We're level 3 and nearly had 3 TPKs, so ... yeah. Our party composition kinda sucks, so I'm trying to come up with ways to shore up our weaknesses. Party membership:
Me, Draconic (Arcane) Sorcerer. The usual assortment of blast spells with some setups like Fear and crowd control like Entangling Flora. The only person who uses skill actions. System mastery: Moderate-ish. I read optimization guides for characters before I play them, at least.
Elf Fighter, specced for archery. Point Blank Stance. Uses longbow instead of shortbow. System Mastery: Below average. Just stands and fires unless something gets within melee range, then he runs away. Backup weapon: Rapier.
Centaur Ranger, also specced for archery, Precision style. Uses a comp. longbow. Unlike the previous character, runs away first. Constantly forgets to use Hunted Shot or Hunter's Aim. New to the system. +4 STR, +3 DEX. System Mastery: None. Backup weapon: Scimitar.
Human Bard. Prefers weapons to spells. Thinks the bard is a damage class. Fond of using a battle axe with a +0 STR. Has to be reminded to use Courageous Anthem every single fight. Aside from Force Barrage, Soothe, and TK Projectile, I have no idea what spells she has. System Mastery: Does the scale go negative?
There's a fire-and-wood kineticist who can join us every other game who helps a lot, but we need to plan for his absence.
And yes, none of us really consulted with one another when making characters, except for me coming in and asking what everybody else was playing, if it wasn't obvious.
Our issues, to my analysis, are:
1. A lack of in-combat burst healing. Soothe is *okay*, but the bard tends to go down first (see point 3). Out of combat, we're okay, with two people with Medicine and the DM is liberal with the potions.
2. We don't know anything. We are almost incapable of succeeding at Recall Knowledge checks, leaving us to trial-and-error tactics.
3. We have no 'front line'. While we have two warriors who are perfectly capable in melee combat, they ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO. The Centaur would probably be better in melee than at range. They usually scatter and leave the Sorc and Bard to be the 'front line', and you can guess how well that works. If the Fighter and Ranger were Flanking buddies, they'd wreck house.
The Fighter hid behind the Sorcerer last game ...
4. Resistance to Piercing is a bigger problem than it should be due to over-reliance on bows.
None of us want to retire our current characters and do new ones, so I'm trying to figure out how to compensate for our considerable weaknesses. It's ... daunting, so I'm looking for help from the experts.
Will things improve when we hit higher levels? Or are we just doomed?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is more of a meta discussion and cannot be solved by your character, only by you - by talking to them.
Wanting to play a ranged character is okay - but a ranged fighter is still very strong defensively. Try to convince them at least not to run away when enemies close but switch to a melee weapon.
The bard as a melee character should like nothing more than a flanking buddy, if none of the others want to do that maybe the ranger could get an animal companion (or one of the others take an appropriate archetype).
And in the end, its up to your GM to challenge your group appropriately.
The difference between highly optimized and okayish is not very big in pf2e, but not executing tactics at all is quite severe.
Talk to your GM and suggest that encounters be scaled down, just as a test, and see if you maybe have more fun this way.
Some people play the game as a tactical challenge, that is a valid way to play, but not the only one!
well... to start with, convincing the bard to at least switch to a finesse weapon instead of an axe with +0 Str could help.
But from the get go, with such a composition and such (as you put it) "negative mastery", the best you could do is working with the GM to convince him to target Summons more, and then use more Summons yourself as the sorcerer just to put extra bodies on the battlefield for the enemies to whack. Illusionary creature could work similarily.
but it still needs to gm to have the enemies focus more on siad summons rather than the squishy actual casters that are handling the frontline.
Agreed. That bard is going to get mashed otherwise. If it wasn't for the bard, the rest of the party could do well with kiting and distance tactic.
Barring GM intervention, my suggestion would be you out-coward the martials and try and spend your actions getting even further away from the enemy than they do. You're a ranged combatant too and much squishier. 2nd tank tailwind and other mobility spells will help ensure you are the fastest to get out of dodge.
