 xp, not a Low Threat but halfway between a Low Threat and a Moderate Threat. And a 3rd-level creature is worth (250%)*(40 xp) = 100 xp, not a Moderate Threat but halfway between a Moderate Threat and a Severe Threat.
Furthermore, consider higher levels, such as a 11th-level alchemist with 127 hp versus an 12th-level alchemist with 138 hp. That level-up percentage increase in hit points is only +8.7%. Unless the 12th-level alchemist is getting some great new feats and features (Alchemist feat, skill feat, and +1 to proficiencies) and great new gear, they will have trouble becoming 41.4% more powerful with only +8.7% more hp.
I once daydreamed and designed a geometric progression for hit points to replace the arithmetic progression, but it is 5 times as complicated. Switching to a geometric progression for hit points would be too much trouble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I don't know what you want. Less damage from the monsters? Fourty hit points at first level so you never have to worry about getting crushed?Example HP gain on that example Alch level up:
L1 --> L2: 15 -- +9 --> 24 | + 37.5% max HP
L4 --> L5: 46 -- +10 --> 56 | + 21.7% max HP
L9 --> L10: 105 -- +11 --> 116 | + 10.4% max HP
L14 --> L15: 174 --> +12 --> 186 | + 6.9% max HP
L19 --> L20: 234 --> +12 --> 246 | + 5.1% max HPThis math is stupid. I'm not going to dance around it with kid glove phrasings of "it's problematic", I'm going to say outright that it is just bad game design for an rpg system like this.
You're basing your math on the alchemist? That's your barometer for game design? A non-frontline marital?
What is this 7x you keep talking about? Explain it in a way that makes sense.
...
I'm wondering if Mathmuse can explain this 7x idea you are pushing.The math is just a comparison of ratios in an arithmetic progression with some bumps due to attribute bonuses to Constitution.
Nevertheless, it has great significance to Pathfinder design, both 1st Edition and 2nd Edition. Recognizing the weakness of linear (arithmetic) and quadratic progression in Dungeons & Dragons and replacing them with exponential (geometric) progressions was one of the outstanding improvements in Pathfinder over Dungeons & Dragons. I harped on it at length in my 2018 posting The Mind-Boggling Math of Exponential Leveling and mentioned it again in an easier summary in my 2023 posting Encounter Balance: The Math and the Monsters.
L1 --> L2: 15 -- +9 --> 24 | + 37.5% max HP means that at 1st level, a goblin alchemist with CON +1 has 15 hit points. Upon leveling up, they gain 9 more hp for a total of 24 hp....
Do you think that is how the designers see it in terms of power?
It seems there are a lot more variables than hit points involved in the entire scaling system of PF2. Hit point ratios don't really capture it.
PF2 tends to focus more on combat duration for design. It's one of the variables that stood out when I started playing PF2 is how well they designed combats to last a similar length whether you level 1 or level 20. That type of scaling hasn't been captured in any other iterations of the game. PF2 seemed to have a real focus on fast combat. They did not want combats lasting overlong and they scaled up the math to ensure combat lengths stay within a certain range with scaling of hit points and damage scaling to ensure the combat length they wanted was kept within a certain range.
Power in the overall system seems to scale based on desired combat length with power being tied to extending combats by a round or two per progression tier. The players barely notice this progression that maintains even as the numbers increase substantially.
I thought that was pretty elegant design to keep the combat lengths so tight from level 1 to 20. I feel that PF2 to accomplish this type of scaling had to account for more variables than hit points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are an adult with strong experience in board and ttrp games. As I said before, you probably think this level's about you. But it isn't. It's about my kid's junior high role playing club, which has a massive 40+ kid membership and organizes 8-10 tables of low-level play every Wednesday. Those are Paizo's 2030 customers, the people who will buy their content long after you and I stop. As a direct competitor to that other game PF2E is, yes, going after the "played once, or haven't yet played but interested" market. Not just folks like you or I with decades of experience and a 'seen it, done that' equilibrium towards tpks. Paizo does make lots of content for us. But not 100% of it. Having the early level content to be for folks like that club rather than folks like you or I simply makes a lot of sense. At least, to me.I can think of dozens of board games played wrong for a session or two because the host who swore they read the rules and watched tutorial games missed something. No game was ever shelved during those first few sessions because of such mistakes; complex Eurogames can take time to master, and it wouldn't be fair to judge them so quickly without having played them correctly. If something is shelved quickly, it's because the theme is a poor fit or we confirm that our issue with the game isn't due to any mistakes made or a lack of system mastery.
