log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

CapnZapp

Legend
1. Because Pathfinder seems to be doubling down on the bad parts of 3.X.
Assuming you mean PF2, this.

Another way of saying it:

Paizo shows zero evidence of learning WHY 5E is so successful.

The playtest comes across as completely tone deaf - a relic of ages past.

As opposed to something that actually builds upon the things 5E fix with d20 to make for a better game, a product that improves upon the competition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
Paizo shows zero evidence of learning WHY 5E is so successful.
You underestimate the power of the D&D brand itself. Pathfinder does not have the same luxury nor can it bank on a divisive edition of D&D. So I think that their concern is rightfully not about learning why 5e is so successful but why their core audience (who has not already moved to 5e) likes Pathfinder. You are already a lost cause, CapnZapp, so why should they care about a naysayer like you? :confused:
 

JeffB

Legend
So did anyone take a look/listen at the Twitch game of 2E yesterday Paizo people were talking about (Buhlman)?

I don't Twitch, and I checked the youtube channel but it's not up yet.
 

Voadam

Adventurer
Really? I've played a lot of Pathfinder and I don't think that's ever come up as an actual encounter. Why would your GM even bother running something like that let alone make them a common occurrence?

I guess if your level 20 fighter randomly decides to attack the local melon farmer it might pop up, but I cannot imagine a GM purposefully bringing such an encounter to her session.
You've never had really tanked out AC characters in mid level Pathfinder? I had this happen in running encounters straight out of the second and third modules in the official Reign of Winter Adventure Path. Its been a while but I remember in the third module which is levels 7-10 the sword and board fighter had an AC in the 30s when using his expertise feat actively. Looking on Page 26 of Mother Maiden Crone Poryphanes had 4 +9 melee attacks and his tendriculous has +11 and two +6s meaning natural 20s to hit. Similarly for all the Andrazku demons throughout the module with their 3 +10 melee attacks.

The other PCs had ACs in the teens to 20s at the same point so there was a wide disparity.

It is pretty easy to character build for high AC in pathfinder even just using core if you focus hard on it in your build, I had a PC who did for that campaign when I ran it.

I had a similar experience in high level 3.5 with a different player.
 
Last edited:

DaveMage

Slumbering in Tsar
You've never had really tanked out AC characters in mid level Pathfinder? I had this happen in running encounters straight out of the second and third modules in the official Reign of Winter Adventure Path. Its been a while but I remember in the third module which is levels 7-10 the sword and board fighter had an AC in the 30s when using his expertise feat actively. Looking on Page 26 of Mother Maiden Crone Poryphanes had 4 +9 melee attacks and his tendriculous has +11 and two +6s meaning natural 20s to hit. Similarly for all the Andrazku demons throughout the module with their 3 +10 melee attacks.

The other PCs had ACs in the teens to 20s at the same point so there was a wide disparity.

It is pretty easy to character build for high AC in pathfinder even just using core if you focus hard on it in your build, I had a PC who did for that campaign when I ran it.

I had a similar experience in high level 3.5 with a different player.
Yeah, when I've run higher level PF1 games this issue has absolutely been a thing.
 

Green Onceler

Explorer
Yeah, when I've run higher level PF1 games this issue has absolutely been a thing.
I see. I guess I would expect the GM to alter such encounters so that they are relevant.

However, fortunately, we do not have a very power gamey group. I don't think we've ever had a PC with a 30+ AC, despite our current campaign being at level 14. From the stories I read online, our group seems very atypical, for which I am always thankful.
 

Voadam

Adventurer
I see. I guess I would expect the GM to alter such encounters so that they are relevant.
Couple ways to do that

1) alter their tactics or change the choice of monster of the same CR to do non normal AC strike things like grapple, use spells or effects to target saves, touch attacks, feints, aid another, or simply target another PC.

2) alter the monster's attack bonus to challenge that PC's AC, but this means it is usually autohitting the others if it ends up going against them.

This does require not using the module straight, or the sandbox as it exists outside the PCs.

It is not as much of an issue in bounded accuracy systems as the variance is usually smaller.

However, fortunately, we do not have a very power gamey group. I don't think we've ever had a PC with a 30+ AC, despite our current campaign being at level 14. From the stories I read online, our group seems very atypical, for which I am always thankful.
I wouldn't even call it a big power gamey build, she did significantly less damage than the two-hander paladin or the magus, she was just annoying to run a melee combat against with her AC near immunity.
 

