| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the title, has Pathfinder 2e reached the point where it would benefit from it's own Strategy Guide for onboarding new players?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder [1st Edition] Roleplaying Game Strategy Guide includes:
Illustrated, step-by-step guides to creating, advancing, and playing characters of all 11 core classes, with specific tips and tactics for 26 different classic character themes, such as the archer, the trickster, the crusader, the conjurer, and more!
A clear and user-friendly introduction to the basics of combat and narrative play, with easy-to- understand explanations of Pathfinder RPG terminology, systems, and core concepts.
Advice for getting the most out of game sessions, collaborating with other players, and succeeding both on and off the battlefield.
An overview of how to get started in the Pathfinder Society organized play program.
AND MUCH, MUCH MORE!Written by Wolfgang Baur, Jason Bulmahn, John Compton, Jessica Price, Sean K Reynolds, and Russ Taylor.
I think that the Player Core has an adequate explanation of how to create, advance, and play characters, but the build strategy and combat tactics of Pathfinder 2nd Edition differ from those of Pathfinder 1st Edition and Dungeons & Dragons, and they are less obvious, too. Some players could benefit from being told that Pathfinder 2nd Edition characters have a tight cap on their power for any given level. The key to winning against hostile opponents and other challenges is making good use of that power rather than increasing that power.
I made plans about a year ago to write a Tactical Guide online document. Alas, the year has been busy and I made little progress (For example, I am flying out to Portland, Oregon, tomorrow).
The Pathfinder [1st Edition] Roleplaying Game Strategy Guide includes:
Illustrated, step-by-step guides to creating, advancing, and playing characters of all 11 core classes, with specific tips and tactics for 26 different classic character themes, such as the archer, the trickster, the crusader, the conjurer, and more!
A clear and user-friendly introduction to the basics of combat and narrative play, with easy-to- understand explanations of Pathfinder RPG terminology, systems, and core concepts.
Advice for getting the most out of game sessions, collaborating with other players, and succeeding both on and off the battlefield.
An overview of how to get started in the Pathfinder Society organized play program.
AND MUCH, MUCH MORE!Written by Wolfgang Baur, Jason Bulmahn, John Compton, Jessica Price, Sean K Reynolds, and Russ Taylor.
I think that the Player Core has an adequate explanation of how to create, advance, and play characters, but the build strategy and combat tactics of Pathfinder 2nd Edition differ from those of Pathfinder 1st Edition and Dungeons & Dragons, and they are less obvious, too. Some players could benefit from being told that Pathfinder 2nd Edition characters have a tight cap on their power for any given level. The key to winning against hostile opponents and other challenges is making good use of that power rather than increasing that power.
I made plans about a year ago to write a Tactical Guide online document. Alas, the year has been busy and I made little progress (For example, I am flying out to Portland, Oregon, tomorrow).
One of the strengths of Pathfinder 2e is that two different fighters could end up with two radically different builds based on the selection of class feats - same with Rogues, Clerics, or Wizards. So like the Pathfinder 1e Strategy Guide, some guidance on how to realize different character concepts across those classes might be very helpful for a newbie.
Add to this, the Core classes and races are now spread over two books - with three of the Beginner's Box classes coming from Player Core 2. New players may be confused about why Barbarians, Monks, or Sorcerers aren't in the Player Core.
For these two reasons, I feel that Pathfinder 2e has reached the point of needing a guide to help new players transition from the Beginner's Box to the full game.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think any value of the guide would be incredibly influenced by the quality of the author.
If they could get somebody like Gortle to write it, then yes it could be awesome. But I'm not at all sure that every Paizo author would be able to do a decent job of this.
It would have to be much much more than "Flank is good. Focus fire is good" to be worth anything.
I think any value of the guide would be incredibly influenced by the quality of the author.
If they could get somebody like Gortle to write it, then yes it could be awesome. But I'm not at all sure that every Paizo author would be able to do a decent job of this.
It would have to be much much more than "Flank is good. Focus fire is good" to be worth anything.
Truth. But, perhaps like the 1e version, a collection of authors might be better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the terrible encounter design and spell lists I see in published modules, I think a community created strategy guide would be far better.
Something that was both player strategies with DM counter strategies.
I think then it would be a help to both players and GMs rather than a strategy guide that helps only players or DMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truth. But, perhaps like the 1e version, a collection of authors might be better.I think any value of the guide would be incredibly influenced by the quality of the author.
If they could get somebody like Gortle to write it, then yes it could be awesome. But I'm not at all sure that every Paizo author would be able to do a decent job of this.
It would have to be much much more than "Flank is good. Focus fire is good" to be worth anything.
Yep a team is better. At the moment I'm barely keeping the spell guide up to date and I'm not really across the new classes. I'm too busy playing the game.
Given the terrible encounter design and spell lists I see in published modules, I think a community created strategy guide would be far better.
Something that was both player strategies with DM counter strategies.
I think then it would be a help to both players and GMs rather than a strategy guide that helps only players or DMs.
I wonder what all the player strategies are.
Front Line and Back Line is common. Melee characters who can withstand Strikes form a protective line in front of ranged characters who are vulnerable.
Divide and Conquer is a classic and describes a form of battlefield control.
Skirmish was used by my Iron Gods players. Everyone keeps moving and attacking at range. Especially fun if a few party members can fly.