And then let the bard die? I'm honestly unsure how she survived this long if she's the only healer.
At high levels you will go down less quickly but the enemies have more HP to. I don't think things will get better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will things improve when we hit higher levels? Or are we just doomed?
The characters should be fine, but the players? SMH...
You should probably talk with both the other players and the GM about how PF2e really emphasizes the in-play tactical aspect of the entire party. Frank is completely correct:
The difference between highly optimized and okayish is not very big in pf2e, but not executing tactics at all is quite severe.
Unlike PF1e and many other game systems, combat requires everyone to use teamwork and appropriate tactics. PF2e opponents can't generally be fought strength vs. strength (a melee brute will usually hit harder and be tougher than any single PC, for example) or just cast an "I win" save-or-die/save-or-suck spell. Also, due to the multiple attack penalty, it is almost always counterproductive to just use actions on more than one Strike every round.
You should probably have a discussion about some of the ways the three action economy can be used. Moving, raising a shield, using Intimidation to demoralize, etc. All of those "minor" bonuses and penalties add up with the tight math in PF2e.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our issues, to my analysis, are:
1. A lack of in-combat burst healing. Soothe is *okay*, but the bard tends to go down first (see point 3). Out of combat, we're okay, with two people with Medicine and the DM is liberal with the potions.
2. We don't know anything. We are almost incapable of succeeding at Recall Knowledge checks, leaving us to trial-and-error tactics.
3. We have no 'front line'. While we have two warriors who are perfectly capable in melee combat, they ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO. The Centaur would probably be better in melee than at range. They usually scatter and leave the Sorc and Bard to be the 'front line', and you can guess how well that works. If the Fighter and Ranger were Flanking buddies, they'd wreck house.
The Fighter hid behind the Sorcerer last game ...
4. Resistance to Piercing is a bigger problem than it should be due to over-reliance on bows.None of us want to retire our current characters and do new ones, so I'm trying to figure out how to compensate for our considerable weaknesses. It's ... daunting, so I'm looking for help from the experts.
Will things improve when we hit higher levels? Or are we just doomed?
I think 3, followed by 1, are your biggest problems. 2 and 4 are bad, but 3 and 1 are crippling.
You can do various things now;
1) You could change nothing about the characters or the adventure. It'd be miserable though because you'll just get chased around by the monsters.
2) You could change the characters. Adapting the characters to fit the game is probably the most common solution, but you don't want to.
3) You (well, the GM) could change the adventure to suit the characters more.
4) The weird solution: keep the characters the same, but change your mindset and behavior.
Let me explain that fourth one. It's more of a "strict in-character" approach. Instead of saying "we the players should build suitable characters", you start by saying "these are the characters playing this adventure; it's tough for them, so what do they do then?"
What does a band of adventurers do when they realize they're all afraid of being in melee, but they do have the motivation to go on adventures? A lot of hit and run tactics maybe?
Playing like this is gonna be a bit difficult for the GM, because you're not really gonna be be playing the way any written adventure is expecting you to. But it could be pretty fun. It's more like a character development arc. In the beginning of Lord of the Rings, the hobbits aren't too eager to go into combat either, but gradually they figure out that some fights they know what to do, or that they think this one is worth taking a stand in even though they're scared.
4) The weird solution: keep the characters the same, but change your mindset and behavior.
Let me explain that fourth one. It's more of a "strict in-character" approach. Instead of saying "we the players should build suitable characters", you start by saying "these are the characters playing this adventure; it's tough for them, so what do they do then?"
That is what my players do. They build characters that are fun to roleplay or an interesting experiment, then they design tactics around what those characters like to do, and as they level up, they improve their abilities for their preferences that have proven to work well with the rest of the party. They end up with fantastic tactics that steamroll through some encounters by sheer cleverness. (Nothing steamrolls through all encounters.)
Agreed. That bard is going to get mashed otherwise. If it wasn't for the bard, the rest of the party could do well with kiting and distance tactic.well... to start with, convincing the bard to at least switch to a finesse weapon instead of an axe with +0 Str could help.