Saelorn

Hero
I see. I guess I would expect the GM to alter such encounters so that they are relevant.
If the GM changes the encounters so as to invalidate your choices, then what's the point of even playing?

One of the selling points for Pathfinder is that you can customize your character in meaningful ways. You can choose to have high AC, or good saves, or accuracy, or damage. You can choose to be a specialist, or a generalist.
 

Saelorn

Hero
A monster with a +10 attack bonus against a tank knight with an AC of 30 is fairly irrelevant and poor game play at the table IMO. I found these "need a 20 to hit" combats uninteresting to run in 3e/PF and not that uncommon. A +3 attack bonus against a bounded accuracy tank AC of 19 is still a fight and the tank still feels like a tank next to the AC 14 nontanks.

I think we are looking for different things out of sandbox play and the difference in levels though.
That's entirely probable, given that I consider a +10 attack bonus against AC 30 to be a case where the player has made a meaningful choice. As a player, the inability to reach a reliable AC is one of the major problems I have with 5E. Being hit one-time-in-four, rather one-time-in-two, is fairly irrelevant; in neither case can I enter melee with the expectation of not getting hurt.
 

Saelorn

Hero
Let's say that each "best" choice increases your DPR by 0.5 dmg.

If you have a game with oh, 12 choices in your character design, you will have 6 more DPR than the "organic" character *IF* the organic characters makes only bad choices! (DPR wise). I think we're good.

But what if the game has 40-50 choices? Now suddenly, due to the cumulative effects of all these decisions, the optimized character is much, much better.
The issue there is when every single choice interacts with DPS. Pathfinder 1E was very much guilty of that, where it seemed like every possible choice point gave an option between something useful and something not-useful. Traits were fun, up until they introduced traits that improved your combat performance, at which point they became a tax.

You could address that by having different groups of choices, which don't interact with each other. Maybe you get a DPS-type feat at levels 2/6/10, and those interact with accuracy or damage or targeting; but you also get a defense feat at levels 4/8/12, which gives HP or AC or saves; and a skill feat at level 1/5/9, which increases your bonus or gives you new skill usages or training in new skills. As long as you don't have to choose between useful things and non-useful things at the same decision-point, you can offer a lot of choices without worrying as much about how they combine.

One of the major design differences between the most recent editions of GURPS and Shadowrun is that GURPS gives you a single pool of points with which to buy everything (and you can even sell back stats, to get extra points for skills or powers), where Shadowrun gives you points that are explicitly tagged for stats and skills and powers and gear. The silo-ing off of different character parameters goes a long way to prevent the sort of shenanigans that happen with GURPS.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
The issue there is when every single choice interacts with DPS. Pathfinder 1E was very much guilty of that, where it seemed like every possible choice point gave an option between something useful and something not-useful. Traits were fun, up until they introduced traits that improved your combat performance, at which point they became a tax.

You could address that by having different groups of choices, which don't interact with each other. Maybe you get a DPS-type feat at levels 2/6/10, and those interact with accuracy or damage or targeting; but you also get a defense feat at levels 4/8/12, which gives HP or AC or saves; and a skill feat at level 1/5/9, which increases your bonus or gives you new skill usages or training in new skills. As long as you don't have to choose between useful things and non-useful things at the same decision-point, you can offer a lot of choices without worrying as much about how they combine.

One of the major design differences between the most recent editions of GURPS and Shadowrun is that GURPS gives you a single pool of points with which to buy everything (and you can even sell back stats, to get extra points for skills or powers), where Shadowrun gives you points that are explicitly tagged for stats and skills and powers and gear. The silo-ing off of different character parameters goes a long way to prevent the sort of shenanigans that happen with GURPS.
I think Pathfinder 2 has tried this and its somethig I am struggling with, simplicity vs non combat options. Think I'll have to bake in some non combat options into some classes, but I kind of want something like 2E WP/NWP in concept. Bonus feats (martial) and bonus feats (expert) might be the way to do it.

Martial classes might get 12 feats for example. Rogues get 9 expert, 3 martial ones, fighters get 9 combat and 3 martial ones and Paladins and Rangers get 6 of each.
 

Staffan

Adventurer
You were talking about your hope that Paizo would scrap the PF2 version from the playtest and go back to the drawing board. I was pointing out that that was extremely unlikely, as they have just sent the finished versions of the core book and Bestiary to the printer for release in August.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
T. Being hit one-time-in-four, rather one-time-in-two, is fairly irrelevant; in neither case can I enter melee with the expectation of not getting hurt.
*blink*

Irrelevant? You've just doubled your survival time! How is that one relevant?