Defend and Neutralize is the favorite tactic of my current party. Figure out the tactics of the enemy (creatures have fewer tactics than player characters) and switch to an approach that makes them less effective, such as taking cover against a ranged attack. Observing tactics takes a little time, so start with a good defense.
What are examples of terrible encounter design? The encounters that bug me are the ones that do not fit the setting or plot (Order of the Stick: Displaced Persons). Some maps in modules are smaller than I like, but that is understandable given the page limits.
I wonder what all the player strategies are.Given the terrible encounter design and spell lists I see in published modules, I think a community created strategy guide would be far better.
Something that was both player strategies with DM counter strategies.
I think then it would be a help to both players and GMs rather than a strategy guide that helps only players or DMs.
Ah, no.
I mean something closer to the Pathfinder 1e Strategy Guide. Literally examples of how to make different characters using the same class.
For example, the 1e Strategy Guide had examples for a Fighter with Sword & Board vs. Two Handed Weapon. This would include all the appropriate Class, Skill, & General feats required for a 1-20 build for both options.
Another example was the Sorcerer, with builds for a Celestial, Blue Dragon, and Elemental Fire bloodlines.
While the examples need not be the same , they should be varied enough to help inspire ideas for a PC.
Likewise, by using all 16 Core classes it should help a new player. Remember the goal of a Pathfinder 2e Strategy Guide is to help the transition from the Beginner Box to the full game.
Yep a team is better. At the moment I'm barely keeping the spell guide up to date and I'm not really across the new classes. I'm too busy playing the game.Truth. But, perhaps like the 1e version, a collection of authors might be better.I think any value of the guide would be incredibly influenced by the quality of the author.
If they could get somebody like Gortle to write it, then yes it could be awesome. But I'm not at all sure that every Paizo author would be able to do a decent job of this.
It would have to be much much more than "Flank is good. Focus fire is good" to be worth anything.
Again A PF2 Strategy Guide only includes Player Core & Player Core 2 - just like the PF1 Strategy Guide only dealt with the Core Rulebook. The new classes from Impossible Magic, etc. are not addressed at all. The spells & feats introduced from the numerous splat books are also ignored.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, at this stage, I don’t think character creation and feat selection is difficult or unintuitive enough in PF2 to justify a book like this, especially if it was limiting itself to the two player core books because there are a lot of options for core classes elsewhere now.
I think a strategy guide for GMs, helping them navigate encounters and adventure design, aware of the additional GM resources in later books would probably be more helpful to more tables, but probably wouldn’t sell all that well. Covering things like making creatures, awarding treasure, using subsystems (more help for that), understanding the rarity system and how to use it to reward and not punish players, etc. also talking through when to use big full dungeon maps for playing through exploration mode and how to avoid that using infiltration style subsystems would be interesting coming from some of the longest running GMs in the company.
Given the terrible encounter design and spell lists I see in published modules, I think a community created strategy guide would be far better.
Something that was both player strategies with DM counter strategies.
I think then it would be a help to both players and GMs rather than a strategy guide that helps only players or DMs.I wonder what all the player strategies are.
Front Line and Back Line is common. Melee characters who can withstand Strikes form a protective line in front of ranged characters who are vulnerable.
Divide and Conquer is a classic and describes a form of battlefield control.
Skirmish was used by my Iron Gods players. Everyone keeps moving and attacking at range. Especially fun if a few party members can fly.
Defend and Neutralize is the favorite tactic of my current party. Figure out the tactics of the enemy (creatures have fewer tactics than player characters) and switch to an approach that makes them less effective, such as taking cover against a ranged attack. Observing tactics takes a little time, so start with a good defense.What are examples of terrible encounter design? The encounters that bug me are the ones that do not fit the setting or plot (Order of the Stick: Displaced Persons). Some maps in modules are smaller than I like, but that is understandable given the page limits.
Spell lists with weak spells that won't accomplish much against a PC party.
Putting huge creatures in overly small rooms.
Putting fliers or highly mobile creatures in rooms where they can't use flight or mobility very well. This is often done with dragons, which is just terrible. A dragon that can't move around the battlefield using that immense flight and reach is in a terrible position.
Putting caster enemies in small areas that make them easy targets for trip, slow, and destroy tactics.
Not bothering to build NPC enemy parties with strategic abilities to work together like tossing in a champion that works in tandem with another martial to work off each other.
Very little action advantage thinking tossing in a big monster alone that is using 3 actions against often 12 or more actions.
No counters to powerful, common maneuvers like trip even at high level where even monsters should have something like Kip Up like nearly every player takes to makes sure trip isn't a no brainer massive advantage.
Encounter design like the above that makes it so PC parties own the encounter because it's designed in such a bog standard way that gives massive advantage to parties that don't even have to try to use good tactics much less letting parties that use good tactics absolutely destroy the encounter.
That's why groups like mine, Unicore, gesalts, Gortle, your group, and probably so many others easily wreck encounters, especially if run as designed.
It's definitely not as bad as PF1 or 5E. I still have to redo a lot of spell lists, account for the common strategies of players, and build important encounters to ensure they aren't a cakewalk. I hate it when main monsters get easily wrecked because there was so little thought put into what a PC party at the higher levels can do.
I have to break the rules a bit to do this. I wish higher level encounter or monster design took into account the action advantage of a PC group and how they use a lot of action denial on monsters that really makes the encounters pretty easy. Action control is the new power gaming of PF2 rather than complete nullification like PF1.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that this type of guide is better left to the community, to share their knowledge, guides and pages together.
