| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is now useless. Lock it please.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is definitely not what I meant but you read my words as you wish.
Alternatively, you might consider the possibility that I don't have an agenda, and you're just not sending the message you intended. Because I honestly don't know what else you meant with declarations like this:
The PFS team has all the info we use in our own analysis and more.
...
They have the full picture and we do not.
...
And we cannot give feedback without that. Only opinions.
...
Which is likely why they have not actually asked for feedback BTW.
Not only do you explicitly state that Paizo "have the full picture and we do not" -- which I have explained is not the case -- but you very much come across as "Paizo can do no wrong, so keep your feedback to yourself."
Also, point of order: Whether or not these changes will ultimately hurt PFS isn't actually a matter of opinion, but of fact. While it's true that we'll never know for sure either way, it remains useful to differentiate between a matter of fact (albeit one about which we lack perfect information) and a matter of opinion ("vanilla ice cream tastes better than strawberry ice cream"). For instance, it is possible to be wrong about the former, but not the latter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the reason for a tighter band that PF2 has very tight math, so "rolling for DCs set levels too high or too low" might not be fun?
Like a Hard Challenge for a Level 8 character is a Very Hard challenge for a level 6 character. I think it's better to set "how hard is this challenge" by the needs of the narrative rather than the identity of the character attempting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I do not understand : why do people think the 2-levels band will be better for big conventions than the current system ?
I think the general idea is that it's less of a problem because with lots of tables, you can find one in the level range that you can play at.
I sure hope it's better for someone, because if it's bad for big conventions and it's really bad for small conventions, it seems like an absolutely awful idea.
Presumably someone thinks this is actually a good idea. Since it's definitely not better for small conventions, process of elimination means there must be a benefit at large ones, right?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I do not understand : why do people think the 2-levels band will be better for big conventions than the current system ?I think the general idea is that it's less of a problem because with lots of tables, you can find one in the level range that you can play at.
I sure hope it's better for someone, because if it's bad for big conventions and it's really bad for small conventions, it seems like an absolutely awful idea.
Presumably someone thinks this is actually a good idea. Since it's definitely not better for small conventions, process of elimination means there must be a benefit at large ones, right?
Which is why I think the assessment that it will be bad for everyone but less for big conventions is off.
And that is why I think we are missing key info about how it will all work together.
Because, if it is bad for everyone, I sincerely believe nobody involved would think it's a good idea to implement it.
Hence my "let's wait and see" stance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pure speculation...
It could also be that instead of writing two sets of stats authors can focus on one more precise set, and then use more PC adjustments. For example, for a 7-8 level scenario, 7th & 8th level PCs can play it straight as written whereas before the change it might be 6th-9th with two sets of enemy & obstacle stats. One set is easier to write, edit, GM prep, etc.
Then (with a big IF) 6th level PCs & 9th level PCs could play with an adjustment, so ultimately the adventure covers the same level ranges, but with emphasis on the middle levels. Unlike a 6th-9th level scenario, these would be awkward for an all 6th or all 9th, which might already be a problem Paizo thinks they're fixing.
So instead of the scenario's trying to fit in a range of PCs (and perhaps losing some precision for some of that range/one of those tracks), it's the PCs that are adjusted to fit in the scenarios. Which yes, is done already with mismatched parties so it's not a foreign concept.
I'm reminded of the earliest PFS1 scenarios with extreme level ranges, and it made all the difference in the world whether Lord so&so was at fireball levels or not, making for quite different table experiences and NPC tactics. "Don't play adventure X at high level" was an occasional warning. With level differences mattering more in PF2, maybe this further tightening is necessary for finer tuning and more effective writing & balance.
As mentioned, just spitballing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the reason for the more narrow level band is too streamline the creation of scenarios and make them easier and faster to write and balance. It is much more of a dev side adjustment, not a player side adjustment, although reading and running scenarios will probably be easier for newer GMs as well, and it is definitely being done for the larger convention as lowering the bar to GMing will mean more tables can be run.
I really don’t think making the scenarios more adjustable will help with those elements so it seems like “just play lower level scenarios and make new characters if necessary” is going to be the solution to players not having characters in the same higher level bands.
Edit: or of course, just use a pregen” will still be an option and making more levels of pregens is a relatively easy thing to do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: or of course, just use a pregen” will still be an option and making more levels of pregens is a relatively easy thing to do.
Not really, because folks would rather play their own character than a pregen. It's better than nothing, but it's far from ideal.
But if that's what we're going to be stuck with, I hope they make good pregens. Every time someone plays Harsk, the inevitable question gets asked "why does a Flurry Ranger use a Crossbow with a reload time?" It makes no damn sense. He doesn't even have Running Reload. It just feels bad in play that they give you a ranged weapon that actively does not work with your Hunter's Edge.
