GrahamWills
Hero
since I didn’t state what you are quoting, i think you have just made a simple comprehension error. You gave a response to someone else, and then said it applied to my comment, whereas based in your result, it doesn’t. no worries.
Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E
since I didn’t state what you are quoting, i think you have just made a simple comprehension error. You gave a response to someone else, and then said it applied to my comment, whereas based in your result, it doesn’t. no worries.
CapnZapp
Legend
I agree to everything. Except the notion massive damage is "broken". It is clearly working as intended.
Does that mean I think it's necessary or that you're bad for wanting to dismiss it? Not at all. Does that mean I think it is wise to have a level+2 enemy in a quick intro adventure (I believe Paizo released a free 4-hour scenario featuring a L3 Ogre)? No, I think it is a mistake to expose potential customers to random loss like that. As the first stage of an adventure path, sure. As a one-off especially made to lure in newbs? Daft.
The grognard in me made the argument it's needed for level 1 characters to suddenly die at all, but hopefully you saw the smiley. As a PF2 GM I definitely don't need no extra help in killing of my characters
As for "it's not clear", I believe it is very clear. It's there because the game has had a massive death rule way back. So, yes, it's a vestigial system.
Instead, I believe it's there because Paizo concluded they would get more flak if they removed it than if they left it there. Remember - if it wasn't there, people would have made complaints based on their own fanciful version of the rule, rather than what Paizo actually ended up putting in the book.
Since you're the only one complaining about having it AFAIK, I think Paizo made the right call
Most people will just shrug, especially since as you say it ceases to be an issue already at level 2-3.
Thanks for the clarification. Given the problems the massive damage rules had in PF1, I’m not sure they’d have been missed if Paizo omitted them in PF2. But to your point, if they bother me, I can just ignore them, since they’re effectively vestigial anyway.I agree to everything. Except the notion massive damage is "broken". It is clearly working as intended.
Does that mean I think it's necessary or that you're bad for wanting to dismiss it? Not at all. Does that mean I think it is wise to have a level+2 enemy in a quick intro adventure (I believe Paizo released a free 4-hour scenario featuring a L3 Ogre)? No, I think it is a mistake to expose potential customers to random loss like that. As the first stage of an adventure path, sure. As a one-off especially made to lure in newbs? Daft.
The grognard in me made the argument it's needed for level 1 characters to suddenly die at all, but hopefully you saw the smiley. As a PF2 GM I definitely don't need no extra help in killing of my characters
As for "it's not clear", I believe it is very clear. It's there because the game has had a massive death rule way back. So, yes, it's a vestigial system.
Instead, I believe it's there because Paizo concluded they would get more flak if they removed it than if they left it there. Remember - if it wasn't there, people would have made complaints based on their own fanciful version of the rule, rather than what Paizo actually ended up putting in the book.
Since you're the only one complaining about having it AFAIK, I think Paizo made the right call
Most people will just shrug, especially since as you say it ceases to be an issue already at level 2-3.
I rated as Excellent (*)
I gave my initial thoughts in the actual GM experience thread after 1 session. The following are my updated thoughts as a GM after 5 sessions and a lot of metagaming and feedback talk with my players.
3 Action Economy: Paradoxically, this system feels more storytelling vs mechanic gaming. Which is crazy because at first look with all the traits it seems like a hassle to learn. but it actually flows very smoothly.
D&D 5ed: I unarmed attack and then I want to shove, wait that's 2 standards ok so I draw my weapon as part of my standard, oh no wait I already used my free interact when I sheathed my bow during my move so I guess this is a bonus action...
PF2: I draw my sword, stride, and strike. I rage and then strike twice.
it took some getting used to but its flowing with the players better than years of 5ed did.
Monster Creation: The playtest of the monster creation rules is so refreshing. I really hate monster systems where you have to build the monster from scratch starting with base stats and then using point buy or adding on levels that in the end is way too overpowered or underpowered for a group and you start over. Look I have a group of 3rd level PCs just giving me something close to what would be a challenge and I'll adjust for flavor.
Monster Adjustment and Encounter building: Another problem I had at first was the tight level range of monsters vs PC. +1 was tough, +2 was getting dangerous. I thought this was going to give less utility for monsters. However, again paradoxically, the rules are giving me more storytelling freedom.
In most rules you have your monster manual with baddies to fight and its up to you to figure out how to tone down or improve them to suit your party.
In PF2 though we have "weak" and "elite" levels adjustments. The players will never know or care that they fought a weak orc warchief vs an authentic one. Yet if I did go RAW with its statblock it would have been a tough fight and also a solo fight so the orc horde feel is missed. -1 level isn't giving me a lot to work with encounter building wise but it helps.
Rule support: Possibly unpopular opinion but I liked having splat books in D&D 3.0. In 5ed we have PHB, XGE and that's about it for 5 years now. The 3rd party products on DMGuild have filled in the holes but it can be hard to find good quality that I would want to use.
More than just combat: Almost every edition of D&D is "here is some combat! oh and some skills and things to do while resting for you next combat". 4ed skill challenges tried giving the appearance they care about non combat stuff but then they abandoned it. A lot of other games are like this too so I don't want to just pick on D&D.
I'm happy with how the PF2 exploration and downtime framework is shaping up. In looking at what they did in PF1 there is a lot more coming.
(*) Disclaimer: I've only GMed 1st - 3rd level PCs. I've played enough rulesets to know that sometimes rules fall apart at later levels and this could drop my view of PF2. I don't think that will happen but am open to that possibility that in a month from now I will hate the rules.
/StaresColdlyatMERP
I gave my initial thoughts in the actual GM experience thread after 1 session. The following are my updated thoughts as a GM after 5 sessions and a lot of metagaming and feedback talk with my players.