Agreed.
Much simpler for Paizo to rely on this community to provide the guidance for free and based on up to date knowledge and understanding of the game.
Honestly, at this stage, I don’t think character creation and feat selection is difficult or unintuitive enough in PF2 to justify a book like this, especially if it was limiting itself to the two player core books because there are a lot of options for core classes elsewhere now.
I think a strategy guide for GMs, helping them navigate encounters and adventure design, aware of the additional GM resources in later books would probably be more helpful to more tables, but probably wouldn’t sell all that well. Covering things like making creatures, awarding treasure, using subsystems (more help for that), understanding the rarity system and how to use it to reward and not punish players, etc. also talking through when to use big full dungeon maps for playing through exploration mode and how to avoid that using infiltration style subsystems would be interesting coming from some of the longest running GMs in the company.
Wasn't this what GM Core was supposed to do?
What you are describing is the Pathfinder 1e Gamemastery Guide. So, GM Core 2?
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've long been of the opinion that this sort of thing is for sure best served by the community. One of the weird things that a game designer should learn and accept into their heart as soon as possible is that there's always going to be people out there who are better than you at doing what you do. That really goes for ANY job, frankly. It's important to try to not let pride and the like get in the way of this, and instead to embrace and encourage others to test their wings and get out there to do things because that's how your chosen field stays vibrant and alive. And it's a great way to learn about places where you yourself can do better.
I know that every adventure I write or develop I get better at writing or developing adventures. Juggling that with the urge to try new things and experiment with old formulas is a risk in that some of those things won't work out, but that's also how you grow. And it's why I value feedback and reviews so much.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Literally examples of how to make different characters using the same class.
For example, the 1e Strategy Guide had examples for a Fighter with Sword & Board vs. Two Handed Weapon. This would include all the appropriate Class, Skill, & General feats required for a 1-20 build for both options.
This is already present in the sample builds section for each class. The sample builds are often, uh, less than optimal but they are there. Totally ignored by every player I have ever known (including people completely new to Pathfinder) but they ARE there.
Any potential guide would have to do a LOT better job. They'd have more space but not THAT much more space (maybe 10 pages per class).
And all of this is going to be covered better in the existing player written guides, many of which are literally hundreds of pages long
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it as a GM and why I don't expect great encounter design is adventure designers are not paid to design highly tactical encounters. Their paid to create a broad brush adventure with a good story that a GM can adapt and use without having to do all the heavy lifting design of maps, monsters, and story themselves.
Adventure designers also don't know the composition of every party. So they have to make everything generic and usable by a wide group.
So as long as that framework is there for a GM to customize to their group, it makes the whole process easier. It's much easier to modify a quality adventure and tailor the enemies to challenge the players than it is to design the whole thing from scratch yourself.
I never have had unrealistic expectations of adventure designers. They still make my job much, much easier as a GM by providing me a great framework to customize and build on to make something fun for my players.
Regarding badly-designed encounters:
Not bothering to build NPC enemy parties with strategic abilities to work together like tossing in a champion that works in tandem with another martial to work off each other.
Ah, I made that mistake in the early levels of converting the Ironfang Invasion adventure path to PF2 rules. I mostly substituted similar creatures from the PF2 Bestiary, which was a small selection, so I did not have enough variety in my enemy warbands. I had to learn to use the Building Creatures rules to add the necessary variety for a well-rounded encounter.
Very little action advantage thinking tossing in a big monster alone that is using 3 actions against often 12 or more actions.
The aura on some big monsters, such as a dragon's Frightful Presence, is designed to impair the PCs without costing the monster any actions. Experienced parties know the tactic of staying out of the aura.
No counters to powerful, common maneuvers like trip even at high level where even monsters should have something like Kip Up like nearly every player takes to makes sure trip isn't a no brainer massive advantage.
This is PF2 creature design rather than encounter design and is the driving force behind the Defend and Neutralize strategy that my players use.
The stat blocks for PF1 creatures are so long that the block often had a combat-tactics paragraph to explain to the GM how to apply the creature's abilities. PF2 creatures have shorter stat blocks so that the GM can see all the attack actions, skill actions, and special ability actions available to the creature in a single read-through. The creature has only three tactics, give or take a tactic, to keep the stat block short.
In contrast, a party has about a dozen good tactics. By teamwork, they could switch to a tactic, such as tripping a creature that relies on moving to a target followed by a two-action special ability, that denies the creature's best tactic. Then the creatures has to engage in a less-damaging backup tactic, in addition to spending an action to Stand.
For example, the 7th-level rogue Scarvinious was in combat with 4th-level PC ranger and champion while the rest of the party fought Scarvinious's minions (Tactic: don't let the minions flank for Scarvinious). Scarvinious had Twin Feint as a back-up tactic. But whenever he hit the ranger with the first Strike in Twin Feint, the champion's Liberating Step champion reaction let the ranger Step backwards out of reach of the more damaging second Strike. Switching to fighting the high-AC champion with Shield Block would have been much less effective. Scarvinious was forced into regular Strikes against the ranger with no Sneak Attack damage. This let the two PCs keep Scarvinious busy until the rest of the party wiped out the minions and joined the fight against Scarvinious.