But from the get go, with such a composition and such (as you put it) "negative mastery", the best you could do is working with the GM to convince him to target Summons more, and then use more Summons yourself as the sorcerer just to put extra bodies on the battlefield for the enemies to whack. Illusionary creature could work similarily.
but it still needs to gm to have the enemies focus more on siad summons rather than the squishy actual casters that are handling the frontline.
A distance tactic requires persuading the enemy to not close the distance. Foxfire Inferno's sorcerer learned Entangling Flora for that purpose, and other people recommended summoning creatures, but since the bard wants to engage in the middle of everything, let's take advantage of that. The bard serves as bait.
The bard can make big flashy attacks that attract enemy's attention (in reality, that means the GM has an excuse why the enemy does not chase after the ranged characters who are dealing damage more damage than the bard). Damage won't be the bard's purpose, but persuading the bard's player to try a debuff like Trip would be handy. The bard might prefer the Battle Axe because it is one of the few one-handed weapons that deals 1d8 damage. But the Khopesh and Temple Sword also deal 1d8 in one hand and they have the Trip trait. Or point out that PF2e Remastered no longer requires an empty hand for spellcasting, so the bard could upgrade to a two-handed weapon such as a Guisarme or War Flail. If my guess about damage dice is correct, then the bard's player will object to the lower damage dice of a finesse weapon.
Then the bard has to try to stay alive. A shield cantrip is not as good as an actual shield, but it does not use up a hand. Protection stacks with the shield spell. Defended by spirits, an uncommon spell from Lost Omens Shining Kingdoms would take advantage of the bard being a melee target. The sorcerer is already casting Fear to debuff opponents. Blur, false vitality, and maybe legacy mirror image are available as 2nd-rank spells.
The elf fighter and the centaur ranger can stand at a distance and shoot arrows. A ranger not having to worry about opponents might develop a habit of remember Hunted Aim. If you can persuade them to Hide (might be tough for the large centaur), then they can take advantage of off-guard opponents. On the other hand, if the bard is tripping people, then some opponents will be off-guard regardless.
Alas, with a setup like this, the only blasting the sorcerer will get to do are cantrips and area-of-effect spells. Otherwise, the sorcerer will have to focus on battlefield control to help the bard stay alive and look like the obvious target. Grease next to the bard would both protect the bard and give the bard easy targets, especially with a reach weapon. Runic Weapon on the bard's weapon will make the bard both happy and a target for enemies. Enlarge is even more dramatic.
It's a shame the ranger went with the longbow-- if they pick up running reload an an arbalest at level 4 they could do the run and shoot thing quite well. But if they already have the strength for composite longbows they might as well stick with it.
|
Maybe the Fighter could be convinced to MC (or even retrain) into Magus.
- It fits the trope of elves using both weapons and magic
- Your description of their fighting style fits perfectly the Starlit Span Magus.
- They will be able to Sure Strike nova once per fight and regular nova every round (if retrained to Magus).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like a problem of players building characters that go against their class's design. That doesn't work in PF2. Class determines how a character fights in combat. Your skill choices and description can be fairly independent of your class and make your character feel a lot different in role-play or skill encounters than a stereotypical caricature of that class. But class determines effective fighting styles. A Ranger focuses on one target until it is dead and then moves on to the next. A Bard is a spellcaster. A Fighter uses their preferred weapons to attack anyone that comes nearby.
Probably the best way to fix this party is to mechanically re-envision the characters with a class that does fit how they are being played. You won't need to retire those characters - just change their stats and mechanics to match what the characters actually are.
When building characters, there are only a handful of guidelines that need to be followed to get characters that are viable in combat.
* The primary attack you use should be something that your class is good at. (No, a Bard is a spellcaster, not a melee weapon user).
* The attribute you use for your primary attack should be at least +3 at level 1 and should be boosted at each boost option level (as long as doing so doesn't leave the character with a .5 boost at the end of the campaign).
* Keep your equipment up to date for your level regarding fundamental runes.
