Combating My Own Boredom as a Player

[Gorgon Zee]

And people wonder why I have so much disdain for game mechanics in roleplaying games.

Well, to be fair, it is disdain not just for the mechanics, but for a style of play. I like games with complex mechanics, because a lot of the fun I find is in building characters with unusual mechanics and trying to use those mechanics in play in fun and interesting ways. I also like very narrative games, so my ideal weekend would be a mix of D&D4E and Fate.

I don’t really enjoy games whose goal is simulational — if a game uses the same rules for PCs and NPCs that’s a red flag for me. But I don’t disdain those games; I simply don’t enjoy them.

 

[The Firebird]

That's all on your table, and possibly the slowdown effects of VTT play. I've had the good fortune of playing Lancer with people who were really on the ball with engagement, system mastery and tactical coordination and we were averaging under two minutes a player turn. The GM was the slowest "player" at the table owing to the variety of NPC threats they were managing - and that speeded up as they started dropping, of course.

Crunchy games do tend to suffer more from indecisive, inexperienced or disinterested players than lighter ones, but with a good crew you shouldn't be seeing anything like one-hour rounds.

Yeah I don't think it was the systems fault...just a poor fit for that group.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Say I want to climb onto a ledge to kick a flaming brazier on the surrounding cultists. That's one action to move to the ledge, one action to stow my shield and another to stow my sword. Then another action for every 5 ft I want to climb (assuming I make the check). Then another action to move to the brazier. An athletics check to push the brazier, and if I succeed, the cultists below are subject to a 15 ft cone attack. The save DC will be ridiculously low because the brazier is a low-level hazard.

That’s a lot of checks for very little damage.

Actually, it’s just one two checks, one to climb and one to kick. Plus this is the worst possible character to try this action — a shield-bearing fighter who has bad athletics and has taken no useful movement feats.

For a more reasonable situation, I’ll use my actual 5th level Tengu fighter. They have the combat climber feat and fight with a bastard sword, so, if they start by the wall they just climb up 5’ per action (I cannot fail and have a 50% chance of climbing 10’ with a critical success, assuming this is a fairly normal DC 15 wall). I will assume the brazier is by the edge, because my GM is not a dick, and so again I cannot fail the DC10 or 15 action to push the brazier. So a reasonable case is 2-3 actions to get up the wall (1-2 actions depending if I hit the critical success) and one to push the brazier.

I actually also have a 5th level monk, who climbs 10-15 feet in an action, so even easier for them.

The big question is how much damage the brazier does. I don’t know of a specific “knock over a brazier on a group of people” action, so I’d just use the general damage table, using the complex (low damage) column since it’s an attack on multiple people. So at my level, a 2d8+7 with a save DC for them of 26.

Assuming I hit three targets, that’s probably one save being made only, so 40 total points of damage. For straight hitting, I’ll almost certainly hit once for 2d12+4 and have a 50-50 chance of a second hit for 2d8+4, so … math … about 20 points of damage. It’s probably worth doing the brazier thing if I can catch 2 people in it.

Now, I probably do actually need to move to the edge of the ledge, so my first few rounds could be:

• attack a single target twice, move to edge with third action
• climb twice (assuming a bad roll) and push brazier off
• walk of edge and fall (if I wasn’t a monk or tengu I’d jump down), attack twice.

I’m pretty sure I’ve actually done this in an AP, actually.

 

[TiQuinn]

Actually, it’s just one two checks, one to climb and one to kick. Plus this is the worst possible character to try this action — a shield-bearing fighter who has bad athletics and has taken no useful movement feats.

Okay, two checks but also multiple actions including an action per 5’ of climbing?

I’m not familiar with PF literally at all so maybe actions are doled out like they’re nothing special and this is all just moot, but reading it, it just seems like a kind of trap option. Player has an idea and wants to try something cool, and the DM (or system) puts hurdles in their way that end up making the move onerous compared to just taking a more direct, simpler approach. The damage in your scenario seems more reasonable for the output.

 

[Retreater]

The big question is how much damage the brazier does. I don’t know of a specific “knock over a brazier on a group of people” action, so I’d just use the general damage table, using the complex (low damage) column since it’s an attack on multiple people. So at my level, a 2d8+7 with a save DC for them of 26.

I have never played with a PF2 GM in person, online, at a convention, in this multiverse or any other, who would have ruled it that way.

IME, the way most PF2 GM would rule this is that a brazier spill would have a DC and damage that is connected to the level of the hazard - not the character performing the stunt, which creates braziers with quantum effects that are minimally effective when employed by kobolds or earth-destroying when used by ancient dragons.

