Pathfinder 2 Playtest: Fighting Styles

[Firechanter]

Alright, I figured that this might warrant a new thread, because the main PF2 thread revolves mostly about game design philosophy and system comparisons.
So here, I'd like to discuss actual builds, starting with physical combat.

I'm in the process of cobbling together a spreadsheet, I can publish it when it's a bit more refined; currently it's still a bit of a mess.
Also, at this point I'm mostly looking at low-level options, i.e. up to level 4.

So. For starters I'd look at idealized scenarios, in this case, "all 3 Actions used to Attack". For this scenario, my current testing suggests the following results:

* <<Furious Focus>> with a Greatsword comes out rather narrowly on top, damage-wise.
* <<Double Slice>> + 3rd Attack" with two +1 weapons is a close second, but the difference really is only in the vicinity of 2%.
(If the second weapon is not a +1 magic one, TWF loses hard.)
* "3 straight Greatsword Strikes" are not far behind either (about 3,5% behind DS).

* <<Power Attack>> with a Greatsword, as stated before in the other thread, is downright terrible and can't compete with anything by a long shot - not after magic weapons become available at any rate.
Note that even for that "break down a door" scenario proposed by Zman, Double Slice is a lot more effective.

At this point, the list of damage-oriented moves grows thin. For melee, almost all that's left is <<Swipe>>, which of course is awesome if it triggers, but suffers from the same disease as PF1 Cleave: the GM decides when you can use it, not you. GM doesn't place his monsters adjacent to each other -- tough luck, burned a feat there, did ya?
Yes, theoretically your buddies could use maneuvers to line up your foes for you, but it takes a lot of coordination and then some luck to make it work. For instance, Brutish Shove is a Press, so it will simply fail about half the time, negating all that effort you and your party went into up to this point.

Then again, we probably should expect that being in a position to use all 3 Actions for attacks will be the exception. After all, any kind of movement eats into your Actions.
If we have only 2 actions to attack, that of course renders FF useless, so unless Swipe triggers reliably, Double Slice takes the lead.

Fighters in particular can perform an <<Attack of Opportunity>>. This can probably best be leveraged by using Reach weapons, just like in 3.5/PF. By using clever positioning, you might be able to trade your 3rd Action (so, your weakest attack with crappy hit chance) for an AoO with a much better hit chance.

So far I haven't taken Defense into account, or any build goals other than damage. Note that throughout most of the game, pretty much any defensive option will also eat into your Actions.
* a Shield costs one Action per turn to gain +2 AC. If you use Shield Blocks, you treat shields as consumables. Rather bulky consumables, but they may keep you alive a bit longer.
* Twin Parry places you in a conundrum: if you don't use an Agile weapon, you're reducing your Hit chances. If you use a Parry weapon, you're gimping your damage. If you use a typical Agile weapon, you only get half the benefit out of the feat (+1AC). So all these options are a bit disappointing.
* Einhänder style offers a +2 AC at pretty much the same conditions as S&B, minus the option to Block. Also, if you're looking into Einhänder style, you're looking for other things than Damage.

[Zman]

Fun thread!

One potential problem I see with soreadhseeting DPT in P2 is the action economy. You never know if they are getting one or two or three attacks in. Long term knowing what done if DPT a build puts out with 1/2/3 actions will be needed.


Good, I hope just straight up smacking something with a two handed d12 weapon was high up on the list. And it was better with a feat investment. Same for a Double Slice, takes up both hands, two actions, and requires a feat.

How bad was twf with an agile weapon?

PA is terrible. My scenario was for someone who was carrying around a single weapon, it is beyond bad for a dualwielder.

I’m a little annoyed at myself for not realizing how limited Presses are. I read past it and need to regear my thinking.

As to defense, shields aren’t too bad. Yes burning an action for +2 AC is rough, but it equates to ~+25-35% increase in survivabikity before factoring in Shield Block. Of course that doesn’t factor in the defense of killing things faster. Reactive Shield is amazing. Flat out awesome upgrade to defense.

There is an agile party weapon, believe it’s exitic. Otherwise parrying one or two weapon is tougher. Though +1 AC is meaningful, +2 is a better deal for an action, especially if you’re giving up a third attack. Not worth giving up a second. Same with a shield often.