Example. Party is fighting big bad monster who hits really hard, but only 1/round. The tank can take 3 such hits. If the tank has 50% chance of getting hit, the party has to kill/disable the monster really fast, or the tank is going to die. If the tank has 25% chance of getting hit, the party now has 5 rounds (on average) to deal with the situation.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
If the GM changes the encounters so as to invalidate your choices, then what's the point of even playing?

One of the selling points for Pathfinder is that you can customize your character in meaningful ways. You can choose to have high AC, or good saves, or accuracy, or damage. You can choose to be a specialist, or a generalist.
This happened in a 3.X game, not pathfinder, but I think the principle is the same: We had an elven mage who had tricked out his AC, and was completely unhitable by the foe. The kind of monsters that *could* hit the mage would be the kind that would crush the party.

In another 3.5 game, we had a player who, for some reason, put *no effort at all* in defense - a bard with no con bonus, very light armor, middling dex, no defensive spell or magic. Glass cannons looked tough compared to her bard. If a goblin managed to flank us, she was in mortal peril. (so the reverse example essentially)

The "balanced" class issue is never vs the monsters - it's *between the PCs* that it matters. If one PC is a complete combat monster (especially one that has very strong defenses) and the rest of the party is "merely" decent, the only time that PC will feel challenged is when there is a near TPK.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
*blink*

Irrelevant? You've just doubled your survival time! How is that one relevant?

Example. Party is fighting big bad monster who hits really hard, but only 1/round. The tank can take 3 such hits. If the tank has 50% chance of getting hit, the party has to kill/disable the monster really fast, or the tank is going to die. If the tank has 25% chance of getting hit, the party now has 5 rounds (on average) to deal with the situation.
6 rounds and 12 rounds, surely?
 

Saelorn

Hero
*blink*

Irrelevant? You've just doubled your survival time! How is that one relevant?
From an abstract clinical perspective, perhaps, but it's hard for me to accept that as an in-character perspective. When I'm role-playing as a warrior, I'm not going to wade into a combat where I expect an enemy to successfully stab me. Getting stabbed hurts. Nobody is signing up for that.

As far as I'm concerned, the tank's job is to engage the enemies in melee, and they can't do that if they expect to get hit. My job isn't to hold them off for five rounds rather than three rounds. If you can only keep it up for a small and finite time period, then that's not sustainable, and you need to find a different approach.
 

Saelorn

Hero
The "balanced" class issue is never vs the monsters - it's *between the PCs* that it matters. If one PC is a complete combat monster (especially one that has very strong defenses) and the rest of the party is "merely" decent, the only time that PC will feel challenged is when there is a near TPK.
This is an issue which shows up on these boards fairly frequently, and the answer is that the GM is doing it wrong. As 5E so succinctly summarizes, the DM's job is to describe the world, role-play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. It is not the GM's job to challenge the players.

If one PC actually manages to put a reliable defense together, then you should respect the player's agency in making those decision. Assuming the system is reasonably designed*, choosing to have a reliable defense means sacrificing other areas of competence. They probably have low damage, and/or poor saving throws; and the rest of the party is still vulnerable to attacks, regardless. The only way that a high AC will ruin a game, is if the GM decides to derail things in response to it.

If a level 10 monster can't hit a level 10 tank, and your response as the GM is to throw in level 20 monsters, then that's entirely on you. The alternative - where you stick to level 10 monsters, and that one character is never really threatened by weapon attacks - is perfectly playable. The danger is still there for all of the other characters, and the one tank is handicapped by their inability to do anything aside from staying alive. It's fine, really.


*If the game is not reasonably designed, then it's probably best to find a new game.
 


Lwaxy

Cute but dangerous
Me and my groups will not switch. As I can easily import the new adventures and for the fluff books it doesn't matter I am not overly bothered.
 

*blink*

Irrelevant? You've just doubled your survival time! How is that one relevant?

Example. Party is fighting big bad monster who hits really hard, but only 1/round. The tank can take 3 such hits. If the tank has 50% chance of getting hit, the party has to kill/disable the monster really fast, or the tank is going to die. If the tank has 25% chance of getting hit, the party now has 5 rounds (on average) to deal with the situation.
Yeah I agree it's super relevant. When I DM and I am creating an encounter for my PCs especially once I get to higher levels I use a measure of time to kill/unconscious my PCs as a relevant measure of difficulty
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top