Draconic Sorcerer using blast spells is probably fine unless you are being pressed into front-line duties. You might try a Dragon Instinct Barbarian or a Thaumaturge with Sorcerer archetype.
Elf Fighter with longbow is more of a missed opportunity than an actual problem. Pulling out the rapier and jumping into melee wouldn't be a bad idea for tactics. A better bow user is Ranger or Rogue (if a different character can get enemies flat-footed to attacks in general such as with trip or grapple). But Rogue does better with shortbow than longbow.
Centaur Ranger is not really a bad build. Though with a +4 STR it looks like they are more specced for melee than archery. Again, jumping into melee or at least not running away when enemies close in would be a good idea. And using Hunt Prey for the ability to use Hunted Shot would be really nice. Even on the first round that is still two attacks for two actions - same as if you just make two Strike actions.
Human Bard is not a melee character. Consider Wit Swashbuckler with Bard archetype for a similar flavored character. Also, look into Hand Adze for weapon if going with a DEX build. If wanting to use a big axe, look into classes like Exemplar, Thaumaturge, Commander, or Fighter.
For in-combat healing, see if you can have your GM bot your Kineticist character to use Fresh Produce (which I am hoping that they have) on the party as needed. Even if the Kineticist does nothing else while the player is missing. Also, Battle Medicine is pretty good, especially with a couple of improvement feats like Robust Health.
This sounds like a problem of players building characters that go against their class's design. That doesn't work in PF2. Class determines how a character fights in combat. Your skill choices and description can be fairly independent of your class and make your character feel a lot different in role-play or skill encounters than a stereotypical caricature of that class. But class determines effective fighting styles. A Ranger focuses on one target until it is dead and then moves on to the next. A Bard is a spellcaster. A Fighter uses their preferred weapons to attack anyone that comes nearby.
Some of my players like experimental designs that go against the standard class design. For example, my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign,had a high-dexterity champion who wore light armor and at higher levels no armor. She had a velociraptor animal companion who attacked for her: the champion played defense and the animal companion played offense. In my current Strength of Thousands campaign the same player plays a rogue with two spellcasting archetypes. Strength of Thousands Player's Guide recommends a free archetype, so she can afford two archetypes. That rogue is built around Athletics, grappling and tripping opponents to enable her teammates to hit them. The Athletics maneuvers were supposed to be a low-level measure until she could function as a spellcaster, but it worked so well in a party of mostly spellcasters that she kept it up, now at 9th level.
But design that goes against the standard has to be carefully optimized to function. Wielding a battle axe with STR +0 is simply a bad choice.
Also, Fighter class is designed for either a Strength build or a Dexterity build. An archer fighter is a standard designs. The running away from melee is the non-standard part.
* The primary attack you use should be something that your class is good at. (No, a Bard is a spellcaster, not a melee weapon user).
A bard is trained in martial weapons and light armor, so with DEX +4 and a finesse martial weapon or STR +4, DEX +3, and a martial weapon, the bard could function in melee combat. They lack the fighter's expertise in weapons, the barbarian's Rage, the ranger's Hunter's Edge, and the Swashbuckler's Panache, but they could make up for that by buffing themselves with spells such as Runic Weapon and Courageous Anthem. Their moderate 8+CON hit points can be halfway corrected with the Toughness feat. This is a non-standard design, but it is workable. A melee spellcaster has the advantage that if forced into ranged combat, they don't have to switch to a ranged weapon. Instead, they attack at range with cantrips.
* The primary attack you use should be something that your class is good at. (No, a Bard is a spellcaster, not a melee weapon user).A bard is trained in martial weapons and light armor, so with DEX +4 and a finesse martial weapon or STR +4, DEX +3, and a martial weapon, the bard could function in melee combat. They lack the fighter's expertise in weapons, the barbarian's Rage, the ranger's Hunter's Edge, and the Swashbuckler's Panache, but they could make up for that by buffing themselves with spells such as Runic Weapon and Courageous Anthem. Their moderate 8+CON hit points can be halfway corrected with the Toughness feat. This is a non-standard design, but it is workable. A melee spellcaster has the advantage that if forced into ranged combat, they don't have to switch to a ranged weapon. Instead, they attack at range with cantrips.