If Scarvinious had Reactive Pursuit in addition to Twin Feint, then he could have followed as a reaction whenever the ranger stepped away. His second Twin-Feint Strike with Sneak Attack would have taken down the ranger before the rest of the party was available. But adding Reactive Pursuit to Scarvinious would have been another ability, more than PF2 creatures usually have. So he lacked it.
This is a price for making the PF2 enemies easy for the GM to play, but it is not a flaw. Instead, it rewards player tactics. Though if the party wins routinely with only one tactic, then the GM ought to make an opponent resistant to that tactic for more variety and challenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding badly-designed encounters:
Not bothering to build NPC enemy parties with strategic abilities to work together like tossing in a champion that works in tandem with another martial to work off each other.Ah, I made that mistake in the early levels of converting the Ironfang Invasion adventure path to PF2 rules. I mostly substituted similar creatures from the PF2 Bestiary, which was a small selection, so I did not have enough variety in my enemy warbands. I had to learn to use the Building Creatures rules to add the necessary variety for a well-rounded encounter.
Very little action advantage thinking tossing in a big monster alone that is using 3 actions against often 12 or more actions.The aura on some big monsters, such as a dragon's Frightful Presence, is designed to impair the PCs without costing the monster any actions. Experienced parties know the tactic of staying out of the aura.
No counters to powerful, common maneuvers like trip even at high level where even monsters should have something like Kip Up like nearly every player takes to makes sure trip isn't a no brainer massive advantage.This is PF2 creature design rather than encounter design and is the driving force behind the Defend and Neutralize strategy that my players use.
The stat blocks for PF1 creatures are so long that the block often had a combat-tactics paragraph to explain to the GM how to apply the creature's abilities. PF2 creatures have shorter stat blocks so that the GM can see all the attack actions, skill actions, and special ability actions available to the creature in a single read-through. The creature has only three tactics, give or take a tactic, to keep the stat block short.
In contrast, a party has about a dozen good tactics. By teamwork, they could switch to a tactic, such as tripping a creature that relies on moving to a target followed by a two-action special ability,...
The trip-slow combo is too powerful in PF2. It works against nearly every type of monster regardless of size with Titan Wrestler. I wish they had made a Kip Up type of ability a skill progression so that any monster with a high enough Acrobatics would get to do a kip up type of ability. Or Nimble Crawl type of skill progression if their Athletics or Acrobatics was high enough that they get no penalty for moving while prone or AC reduction being prone. That would have helped a lot to make higher level monsters less vulnerable to these common tactics.
I figure monsters with certain skills that progress to high levels should be assumed to have picked up the feats that make such skills useful to counter some of the more common and brutal combat strategies. I wish the Paizo designers would have made this part of creature progression for all monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It occurs to me now that it's a bit of a grey area whether tripping a flying creature causes them to land prone or not. (It's not clear if the "...they fall" rule is instead of or in addition to the prone status, and Arrest a Fall or just a creature flying low would avoid the fall damage>prone rule of falling)
In either event, Trip is useless in aquatic combat at least (Swimming grants immunity to Prone). This is a bit more of a way for a GM to frustrate the party's usual tactics than anything though in most campaigns I figure.
We had this discussion a while ago. I don't know where to pull the exact rule form, but a flying creature falls and can't even fly again until they get up from prone. That's why trip is so brutal because it destroys fliers.
They can use Arrest a Fall if they have a reaction available. My players like to fly in to a flier taking a Reactive Strike to get rid of their reaction, then smash them to the ground so they can't arrest fall.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
. I figure monsters with certain skills that progress to high levels should be assumed to have picked up the feats that make such skills useful to counter some of the more common and brutal combat strategies. I wish the Paizo designers would have made this part of creature progression for all monsters.
I think this is a case where your hyper optimized style of play is seeing issues that are not present at most tables.
For most tables, the basic monster tradeoff (better stats in exchange for simpler tactics and less tricks) works quite well and encounters that are severe are severe, moderate are moderate, etc.
If all monsters have kip up then you've just significantly weakened a very standard martial who likes to trip. While that trip may be too powerful when the entire group is optimized around it it is NOT too powerful in a more casual game.
I've long been of the opinion that this sort of thing is for sure best served by the community. One of the weird things that a game designer should learn and accept into their heart as soon as possible is that there's always going to be people out there who are better than you at doing what you do. That really goes for ANY job, frankly. It's important to try to not let pride and the like get in the way of this, and instead to embrace and encourage others to test their wings and get out there to do things because that's how your chosen field stays vibrant and alive. And it's a great way to learn about places where you yourself can do better.
I know that every adventure I write or develop I get better at writing or developing adventures. Juggling that with the urge to try new things and experiment with old formulas is a risk in that some of those things won't work out, but that's also how you grow. And it's why I value feedback and reviews so much.
Reminds me of the "Dev watches speedrunner play their video game" genre of youtube videos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. I figure monsters with certain skills that progress to high levels should be assumed to have picked up the feats that make such skills useful to counter some of the more common and brutal combat strategies. I wish the Paizo designers would have made this part of creature progression for all monsters.I think this is a case where your hyper optimized style of play is seeing issues that are not present at most tables.
For most tables, the basic monster tradeoff (better stats in exchange for simpler tactics and less tricks) works quite well and encounters that are severe are severe, moderate are moderate, etc.
If all monsters have kip up then you've just significantly weakened a very standard martial who likes to trip. While that trip may be too powerful when the entire group is optimized around it it is NOT too powerful in a more casual game.
