|
Epi Lepi posted:So my players have finished Act 1 of Fall of Plaguestone and I've got some complaints about the combats so far. Every battle seems like the enemies hit like a truck and then go down immediately. Like my players have found that if they whiff their first turn or get unlucky and get punked by the enemy and go down, which has happened a lot, they might as well just give up on contributing cause the enemy will be down by their next turn. I don't think any combat lasted to round 3.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
That’s just low level pf2 combat. It’s short and boring because your choices are boring or meaningless. It gets better in some ways, but overall 2e is still pretty hamstrung by the 3a system. You absolutely can make interesting and different combats, but it’s going to take more work on the gm side since most of the default design things are kinda similar. (If you don’t believe me, journal your combat actions and then look at them after you have ten or so.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 14:40
|
|
|
Thinking about it more I think party comp might be a big part of it for us, since we've got 5 people (wizard, druid, monk, rogue, fighter) and the druid has a pet. The action economy just doesn't work out for solo monsters which were the fights I was thinking of. The lightning serpent got off it's lightning rattle on the whole party which took half of them out but the fighter got 2 turns and an AoO against it in meantime which took it out before it's second turn. The Hallod fight was slightly better but it's setup is a pet peeve for one of my players. She hates fights where the party starts more than one move away from the enemy as it ends up wasting most of the players' first turns on movement. The spellcasters and ranged characters are fine but the melee's having to double move hurts them. I can't decide if this is a legitimate thing that I should try to avoid in combats I run or if she should just suck it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
What are people giving for loot to casters in the “weapon” slot? Just staves and wands?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:12
|
|
|
Mechayahiko posted:What are people giving for loot to casters in the “weapon” slot? Just staves and wands? When I was playing AL (where you can largely plan out your loadout), I mostly didn't ever want a "weapon" slot item on a caster. Wands are usually not worth attuning, Staves don't get real good until later, maybe Rod of the Pact Keeper for a Warlock. The problem is, +x Weapons/Armor/Shields are non-attuned because otherwise you'd never attune anything else, so you'd want non-attunement items for casters if you wanted actual parity. Your premier non-attunement items for casters at uncommon are usually:
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:When I was playing AL (where you can largely plan out your loadout), I mostly didn't ever want a "weapon" slot item on a caster. Wands are usually not worth attuning, Staves don't get real good until later, maybe Rod of the Pact Keeper for a Warlock. The problem is, +x Weapons/Armor/Shields are non-attuned because otherwise you'd never attune anything else, so you'd want non-attunement items for casters if you wanted actual parity. wrong game
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Andrast posted:wrong game Reading 2 threads is hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Gives me an idea for joke magic items that are amazing, but from a different game system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:Thinking about it more I think party comp might be a big part of it for us, since we've got 5 people (wizard, druid, monk, rogue, fighter) and the druid has a pet. The action economy just doesn't work out for solo monsters which were the fights I was thinking of. The lightning serpent got off it's lightning rattle on the whole party which took half of them out but the fighter got 2 turns and an AoO against it in meantime which took it out before it's second turn. monks are very mobile and can attack twice for one action. you have a whiny player, the hallod fight is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
SettingSun posted:Gives me an idea for joke magic items that are amazing, but from a different game system. Do not introduce poke balls into dnd
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Low level PF2 combat is kind of boring because those are the tutorial levels meant to introduce you to the three-action system and whatever your primary class shtick is (or shticks, if you take a dedication feat at level 2 like the system is pretty strongly encouraging you). Those fights should be going pretty quickly given the limited complexity at that point, so hitting level 4 where the more complicated stuff starts to open up shouldn't take all that long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Low level PF2 combat is kind of boring because those are the tutorial levels meant to introduce you to the three-action system and whatever your primary class shtick is (or shticks, if you take a dedication feat at level 2 like the system is pretty strongly encouraging you). Those fights should be going pretty quickly given the limited complexity at that point, so hitting level 4 where the more complicated stuff starts to open up shouldn't take all that long. as a level 4 wizard its still pretty boring
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:as a level 4 wizard its still pretty boring If you wanted fun you should have picked anything but wizard. Wizards whole deal is just having the biggest play book but all you do is spells in balance of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:If you wanted fun you should have picked anything but wizard. Wizards whole deal is just having the biggest play book but all you do is spells in balance of that. how would having fewer options be less boring
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 10:16
|
|
|
Gort posted:how would having fewer options be less boring e: in hindsight this doesn't really answer your question, if that is indeed what they meant Elysiume fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Sep 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 10:17
|
|
|
2e combat is what it is. If you want tactical depth you want pf1e or dnd4e
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
I'd disagree, I could brute force combats in PF1 with raw mechanical power, you actually need to play as a team to do well In PF2. There are some incredibly tough fights in the new Adventure Paths, the old ones usually had one challenging fight a book.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 12:53
|
|
|
