Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arakasius" data-source="post: 7489093" data-attributes="member: 6944960">That just makes it that the few buffs and flanking are a lot more important than it used to be. PF1 started yes 10-20% higher but then buffs took most physical attackers into auto hit territory, even on iterative attacks. The new system needs situational buffs to get enemies into that 70% range which will come with crits. It also means that a third attack is almost always going to be suboptimal, hence pushing the use of alternate actions.Now whether this will actually incentivize and reward team play or just piss people off well that’s up to the individual. It’s also possible that the assumption of what are equal encounters is different in PF2 vs PF1. Perhaps a level equivalent monster is supposed to be a bigger threat than they are in PF1. Not quite done enough testing to draw full conclusions on it, but in PF1 my players level 10 party had no issues dealing with a CR15 creature. Looking at what it would be like in PF2 I’m fairly sure that encounter would be fatal.On the +prof/level I’m hoping they go to 1/2 prof / level. Not because I think the math doesn’t work out but that it will make my job easier as a DM allowing monsters to stay a threat for longer and allowing me to have to customize encounters less. Elite and weak help (and could easily be extended to multiple levels) but it’s a bit annoying to deal with. Planning my groups first level 11 encounter is requiring a lot of usage of both templates. Also think it’s a fairly easy change (mostly just bestiary) that wouldn’t effect anything else and would molify the lvl 20 generalist vs lvl 5 specialist complaints that keep coming up. Basically it’s an easy win for Paizo with out much drawback.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arakasius, post: 7489093, member: 6944960"] That just makes it that the few buffs and flanking are a lot more important than it used to be. PF1 started yes 10-20% higher but then buffs took most physical attackers into auto hit territory, even on iterative attacks. The new system needs situational buffs to get enemies into that 70% range which will come with crits. It also means that a third attack is almost always going to be suboptimal, hence pushing the use of alternate actions. Now whether this will actually incentivize and reward team play or just piss people off well that’s up to the individual. It’s also possible that the assumption of what are equal encounters is different in PF2 vs PF1. Perhaps a level equivalent monster is supposed to be a bigger threat than they are in PF1. Not quite done enough testing to draw full conclusions on it, but in PF1 my players level 10 party had no issues dealing with a CR15 creature. Looking at what it would be like in PF2 I’m fairly sure that encounter would be fatal. On the +prof/level I’m hoping they go to 1/2 prof / level. Not because I think the math doesn’t work out but that it will make my job easier as a DM allowing monsters to stay a threat for longer and allowing me to have to customize encounters less. Elite and weak help (and could easily be extended to multiple levels) but it’s a bit annoying to deal with. Planning my groups first level 11 encounter is requiring a lot of usage of both templates. Also think it’s a fairly easy change (mostly just bestiary) that wouldn’t effect anything else and would molify the lvl 20 generalist vs lvl 5 specialist complaints that keep coming up. Basically it’s an easy win for Paizo with out much drawback. [/QUOTE]

Verification