So you're telling me most tables have not figured out how to trip and use a slow spell together? Is that really the case? That cannot be special to my table.
Trip and slow are too common and easy to use. That's why I don't like them. If it were some complex build requiring a focused strategy, then sure I can see this argument. It isn't hard at all to use Trip and slow in tandem. Barbs, monks, and fighters all use trip very easily. I can't believe that most players don't go, "If I trip the target and it stands up, my reactive strike goes off. And trip makes it off-guard to everyone." You cannot tell me this understanding is special to my table.
And the slow spell. Everyone can see the value of the slow spell. That cannot be just my table.
Sure, the distance use I can see being table specific or only a few tables using it. Trip with slow is a very intuitive, easy to use tactic nearly any group can access. Every list but the divine list has slow or something similar like roaring applause.
So you're telling me most tables have not figured out how to trip and use a slow spell together? Is that really the case? That cannot be special to my table.
I don't know about *most tables* (and unless one has played or collected data at hundreds of different tables (and even then) it's hard for someone to truly know how prevalent a tactic is) but I do know that none of the games I'm in have ever used trip and slow together. I'm probably just stupid, but hey, there are lots of stupid people in the world.
Trip and slow are too common and easy to use. That's why I don't like them.
If you don't like them, don't use them. For example, playing a conjuration wizard in 1e was way too easy/overpowered for me, so I never did it. I'd do things like choose conjuration and transmutation as my opposed schools to make things more challenging/interesting.
I'm sure there are tables besides yours that use trip and slow together, but certainly not all do. After all, there exists at least one table that doesn't apply the basic principle of focus fire on a single target. :)
So you're telling me most tables have not figured out how to trip and use a slow spell together? Is that really the case? That cannot be special to my table.I don't know about *most tables* (and unless one has played or collected data at hundreds of different tables (and even then) it's hard for someone to truly know how prevalent a tactic is) but I do know that none of the games I'm in have ever used trip and slow together. I'm probably just stupid, but hey, there are lots of stupid people in the world.
Trip and slow are too common and easy to use. That's why I don't like them.If you don't like them, don't use them. For example, playing a conjuration wizard in 1e was way too easy/overpowered for me, so I never did it. I'd do things like choose conjuration and transmutation as my opposed schools to make things more challenging/interesting.
I'm sure there are tables besides yours that use trip and slow together, but certainly not all do. After all, there exists at least one table that doesn't apply the basic principle of focus fire on a single target. :)
I don't like them as a GM. I think it makes encounters too easy. They are not hard to use maneuvers or an uncommon spell. It's a common spell with a very easy to use maneuver.
When I GM, denying players from using common spells with easy to use maneuvers when Athletics is a common skill to work up for nearly every strength based martial is not a great idea. I wish they hadn't made the combo so strong and easy to use.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you're telling me most tables have not figured out how to trip and use a slow spell together? Is that really the case? That cannot be special to my table.
I can't recall that tactic being used at any table I've played at or run. Not as a tactic per se.
Ie, I've seen slowed characters tripped. I've seen tripped characters slowed. But as far as I can recall I've never seen a concerted effort to both trip and slow a character.
So you're telling me most tables have not figured out how to trip and use a slow spell together? Is that really the case? That cannot be special to my table.I can't recall that tactic being used at any table I've played at or run. Not as a tactic per se.
Ie, I've seen slowed characters tripped. I've seen tripped characters slowed. But as far as I can recall I've never seen a concerted effort to both trip and slow a character.
This is why I don't care for it. You can do this highly effective tactic whether you are coordinating to do it or not. It's that easy. A common maneuver with a common spell that every group can do whether they coordinate to do it or not. It makes a lot of boss fights trivial.
I think they made trip too powerful and easy and it becomes worse when used in tandem with many commonly used spells like slow or synesthesia.I hope in future editions they do something more like they did with Disarm for Trip.
I don't think something like that should come from the developers. It can veer to close into territory of "this is how the game should be played" and since the source is the creative team behind the game, we know how can these things can affect gaming communities.
However, I wouldn't mind more information about the intended design philosophy of the game to be added to the combat examples in the game.
Things about how PF2e encourages more mobility given that most characters don't have AoO. How denying actions to the enemies is a big part of how the action economy works. How the action economy of Interact with items is important to give weapon choices more trade offs. How characters should be created with at least one "Third Action" in mind.
In fact, I think there should be a "The Third Action" small section in the character creation sections of the book. It's a huge part of this game that most players simply will not consider amid the daunting task that is creating your first character. Having a dedicated section discussing this aspect of combat would provide a solid foundation for people to understand why some design choices were made.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did had a go at a Strategy Guide a while back. Not sure it got any attention. Does anyone what to take it over or add to it?
|
|
I did had a go at a Strategy Guide a while back. Not sure it got any attention. Does anyone what to take it over or add to it?
Pretty good start. I knew you were the right person to write the guide :-). :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're telling me most tables have not figured out how to trip and use a slow spell together? Is that really the case? That cannot be special to my table.I can't recall that tactic being used at any table I've played at or run. Not as a tactic per se.
Ie, I've seen slowed characters tripped. I've seen tripped characters slowed. But as far as I can recall I've never seen a concerted effort to both trip and slow a character.
This is why I don't care for it. You can do this highly effective tactic whether you are coordinating to do it or not. It's that easy. A common maneuver with a common spell that every group can do whether they coordinate to do it or not. It makes a lot of boss fights trivial.
