Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[Gorgon Zee]

You're free to dislike bounded accuracy but please don't ascribe design choices that has nothing to do it.
... I can state that a game could definitely offer bounded accuracy and yet feature PF2-style attack rates (i.e. a baseline of ~50% instead of 75%), dangerous monsters with sleeves filled with tricks, and a greater assumption of magic items.

Actually, you need to disagree with Rodney Thompson, not me. I'll quote him in full:

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points.

PF2 attacks against a significantly stronger opponent are not ~50%, they are close to 0%. That's the difference that bounded accuracy makes. Bounded accuracy says that 10 goons are more use than a single hero. That's not the sort of hero I want to play.

Gandalf told the others to run away from the Balrog because they couldn't hurt it. That's the sort of world I want to play in -- one where only heroes can do heroic things. Not one where a hero is about the same as 2-10 regular guys.

 

[Shadow Demon]

To each their own regarding bounded accuracy: One person’s awesomeness is to another cheese. I love 5e and bounded accuracy but if I had to play PF2 my eyes would be damaged due to excess rolling.

 

[kenada]

Low-level D&D characters are simple creations, where you haven't yet formed a strong bond, quick to replace. High-level characters are.... the opposite. It takes great effort to quickly create one, and losing one can be devastating for party morale. I think the way massive damage fades into insignificance as you level up is deliberate. And good for the game.

They become immune to it very quickly. Most PCs won’t have to worry by 3rd level (assuming a level+4 creature that does extreme damage).

The reason I call it broken is a level 3 creature like an ogre can one-shot 1st level PCs. According to the encounter building guidelines, that should be a moderate-threat encounter. Poor play or bad luck can force the party to pull back and rest after a moderate-threat encounter, but it shouldn’t result in PC deaths. That’s more of a severe-threat; hence why I say Massive Damage is broken (it breaks my tool for assessing encounter difficulty).

 

[zztong]

I can agree with the sentiment that the system was working as intended and likely comes close to the balance the designers wanted. But of my two regular games: one didn't find it to be fun and the other didn't even want to try it. I rated it as "poor" because at those two tables it failed to capture the imagination of six different game masters, all of which have/had games set in Golarion.

I could go more in depth, but that's been recorded on this site already. PF2 is in our rear-view mirror.

 

[billd91]

PF2 attacks against a significantly stronger opponent are not ~50%, they are close to 0%. That's the difference that bounded accuracy makes. Bounded accuracy says that 10 goons are more use than a single hero. That's not the sort of hero I want to play.

Gandalf told the others to run away from the Balrog because they couldn't hurt it. That's the sort of world I want to play in -- one where only heroes can do heroic things. Not one where a hero is about the same as 2-10 regular guys.

I understand some people, yourself included, like that style. In my experience, too high a rate of ineffectiveness is really frustrating, and not just with fantasy RPGs either. This is an area in which 5e really shines, in my opinion, particularly in contrast to 4e and, to a lesser extent, 3e. PF2 going a bit more 4e in this respect is definitely going to be a barrier in my really liking it.

 

[dave2008]

Without trying to derail the thread too much, I don't think bounded accuracy is the gold standard of game design. It's frankly boring, contributes to the feeling of "sameness" between levels, makes characters hit monsters most of the time, takes teeth out of the enemies, makes the game too easy, removes magic items and gear as a mechanical reward of play, etc.

Actually, I don't think any of that is necessarily the cause of bounded accuracy itself, it is more how it is implemented in D&D 5e that is the issue.

 

[ikos]

It is really a tough nut to crack. Hewing closer to the original would have retained some of PF1’s anachronistic charm. Yet, understandably, the exploitative nature of that first iterative just feels raunchy. Going further in the direction of 5e would have, for me, raised question relating to its need to exist. As is, I suspect the material is a bit “overproduced,” everything within its proper box, leaving it a bit sterile. It does not feel much like D&D or PF1. Even so, in one of my groups, at least, we will keep playing it, just to make certain there are no goodies we are just missing and in hopes further releases help.

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually, you need to disagree with Rodney Thompson, not me.

Nonsense.

I was specifically refuting the claim that it was bounded accuracy, not design decision specific to 5E, that "makes characters hit monsters most of the time".

Take the MM. Now raise the AC of every monster by +5 across the board. Voilà - you've gone from 5E to PF2, at least for monsters your level.

You've gone from a game that "makes characters hit monsters most of the time" to a game that... doesn't. Which game offers bounded accuracy and which don't is separate. It is Rodney's design decisions that make you hit "most of the time". It is not an inherent quality of the bounded accuracy concept.

 

[CapnZapp]

The reason I call it broken is a level 3 creature like an ogre can one-shot 1st level PCs.

Even without Massive Damage level 1 heroes has always been at Death's door, even when fully healthy.



Besides, PF2 gives starting characters more hit points than ever before. A Wizard used to start out with 1d4 hp. Now a barbarian can start out with over 20! And it's not that you die at zero hp. You just go to Dying 1 (or 2). And Paizo hands out Hero Points like candy.

If anything, Massive Damage is needed to make level 1 characters fear the Stray Dogs and Giant Rats like they're supposed to!

Now get off my lawn.

 

[kenada]

Even without Massive Damage level 1 heroes has always been at Death's door, even when fully healthy.



Besides, PF2 gives starting characters more hit points than ever before. A Wizard used to start out with 1d4 hp. Now a barbarian can start out with over 20! And it's not that you die at zero hp. You just go to Dying 1 (or 2). And Paizo hands out Hero Points like candy.

If anything, Massive Damage is needed to make level 1 characters fear the Stray Dogs and Giant Rats like they're supposed to!

Now get off my lawn.

I have no idea whether we agree or disagree. It’s fine that lower level PCs can die. I’m not arguing that. Death from Massive Damage happens when you take damage equal to or greater than twice your maximum hit points. When that happens, you just die. You don’t gain the dying condition. You don’t get to spend a hero point. You just die. It also affects mostly only 1st level characters.

It’s not clear why 1st level characters should be singled out for random death, especially since Pathfinder 2e is already a pretty dangerous system. Aside from the problem it causes for GMs (mentioned above), players (at least mine anyway) feel pretty deflated when they have literally no chance to do anything about it or to try to save their companion.