Pathfinder 2E Problems with percieved overpowered encounters in Pathfinder 1e+2e?

[payn]

But you had fewer choices because it was much easier to build a bad character.

You can still build bad characters in PF2. Ignoring bad character choices for the moment, you had way more choices in PF1/3E. You could build a dex or str fighter, archetype, and multiclass by level 2. All that has been silo'd in PF2 into a few path choices. Perhaps when the game has some age on it, and more class feat books come along, it wont seem so limited.

Do they, though? I feel like MAD focuses don't work as much unless you are rolling dice for starting stats.

Yes, they do. You can increase stats by both leveling and items. You dont have to have maxed stats to be successful as MAD in 3E/PF1. Self buff spells, items, etc.. You are not limited by what you set at level 1 and boost from there. Point is you can choose to invest as you go. The choices are not lock ins.

It's "samey" because having a skill doesn't really matter if you don't have the stats, or have the stats but don't have the skill. For something like 5E it was something I ran into early on and tried to fix myself because at the end of the day it makes everything homogenized: your skills don't matter because someone with the stats can be better than you for a long period of time. It was unsatisfying for my players and unsatisfying for me, and often drove them to focus on skills that complimented their stats because, well, that's the only way they can differentiate. What I like here is that having the skill is generally a big increase compared to having the stat: having a skill at level 1 is basically like having a 16 in that stat without a boost in it.

Dont mistake me, 5E has one of the most dissatisfying skill systems. I prefer 3E/PF1 because you can invest at any point in both stats and skill points. It makes leveling much more flexible in what you choose to invest in. 5E and PF2 are largely locked in at level 1 and you only follow the path from there. I dont see much difference in focusing on a few skills that synergize with your stats, and being good at a few skills because you chose the feats. Yes, I also know there are retraining rules for PF2.

I've never really found that a problem because I find that what drives non-samey play are feat options, not stats. But even then, I find that people can develop a tertiary stat that is useful and important, though it's much easier with Gradual Ability Boosts variant.

I dont see it. Choose the feat and play exactly the same, every time. What is worse is that many of the skill feats are so terrible in comparison with each other that the optimal choices are obvious. A major problem with feats in general in PF1 that was ported into PF2 skill feats. I do think they did a good job on class feats, however, they are too few to allow the differentiation that was available in PF1.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreeing with Thomas here.

You don't need min/max. It's actually hard to min/max PF2E. The balance protects against "most" bad decisions. There are a few catches to that, but they're not pitfalls people fall into all that often.

Yeah, you almost have to go out of your way to build something really unusable. Worst you can do is take a feat that doesn't really serve the rest of your operating procedure well, and if you figure that out there's a problem its not like there's not a procedure for retroing out feats and taking others. Same for non-prepared caster spells.

Making your characters as a team is NOT min/maxing. It's just building a group comp. I can't be the only person who's ever played an MMO here. But to me it just makes sense to build for a team who's abilities compliment each other. Which is a LOT more lenient than any MMO lets you be - even Guild Wars 2.

And even there the game isn't completely unforgiving. Its not going to work well to take all frontline types probably, and certainly not with all arcanists without a side archetype, but like I've said, that probably would have blown up in your face all the way back to OD&D.

Most problems won't come from the team comp, but from the team playstyle. A Leeroy Jenkins player can wipe you. A "Mr Solo" PC can cause big problems. A player playing in the frontline who is timid, or who doesn't use tactical options will cause problems. "Main character syndrome" which is often talked about on 'D&D horror stories" can break a PF2E group much faster than it will break a D&D one. In D&D it destroys the social dynamic and fun of everyone else - in PF2E is ALSO gets the group killed.

All this.

But you can more or less get 4 people, pick 4 classes at random, and pick your feats and abilities at random and be mostly OK. You WILL have healing issues if no one landed on that - but good team play can help there.

And its somewhat fixable after the fact if you last long enough.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You can still build bad characters in PF2. Ignoring bad character choices for the moment, you had way more choices in PF1/3E. You could build a dex or str fighter, archetype, and multiclass by level 2. All that has been silo'd in PF2 into a few path choices. Perhaps when the game has some age on it, and more class feat books come along, it wont seem so limited.

It's not. Like, how much of PF1/3E is silo'd off by massive feat chains? You can still build all those things in PF2 pretty easily, along with a bunch of other options.

Yes, they do. You can increase stats by both leveling and items. You dont have to have maxed stats to be successful as MAD in 3E/PF1. Self buff spells, items, etc.. You are not limited by what you set at level 1 and boost from there. Point is you can choose to invest as you go. The choices are not lock ins.