I don't think expecting people who will stick with TTRPGs long term to have some grace and self-understanding is unreasonable
Then you agree with me. My take is that Paizo should make 90% of it's releases for established players and 10% for new players. That new players content should be produced with added sidebars and very few encounters featuring any creatures of PL+2. It should also suggest running PFS modules as a continuation of this story as PFS modules tend to be more streamlined than a typical AP.
As for my bring experienced, sure I am now 20+ years later, but I wasn't when my interested started in middle school or when I ran my first game in high school. I was reading Dragon magazine for a couple of years before I got the core books and found friends to play with. We messed up plenty, had random BS deaths, and still ran games for a dozen players outside of our core gaming group. The issue is never mistakes or TPKs it's presentation, fun, and atmosphere and if I could manage that for 12 players at 18 playing 3.5 I think PF2 can manage it for middle schoolers that will grow up to play TTRPGs as adults.
More core hypothesis has been that very few players who bounce off of PF2's early levels would have been around long term anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean that the GM has less things to learn. Because it's a question of experience, not something you can't control ever.It's not about fewer things to learn as a GM, it's about what it actually means if one of the things the GM needs to learn is when the game itself cannot be trusted.
That is what makes consistency a key thing. If things are consistent then they can actually be learned - meaning what was true in a previous case can be assumed to be true of a future similar case and that assumption not prove to be wrong. Without consistency, it's less learning how things work and more guessing whether or not one case is like another case or is not.
And this is actually a thing you can measure the effect of by looking at people that play in situations where their rules are less consistent in how they work out, whether it's because their GM is regularly altering things purposely to tinker with them, or that they play with multiple GMs that have noteable "table variance" differences. The more inconsistency a person sees in the play experience the more they will feel the need to ask how something works, even if it is something they've done repeatedly over numerous sessions, instead of feeling able to trust that they already know how it works.
The game still hides high threat creatures at the same CR as easy creatures - lesser deaths anyone? So the GM should always be aware of what makes an encounter go from challenging to deadly, what kinds of threats are easier or harder for their party, and when to give the party an opening to run versus finishing them all off.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, I will 100% stand by the claim that the % HP boost gained on level up changing by a factor of 7x is a unit of "objectively bad math." I take that factual 7x observation, and argue that this math is responsible for a lot of the commonly observed issues talked about all over pf2 discussions. This one math equation adds a huge amount of ambiguity as to what the difficulty of a PL +1 encounter means, as there is an inconsistent increase depending on which specific L we are talking about.
Among other negative consequences, with this math going on, Paizo cannot possibly make an accurate statement about how difficult a PL +1/2/etc is in the general case, lol. They would have to make a variable chart or give up and say: ~"it depends (a lot) on which level."
This is a very silly method of doing comparisons. Watch as I do the same with another stat:
At level 1 you have 0-2 class feats. At level 2 you gain 1, making it an increase of anywhere between 50-infinite percent increase in class feats. At level 20, you go from 9-10, 10-11, or 11-12 (I'm excluding some examples for my sanity). This is an increase of around 10%.
There is factually an increase of anywhere from 5x to infinite in your number of class feats. This is clearly objectively bad math.
Alternatively, let's take Chrono Trigger as an example. At level 1, Crono goes from 70 to 83 HP, meaning an increase of 18.5%. At level 49 to 50, he goes from 929 to 939, an increase of 1%. By the exact same logic you used, this is thus an 18x difference in health growths, and thus must be impossible to balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think that is how the designers see it in terms of power?
It seems there are a lot more variables than hit points involved in the entire scaling system of PF2. Hit point ratios don't really capture it.
The PF2 designers built several subsystems with their own internal balances. Hit points, Strike damage, and healing are one balanced subsystem. Attack bonus, and armor class are another subsystem. Spell attack bonus, spell DC, and saving throws are a third subsystem, though the spell damage is also compared to the hit point subsystem. Spell ranks, spell slots, and spell effects are a fourth subsystem. Skill bonuses, skill feats, skill DCs, and perception are a fifth subsystem. By dividing the game mechanics into balanced subsystems, they can balance the overall gameplay more easily. The levels, experience points, and encounter budgets are an umbrella system that unites the subsystems.
