Pathfinder 2E Regarding Competence

[payn]

I read a couple of the hero deck things and it seem all right. I dont know if I like the luck of the draw nature (wasnt a fan of crit/fumble decks in PF1). Though, I could definitely see a supplement that adds some hero point options based on ancestry, background, and class. That would be some cool supplemental material I think.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I had a player back in the 3.5/PF era who definitely thought out of the box, not contributing a lot to combats but a great roleplayer and team player (in his own way). A pacifist fighter, who would engage and parry every attack until someone else took care of the creature or the enemy fled/surrendered in frustration. Or a naive cleric whose Wisdom was so low he couldn't cast above 2nd level spells - but he could use Cure wands.

There's always exceptions. But I'm going to still suggest the number of people who would do the second deliberately (as compared to making the best of a bad situation) is limited.

(The first is another issue. I've seen fairly few groups who wouldn't find that pretty annoying in a fellow player, since his avowed purpose in the group isn't what it seems to be).

 

[Thomas Shey]

That’s one of the complaints my group has about post-3e systems. There’s a skill points variant in the GMG, which adds a bit more flexibility. We used it in my PF2 game, but (of course) my players ended up more or less following the normal progression.

Well, that was the problem with 3e era skill points. It looked like it allowed for variety, but in a game with the kind of scaling 3e+ D&D and its kin had, one way or another the tasks the really low level skills could handle were trivial enough for people with real investment after a certain time, that even if they came up they didn't feel like a real skill use. So in practice the skills you actually cared about you kept at your ceiling (to the degree that you could).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Also, just as a side comment, one of the problems with D20 based skill systems (and D100 ones, which I'm even more familiar with) is that if you're sensitive to failure, it can always feel like it happens too often. This is a largely psychological phenomenon, but none the less real because of it. Its notable because the kinds of results that lead to failure in die pool systems or multidie resolution tend to stand out when they're low in a way that a 2 on a D20 or rolling 90 on percentile don't.

 

[payn]

Also, just as a side comment, one of the problems with D20 based skill systems (and D100 ones, which I'm even more familiar with) is that if you're sensitive to failure, it can always feel like it happens too often. This is a largely psychological phenomenon, but none the less real because of it. Its notable because the kinds of results that lead to failure in die pool systems or multidie resolution tend to stand out when they're low in a way that a 2 on a D20 or rolling 90 on percentile don't.

I have a psychological issue with the crit system of PF2. You benefit greatly from iut when you are facing stuff well below you, but you dont enjoy criticals at any regularity when facing sever/extreme fights. I loved in PF1 getting those well needed crits to change the battle in favor one way or the other. In PF2, all the odds are firmly stacked in one direction or the other.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I have a psychological issue with the crit system of PF2. You benefit greatly from iut when you are facing stuff well below you, but you dont enjoy criticals at any regularity when facing sever/extreme fights. I loved in PF1 getting those well needed crits to change the battle in favor one way or the other. In PF2, all the odds are firmly stacked in one direction or the other.

Going by my tables experiences with +3s and +4s, what tends to happen is that players get better and better at 'earning' the crit rate back through their abilities, a successful saving throw agaisnt the fear spell (much less a failed save) or a successful demoralize and a flank gets you back to your normal crit rate, then throw in something like inspire courage and they might as well be a -1 creature. Your party is also likelier to crit than your crit rate would suggest because you have the action economy advantage both in terms of your regular attacks, and by utilizing reactions which don't suffer from MAP and because hero points can grant regular rerolls to missed attacks.

So you're right, and the game's tactical metagame is about reshuffling the odds.

 

[JThursby]

Apparently there is a Hero Point deck now, so I'll have to go look at that.

It adds more variety and power to the Hero Point system, but still doesn't address the fundamental issue of GMs just forgetting it exists and not having a standard to assign Hero Points. The guideline is "1 every hour of play time" but since the language of the system implies it should come from player narrative choices it's hard to justify following that suggestion strictly. I'm trying to get in the mentality of handing them out more frequently because I want my players to feel more comfortable taking risks, and Hero Points are a decent safety net and reward for doing so.

 

[Staffan]

Going by my tables experiences with +3s and +4s, what tends to happen is that players get better and better at 'earning' the crit rate back through their abilities, a successful saving throw agaisnt the fear spell (much less a failed save) or a successful demoralize and a flank gets you back to your normal crit rate, then throw in something like inspire courage and they might as well be a -1 creature. Your party is also likelier to crit than your crit rate would suggest because you have the action economy advantage both in terms of your regular attacks, and by utilizing reactions which don't suffer from MAP and because hero points can grant regular rerolls to missed attacks.

So you're right, and the game's tactical metagame is about reshuffling the odds.

As a sorcerer, my best tactic against higher-level creatures has usually been spamming slow. Even on a successful save, they lose 1 action, and giving up 1/6 of our group's actions for 1/3 of the enemy's is a pretty good trade – particularly since it's pretty common for enemies to have something particularly nasty they can do if they get to spend all three actions on offense. And should they manage to fail their save so the slow sticks around for a full minute, well that's pretty much game over.

That said, it is hard to counter the numerical advantage higher-level creatures have, because it's hard to make the things you'd use to level the playing field stick. Demoralize? They'll laugh at your feeble attempts. Trip? Well, you're almost as likely to fall over yourself. You pretty much need to use spells with reasonable effects on a successful save that aren't also Incapacitating.

 

[payn]

Going by my tables experiences with +3s and +4s, what tends to happen is that players get better and better at 'earning' the crit rate back through their abilities, a successful saving throw agaisnt the fear spell (much less a failed save) or a successful demoralize and a flank gets you back to your normal crit rate, then throw in something like inspire courage and they might as well be a -1 creature. Your party is also likelier to crit than your crit rate would suggest because you have the action economy advantage both in terms of your regular attacks, and by utilizing reactions which don't suffer from MAP and because hero points can grant regular rerolls to missed attacks.

So you're right, and the game's tactical metagame is about reshuffling the odds.

My experience (severe/extreme) is those buy back actions have 10-20% chance of success and thus never even out the math. Its too hail Mary to be effective in difficult encounters.

Ninja'd by Staffan!

 

[Thomas Shey]

My experience (severe/extreme) is those buy back actions have 10-20% chance of success and thus never even out the math. Its too hail Mary to be effective in difficult encounters.

Ninja'd by Staffan!

How valuable it is depends on how the difficult encounter is constructed. The less opponents there are, the more worthwhile it ends up being even if it fails a fair bit, because a you're still taking away an action from opponents who's individual actions are more dangerous.