That is advanced tactics for players who are very proficient or even expert in the game mechanics. Not good recommendations for new players.
I believe one CAN build a melee bard,* but I think we can all agree this player did not build that it they are using a battle axe with +0 strength.
*I wouldn't want a bard as the only one on the front line, and they still need to utilize their slots and compositions... But weapon damage is generally superior to cantrip damage, and a strike costs less actions. That's handy for turns where you need to Stride + Dirge of Doom and don't have the actions left for a proper spell.
Melee casters have to played very tactically and this player is not interested in that.
That is advanced tactics for players who are very proficient or even expert in the game mechanics. Not good recommendations for new players.* The primary attack you use should be something that your class is good at. (No, a Bard is a spellcaster, not a melee weapon user).A bard is trained in martial weapons and light armor, so with DEX +4 and a finesse martial weapon or STR +4, DEX +3, and a martial weapon, the bard could function in melee combat. They lack the fighter's expertise in weapons, the barbarian's Rage, the ranger's Hunter's Edge, and the Swashbuckler's Panache, but they could make up for that by buffing themselves with spells such as Runic Weapon and Courageous Anthem. Their moderate 8+CON hit points can be halfway corrected with the Toughness feat. This is a non-standard design, but it is workable. A melee spellcaster has the advantage that if forced into ranged combat, they don't have to switch to a ranged weapon. Instead, they attack at range with cantrips.
I agree. Again, class chassis determines a lot. Just because the bard has access to martial weapons, okay hit points, and high ability score in dex/strength doesn't make them good at weapon based combat.
For example, bards don't advanced to expert weapon proficiency until level 11.
Fighter's are hitting Master at level 5 and Legendary at level 13. Other martial classes are getting expert at 5 and master at 13. Not to mention class feats and other class based things that actually make them good at weapon based combat.
Being trained in martial weapons and having ability scores to match with it is just kind of the bare minimum for someone not to call such an exercise completely foolish.
For a new player, I'd recommend if playing a bard that wants to use a weapon, to use a bow. Open combat with courageous anthem and maybe some sort of spell. And then maybe use cantrips or your bow while keeping the performance going.
That is advanced tactics for players who are very proficient or even expert in the game mechanics. Not good recommendations for new players.* The primary attack you use should be something that your class is good at. (No, a Bard is a spellcaster, not a melee weapon user).A bard is trained in martial weapons and light armor, so with DEX +4 and a finesse martial weapon or STR +4, DEX +3, and a martial weapon, the bard could function in melee combat. They lack the fighter's expertise in weapons, the barbarian's Rage, the ranger's Hunter's Edge, and the Swashbuckler's Panache, but they could make up for that by buffing themselves with spells such as Runic Weapon and Courageous Anthem. Their moderate 8+CON hit points can be halfway corrected with the Toughness feat. This is a non-standard design, but it is workable. A melee spellcaster has the advantage that if forced into ranged combat, they don't have to switch to a ranged weapon. Instead, they attack at range with cantrips.
I recruit a new player or two into my campaigns. In 75% of the cases, my tactical regular players have the new player applying advanced tactics by 3rd level.
Advanced tactics are more fun than clueless tactics, and not just because winning is fun. Instead, the PCs can express their characters via their tactical choices for more roleplaying. The new players want to join in that fun.
Consider Foxfire Inferno's fellow players. Foxfire Inferno will have little success with a, "Here is some advice on the Paizo forum about not losing." But a discussion of what the players want their PCs to be can excite players. Perhaps the elf fighter was modeled after Legolas from Lord of the Rings. Since Legolas was seldom in melee, the player might have no idea how to play the elf in melee, so the player panics. Pointing out that actor Orlando Bloom who played Legolas also played swashbuckling blacksmith Will Turner in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl would give the player a model for melee combat.