I generally wind up having to explain to new players after they first learn how crossbows work "ignore that the crossbow exists and go into melee" so it at least feels like Hunt Prey is doing something. This has happened at least four separate times, as new players seem to want to do ranged combat when they start relatively far away from an enemy (not an unreasonable thing to do, to be fair, if you're not familiar with PF2 Flurry Rangers and Crossbows).
(And it'd be cool if they fixed Korakai too since he's just straight up incorrectly built.)
Right now it's not an option since pregens stop at 5 and so in these new bands, we just don't have enough characters to run anything at level 7+ since the group that can do that is spread out between level 7 and level 9.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I understand why players might not like these changes and why playing pregens can be disappointing.
I was just trying to understand the situation, why it is happening the way that it is, and think about whether it is likely that they would just change things.
I really think the cutting the level band is about simplifying the writing process and getting more uniform balance in play experience of scenarios. I think that is hard to do with 4 levels instead of 2 and that is why I would be surprised if the went back to 4.
I think things like changing the pregens and making them available at every 2 levels is much more likely to happen.
I do think it would be a long term benefit if the simplified scenario writing meant that they could start publishing more and more scenarios, even if it means that most of them are going to have to be level 1-2 scenarios so that those levels don't get boring to play.
I also think it is much more likely that we get a ton of level 1-2 scenarios for a while and that playing those is going to be the default for conventions for several years as players who like to play a lot of different scenarios will have to have a stable of characters at different levels to make sure they can play available tables.
So is the 2nd Cheliax AP getting previewed soon?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am so sick of 1-4s. There is enough level 1-4s which aren't even repeatable to take someone to level 5. The foundation of the level band pyramid is to damn wide! And now they want to waste our time with 1-2s! We don't need these levels. We need more 5-8, 7-10, and 9-12. We need to build the pyramid to be better proportioned.
On top of the great posts from Tridus and Talgeron about what smaller level bands are actually going to do to tables in practice. My own petty contribution is that a few people I know and myself are very tired of the low level focus and want more opportunities to flex the cool builds we earned with actual play and to show off our game mastery. In short we want variety and opportunity. Not a reset to more 1-2.
Referring back to the announcement of changes coming to SFS for 2e. It is clear whatever picture Paizo is getting from reporting, it is distorted or their analysts need another go at it because their stated conclusions are empirically wrong. To refresh anyone who cares, we were told that high level content was unpopular so they weren't even going to try (thus the lower level cap for SFS2e).
It was pointed out to blind eyes and deaf ears that the obvious reason PFS2e high level play don't get scheduled as often is there are less scenarios in the range, no repeatables of that range, and fewer players with characters in that range. Not that people were avoiding high level play. (In personal experience even high level scenarios which are badly reviewed get filled because people want to play their high level PCs that got retired for lack of scenarios). People point out that the level cap is unnecessary because Paizo already fixed the above problems with their other changes, more repeatables, and makings new PCs at level 7 will make more characters available for those scenarios. Paizo only needs to sell us scenarios which can get us there (or allow us to make up characters higher than 7, but this is probably a bad idea as Talgeron has already stressed).
My point is that Paizo's data and analysis suck and they are coming to faulty conclusions. We have to hope they are reading these posts because they are missing very real and lived experience which contradict their stated policy.
So is the 2nd Cheliax AP getting previewed soon?
Before Hellbreakers gets a preview? Not likely.
Did they say if the part 2 was going to be immediately after Hellbreakers release?
|
|
I am so sick of 1-4s. There is enough level 1-4s which aren't even repeatable to take someone to level 5. The foundation of the level band pyramid is to damn wide! And now they want to waste our time with 1-2s! We don't need these levels. We need more 5-8, 7-10, and 9-12. We need to build the pyramid to be better proportioned.
FWIW, the announced scenarios that follow the 2-levels band are
Lvl 3-4 on January 7thLvl 13-14 on January 7th
Lvl 7-8 on February 4th
Lvl 5-6 on February 4th
Lvl 9-10 on March 4th
Lvl 3-4 on March 4th
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is the 2nd Cheliax AP getting previewed soon?Before Hellbreakers gets a preview? Not likely.
Did they say if the part 2 was going to be immediately after Hellbreakers release?
They did say the AP after Hellbreakers follows on in a way that you could use it as a direct sequel with the same group of PCs. They also said that the releases would become quarterly. So depending on how you mean your question, the answer is either yes or no.
I am so sick of 1-4s. There is enough level 1-4s which aren't even repeatable to take someone to level 5. The foundation of the level band pyramid is to damn wide! And now they want to waste our time with 1-2s! We don't need these levels. We need more 5-8, 7-10, and 9-12. We need to build the pyramid to be better proportioned.
