Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[CapnZapp]

For some reason, this got me thinking of the VP rules.

You make a good point.

While I always think I make good points, I'm not usually so forthright in acknowledging my own good points... You quoted yourself.

 

[kenada]

While I always think I make good points, I'm not usually so forthright in acknowledging my own good points... You quoted yourself.

Thanks. I fixed it. I’m apparently bad at forum-ing this morning.

 

[CapnZapp]

Has anyone done the math comparing the benefit of a party with striking runes to one without? They’re obviously good, but how good?

Isn't this straight-forward?

Conceptually, you go from 1d8 to 2d8. In practice this might mean, just making naughty word up here, 1d12+8 going to 2d12+8. A shift from ~14 to ~20. What it means at higher levels is that making attacks without your boosted weapon becomes an exercise in futility.

As a rough estimate, I think it's entirely playable to delay striking runes a couple of levels. But you can't really expect characters to flourish if they, say, only gain Striking at level 10-12 (when you "really" should be getting Greater Striking), and to a somewhat lesser degree, gain Greater Striking only at level 19 (when you should be getting Major Striking).

Not to bring up caster-martial balance, but every level you manage to delay Striking runes helps* the poor casters (who has it especially rough at the lowest levels)...

*) in getting their fair share of the spotlight. Obviously this does them no good if the warriors are nerfed to the point where the monsters win...

 

[kenada]

Isn't this straight-forward?

Conceptually, you go from 1d8 to 2d8. In practice this might mean, just making naughty word up here, 1d12+8 going to 2d12+8. A shift from ~14 to ~20. What it means at higher levels is that making attacks without your boosted weapon becomes an exercise in futility.

As a rough estimate, I think it's entirely playable to delay striking runes a couple of levels. But you can't really expect characters to flourish if they, say, only gain Striking at level 10-12 (when you "really" should be getting Greater Striking), and to a somewhat lesser degree, gain Greater Striking only at level 19 (when you should be getting Major Striking).

Not to bring up caster-martial balance, but every level you manage to delay Striking runes helps* the poor casters (who has it especially rough at the lowest levels)...

*) in getting their fair share of the spotlight. Obviously this does them no good if the warriors are nerfed to the point where the monsters win...

I’m not just looking for the benefit relative to not having one but the difference between a party that has them and one that doesn’t. If a party with striking runes has an easier time versus a severe threat encounter of their level versus one that does not, then presumably the baseline needs shifting up so that a severe threat maintains feels the same (from a math and encounter buildling perspective).

You’ve said that later volumes in official APs tend to use more high-threat encounters than earlier ones. I wonder if this is in response to the party’s expected composition and itemization. You’ve also suggested that not having the runes makes combat feel like it does at lower levels. What that says to me is maybe a party with striking runes should be treated as a higher level for encounter building.

For example, apply a shift of +1 level per PC with a striking rune, and the math goes back to working like it did before. That doesn’t negate the PCs’ progression (because it still enables them to take on tougher foes), but helps the GM accurate access how dangerous encounters will be.

I have no idea how that works on any kind of basis. That’s why I was hoping someone had done some testing or crunched the numbers to find that e.g., a severe-threat encounter for a party decked out with striking runes is more like a moderate-threat encounter. From there, we can adjust things like the Proficiency Without Level variant adjusts the creature XP table to work within the standard framework.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As the thread starter, I would say it is about me revealing the emperor be naked.

Meaning that for all the praise Pathfinder 2 is getting, it comes with huge baggage in the form of convoluted rules that clutter and slow the game for no good reason. (If the rules were better because they were complex it would have been one thing, but they're not.

And to make it clear, this is where we part company. For the most part I neither consider the rules particularly convoluted, nor have they seems to slowed the game in any meaningful fashion. You obviously feel otherwise, but its why I don't accept your conclusion. You've overgeneralized, as you do elsewhere, from your own play to a universal experience even when other people have indicated they do not find the problems you find, and have pointed out why. I think until you understand that the problems you're having are heavily based on your personal context, you're not going to understand why other people are not accepting the conclusion that seems blindingly obvious to you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’m not just looking for the benefit relative to not having one but the difference between a party that has them and one that doesn’t. If a party with striking runes has an easier time versus a severe threat encounter of their level versus one that does not, then presumably the baseline needs shifting up so that a severe threat maintains feels the same (from a math and encounter buildling perspective).

The analysis is going to be tricky, in part because of how Striking runes interact with other damage sources. They obviously make a significant difference, but the degree to which they do is not symmetrical across all characters. This is because you have things like Deadly critical traits (which push up the overall critical damage, so weapons with it are slightly less effected as are a few other special damage add-ons. And of course, how much of a party is composed of primarily weapon users as compared to spell users impacts the overall picture.

You’ve said that later volumes in official APs tend to use more high-threat encounters than earlier ones. I wonder if this is in response to the party’s expected composition and itemization. You’ve also suggested that not having the runes makes combat feel like it does at lower levels. What that says to me is maybe a party with striking runes should be treated as a higher level for encounter building.

I've been under the impression that's, in practice, already baked into encounter design, but it can be nothing more than an impression. My personal feeling is that the earlier official APs were simply distorted by the writers subconsciously keeping the lessons from D&D3e/PF1e and thus choosing more high-threat encounters reflexively. (This is separate from the problem you mention of groups that don't engage with the tactical mechanics as strongly as is assumed; it seems to me that any encounter generation method is going to have to assume things one way or another when the mechanics actually reward doing so).