Greek mythology makes centaurs mostly archers. Back in the days before stirrups were invented striking with a heavy blow from horseback could unseat the rider, so horse riders--whom the centaurs were based upon--used bows. Thus, a centaur archer is a classic and could adopt classic Greek tactics. Or Apache Indian tactics, since they also rode without stirrups. The choice of Hunter's Edge could define a style: Precision Edge is about one good shot, Flurry Edge is about shooting often, and Outwit Edge is about knowing the land.
The bard player might be stuck in the 25% who do not master tactics, so the party could just let the player continue with an inept build and design a team tactic, such as bard as bait, that makes the bard serve some practical use. And the player would get to feel important.
I recruit a new player or two into my campaigns. In 75% of the cases, my tactical regular players have the new player applying advanced tactics by 3rd level.
Good for you.
I'm not trying to say that your tactics are bad or that moving on to advanced tactics is something that isn't fun in the long run.
But you do notice the difference between even this scenario that you are describing from your table and the scenario described in the OP, right?
OP's table has no one to be the example of expert level tactics. The entire table is struggling to have fun with the game because they don't know what they are doing. As a table, they aren't ready for advanced tactics and off-beat character builds yet.
I recruit a new player or two into my campaigns. In 75% of the cases, my tactical regular players have the new player applying advanced tactics by 3rd level.Good for you.
I'm not trying to say that your tactics are bad or that moving on to advanced tactics is something that isn't fun in the long run.
But you do notice the difference between even this scenario that you are describing from your table and the scenario described in the OP, right?
OP's table has no one to be the example of expert level tactics. The entire table is struggling to have fun with the game because they don't know what they are doing. As a table, they aren't ready for advanced tactics and off-beat character builds yet.
Generally agreed on everything, but I am wondering if anyone besides the OP is having a bad time. I would think this problem would self correct if the other players were upset about it-- either people get gud or abandon PF2. The refusal to adapt confuses me.
OP's table has no one to be the example of expert level tactics. The entire table is struggling to have fun with the game because they don't know what they are doing. As a table, they aren't ready for advanced tactics and off-beat character builds yet.
Aside from perhaps the OP themself, who is perhaps not an expert but at least not actively harming themselves.
The fighter archer for example, would be fine if they simply understood that they are durable. They are a frontline character and should expect to take hits. Shooting into melee is fine, and generally your enemy wont have attacks of opportunity. They can have someone stand in their face and hit them and it shouldn't really phase an archer fighter. The main mistakes the player is making is running away and using a longbow. Because of the volley trait and the typical range that fights happen, it's not actually worthwhile to use a longbow. The Point Blank Stance does counter the volley trait, though I personally think the extra +2 to hit on a shortbow (which is extra likely to crit on a fighter) is probably worth the trade from a 1d8 weapon to a 1d6 weapon. If they simply learn to stand and hold the front line, they'd be okay. Probably encourage them to grab a freehand weapon to make sure they can take attacks of opportunity.
But with a Centaur Hunter Ranger....that's too many ranged attackers. One needs to make themselves a melee character.
With the centaur's strength they'd be good at it, but it's a very different build. If the centaur use their first class feat to grab initiate warden spells for Gravity weapon, used a gisarme with precision edge that could load a lot of damage onto one hit. And after initial setup, they would have more flexibility with actions because they don't need multiple strikes as much as others to deal good damage.
They could even both stay ranged, they just need to understand they are the front line. They have the HP and AC to take attacks, and they need to.
There's a more to say on the characters. But they're kind of stabbing themselves in the foot.
Maybe that group survives if the DM runs a soft game.
1. Soothe is vastly inferior to the 2 action heal. If no one changes to a heal class, you will have problems.
2. Ranger can be a switch hitter. They can pick up a shield or two weapons and step into melee once enemies close.
You should be softening targets from range as much possible.
3. Bard player should be Battle Muse. They should be building around battle muse. They should be strength based. They must not understand the game at all to choose battleaxe with +0 strength. I wouldn't even play with this person, but I imagine it is your friend. This type of choice is group sabotage.