I suppose that's kind of where the brokenness of the system starts to come in? I dunno, I think there is room beyond your main stats to do things with, especially given the boosts and equipment you can get over time. My limited experience with 3E was not "boundless opportunity" but rather "These are the builds that work." Maybe I just never invested the skill mastery needed to find that stuff, but I think that's part of the problem with the system.

Dont mistake me, 5E has one of the most dissatisfying skill systems. I prefer 3E/PF1 because you can invest at any point in both stats and skill points. It makes leveling much more flexible in what you choose to invest in. 5E and PF2 are largely locked in at level 1 and you only follow the path from there. I dont see much difference in focusing on a few skills that synergize with your stats, and being good at a few skills because you chose the feats. Yes, I also know there are retraining rules for PF2.

My experience with point-buy skill systems in d20 was... meh, to say the least. Like you talk about "where you choose to invest" but largely speaking you put stuff into the same things because there's less value in putting a skill-point or two into one area and never go back to it. 5E was on the right track with proficiency, I just think PF2 gets it better. Even 4E, in my opinion, had a good idea with doing the half-proficiency for all other skills (or maybe that was SWSE? I can't remember, it's been a while). But ultimately not having to spend for skills every level is an improvement.

I dont see it. Choose the feat and play exactly the same, every time. What is worse is that many of the skill feats are so terrible in comparison with each other that the optimal choices are obvious. A major problem with feats in general in PF1 that was ported into PF2 skill feats. I do think they did a good job on class feats, however, they are too few to allow the differentiation that was available in PF1.

But there are plenty of different feats and plenty of different build options. That's the point. You're talking about stats and plusses, and I just don't see those as the same thing. You can talk about "optimal choices", but I don't think that really plays into what PF2 is unless you can start naming them. At the end, you aren't really harmed by not taking certain things because what balances your math is already baked into the system; what changes is how you use those numbers.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Actually, right out the gate with stat allocation is a giant trap. If you dont stick with 1-2 different stat arrays, particularly maxing your main stat, life is going to be absolute hell for that PC. The more you even out the stats the less viable the PC. PF2 went with the 4E design of pump 1-2 stats and forget the rest design. Fine if you like that, but I prefer MAD design so found it disappointing. Especially, since they had their seemingly organic PC stat design which you basically wave away after the first time you make a PC.

I really don't think that's true, man. It'll make things a bit harder, but I played a character who diluted their main stat last campaign and it worked out all right. You don't want to excessively low-ball it, but you can certainly drop down a step and get by. And you can't completely ignore the other stats because of the way stat progression works. You may have one or two you blow off, but you've got to drop some love on at least four.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah some people like the slow steady cut bits of the mosnter. I find pathfinder combat excrutiating as player and DM. End up with a table of min maxers who will stop the game till they have the perfect action and I've seen boss combats take 4 or more hours. Probably runs a lot better if DM nips that stuff but every DM I've seen that likes PF2e likes the nitty gritty crawl through the mechanics so they seem to enable that behavior and it's just too slow for me.

This is so weird. I've never seen a PF2e fight take longer than an hour, two tops (and I don't think I've seen the latter except in a couple of really complex fights that weren't boss fights). They're vastly quicker than any game I've seen of comparable complexity, even with the same players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

From 40 years of experience, you have that exactly reversed.

DMs that always provide balanced encounters and train their players that every fight is winnable end up with groups that never will retreat even if things are going sideways. On the other hand DMs that from the beginning train parties both in the need to evalute foes before blindly rushing in trusting every challenge can be overcome by combat, and also learn how to retreat when they incorrectly evaluate. Those are the groups that know how to handle it when through bad luck, poor planning, or incorrect tactics things are going bad.

Bluntly, this only matters if you are dealing with players who have only played with you. If you have players who have ever played with other GMs, they're going to come in with the expectations they come in with, and changing those will be an uphill battle no matter how much you want to.

I figured this out years ago when running RuneQuest and we had a player who had never done anything but D&D. It was--instructive.

 

[payn]

I really don't think that's true, man. It'll make things a bit harder, but I played a character who diluted their main stat last campaign and it worked out all right. You don't want to excessively low-ball it, but you can certainly drop down a step and get by. And you can't completely ignore the other stats because of the way stat progression works. You may have one or two you blow off, but you've got to drop some love on at least four.

I think my problem is the allocation is always the same based on class. That primary and perhaps secondary stat drives all choices. The others are just passive defense type items that are not really choices but simply keep up with math bumps.