I think they made trip too powerful and easy and it becomes worse when used in tandem with many commonly used spells like slow or synesthesia.I hope in future editions they do something more like they did with Disarm for Trip.
I play PFS and I never saw the concerted effort either.
One would need to be the provider of both the Slow spell and the Trip.
I am going to look into creating such a PC.
Maybe that is why Runelords were such terrifying creatures.
So you're telling me most tables have not figured out how to trip and use a slow spell together? Is that really the case? That cannot be special to my table.I can't recall that tactic being used at any table I've played at or run. Not as a tactic per se.
Ie, I've seen slowed characters tripped. I've seen tripped characters slowed. But as far as I can recall I've never seen a concerted effort to both trip and slow a character.
This is why I don't care for it. You can do this highly effective tactic whether you are coordinating to do it or not. It's that easy. A common maneuver with a common spell that every group can do whether they coordinate to do it or not. It makes a lot of boss fights trivial.
I think they made trip too powerful and easy and it becomes worse when used in tandem with many commonly used spells like slow or synesthesia.I hope in future editions they do something more like they did with Disarm for Trip.
I play PFS and I never saw the concerted effort either.
One would need to be the provider of both the Slow spell and the Trip.
I am going to look into creating such a PC.
Maybe that is why Runelords were such terrifying creatures.
The same character doesn't have to provide it. The caster needs to cast slow on the monster. Then some martial has to use a trip maneuver. Doesn't matter if they coordinate or it happens because both decide to use it at some point.
Suddenly the monster is prone and slowed. It it stands up, it uses an action to do so and only has one action to do anything else. If it doesn't stand up, it can take two actions do I guess attack at a -2 penalty. If it tries to cast or any manipulate actions, it sets off Reactive Strikes while off-guard on the ground. It can't move unless it stands.
If it is slowed, it loses 1 action per round. It is reduced to 2 action activities. Which also is a huge advantage because it will often a 12 to 3 action advantage and turn it into a 12 to 2 action advantage. If hasted, it's a 15 to 2 action advantage.
If slow and trip are used in combination whether coordinated or the caster happens to cast slow and the martial happens to use trip or a maneuver like crashing slam, it's worse on boss encounters. The boss ends up tripped and slowed, it's usually game over at that point.
Though it is also game over if they crit fail a slow. A creature with 1 action is just dead, then trip becomes overkill.
The Raven Black, something like Trip and Slow almost occur naturally if you have a martial with a trip build and a caster that has figured out slow is very powerful. No real coordination needed. Now if you coordinate it, it becomes even more powerful. The trip/slow combination barely requires any coordination at all. It can happen by happenstance. It's that easy to do.
I did had a go at a Strategy Guide a while back. Not sure it got any attention. Does anyone what to take it over or add to it?
I knew my table wasn't the only doing this stuff. We use a lot of these tactics. They are not that special. Just requires some consideration of the rules and coordination of class abilities and terrain and such.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did had a go at a Strategy Guide a while back. Not sure it got any attention. Does anyone what to take it over or add to it?I knew my table wasn't the only doing this stuff. We use a lot of these tactics. They are not that special. Just requires some consideration of the rules and coordination of class abilities and terrain and such.
Almost all experienced players use a lot of these tactics. But not as zealously and consistently as your group does.
A long time ago I remember a discussion on RPGs as war vs RPGs as sport. Your group obviously does RPGs as war. Most groups are a lot closer to the RPG as sport end of the spectrum.
Requisite caveat : I'm not remotely calling BadWrongFun on you. Just pointing out a difference in style.
I did had a go at a Strategy Guide a while back. Not sure it got any attention. Does anyone what to take it over or add to it?I knew my table wasn't the only doing this stuff. We use a lot of these tactics. They are not that special. Just requires some consideration of the rules and coordination of class abilities and terrain and such.Almost all experienced players use a lot of these tactics. But not as zealously and consistently as your group does.
A long time ago I remember a discussion on RPGs as war vs RPGs as sport. Your group obviously does RPGs as war. Most groups are a lot closer to the RPG as sport end of the spectrum.
Requisite caveat : I'm not remotely calling BadWrongFun on you. Just pointing out a difference in style.
I don't mind that label as it is mostly true. I think more long-term groups do as well. I don't think it is only 10 percent of groups doing this. It shouldn't cause others to dismiss your experience as some outlier. Anyone can do the things my group does and many people do I think, especially in long-term groups and likely even more min-max behavior than my group. I'm noticing that others do more min-max itemization than my groups as we mostly ignore items other than the required big ticket items. So there are even stronger min-maxers than my group and they don't get targeted as much as it seems I do. Maybe because they don't mention what they do very much I guess.
I play PFS and I never saw the concerted effort either.One would need to be the provider of both the Slow spell and the Trip.
I am going to look into creating such a PC.
Maybe that is why Runelords were such terrifying creatures.
No you don't. In PFS to do this, you need one person who has invested in Athletics and uses Trip. There are lots of builds that do this, so its not terribly uncommon. Sagan, the iconic pregen Monk has a temple sword with the Trip trait as his first listed attack.
You need a second person with Slow. Lem, the iconic pregen Bard, has Slow.
When it's something the pregens can do without any setup, lets not pretend this is some esoteric advanced strategy.
That's ignoring all the other casters that can get slow and all the other martials that can trip (Slam Down is a pretty popular feat).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost all experienced players use a lot of these tactics. But not as zealously and consistently as your group does.