Gort posted:how would having fewer options be less boring The other casters generally have weird gimmick stuff for their class that fills for the lack of variety. Wizards deal is being the spell lord so the vast majority of their poo poo is manipulating that pull. That's a class design decision. Wizards get the most magic bullshit but that's basically all they are and who they are. If you wanted weird class shticks and gimmick stuff you pick the other less versatile caster classes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
HidaO-Win posted:I'd disagree, I could brute force combats in PF1 with raw mechanical power, you actually need to play as a team to do well In PF2. There are some incredibly tough fights in the new Adventure Paths, the old ones usually had one challenging fight a book. I think we agree on system depth, actually. I’m not saying 2e doesn’t have hard but boring fights. It does! I’m saying that if you want player complexity in your combat, you should look at P1e or d4e because p2e isn’t there yet. I assume they’ll get there eventually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
I don't know what we mean by "player complexity" here. Like are we talking about how 1e had a million options and maybe a third of them were any good and the entire game was figuring out how to exploit those?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:08
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I don't know what we mean by "player complexity" here. Like are we talking about how 1e had a million options and maybe a third of them were any good and the entire game was figuring out how to exploit those? One third being any good is extremely generous
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:09
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I don't know what we mean by "player complexity" here. Like are we talking about how 1e had a million options and maybe a third of them were any good and the entire game was figuring out how to exploit those? Just journal a few dozen combats in each system and compare. I’m not edition warring here, so if you love 2e that is a-ok.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:15
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd say a lot depends on where the decisions are being made. If you spend hours poring over splatbooks and Internet build guides, and the resulting character is powerful but basically just does the same action every turn, you're not really interacting with the game at the table - you had all the fun(?) on your own at your computer building the character, and now there are no decisions to make. I'd say that in order to be good, a tactical tabletop RPG should be constantly challenging its players to pick the optimal action on their turn out of the options available to them. If the answer is the same every turn, that's a failing in the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:17
|
|
|
I certainly don't remember pf1 combats being particularly interesting tactically. Most of them boiled down to who cast the encounter ending spell first
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:18
|
|
|
Anias posted:Just journal a few dozen combats in each system and compare. I mean, I've GM'd both games. I don't really have to do anything to compare, I've seen both editions in action. I'm legitimately asking what we're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:21
|
|
|
Combat in 2e is extremely the same, on the player side, and it essentially optimizes itself. Classes fall into buckets for engagement range, but after that very rough sort they mostly play interchangeably in terms of “move here, cast my spell, or move here attack with my attack.” If you journal what your actions are for a couple of combats and look back over it the sameness stands out. The 3a system is designed to reduce player complexity at the table, and does so at the cost of combats feeling similar. If the current flavor of combat is what you like, this works fine. If you don’t like the available player-action recipe, you can try changing the range you fight at from close to a few feet away and see if you like that experience more, but it will also be fairly stagnate. Pf1e and d4e both had more varied recipes for player actions in combat, and thus more depth. Yes, you could brute force encounters but for this discussion I’m not trying to claim the other systems are better at balance or w/e, just noting that they are more complex action sequences. This will be resolved by splatbook glut in time im sure. Neither pf1e or d4e started with the complexity they grew into.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
if i had fun and interesting spells to play around with it'd be fine, buuuuuutttttt...... 90% of my spell usage has been electric arc i think sugar free jazz fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Sep 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
I just have to say, as a 6th level druid I get an amazing amount of utility and fun from my spells and class abilities. Shape wood is an excellent spell, I have three orders, all sorts of spells, and a bear companion. No complaints here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Anias posted:Combat in 2e is extremely the same, on the player side, and it essentially optimizes itself. Classes fall into buckets for engagement range, but after that very rough sort they mostly play interchangeably in terms of “move here, cast my spell, or move here attack with my attack.” If you journal what your actions are for a couple of combats and look back over it the sameness stands out. The 3a system is designed to reduce player complexity at the table, and does so at the cost of combats feeling similar. If the current flavor of combat is what you like, this works fine. If you don’t like the available player-action recipe, you can try changing the range you fight at from close to a few feet away and see if you like that experience more, but it will also be fairly stagnate. Pf1e and d4e both had more varied recipes for player actions in combat, and thus more depth. Yes, you could brute force encounters but for this discussion I’m not trying to claim the other systems are better at balance or w/e, just noting that they are more complex action sequences. This will be resolved by splatbook glut in time im sure. Neither pf1e or d4e started with the complexity they grew into. My level 1 swashbuckler can Aid with Diplomacy, use Bon Mot, or Tumble Through for panache, then has the options of Athletics with his whip, attack with his rapier, or use Confident Finisher for spike damage. If he really wants to, he can Feint or Demoralize. A fighter - especially once they get a few class feats in - will have even more options. If you're stuck with just being a PF1 character that can only full attack, then that's on you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
