Pathfinder 2E Problems with percieved overpowered encounters in Pathfinder 1e+2e?

[payn]

See, I don't fully agree with this. I do understand that there is typically a good amount of focusing in a build, but when you hit level 5 you're always getting 4 ability boosts. Having a +1 in a Stat is generally not great for a primary stat, but as a backup skill stat it can still be useful. If you keep that skill up along with the ability, it'll track close to 50/50 with leveled DCs.

The bigger problem here in that regard is not stats, but something @Staffan has mentioned previously, that most classes don't have quite enough skills to keep everything at their maximum. Now my argument would be that all skill checks shouldn't always be leveled with the characters, but I'm also not writing APs here.

Those level boosts seem like a leg up, but really they just keep up with +1/lvl inflation. If you raise that 16 to 18 you'll be behind again when other folks are at 20. Now, its not a huge deal as long as you are not facing severe/extreme encounters often. However, the system doesnt really allow much diversity in stats. It has the appearance, in many different options too, but you always end up in the same space. Thats just my experience with it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Those level boosts seem like a leg up, but really they just keep up with +1/lvl inflation. If you raise that 16 to 18 you'll be behind again when other folks are at 20. Now, its not a huge deal as long as you are not facing severe/extreme encounters often.

Sure, you'll have people who are more competent than you. But that's part of the game? Again, a bigger problem would be in scenario design in that regard. Making alternative stats useful by making them more based in an existing world rather than having every skill check level up like Skyrim enemies would be the important part here.

However, the system doesnt really allow much diversity in stats. It has the appearance, in many different options too, but you always end up in the same space. Thats just my experience with it.

Like, what kind of diversity in stats? Are we talking about the standard array of 5E? Having low stats? Allowing someone to succeed with 14s across the board? I mean, I suppose it depends on what value you find that in. For me, I don't see an inherent value in just having mediocre stats, especially in things like games with bounded accuracy where differences in values don't make for strong differences in play.

Honestly the problem with talking about "diversity in stats" is that d20 games aren't really great at making those differences matter in a fun and interesting way. Either you can succeed with less, making things more samey because everyone can succeed, or you accentuate the difference in numbers and pull people towards specialization.

Hm. I dunno, maybe you could solve a lot of problems in that regard by lowering PF2's Skill DCs by 3, making it generally easier to succeed at skill tasks and allowing those who are really good to be consistently good (I believe another @Staffan complaint from a while back). But ultimately it's kind of handcuffed by the d20 design idea in the first place. If you want something where better stats can matter, you might want something with dice pools, like the Edge Studios née FFG games.

 

[nevin]

Yeah some people like the slow steady cut bits of the mosnter. I find pathfinder combat excrutiating as player and DM. End up with a table of min maxers who will stop the game till they have the perfect action and I've seen boss combats take 4 or more hours. Probably runs a lot better if DM nips that stuff but every DM I've seen that likes PF2e likes the nitty gritty crawl through the mechanics so they seem to enable that behavior and it's just too slow for me.

 

[nevin]

Those level boosts seem like a leg up, but really they just keep up with +1/lvl inflation. If you raise that 16 to 18 you'll be behind again when other folks are at 20. Now, its not a huge deal as long as you are not facing severe/extreme encounters often. However, the system doesnt really allow much diversity in stats. It has the appearance, in many different options too, but you always end up in the same space. Thats just my experience with it.

yeah the downside of the game being easier on the DM is that if the DM does not completly understand the rules they can make the game into a never ending series of near death battles that make the players feel like they are always 1st level.

 

[payn]

Sure, you'll have people who are more competent than you. But that's part of the game? Again, a bigger problem would be in scenario design in that regard. Making alternative stats useful by making them more based in an existing world rather than having every skill check level up like Skyrim enemies would be the important part here.

The point is everyone stays the same. The boosts do nothing but keep you on the treadmill.

Like, what kind of diversity in stats? Are we talking about the standard array of 5E? Having low stats? Allowing someone to succeed with 14s across the board? I mean, I suppose it depends on what value you find that in. For me, I don't see an inherent value in just having mediocre stats, especially in things like games with bounded accuracy where differences in values don't make for strong differences in play.

