Pathfinder 1E Are people still playing Pathfinder 1e?

[Thomas Shey]

We routinely faced enemies that had a 75-80% chance of saving against spells and debuff abilities. The enemies also had a 75-80% chance of not just hitting, but critting the PCs. I could see a rope a dope papercut the enemy to death, but it would have very low chances of success.

If those were single opponents, though, the action economy and number of incoming saves needed matters (and the outgoing can be gamed because relatively few opponents in AoOs in many cases). That doesn't mean you can't have some serious risk (in that battle one of the five characters went down promptly in the first round), but just that even with relatively low chances, one thing with 3 actions and 12-15 actions on the other side is not as one-sided as it may appear. (Though I kind of wonder about 75% chance of critting; that has to mean something on the order of a 6 being a crit, which is pretty rare even for a +3 level opponent (I think it would require an opponent with a +24 attack on the average against my current character; a hill giant, which is a level 7 opponent, has a +19; a stone giant, which is level 8, has a +21 (she's level 3). That suggests to me that if you were running into things where your statement is correct you either had an unusually large party (so the opponent uplevelling was abnormal) or you were against things well beyond the range of normal encounters. The same applies to the saves unless you were having to target the opponent's strongest save.

This is not go say that you can't get more crits than you like out of a single major opponent encounter (that hill giant would be critting Jenesa on 11, which is a 50% chance) but just that if your statement is correct there was something wrong with the numbers your GM was using.

There where spells and magic item boosting in 3E that allowed you to do something outside of chargen and leveling to improve your scores. That option is absent in PF2. Even the stats bumps in PF2 just make sure the PCs keep up with the +1/lvl game math. They dont really let you get better at things. PF2 has deceptive bounded accuracy, it changes with level, but always is essentially the same math.

But there are a lot of ways to do small ticks on that; things that leave an opponent flatfooted for example. It really is a game about a lot of characters making the target more vulnerable so someone else can start making its life unpleasant. This is limited and uncertain, but again, if it wasn't, what would the monster level system be good for? CR was certainly nearly useless in 3e by the time you got to moderate levels.

 

[payn]

If those were single opponents, though, the action economy and number of incoming saves needed matters (and the outgoing can be gamed because relatively few opponents in AoOs in many cases). That doesn't mean you can't have some serious risk (in that battle one of the five characters went down promptly in the first round), but just that even with relatively low chances, one thing with 3 actions and 12-15 actions on the other side is not as one-sided as it may appear. (Though I kind of wonder about 75% chance of critting; that has to mean something on the order of a 6 being a crit, which is pretty rare even for a +3 level opponent (I think it would require an opponent with a +24 attack on the average against my current character; a hill giant, which is a level 7 opponent, has a +19; a stone giant, which is level 8, has a +21 (she's level 3). That suggests to me that if you were running into things where your statement is correct you either had an unusually large party (so the opponent uplevelling was abnormal) or you were against things well beyond the range of normal encounters. The same applies to the saves unless you were having to target the opponent's strongest save.

This is not go say that you can't get more crits than you like out of a single major opponent encounter (that hill giant would be critting Jenesa on 11, which is a 50% chance) but just that if your statement is correct there was something wrong with the numbers your GM was using.



But there are a lot of ways to do small ticks on that; things that leave an opponent flatfooted for example. It really is a game about a lot of characters making the target more vulnerable so someone else can start making its life unpleasant. This is limited and uncertain, but again, if it wasn't, what would the monster level system be good for? CR was certainly nearly useless in 3e by the time you got to moderate levels.

Right the games are very different, every +1 is very meaningful in PF2. Eventually, you reach a point where those tactics of flatfooting, burning actions, etc.. stop working because the defenses are too high and the offense makes them very risky propositions.

In 3E/PF1 you could have a variety of opponents. Some might have low AC and high hit points, or high AC low hit points. Some might have good saves, and only on weak one. They might have DR or immunities to work around. Sometimes they have debilitating and/or death effects. This is obviously difficult to account for, but has much more variety in the types of fights and how they go down. Its more strategic, less tactical which seems to be the difference. It's really a matter of preference.

I do want to take a second and say as much as I drag on PF2 for its sandbox ability, I do think the opposite is true. Its a very good system for linear adventure paths; which is what makes Paizo money.

 

[doctorhook]

Right the games are very different, every +1 is very meaningful in PF2. Eventually, you reach a point where those tactics of flatfooting, burning actions, etc.. stop working because the defenses are too high and the offense makes them very risky propositions.

In 3E/PF1 you could have a variety of opponents. Some might have low AC and high hit points, or high AC low hit points. Some might have good saves, and only on weak one. They might have DR or immunities to work around. Sometimes they have debilitating and/or death effects. This is obviously difficult to account for, but has much more variety in the types of fights and how they go down. Its more strategic, less tactical which seems to be the difference. It's really a matter of preference.

I do want to take a second and say as much as I drag on PF2 for its sandbox ability, I do think the opposite is true. Its a very good system for linear adventure paths; which is what makes Paizo money.

Is there a way to hack PF2 to be better at sandbox adventures?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right the games are very different, every +1 is very meaningful in PF2. Eventually, you reach a point where those tactics of flatfooting, burning actions, etc.. stop working because the defenses are too high and the offense makes them very risky propositions.

In 3E/PF1 you could have a variety of opponents. Some might have low AC and high hit points, or high AC low hit points. Some might have good saves, and only on weak one. They might have DR or immunities to work around. Sometimes they have debilitating and/or death effects. This is obviously difficult to account for, but has much more variety in the types of fights and how they go down. Its more strategic, less tactical which seems to be the difference. It's really a matter of preference.