FWIW, the announced scenarios that follow the 2-levels band are
Lvl 3-4 on January 7th
Lvl 13-14 on January 7th
Lvl 7-8 on February 4th
Lvl 5-6 on February 4th
Lvl 9-10 on March 4th
Lvl 3-4 on March 4th
If thats how it is then I missed that and will chill out about level bands. I don't care for 3-4s but its a lot better than 1-2s. 13-14 is exciting, would prefer 11-14, but I am still excited about that regardless.
That is interesting. I wonder if one of the things that had been standing in the way of a lot of higher level scenarios is whether having a gap between spell ranks made the "these are reasonable narrative challenges to face a lot more complicated to span.
Like at level 3 you don't get that much more stuff you can do with spells than level 1 (as far a narrative breaking spells) but at higher ranks the gaps stretch a lot more. It could be that tighter level bands are going to make higher level play easier and they are trying to show case that by having more higher level scenarios.
It just seems like it will be harder to get the numbers to run those except at large conventions.
I really hoped they would not do 3-4 because getting the Striking Rune at level 4 makes Martials a completely different beast.
It's more awkward than that, it's only some martials, the ones with big die weapons, that get a huge leap. Swashbuckler & Rogue, for example, get two smaller ones: Striking at 4th plus a damage boost at 5th. So even a 4th-5th level adventure would have distinct differences (as well as Fireball for the casters & stat boots). So it kinda has to be 3rd-4th. The difference between 1st & 2nd can be large too, depending. Much harder to kill a 2nd level martial who just purchased heavy armor than their 1st level counterpart.
And if anything, highlighting these power gaps emphasizes Paizo's (likely) reasoning for tightening the level bands.
It just seems like it will be harder to get the numbers to run those except at large conventions.
Maybe in person, but these will fill up fast on Warhorn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just seems like it will be harder to get the numbers to run those except at large conventions.Maybe in person, but these will fill up fast on Warhorn.
... great? I sure hope "this is fine for online play so it doesn't matter what happens in person" isn't a decision point.
And if anything, highlighting these power gaps emphasizes Paizo's (likely) reasoning for tightening the level bands.
I'd imagine so. And having a 1st and 4th in the same group presented some challenges.
It's still preferable to "I can't run this at all because the band is so narrow there's not enough characters in it."
Course, if Paizo had replied to any of this they could have said as much. But I think at this point it's safe to assume that won't happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... great? I sure hope "this is fine for online play so it doesn't matter what happens in person" isn't a decision point.It just seems like it will be harder to get the numbers to run those except at large conventions.Maybe in person, but these will fill up fast on Warhorn.
I am willing to say, not great. I brought up in my first post on this thread that the decisions seem made with online play in mind. I am almost exclusively online PFS2 and things seem to fill up with at least 5 players very quickly no matter what scenario it is. As long as it is at a reasonable time and on Foundry, I've never seen problems with tables firing. This is why I think Paizo are committing to the narrow level bands so hard. Without even waiting to see how well it works in SFS2 Year 1 they are bringing it to PFS2 because I can only imagine that their internal data shows these changes won't be significantly harming the online space.
I have from testimony like yours that this will hurt the local con scene and so I am afraid that this very well might be a decision point for them. That they are discounting the local scene knowing Gen Con will survive and Paizo Con is almost all exclusively online anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yes it has been 53 days since the first complaint on the changes on this thread and the most we have heard from them is Mr. Jacob's reassurance that they are discussing our feedback. While I appreciate Mr. Jacob's speaking to us, the longer the silence the less contented I am about it.
Have they been in talks for 50 days? Have they made a decision? Are they going to tell us if they did? Or can we expect 7-09 to land without any more acknowledgement.
It was probably always to late, 7-09 and later scenarios were probably to far along to do a major rewrite for normal level bands from the day the announcement was made. Paizo made their decision, and there wasn't anything more to say, because they waited to late for feedback to matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes it has been 53 days since the first complaint on the changes on this thread and the most we have heard from them is Mr. Jacob's reassurance that they are discussing our feedback. While I appreciate Mr. Jacob's speaking to us, the longer the silence the less contented I am about it.
Have they been in talks for 50 days? Have they made a decision? Are they going to tell us if they did? Or can we expect 7-09 to land without any more acknowledgement.
It was probably always to late, 7-09 and later scenarios were probably to far along to do a major rewrite for normal level bands from the day the announcement was made. Paizo made their decision, and there wasn't anything more to say, because they waited to late for feedback to matter.
They did a new blog post organized play update and none of this was mentioned at all.
At this point, lack of a response is the response.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, lack of a response is the response.
Precisely what I said in another thread. They know best, and simply aren't interested in hearing anything to the contrary. :-/
At this point all I can really hope for is that someone higher up the food chain recognizes the current death spiral for what it is and steps in before it is too late.