3 Action Economy: Paradoxically, this system feels more storytelling vs mechanic gaming. Which is crazy because at first look with all the traits it seems like a hassle to learn. but it actually flows very smoothly.
D&D 5ed: I unarmed attack and then I want to shove, wait that's 2 standards ok so I draw my weapon as part of my standard, oh no wait I already used my free interact when I sheathed my bow during my move so I guess this is a bonus action...
PF2: I draw my sword, stride, and strike. I rage and then strike twice.
it took some getting used to but its flowing with the players better than years of 5ed did.
Monster Creation: The playtest of the monster creation rules is so refreshing. I really hate monster systems where you have to build the monster from scratch starting with base stats and then using point buy or adding on levels that in the end is way too overpowered or underpowered for a group and you start over. Look I have a group of 3rd level PCs just giving me something close to what would be a challenge and I'll adjust for flavor.
Monster Adjustment and Encounter building: Another problem I had at first was the tight level range of monsters vs PC. +1 was tough, +2 was getting dangerous. I thought this was going to give less utility for monsters. However, again paradoxically, the rules are giving me more storytelling freedom.
In most rules you have your monster manual with baddies to fight and its up to you to figure out how to tone down or improve them to suit your party.
In PF2 though we have "weak" and "elite" levels adjustments. The players will never know or care that they fought a weak orc warchief vs an authentic one. Yet if I did go RAW with its statblock it would have been a tough fight and also a solo fight so the orc horde feel is missed. -1 level isn't giving me a lot to work with encounter building wise but it helps.
Rule support: Possibly unpopular opinion but I liked having splat books in D&D 3.0. In 5ed we have PHB, XGE and that's about it for 5 years now. The 3rd party products on DMGuild have filled in the holes but it can be hard to find good quality that I would want to use.
More than just combat: Almost every edition of D&D is "here is some combat! oh and some skills and things to do while resting for you next combat". 4ed skill challenges tried giving the appearance they care about non combat stuff but then they abandoned it. A lot of other games are like this too so I don't want to just pick on D&D.
I'm happy with how the PF2 exploration and downtime framework is shaping up. In looking at what they did in PF1 there is a lot more coming.
(*) Disclaimer: I've only GMed 1st - 3rd level PCs. I've played enough rulesets to know that sometimes rules fall apart at later levels and this could drop my view of PF2. I don't think that will happen but am open to that possibility that in a month from now I will hate the rules.
/StaresColdlyatMERP
neostrider
Villager
I liked the crunch meet fluff system of 3.P. I understand the complaints about the number of options, but the open websites provided me plenty of ways to search for thematic options.
Pf2 followed the same trend that kept my groups away from 5e for such a long time. My decisions as a player mattered so little in actual effect that eventually I remember I'm in a house with a friend telling me the dice do or don't allow me to do a thing.
Recommended DCs based on my level and adjusted by my level is just flatly asking that I roll a good number on my dice. The reduced number of modifiers to rolls only reinforces the players hunger for those tiny +1 bonuses. In all my years of 3.P I never had a player say that it was dumb that a wizard couldn't hit an enemy or the fighter can guarantee a hit.
I like the three action economy in place of full round actions. I disaprove that some actions became a full action on par with an attack or move.
Mostly I don't like core system doesn't have room for player imagination. In pf1 a +1 or +2 bonus for a well described plan or narrative perk was a small deal. In pf2 if I describe a heroic effort and the GM awards a +1 bonus that's a huge mod on par with a whole level or feat, and at the same time is probably useless because even if I was the world's best musician at level 20, an 8 on the die is still supposed to be not good enough.
Pf2 followed the same trend that kept my groups away from 5e for such a long time. My decisions as a player mattered so little in actual effect that eventually I remember I'm in a house with a friend telling me the dice do or don't allow me to do a thing.
Recommended DCs based on my level and adjusted by my level is just flatly asking that I roll a good number on my dice. The reduced number of modifiers to rolls only reinforces the players hunger for those tiny +1 bonuses. In all my years of 3.P I never had a player say that it was dumb that a wizard couldn't hit an enemy or the fighter can guarantee a hit.
I like the three action economy in place of full round actions. I disaprove that some actions became a full action on par with an attack or move.
Mostly I don't like core system doesn't have room for player imagination. In pf1 a +1 or +2 bonus for a well described plan or narrative perk was a small deal. In pf2 if I describe a heroic effort and the GM awards a +1 bonus that's a huge mod on par with a whole level or feat, and at the same time is probably useless because even if I was the world's best musician at level 20, an 8 on the die is still supposed to be not good enough.
JFranklin3000
Explorer
So this part isn't true. DCs are not based on your level they are based on the level of the challenge. So if climbing a cliff is a Level 10 challenge the DC is the same whether you are level 1 or level 20. Now with the way the math works a level 10 cliff is going to take someone Level 6 or up to be able to really climb it, but the DC of the cliff doesn't change because your level does.
At lvl 20 you are going to be peforming for Odin or Zeus so yeah an 8 may not cut it.
If you are sitting in a tavern trying to impress some farmers maybe have the GM let you do a simple check vs level required check?
Pretty sure most GMs would let a lvl 20 bard auto succeed in trying to impress a small village. That's story, not something that needs a roll.
That’s how things worked in the playtest. In the final release, the GM would typically use the simple DC table, which is based on proficiency. Such a cliff might be a hard DC for an expert, which is a DC 22. It’s still independent of PC level, but it’s easier to use than the task-level system in the playtest.
Last edited:
The Crimson Binome
Hero
If 4E is any indication, the book would need to go to extreme efforts to remind everyone that high-level heroes should be encountering low-level obstacles. Because 4E didn't spend enough effort in conveying that idea, and everyone ended up running as though the DCs scaled automatically.