 

[Justice and Rule]

As the thread starter, I would say it is about me revealing the emperor be naked.

Meaning that for all the praise Pathfinder 2 is getting, it comes with huge baggage in the form of convoluted rules that clutter and slow the game for no good reason. (If the rules were better because they were complex it would have been one thing, but they're not. They're written with expectations that aren't borne out of actual gameplay, at least when you play official adventure paths. In a few cases, the complexity actively obscures the results to a degree lots of players still carry false beliefs about what the rules actually do, even now, a year after release!)

I would therefore say that the thread was about getting people to realize and ideally acknowledge these often huge flaws and blunders.

But of course as we approach 600 posts anyone who is determined to pretend these problem areas doesn't exist won't suddenly give me credit for spotting them, so I guess that is why we're now topic drifting.

That's my two cents, at least.

Gonna be honest, this post feels very Danth's Law.

 

[CapnZapp]

I’m not just looking for the benefit relative to not having one but the difference between a party that has them and one that doesn’t.

I haven't even considered playing where you neither get Striking runes (as loot or through purchases) nor get Devastating Strikes (per the variant).

 

[CapnZapp]

And to make it clear, this is where we part company.

I would like to thank you for your generally insightful comments and hope we meet in another thread.

 

[CapnZapp]

You’ve said that later volumes in official APs tend to use more high-threat encounters than earlier ones. I wonder if this is in response to the party’s expected composition and itemization. You’ve also suggested that not having the runes makes combat feel like it does at lower levels. What that says to me is maybe a party with striking runes should be treated as a higher level for encounter building.

I've been under the impression that's, in practice, already baked into encounter design, but it can be nothing more than an impression. My personal feeling is that the earlier official APs were simply distorted by the writers subconsciously keeping the lessons from D&D3e/PF1e and thus choosing more high-threat encounters reflexively. (This is separate from the problem you mention of groups that don't engage with the tactical mechanics as strongly as is assumed; it seems to me that any encounter generation method is going to have to assume things one way or another when the mechanics actually reward doing so).

I'm saying that I have only found Extreme encounters in later books, not in earlier. (Meaning books 4-6 of a given AP)

My own theory is that this because the game slowly tilts the balance in favor of the characters. I'm basing this on two things:

1) the book specifically says Difficulty Classes become easier as you level up. I'm thinking this hints towards a general trend.

2) experience. The heroes feel noticeably more competent and powerful vs level-appropriate foes at high level. At level 15, the Fighter and Cleric got the Scare to Death ability, meaning they can reliably one-shot any foe not shielded by Incapacitation. Level -2 creatures truly are mooks now, whereas at low level, they felt more like the characters equals.

Case in point: the Barbarian just now defeated an opponent of her own level (16) in single combat, something that would be nearly unthinkable at low level. Granted, this Barbarian is probably the game's most extreme damage-dealer there is - I'm not confident any other character could have pulled that off. And the player wasn't exactly unlucky with the dice. And it was a very close call - she sports, what, 230 hp with rage hp, and ended the duel at well below 50 hp. Yadda yadda - doesn't change the fact she pulled it off - she did defeat a named level 16 NPC all by herself, me as the GM holding nothing back: that NPC even "cheated" by biting her before the duel started, inflicting an Enfeebled condition that lasted throughout the fight.

So no, I can't say I think the party's composition plays a role here. I mean, I don't think Paizo expects that to change as heroes level up. (Are you thinking of my half-joking suggestion any Wizard player first roll up a warrior and only at double-digit level switches over to the wizard?)

Itemization: well, I feel confident the game is balanced on the assumption the treasure guidelines are followed, so... Yes, the heroes have access to striking runes and whatnot. I'm basically giving them what the adventure says to give them.

What I'm saying is that I imagine that if this exact party were deprived of their fundamental runes, then monsters would revert to their earlier role. This is because if heroes start to find it easier to hit and damage foes because the overall balance auto-shifts in their favor, removing the potency and striking runes will make the game balance fall back into its earlier state. I don't see any indication that parties with striking runes are meant to be considered non-standard.

"earlier official APs were simply distorted by the writers" I honestly feel they were just following directions = the encounter-building guidelines of the Core Rulebook (page 488-489).

That is, I don't blame the adventure writers. If anyone is to blame, it's the CRB writers. Those guidelines are very harsh on level 1 heroes. I can easily see value in adding a bit more sophistication to those rules - essentially saying they work best for levels 7-14 (very roughly).

At levels 1-6 you might want to treat encounters as one category more difficult (so that in place of a Severe encounter, you merely place a Moderate one). The biggest beneficiary of this would easily be level 1 adventurers playing by newcomers to the game, exactly the kind of player you don't want to scare away by repeatedly killing off her character! But even veteran gamers at level~5 would, I think, be only grateful... And at levels 15-20 you can treat encounters as one category less difficult (so in place of a Severe encounter, you can go ahead and pitch an Extreme one). Not saying this advice is scientifically perfect. But it would mean that newcomers would have a better time, since they invariably start at low level. And it would also mean that the tendency I'm spotting in the official APs gets written into the guidelines (=they already do pitch Extreme ones where a Severe one would have been used in earlier installments). Note: I'm not saying you should double dip - which you will if you upgrade the written AP encounters. I'm talking about enshrining the encounter guidelines the AP writers seemingly already follow.