It would be commonly ruled as a Level 1-3 hazard, unless it was some sort of magical brazier of fire from the elemental plane.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, to be fair, it is disdain not just for the mechanics, but for a style of play. I like games with complex mechanics, because a lot of the fun I find is in building characters with unusual mechanics and trying to use those mechanics in play in fun and interesting ways. I also like very narrative games, so my ideal weekend would be a mix of D&D4E and Fate.

I don’t really enjoy games whose goal is simulational — if a game uses the same rules for PCs and NPCs that’s a red flag for me. But I don’t disdain those games; I simply don’t enjoy them.

I don't mind complex mechanics necessarily... so long as they don't interfere with the story of the character I want to portray. Complex mechanics that reduce options in order to "be complex" to me are a complete waste.

For instance, an example at the most baseline level: D&D has multiple types of weapons, all with various types of statistics. That's "more complex" than just having a single statistic type that gets applied to all weapons. So in theory... having multiple weapons with multiple types of statistics should make those multiple weapons all worthwhile and give us more options for weapons.

However... the game makes certain weapons that should be balanced against each other mechanically better than other ones for no reason whatsoever, and thus limit you to the weapons you in theory should be able to use. In 5E14... Handaxe and Mace are both 1d6 damage weapons. Great. Except that in addition to that damage, the former weapon also gets the Light and Thrown properties added to it, while the latter doesn't. Which means if one wanted to dual-wield a pair of 1d6 Simple weapons... they would be stuck with just the slashing Handaxe. That's it. Your only option. A very "complex" weapon chart but which only gives you a single choice. Want to dual-wield a bludgeoning weapon or a piercing weapon just because it makes more aesthetic or story sense for your PC? Whelp... gotta drop down to a 1d4 weapon in the Light Hammer and Dagger instead... for absolutely no reason other than having "mechanical complexity" in the game by having all the different types of weapons on their weapon chart.

And D&D has always done this kind of thing a lot... adding complexity for the sake of complexity, while not making that complexity actually worthwhile. See the 3E Grapple rules for a lovely example-- add complexity to the game by allowing PCs to do something different in combat with their turn rather than just hit someone with their weapon for hit point damage... but then make it so unlikely to actually work well or do something useful unless you spend oodles of feats on it that it ends up not being worth any of the trouble.

Mechanical complexity is fine if it doesn't end up limiting you and your options. But more often that not the additional complexity just pushes one option to the top of the pile as the best one... and ends up actually reducing it.

 

[payn]

I have never played with a PF2 GM in person, online, at a convention, in this multiverse or any other, who would have ruled it that way.

IME, the way most PF2 GM would rule this is that a brazier spill would have a DC and damage that is connected to the level of the hazard - not the character performing the stunt, which creates braziers with quantum effects that are minimally effective when employed by kobolds or earth-destroying when used by ancient dragons.

It would be commonly ruled as a Level 1-3 hazard, unless it was some sort of magical brazier of fire from the elemental plane.

I think the issue is that PF2 built combat as sport. Its intended for the players to work together in an expected way like a hockey team that has forwards and defenders. There are a few things you can do outside handling the puck with your stick, such as catch an airborn puck and immediately put it back on the ice, or kick the puck with your skate to reposition for use with the stick. Catching and throwing the puck or kicking it into the goal is not allowed. So, in this instance there are procedures for allowing you to dump a brazier on foes, but you are not allowed to score a goal that way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That’s a lot of checks for very little damage.

There's a problem you run into with any game wrapped around game or simulation concerns that isn't entirely compatible with some sorts of improvisational approach.

That is, the individual steps are assumed to matter. The various things Retreater had to do are things that may well be significant in their own right in other contexts, so you want to manage their resolution and time consumption. But in this particular case its really only the final result Retreater cared about, and all the steps made it an unattractive choice.

In addition, you sometimes don't want some declarations to be too easy, because the benefits they provide are stronger than the normal resolution.

This is why some more narrative-focused games are really only concerned about the final output--but may also not produce the degree of result a player expects.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, this used to be a problem back even in 2e days where we’d want to do something different/dramatic in a fight and our DM would make us jump through all these hoops, like tumble checks, climbing checks, and then give us the same damage as if we just made an attack. His reasoning was “well I don’t want you to do it all the time.”

Its not an illegitimate response in some ways; if you can execute a given special maneuver as easily as a normal attack, with better results, why bother with the normal attack? Games that think it through usually have special maneuvers with modifications to success so that the benefit to increased failure is a trade-off, but it can be hard to get that balance right.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay, two checks but also multiple actions including an action per 5’ of climbing?

I’m not familiar with PF literally at all so maybe actions are doled out like they’re nothing special and this is all just moot, but reading it, it just seems like a kind of trap option. Player has an idea and wants to try something cool, and the DM (or system) puts hurdles in their way that end up making the move onerous compared to just taking a more direct, simpler approach. The damage in your scenario seems more reasonable for the output.

Everyone in PF2e gets three actions, so its not as bad as it looks at least.