The problem, again, was that those were, well, solvable. Unless you walked into them blind, you got to the point as you levelled up where any unevern opponents were vastly overrated. I'd suspect if you used it extensively for sandboxes, and only at lower levels (my reading of things you've referenced in this thread) that's why you didn't see how severe that was. And of course alpha-striking was the order of the day.

Essentially, I don't think its possible for an opponent balancing system to actually work in any useful way with the 3e/PF1e approach, and it becomes worse and worse over time. It also tends to make the separation with characters get worse and worse, sometimes even when they're trying not to.

Let me make it clear, I'm not trying to bash anyone who PF2e is not giving what they want; I'm just pointing out that there were prices for the things that provided those, and they weren't fixable problems while still leaving those tools at hand.

 

[payn]

Is there a way to hack PF2 to be better at sandbox adventures?

I think the best bet is to go proficiency without level variant. It expands the band of possible encounters slightly from core. That's the best mechanical answer I have. I really like bounded accuracy in 5E and think it makes a game world make a lot of sense. Paizo deliberately went away from that idea wanting a level 10 fighter to never be challenged by goblins; even a 100 of them! PF2 pushes the game more into gonzo territory fantasy dialed to eleven. However, they used BA themselves, but placed a shifting scale on level. So, while those gobos will never challenge the fighter, the fighter will never be able to fight a balrog or whatever equivalent. Whether or not you prefer one style or the other is up to you.

 

[payn]

The problem, again, was that those were, well, solvable. Unless you walked into them blind, you got to the point as you levelled up where any unevern opponents were vastly overrated. I'd suspect if you used it extensively for sandboxes, and only at lower levels (my reading of things you've referenced in this thread) that's why you didn't see how severe that was. And of course alpha-striking was the order of the day.

Essentially, I don't think its possible for an opponent balancing system to actually work in any useful way with the 3e/PF1e approach, and it becomes worse and worse over time. It also tends to make the separation with characters get worse and worse, sometimes even when they're trying not to.

Let me make it clear, I'm not trying to bash anyone who PF2e is not giving what they want; I'm just pointing out that there were prices for the things that provided those, and they weren't fixable problems while still leaving those tools at hand.

I hear what you are saying. Even though PF1 is my preferred fantasy RPG to date, I don't like playing it past level 12. I also have 20 years of experience playing and GMing it, so I know how to tune it. A lot of folks may not, nor want to put in the time and investment when systems are easier to learn and run like 5E and PF2. To be clear, I'm not saying PF2 is bad at all, I just think it makes certain styles of play difficult. Also, I think it leans into tactical play instead of strategic, but that's just pure preference.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is there a way to hack PF2 to be better at sandbox adventures?

I'm not sold you can't use it for those; what you can't do easily is have sandboxes that aren't, to some extent, partitioned.

What I mean by that is that you have to have a way for the PCs to tell that they're getting into an area that has potential opposition in it too far ahead of them, and boxes opponents in about a 7 level range.

Honestly, you kind of had this back in OD&D; different terrains had different encounter tables as a default, and some were very different in hazard. You just can't have blind sandboxes (where there's too little information to avoid areas over your head) or ones with too wide a range of hazards in them--but I'm not convinced the latter was ever a great idea.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I hear what you are saying. Even though PF1 is my preferred fantasy RPG to date, I don't like playing it past level 12. I also have 20 years of experience playing and GMing it, so I know how to tune it. A lot of folks may not, nor want to put in the time and investment when systems are easier to learn and run like 5E and PF2. To be clear, I'm not saying PF2 is bad at all, I just think it makes certain styles of play difficult. Also, I think it leans into tactical play instead of strategic, but that's just pure preference.

The latter is absolutely true, so I won't argue with that at all. PF2e will allow you to make some functional strategic decisions about operating procedures that will work well with other elements of the character and other characters in the group, but its not going to allow D&D3/PF1 style baking a cake. Similarly, its not going to be very rewarding for anyone who wants to do all the work at that level and then cruise through the actual fights. You can make builds where combat rounds are pretty automated, but you have to avoid taking things that require judgment and paying close attention to the ebb and flow of the game (there were days people sighed at my being off my game while playing my Champion because they're prone to a lot of that).

(But I will note you tend to prefer bailing on PF1e just at the point I strongly suspect it starts progressively breaking down, since that's when D&D3e did. PF2e might take a couple levels to start to come into its own, but it at least works all the way).

 

[payn]

(But I will note you tend to prefer bailing on PF1e just at the point I strongly suspect it starts progressively breaking down, since that's when D&D3e did. PF2e might take a couple levels to start to come into its own, but it at least works all the way).

It does indeed. I think things are vastly different now for modern games like 5E and PF2. For one, social media was much smaller and quieter than now. There were no public playtests, I suspect high level 3E wasn't really playtested thoroughly, and not given much thought since few games go there. Paizo just wanted to keep their adventure business going, so PF1 wasn't really a boat rocking, but more of a new paint job. So, much of the issues followed it in the name of backwards compatibility.

If I was going to make my own fantasy heartbreaker it would take these notes;

• PF1 customizable race, traits, classes, multiclassing, archetypes, prestige classing. Crit threat ranges and damage multipliers. Strategic play. Alignment mechanics.
• 4E bloodied mechanics, healing surge (jettison that name tho) pacing mechanics, and maybe another look at skill challenges.
• 5E bounded accuracy.
• PF2 three action economy.

 

[thullgrim]

That’s a pretty good list. I’d probably add 4e’s additional in combat move me to, pushes, pulls, teleports as well as encounter space.

I’d also keep 4es AC system or go back to Fort/ref/will.

I might think about advantage/ disadvantage from 5e. It’s a simple neat to adjudicate at situational position.

I’d keep 5es approach to magic items though I’d change the attuning rules to be more meaningful. Something along the lines of the PF2 playtest I think.