Guys, Pathfinder 2 rules. It is so good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Pathfinder 2e is certainly way more engaging for pure martial characters than anything in first-party-only 1e. Sure, you have theoretically fewer options, but everything besides pounce full attacks sucked hard for most of 1e's lifespan and the gimmick builds that can make dirty tricks or bull rushing useful took bajillions of books to become practical. By contrast, the non-damage options that do exist in 2e are all actually useful from level 1, and basic tradeoffs around the three-action structure, MAP, traits like press/flourish/finisher, shove/trip/grapple actually being useful, and encounters designed to include dangerous areas and triggered hazards mean that there's no longer the basic solved solution for combat of 'charge and full attack'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 03:43
|
|
|
Even some of the good 3pp martial stuff in 1e could end up a bit dull. I built an awesome Slayer using Spheres of Might that could move ridiculously fast as part of an attack, leap over a target to inflict flat footed, then backstab them for precision damage and debuffs. But I'd still just be doing "locust pounce, overhead flip, fatal thrust, apply damage/debuff" every single round with no variety. Fun to build but not much tactical choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 09:49
|
|
|
Anias posted:Combat in 2e is extremely the same, on the player side, and it essentially optimizes itself. Classes fall into buckets for engagement range, but after that very rough sort they mostly play interchangeably in terms of “move here, cast my spell, or move here attack with my attack.” If you journal what your actions are for a couple of combats and look back over it the sameness stands out. The 3a system is designed to reduce player complexity at the table, and does so at the cost of combats feeling similar. If the current flavor of combat is what you like, this works fine. If you don’t like the available player-action recipe, you can try changing the range you fight at from close to a few feet away and see if you like that experience more, but it will also be fairly stagnate. Pf1e and d4e both had more varied recipes for player actions in combat, and thus more depth. Yes, you could brute force encounters but for this discussion I’m not trying to claim the other systems are better at balance or w/e, just noting that they are more complex action sequences. This will be resolved by splatbook glut in time im sure. Neither pf1e or d4e started with the complexity they grew into. I'm playing a level 3 fighter, and I'm definitely not just going "move here and attack" because that's actually a bad way to play. I'm setting up coverage with my reach weapon for AoO, tripping, attacking, and also sometimes filling in with spot healing through battle medicine. As I get to higher levels, a lot more flexibility will get rolled in thanks to various class/archetype talents. If all players are doing is strikes, that's on them for building in a way that only wants to strike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Slab Squatthrust posted:I'm playing a level 3 fighter, and I'm definitely not just going "move here and attack" because that's actually a bad way to play. I'm setting up coverage with my reach weapon for AoO, tripping, attacking, and also sometimes filling in with spot healing through battle medicine. As I get to higher levels, a lot more flexibility will get rolled in thanks to various class/archetype talents. If all players are doing is strikes, that's on them for building in a way that only wants to strike. Yeah no 2E players have a lot of shti to do martial or magic
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
One thing that I really like about PF2 is that it’s monster design is extremely widely varied and each enemy has a gimmick that changes up how the GM approaches combat with that enemy. Even if a player somehow winds up with a boring kit because they decided that all they want to do is Power Attack + Raise Shield all the way through to level 20, they’re still going to need to adjust how they approach fighting a pack of wolves versus a party of kobolds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
My PF2 monk tends to be an unofficial tank in Society play since I usually get paired up with a bunch of spellcasters. He's kind of a one trick pony yet though. He hits Mountain Stance, then spams FoB/regular attacks. Throw in a Ki Strike if it's a boss monster or something that has resistance I can overcome with it. If it's a big monster, I'll try to trip or disarm it. I've tried Intimidation during fights, but I don't have any feats in it yet and my CHA is only average, so it has yet to pay off for me. I'm still on the fence whether or not to try to feat into Scare to Death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Again, I’m not edition warring, my lived experience for several campaigns and tables at this point is that 2e combat essentially optimizes itself as a result of the 3a system and if you journal your combats I’m reasonably confident you’ll notice which particular rut your character carves. I’ll let it drop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
Anias posted:Again, I’m not edition warring, my lived experience for several campaigns and tables at this point is that 2e combat essentially optimizes itself as a result of the 3a system and if you journal your combats I’m reasonably confident you’ll notice which particular rut your character carves. I’ll let it drop. I can't say I have enough experience to disagree with you regarding PF2E but I just don't see how PF1E was any different from what I remember. I never did a super long campaign in it but it's definitely one of the systems I'm more familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:if i had fun and interesting spells to play around with it'd be fine, buuuuuutttttt...... i have the same problem and i think its more of a player/gm problem than a system one. it goes like this: players/gm agree not to focus on finding the best spells or actions > players experience a near TPK > players start avoiding 'bad' actions > GM ramps up difficulty... and suddenly, i find myself having to chose the ancestry thing that lets my cleric cast electric arc or else im not able to help the party actually finish the fight. if i dont, my lackluster heals are seen as a waste of an action and i may as well not be playing. i think PF2 shines when everyone involved is completely against mechanical optimization
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
tbf the heal spell is pretty loving good in 2e
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 20:17
|
|