But, experienced players are not really the target market of a "Strategy Guide." Teaching tactics is the reason for Strategy Guide.
B.T.W., improving player tactics is how to force the developers to account for them in the monster write-ups.
|
|
I play PFS and I never saw the concerted effort either.One would need to be the provider of both the Slow spell and the Trip.
I am going to look into creating such a PC.
Maybe that is why Runelords were such terrifying creatures.
No you don't. In PFS to do this, you need one person who has invested in Athletics and uses Trip. There are lots of builds that do this, so its not terribly uncommon. Sagan, the iconic pregen Monk has a temple sword with the Trip trait as his first listed attack.
You need a second person with Slow. Lem, the iconic pregen Bard, has Slow.
When it's something the pregens can do without any setup, lets not pretend this is some esoteric advanced strategy.
That's ignoring all the other casters that can get slow and all the other martials that can trip (Slam Down is a pretty popular feat).
Just sharing my experience. That's all.
You cannot reliably bet on having a single ability, not to mention 2 unconnected ones, in all PFS games you will play. I sometimes found myself in parties with no healer.
And then you would need both players to agree beforehand on using this coordinated tactic. Which, also IME, never happens. I do not count how many games I played with people not coordinating on the simplest things like casters bemoaning that martials jumped into melee before they could cast their big AoE spell. Or PCs going in melee farther than the healer could reach.
People using both Slow and Trip on the same target happens in PFS. Doing it in a coordinated way as a matter of fact I have not yet seen.
And this thread has given me the idea for building a tripping Druid, likely with MC Fighter, for PFS. So all is well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play PFS and I never saw the concerted effort either.One would need to be the provider of both the Slow spell and the Trip.
I am going to look into creating such a PC.
Maybe that is why Runelords were such terrifying creatures.
No you don't. In PFS to do this, you need one person who has invested in Athletics and uses Trip. There are lots of builds that do this, so its not terribly uncommon. Sagan, the iconic pregen Monk has a temple sword with the Trip trait as his first listed attack.
You need a second person with Slow. Lem, the iconic pregen Bard, has Slow.
When it's something the pregens can do without any setup, lets not pretend this is some esoteric advanced strategy.
That's ignoring all the other casters that can get slow and all the other martials that can trip (Slam Down is a pretty popular feat).
Just sharing my experience. That's all.
You cannot reliably bet on having a single ability, not to mention 2 unconnected ones, in all PFS games you will play. I sometimes found myself in parties with no healer.
And then you would need both players to agree beforehand on using this coordinated tactic. Which, also IME, never happens. I do not count how many games I played with people not coordinating on the simplest things like casters bemoaning that martials jumped into melee before they could cast their big AoE spell. Or PCs going in melee farther than the healer could reach.
People using both Slow and Trip on the same target happens in PFS. Doing it in a coordinated way as a matter of fact I have not yet seen.
And this thread has given me the idea for building a tripping Druid, likely with MC Fighter, for PFS. So all is well.
Tripping druid is a good idea. I built a trip druid taking monk archetype before it was nerfed with Untamed Form. I built up my strength which synergizes real well with Untamed Shift and Untamed Form. You can work in martial attacks with spells pretty seamlessly.
I think you'll like it if you do it. You'll maybe understand why I consider the druid such a high tier class. It has some versatile builds that work nicely in groups. Your group will love you doing trip, especially when you change into elemental or dragon form then trip a flier out of the air so easily.
The rogue spellcaster Roshan in my Strength of Thousands uses Trip and Slow. That player, my elder daughter, is the best at tactical character design among my players. The technique is less efficient when the same character performs both. And due to my oversized party of seven PCs, often with a helpful NPC tagging along, I tend to double the enemies; therefore, locking down one enemy is less effective. And third, Roshan is one of the major damage dealers in the party of spellcasters, so she often has to stop disabling an enemy in order to kill the enemy. Thus, the Trip and Slow tactic does not stand out.
I asked my daughter about the tactic, because I am in Juneau, Alaska, visiting her. She said that Roshan intends to switch to the Tortioise and Hare spell because quickening a teammate while slowing an enemy will fit better with the party's tactics against multiple enemies. She also said she likes to play like a barbarian, one of her favorite classes. Her characters rush in heedlessly to cause trouble or mayhem. Rushing in to Trip is Roshan's barbaric way.
Why don't the other spellcasters cast Slow? Magus Zandre is busy with her high-damage rotation of Spellstrike and Recharge, bard Jinx Fuun and wizard Idris handle buffing and battlefield control rather than debuffing, champion Wilfred and kineticist Cara'sseth lack the ability, and bard Stargazer never fully developed her tactics.
The rogue spellcaster Roshan in my Strength of Thousands uses Trip and Slow. That player, my elder daughter, is the best at tactical character design among my players. The technique is less efficient when the same character performs both. And due to my oversized party of seven PCs, often with a helpful NPC tagging along, I tend to double the enemies; therefore, locking down one enemy is less effective. And third, Roshan is one of the major damage dealers in the party of spellcasters, so she often has to stop disabling an enemy in order to kill the enemy. Thus, the Trip and Slow tactic does not stand out.