If they want to be a melee battle bard, they should build appropriately or they are acting as an anchor to the group to make them weaker and sink them.
4. If your group is newer, RK is mainly useful for oozes or something like will-o-wisps. You can mostly hit stuff.
If you all have fun playing together and the DM keeps the game soft, you can survive. That's what's important.
If you want the group to do better, your players have to build better characters and group synergies. If they aren't willing to do that, then it's going to be a painful game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that given the average level of of “system mastery” in the group, which seems on the ultra low side, there isn’t very much *tactically* you should try to engage. Without buy in that “tactical thinking” is a thing, and without any kind of attempt to play to any inherent strengths or proclivities of classes/roles, telling people what they *can* do is pointless.
Have a simple, straight conversation. With the players and the GM. A simple explanation of what PF2 entails, backed up by a GM who can provide some kind of feedback that this is indeed the case will provide clarity, if not understanding, to even the most casual or obtuse player.
In media, any character can swing any weapon and be heroic. In PF2, it simply isn’t very good to swing any axe, as a bard, with +0 Strength. It simply isn’t very good to have the two martials leaving the bard and sorceror as the “front liners”. It simply won’t work very well if, with that “formation”, the bard is the ersatz healer. Any of those elements *might* work where any of the other elements aren’t also present. But all slammed together in one great big pile of “this isn’t very good”….isn’t very good. And as you have probably found out, not, in the long run, a lot of fun.
Make some simple points. Ask the players if they can see the general problem.
If they can, ask them if they want to change/improve. From there, you have something you can work with.
If they can’t see the general problem, or aren’t interested in changing/“becoming tactically minded” then I humbly suggest you all play a different game system that a) isn’t as specifically granular and b) values story over mechanics.
There are plenty of systems out there where an elf archer and a centaur archer can team up with a spell-user and an axe maniac and they can have an interesting and fun time. But they will struggle in PF2 if they don’t understand some basics of how the system works, what it prioritises and ultimately how to play as a team that is efficient. Essentially you have a mismatch of intent.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably the best way to fix this party is to mechanically re-envision the characters with a class that does fit how they are being played. You won't need to retire those characters - just change their stats and mechanics to match what the characters actually are.
I've been in campaigns where we did that.
We had a Starfinder campaign and all the characters were ranged-oriented. Melee enemies tended to get into our face and keep chasing us around. It was miserable.
At some point we all agreed this wasn't working, we weren't enjoying it, something had to change. The GM said he was fine with someone making big character changes. I went with it. It was playing a mechanic (a starfinder class focusing on riffles, sorta). But the next session I was playing THE SAME character, just as a different class and with different stats, as a solarian (a sort of jedi-ish melee character).
The character was an android with a phobia of any food that remotely looked organic. Think of someone who doesn't want to eat rabbit if they can imagine they're eating Fluffy. They only want to eat meat if they can't recognize what animal it came from. Now extend that idea to vegetables - this character really preferred tofu cubes and noodles. THAT sort of stuff all stayed the same. It's just the class mechanics of the character that we changed.
When you're playing a campaign with your friends and you have a party dynamic going, cool. The party dynamic can stay right there even when you change the under-the-hood mechanics of the characters.
As evidenced by the Beginner Boxes, Paizo knows that their HP math is bunk at low levels, and invented gear to buff it up.
Just adding +10 HP to all PCs flat can help a ton, and give yall more room to avoid pressures to min-max.
If you made it to L3, you are exiting the very worst of that HP math, but getting 100 --> 0ed can and will still happen too often.
___________
I think focusing on numbers things like STR +0 axe usage can sometimes miss the forest for the trees.
Maximizing the action economy / "playing tactically" is still going to make a bigger difference than even a +4.
It's simple enough to ~build a PC on someone's behalf so their numbers are fine, but a whole lot of people simply don't automatically / passively maximize their combat performance like that. They genuinely will not notice / care about doing 3x dmg one turn to the next enough to change their macro tactics.
And that's okay!