I mean every Druid having 1-2 arrays, and every fighter having 1-2 arrays, etc... 3E/PF1 allowed for different stats focuses and options based on your choices.

Honestly the problem with talking about "diversity in stats" is that d20 games aren't really great at making those differences matter in a fun and interesting way. Either you can succeed with less, making things more samey because everyone can succeed, or you accentuate the difference in numbers and pull people towards specialization.

Bards did well having 3-4 stats focus, but not specializing in any. I want that type of option to be in the game. I want ability options not to be funneled into 1-2 that have any chance of success in top encounters.

Hm. I dunno, maybe you could solve a lot of problems in that regard by lowering PF2's Skill DCs by 3, making it generally easier to succeed at skill tasks and allowing those who are really good to be consistently good (I believe another @Staffan complaint from a while back). But ultimately it's kind of handcuffed by the d20 design idea in the first place. If you want something where better stats can matter, you might want something with dice pools, like the Edge Studios née FFG games.

Its funny you mention "samey" because folks have an average chance at success. The samey complaint, in my experience, is that every fighter is the same, every wizard is the same, etc.. The difference in choice is class for that design, but not within each class as 3E/PF1 offered.

 

[nevin]

Samey is a good description of the game. it's always the Samey.

 

[Retreater]

yeah the downside of the game being easier on the DM is that if the DM does not completly understand the rules they can make the game into a never ending series of near death battles that make the players feel like they are always 1st level.

For me, PF2 encounters are easier to balance than 5e, because at least there's consistency. I can run encounters a level or two lower in Pathfinder or just stick with Low or Moderate encounters, and they function as expected - barring a couple of traits (swarms if no one has AoE or no way to get around other resistances).
For 5e, I've had to completely throw out the encounter building guidelines and re-stat monsters on a regular basis.

 

[nevin]

I never used encounter building guidelines. i just keep my parties abilities and past history as the guide for encounters.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The point is everyone stays the same. The boosts do nothing but keep you on the treadmill.

Only if you purely focus on level-based DCs.

I mean every Druid having 1-2 arrays, and every fighter having 1-2 arrays, etc... 3E/PF1 allowed for different stats focuses and options based on your choices.

But you had fewer choices because it was much easier to build a bad character.

Bards did well having 3-4 stats focus, but not specializing in any. I want that type of option to be in the game. I want ability options not to be funneled into 1-2 that have any chance of success in top encounters.

Do they, though? I feel like MAD focuses don't work as much unless you are rolling dice for starting stats.

Its funny you mention "samey" because folks have an average chance at success.

It's "samey" because having a skill doesn't really matter if you don't have the stats, or have the stats but don't have the skill. For something like 5E it was something I ran into early on and tried to fix myself because at the end of the day it makes everything homogenized: your skills don't matter because someone with the stats can be better than you for a long period of time. It was unsatisfying for my players and unsatisfying for me, and often drove them to focus on skills that complimented their stats because, well, that's the only way they can differentiate. What I like here is that having the skill is generally a big increase compared to having the stat: having a skill at level 1 is basically like having a 16 in that stat without a boost in it.

The samey complaint, in my experience, is that every fighter is the same, every wizard is the same, etc.. The difference in choice is class for that design, but not within each class as 3E/PF1 offered.

I've never really found that a problem because I find that what drives non-samey play are feat options, not stats. But even then, I find that people can develop a tertiary stat that is useful and important, though it's much easier with Gradual Ability Boosts variant.

 

[Blue]

this is a PF and DND problem in general. DM's that expect "hero's " to run away and turn back often kill thier parties. Been that way since 1 edition DND

From 40 years of experience, you have that exactly reversed.

DMs that always provide balanced encounters and train their players that every fight is winnable end up with groups that never will retreat even if things are going sideways. On the other hand DMs that from the beginning train parties both in the need to evalute foes before blindly rushing in trusting every challenge can be overcome by combat, and also learn how to retreat when they incorrectly evaluate. Those are the groups that know how to handle it when through bad luck, poor planning, or incorrect tactics things are going bad.