Largely the design space coming out of 3E/PF1 was to go all SAD or all MAD. Most designers have decided to go SAD. It makes sense because its easier to design. I think preference is often develops like in this conversation today. Either you want to invest many choices into items and diversify across character ability, or you expect hyper specialization which acts as a sort of niche protection. Many folks I'm sure live in-between, but folks on the opposite ends likely wont agree.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think my problem is the allocation is always the same based on class. That primary and perhaps secondary stat drives all choices. The others are just passive defense type items that are not really choices but simply keep up with math bumps.

I think there's more to them than that. They're often contributors to some class of skills, and may have other effects. My Champion didn't care too much about his Dexterity--but he had to shoot a bow occasionally.

Largely the design space coming out of 3E/PF1 was to go all SAD or all MAD. Most designers have decided to go SAD. It makes sense because its easier to design. I think preference is often develops like in this conversation today. Either you want to invest many choices into items and diversify across character ability, or you expect hyper specialization which acts as a sort of niche protection. Many folks I'm sure live in-between, but folks on the opposite ends likely wont agree.

Well, honestly, when I want games that lay much in the middle, D&D-sphere games aren't where I go in the first place. Its not a design basis that ever seems to do well by generalists in the first place (you can argue about how many games do, but the D20 basic design space has never seemed to even half be good for this. As an example, back in the 3e days all it turned out far as I can tell is an intelligence test to discover synergies and a whole lot of theoretically interesting builds that were massive traps).

 

[Staffan]

The stats dont bother me as long as I got choice in my characters abilities. For example, you can build strength and/or Dex fighters and rangers in PF1. You can even build a melee spec caster who drops their primary to diversify their stats.

Part of the issue is point-based stat generation and "balance". It's really hard to make a character like Worf in most D&D variants. Worf is (supposedly) a great fighter. He's strong, he's tough, he's strong-willed, he's a pretty good tactician, and he's charismatic. But he doesn't really make use of high stats across the board. He's good at intimidation and honest speeches, but he doesn't do duplicity or negotiation. He's good at tactics, but not at science or engineering. This type of character fits much better in a purely skill-based system like the Troubleshooters or FATE where you can decide that you have a good Status but bad Charm and Subterfuge, without the system telling you "But you have a high Charisma so you should be good at all of those!"

See, I don't fully agree with this. I do understand that there is typically a good amount of focusing in a build, but when you hit level 5 you're always getting 4 ability boosts. Having a +1 in a Stat is generally not great for a primary stat, but as a backup skill stat it can still be useful. If you keep that skill up along with the ability, it'll track close to 50/50 with leveled DCs.

I'm pretty sure the intent of getting four boosts every 5th level is that it allows you to boost your primary stat as well as Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom in order to keep up with saves and possibly AC. If that lets you boost some skills as well, that's a

Hm. I dunno, maybe you could solve a lot of problems in that regard by lowering PF2's Skill DCs by 3, making it generally easier to succeed at skill tasks and allowing those who are really good to be consistently good (I believe another @Staffan complaint from a while back). But ultimately it's kind of handcuffed by the d20 design idea in the first place. If you want something where better stats can matter, you might want something with dice pools, like the Edge Studios née FFG games.

I think perhaps it would be better to have two separate level-based DCs. One for things that are supposed to be "challenging" and that demand specialization, and one for more "routine" things. Things like Repair, Recall Knowledge, and so on could be on the "routine" track instead, which would keep characters from feeling more stupid at higher levels because their effective skills have narrowed too much.

 

[payn]

Part of the issue is point-based stat generation and "balance". It's really hard to make a character like Worf in most D&D variants. Worf is (supposedly) a great fighter. He's strong, he's tough, he's strong-willed, he's a pretty good tactician, and he's charismatic. But he doesn't really make use of high stats across the board. He's good at intimidation and honest speeches, but he doesn't do duplicity or negotiation. He's good at tactics, but not at science or engineering. This type of character fits much better in a purely skill-based system like the Troubleshooters or FATE where you can decide that you have a good Status but bad Charm and Subterfuge, without the system telling you "But you have a high Charisma so you should be good at all of those!"

Topic drifting heavily at this point but... I'd just make a paladin I think that would fit a Worf character perfectly.

I'm pretty sure the intent of getting four boosts every 5th level is that it allows you to boost your primary stat as well as Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom in order to keep up with saves and possibly AC. If that lets you boost some skills as well, that's a

Yeap.