I asked my daughter about the tactic, because I am in Juneau, Alaska, visiting her. She said that Roshan intends to switch to the Tortioise and Hare spell because quickening a teammate while slowing an enemy will fit better with the party's tactics against multiple enemies. She also said she likes to play like a barbarian, one of her favorite classes. Her characters rush in heedlessly to cause trouble or mayhem. Rushing in to Trip is Roshan's barbaric way.
Why don't the other spellcasters cast Slow? Magus Zandre is busy with her high-damage rotation of Spellstrike and Recharge, bard Jinx Fuun and wizard Idris handle buffing and battlefield control rather than debuffing, champion Wilfred and kineticist Cara'sseth lack the ability, and bard Stargazer never fully developed her tactics.
Trip/Slow combo mainly a solo or very small group killer combo.
It's not as effective against large groups. AOE slow can be nice against some groups with powerful attacks. For most groups we use massive AOE damage and focus fire. Slow or walls we only use if the monster is difficult for some reason, usually a surprisingly powerful attack or ability as long as they don't have the mobility to overcome it. If the monster has translocate at will, they bypass walls and distance easily. Then AOE slow is better.
That's the nature of combat: Have lots of tools to adapt to changing circumstances.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did had a go at a Strategy Guide a while back. Not sure it got any attention. Does anyone what to take it over or add to it?
Last year when I planned to write my own tactics guide, I looked at other tactics and strategy guides to fill in the gaps in my knowledge, including Gortle's Strategy Guide. I have learned from my players' tactics, but my own experience in playing PF2 has been only enemies and NPCs. I trust Gortle's guidance.
Almost all experienced players use a lot of these tactics. But not as zealously and consistently as your group does.But, experienced players are not really the target market of a "Strategy Guide." Teaching tactics is the reason for Strategy Guide.
B.T.W., improving player tactics is how to force the developers to account for them in the monster write-ups.
Lord Fyre's original idea is one of the right ideas. Teaching strategy and tactics has many layers. I realized that my tactical guide would need three separate documents. The first one is called The ABCs of Tactics, where ABC stands for Ancestry, Background, and Class, but also Actions, Battlefield, and Conditions. The next one I have not decided on a name, but it will be about how to properly handle a character in combat and other challenges. The third one, Tactical Teamwork is about how to easily function as a well-balanced team united through roleplaying.
Others have pointed out that the Strategy Guide for building characters would work better as a community project rather than a book published by Paizo. At first I thought that it could be an orderly set of builds, such as a rogue of each rogue racket shown at 1st, 7th, 14th, and 20th levels. But really, we should embrace the chaos. The Strategy Guide would teach more if actual players submitted the characters that they love, with an explanation of their build choices and some interesting stories about those characters in play. If it were set up as a wiki, we could tag the pages by their class, ancestry, and feats so that a beginner could search for characters who resemble the one that they want to play.
I used to maintain an internal wiki of shared knowledge at my office before I retired. Thus, I know Mediawiki markup knowledge and I could maintain this Strategy Guide wiki. Yes, I am volunteering to help this project. However, I do not know the internet nor the wiki software, so someone else would have to set it up.
If the Paizo website moderators are willing, we could have a thread in the Homebrew and House Rules subforum in which players provide the stat blocks of their characters for me to port them to the wiki.
I am traveling until September 23 and will be exhausted upon my return home. I am typing on a borrowed computer. And I cannot spare more than a thousand dollars for this project until my next withdrawal from my retirement investments in February 2027.
And we would need a good name for it. Any suggestions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. Firelion, there are robust rules for modifying creatures and homebrewing them from scratch. You have a vast library of PC features to borrow if you feel like it. Does it stink that Paizo didn't account for the sort of tricks competent players like to get up to? Yes. Does that stop you from filling the gap yourself? Absolutely not. Modding games because they're too easy for seasoned players is normal.
Mr. Firelion, there are robust rules for modifying creatures and homebrewing them from scratch. You have a vast library of PC features to borrow if you feel like it. Does it stink that Paizo didn't account for the sort of tricks competent players like to get up to? Yes. Does that stop you from filling the gap yourself? Absolutely not. Modding games because they're too easy for seasoned players is normal.
Someone asked a question, I answered it.
It's not a criticism of Paizo or PF2 because every single version of D&D or PF or any similar game has done the same thing. Thus the DM must analyze the rules, their group, and whatever other factors then design the encounter to make it as challenging as they want it to be.
Weak encounter design by module designers is not unique to Paizo at all. It's something I've dealt with since I used modules from the time I was young with rare exception. I think most module designers are more interested in other elements of the adventure than challenging encounter design. That's fine. I'm not paying them for challenging encounter design. I'm paying them for other elements of module design like story, maps, art, and a great framework I can modify and build on. Paizo does a great job at those elements I'm interested in paying for.
Deriven, you didn't answer a question so much as complain how easy it was for your players to win certain encounters. Breaking the no-brains gameplay loop is equally easy, so long as you are willing to go off-script. I'm not defending Paizo (I also think the lack of natural counterplay for monsters is lame), I'm encouraging you to problem-solve.
If you already know how to do that (give monsters reaction shutdowns, kip up, athletics counterplay, etc), then include it in your analysis so you can help out other GMs in a similar situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven, is it not also true that you could inflict the PCs own tactics upon them?
|
|
Deriven, is it not also true that you could inflict the PCs own tactics upon them?
In my PFS experience, opponents' parties' dynamics are hugely different from those of a PC party.
There is usually no more than a single boss in a combat encounter.
While there is nothing similar to a boss in a PC party.