For a martial character, a +1 to attack bonus typically increases damage from Strikes by 14%, due to more critical hits. Likewise, +1 to AC reduces the damage from enemy Strikes to 88% of previous damage, which counts as a 14% improvement because 1/88% = 114%. And let's pretend the level-up gave the character 10% more hit points. Then the total improvement of the melee combat of the character is (114%)(114%)(110%) = 142%. That 42% increase is the proper value for an overall improvement from one level-up. Since Strikes and skill checks are typically not used during the same action, the level-up increase in the skill subsystem is measured independently.
Truly, the +1 to proficiencies is the majority of the power improvement from a level up. Feats and hit points are a smaller factor.
For a spellcasting character, Strike damage, AC, and hit points matter less. Spellcasters try to avoid enemy Strikes though distance or illusions. Those classes are limited by the power of their spells and how many top-rank spells they can cast per turn, so their improvements in spellcasting matter most.
PF2 tends to focus more on combat duration for design. It's one of the variables that stood out when I started playing PF2 is how well they designed combats to last a similar length whether you level 1 or level 20. That type of scaling hasn't been captured in any other iterations of the game. PF2 seemed to have a real focus on fast combat. They did not want combats lasting overlong and they scaled up the math to ensure combat lengths stay within a certain range with scaling of hit points and damage scaling to ensure the combat length they wanted was kept within a certain range.
Power in the overall system seems to scale based on desired combat length with power being tied to extending combats by a round or two per progression tier. The players barely notice this progression that maintains even as the numbers increase substantially.
I thought that was pretty elegant design to keep the combat lengths so tight from level 1 to 20. I feel that PF2 to accomplish this type of scaling had to account for more variables than hit points.
The combat duration remains steady due to the balanced subsystems. The martial PC has a +1 to hit but the hostile creature has a +1 to AC, so the PC still hits just as often. The PC deals more damage due to Weapon Specialization, but the hostile creature has more hit points, so the damage is roughly the same percentage of the creature's hit points (a lot more roughly than I expected, because the percentage changes slowly over the levels). Intimidation gains a +1 for Demoralize, but the creature has a +1 to Will save. (The increase is more complicated that +1. The creatures tend to get +3 for every 2 levels, averaging +1.5 per level, but the PCs can gain item bonuses, circumstance bonuses, status bonuses, and attribute score increases to occasionally gat a +2 instead of a +1.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that the HP math scales differently than any other stat, and in an inconsistent manner.
As far as Chrono Trigger's math, idk, but it depends.
Most jrpgs have a defense value that reduces incoming damage, so getting the same HP can be more or less eHP depending on things like that. What the math does with that defense value also varies quite a lot.
.
And to be clear, there are plenty of modern games that release with similar "bad math" somewhere in there.
I distinctly remember seeing Dragon's Dogma 1, watching a PC do 1 dmg per hit, and that tripped my radar. Double checking again, DD did decide (who fking knows why) to use defense as a flat minus from incoming damage (at least somewhere in the formula), same as pf2's "resistance" (though with a min damage of 1 instead of pf2's 0).
This made the damage math rather atrocious, as players would rapidly become pipsqueaks once there was a significant stat spread. It made rapid-hit attack PCs paradoxically terrible and very OP. If you knew the math, and could get a high enough attack, every little hit would benefit from the full boost to shred everything. But the opposite would also be true, and you could end up doing nothing but 1s pretty quick.
If you have ever heard about "split type weapons" being trash in any number of games, this can be part of why.
Not properly handling split damage typically means that damage gets reduced by defenses twice, which is especially math-breaking when a game uses defense as a raw attack subtraction like that.
You can swing a 250 AR sword that's 100% phys, and deal 50 dmg a hit.
Then, you swap to a 350 AR weapon that's split 50/50 and deal 1 dmg per hit.
Because now that 200 phys defense | 200 magic defense creature gets to double-dip its defenses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize I made a copy paste error in the chart above for average high damage. What I ended up posting was the HP they have divided by the average crit damage of a same level creature doing high average damage.