It's okay if a party of players needs the GM to start the difficulty adjustment with all foes getting weak template.
If the rest of the table is fine with one experienced player built powerfully and is "carrying" the team, then that is not a problem for yall.
That's why my main area of focus would be to buff up the base HP values a bit so the system can accommodate "story mode" type of play without looking silly w/ folks Dying all the time. The base HP math of pf2 does NOT tolerate the PCs wasting an entire turn or two; you'll all die at the base difficulty.
Like, I did the math for one specific L12 fight that opens with a foe spellcaster, and as bad as it was, we got lucky. By the math, if they cast that spell twice in a row, my PC had like a 65%+ chance of being Dying, and the other party members were not much better. That was 1/3 foes, btw. (ambush opening with Chain Lightning)
The GM had to instantly improvise after the first spell wrecked us so badly, and pretended they did not have any more of those in the tank.
And this fight was supposed to be waaay after the low level HP problem is gone.
Basically, pf2 is (apparently) way better than it's peers at combat balance, but it's still a crapshoot, and everyone needs to be comfortable with quick and crude edits to suit their specific needs.
Seriously though, a game like pf2 is basically unplayable in it's "pure raw" state, and it's only a good thing when it's modified via houserules.
(maybe yall would have the most fun with a +30 HP flat for the PCs. If you're playing via Foundry, you can easily just hit edit on yalls ancestry and up that number.)
A few recommendations for things you can try - though careful, they are more about increasing system mastery:
There's a fire-and-wood kineticist who can join us every other game who helps a lot, but we need to plan for his absence.
Ask the GM if he can bot the character, doing nothing but cast Timber Sentinel or Fresh Produce every turn, and spend remaining actions on moving or raising their shield.
Human Bard
Consider building a similar character for him, but instead of a Bard, go with a Trickster Animist - as described in this video by ThrabenU Gaming. This seems to fit what the player wants to play, but is better at it.
Elf Fighter, specced for archery.
Consider building a similar character for him, but instead of Elf, go with a (Vegetation) Yaoguai + Aiuvarin, switch to Composite Longbow, and take the Morphic Strike ancestry feat to get the Root reach unarmed attack: Now he doesn't have to run away, but can instead Reactive Strike anyone coming into melee with him in the first place. He can also just Step back and/or Trip the enemy (his body's reach is now 10ft), shoot/strike the prone enemy and wait for the enemy to trigger Reactive Strike again by closing back up (or standing up). That's taking kiting to the next level and stops wasting the Fighter's powerful reaction.
He should also change to a stronger background; I recommend either Discarded Duplicate/Shielded Fortune for the additional health (CON boost/Toughness) or Student of Archery to get the Phalanx Piercer advanced bow, which would solve his issues with piercing-resistant enemies.
As a Yaoguai+Aiuvarin he can keep his entire Elven appearance and Elf feats, gets +2hp and loses just -5ft of movement that aren't useful for an archer anyway.
Centaur Ranger, also specced for archery, Precision style.
That player might prefer a mounted archer over a centaur. Ask them if they consider changing to such a setup, like Beastmaster to get an animal companion while remaining a precision ranger. Won't do much at lower levels, but once the animal companion gets their 1 action per turn, the free mobility is awesome. A Sprite could do it with their Corgi familiar.
Me, Draconic (Arcane) Sorcerer. The usual assortment of blast spells with some setups like Fear and crowd control like Entangling Flora.
Consider asking your GM to be lenient with the sustain→fatigue rules out of combat, so you can precast Illusory Creature and have it ready at all times before combat begins. But be careful, that illusion dies to the first hit, so it's more useful in combination with the Kineticist's Timber Sentinel!
Also the Oracle dedication might be something for you, and then ask the GM for a slightly higher-level healing item, e.g. scrolls/wands of Heal, a homebrewed-scaling Staff of Healing, or a personal staff with the Heal spell. And if you still have a hand free, wield a Scorpion Whip, as it's light bulk and makes you a viable flanking partner due to reach - the fighter or Bard might want to stay near you to use that sweet offguard bonus.