Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

[Zardnaar]

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]

??

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]

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]

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]

*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?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

*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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

 

[Ancalagon]

6 rounds and 12 rounds, surely?

Curses! I usually do this math with "average Dmg/round" considering the PC's AC, and I mucked it up. ah well

 

[Lwaxy]

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.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

*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