When adjusting for +2 creatures level 1 gets more stark for the wiz and drops the fighter to one shot status. Only with a shield at level one would the +2 con fighter survive the average damage critical hit from a +2 creature.
This does show a more dangerous low level even for a fighter.
Edited to make sure I wasnt displaying values where the GM core wasnt providing damage numbers. Levels 19 and 20 should be blank since 21 and 22 level creature damage values are not provided in GM Core.
Wiz - Fighter - Barb - level
0.52 - 0.87 - 1.17 - 01
0.64 - 1.14 - 1.50 - 02
0.75 - 1.47 - 1.88 - 03
0.83 - 1.67 - 2.11 - 04
0.90 - 1.95 - 2.43 - 05
0.95 - 2.09 - 2.59 - 06
1.00 - 2.21 - 2.73 - 07
1.04 - 2.31 - 2.85 - 08
1.07 - 2.39 - 2.95 - 09
1.08 - 2.59 - 2.98 - 10
1.11 - 2.66 - 3.06 - 11
1.13 - 2.72 - 3.13 - 12
1.15 - 2.78 - 3.19 - 13
1.20 - 2.91 - 3.33 - 14
1.25 - 3.03 - 3.66 - 15
1.29 - 3.14 - 3.80 - 16
1.29 - 3.13 - 3.99 - 17
1.30 - 3.16 - 4.02 - 18
#DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - 19
#DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - 20
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game still hides high threat creatures at the same CR as easy creatures - lesser deaths anyone? So the GM should always be aware of what makes an encounter go from challenging to deadly, what kinds of threats are easier or harder for their party, and when to give the party an opening to run versus finishing them all off.Yes, it does. And also yes, that was a bad choice on the part of the designers.
There is no upside for their having chosen to make it so that we don't just have things which are accurately labeled and things which are errors awaiting errata, we also have things that are just plain "wrong" on purpose. There is, however, the downside that now we all have to always second guess whether something is an error awaiting errata or an intentional deviation - also known as not being able to trust the designers to design correctly.
Without using any incorrectly tuned monsters, you can still defeat the PCs if you build an encounter to attack a weakness or set the fight in terrain that doesn't favour them. The point is that you always need to be aware when building encounters and that building a "too hard" encounter can happen at any level.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you agree with me. My take is that Paizo should make 90% of it's releases for established players and 10% for new players.
This feels thoroughly disconnected from the point of the thread - I don't think there are many people advocating making levels 1-3 of all APs into Beginner Box style teach-the-new-players scenarios. The point of criticism is that the maths of the game in the first few levels teaches very different lessons to the maths of the game after those levels, and I think that it is clear to see that: a): the community online went through a phase of treating those early level lessons like they were true the whole game, and took years to get past it, b): new players often encounter issues at early levels where they either learn these not-always-true lessons themselves or are taught them as a solution to their problems at early levels by others, and c): many of the most common reasons for new players bouncing off the game are connected to these difficulties at lower levels.
None of that requires new releases to be marketed at new players to fix - the maths could be changed so it takes ~3 hits from a boss mob to take you down at all levels, instead of ~2 at level 1, and ~4 at level 20. That way people would learn the same lesson across the whole game, and it'd be less frustrating when you go from full hp to 0 hp without having the chance to take any action against it. Sure, you could carefully design all low-level prepublished content to avoid these weak points of lower level play that lead to frustrating situations, but you could also just change the maths. Presuming that people frustrated with this would leave the game anyway doesn't have any firm grounding, I think - if the game was constantly at risk of my PC dying before I took action in any given boss fight I probably would enjoy the game much less, I just know that it stops being like that quickly where a new player might not.
One could argue that the lethality of low-level play is intended to contribute to the feel of lower level play, but I don't think we see that reflected in the stories produced by paizo - few of the APs I've run or prepped seem like they want you to feel like you're a peasant thrown into an incredibly dangerous situation, about to die at any moment. They mostly feel to me like pretty classic heroic fantasy, starting at a pretty good power level - hell, you start out the game able to wrestle a camel into submission with about a 50% success rate, that's not the right vibes for a weak peasant thrown into the deep end (unless the story is very specifically trying to tell that by putting you up against higher level creatures). This description feels like it lines up more with the 0th level variant, where I do think it should feel like you're in over your head. I do feel like this is just a weirdness of the maths at low levels, and I don't think the game is better for having it present.