[Firechanter]

TWF with one non-agile and one agile weapon is what I used so far, but I had to compare it to two non-agile weapons yet.

The result is: an Agile off-hand weapon yields ever-so-slightly more damage than Non-Agile on the Double Slice itself; the difference is actually more pronounced if you throw in a 3rd attack.
Of course the advantage will increase when feats or class features further reduce off-hand penalties.

I'd have to examine higher levels and the impact feats up there are going to have, but so far my impression is that TWF will be damage king. Kinda like in AD&D2 (if you managed to get rid of the penalties). Note that in 5E, TWF is rather lackluster.

THF has a sliiight damage advantage at low levels, but the problem here is that there are hardly any feats that really boost THF damage. Some feats do synergize reasonably well with THF, but there is no clear synergy between those feats (with the one exception of the feat pair that allows you to pluck Flyers out of the air). Instead of direct damage, THF seems to shoot for some mild BFC; repositioning and suchlike.

[Pramxnim]

I've started analyzing combat math in PF2 as well! So far I've got a google spreadsheet that can calculate Power Attack, Double Slice, Furious Focus, Certain Strikes damage. More can be added, and right now you can't compare Power Attack with a d12 and Double Slice with 2 smaller weapons, but it's a good starting point.

Here's the share link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v7X4pHEcTI0n2seDZY-_Mwoxee1M8U5JTIPg7GvZHHQ/edit?usp=sharing). It's view-only, but I believe you can make a copy of it to tinker on your own.

My observations so far:


Power Attack is weak and needs a slight buff to be competitive with other options for 2H users. If overbuffed, it will quickly overshadow TWF;
Double Slice is in a good spot. It's a strong option for TWFers and scales well with accuracy;
Furious Focus is interesting. The math behind it is a bit complicated, but it's the best option at lower levels for those who want to Full Attack every round;
Certain Strikes is the best at adding reliable damage. Your expected damage is the highest when spamming Certain Strikes, but watch out for DR!
Haven't looked at Dual-Handed Assault yet, but if someone wants me to, I can;
No calculations for Fatal / Deadly weapons yet, but those don't add too much expected damage and are only for critfishers (not the best playstyle, but fun if you like variance).


EDIT: 2H weapons are the DPR king thanks to Furious Focus and Certain Strikes making their failure states bearable. They trade this high damage by having 2 less AC than other fighting styles (who get it from shields and parry moves).

[Firechanter]

Nice!

Here's my sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B5v-1H4xCHZmhC5EJOL1SrTTPyp4f3fe_zHjDbpGBYc/edit#gid=0

It's simpler, but so far it models Crits, PA, FuFo, Double Slice, Sweep, and compares TWF with Agile and Non-Agile weapon.
It doesn't model Deadly, Fatal or Propulsive weapons yet. Nor any features beyond level 4. All in good time.

However, I put 3 blocks next to each other so you can compare different builds directly. ^^


2H weapons are the DPR king thanks to Furious Focus and Certain Strikes making their failure states bearable. They trade this high damage by having 2 less AC than other fighting styles (who get it from shields and parry moves).

In our PBP playtest, 3 out of 4 people have independently come up with the same strategy -- be Elf or Half-Elf, take Otherworldly Magic, pick Shield Cantrip, and you're golden. You can't really use it to Block but it's a constant +2AC for 1 Action and you can still THF.

[Zman]

Nice!

Here's my sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B5v-1H4xCHZmhC5EJOL1SrTTPyp4f3fe_zHjDbpGBYc/edit#gid=0

It's simpler, but so far it models Crits, PA, FuFo, Double Slice, Sweep, and compares TWF with Agile and Non-Agile weapon.
It doesn't model Deadly, Fatal or Propulsive weapons yet. Nor any features beyond level 4. All in good time.

However, I put 3 blocks next to each other so you can compare different builds directly. ^^



In our PBP playtest, 3 out of 4 people have independently come up with the same strategy -- be Elf or Half-Elf, take Otherworldly Magic, pick Shield Cantrip, and you're golden. You can't really use it to Block but it's a constant +2AC for 1 Action and you can still THF.

Shield Cantrip is only +1 AC. It is the equivalent of a light shield, not a heavy shield. IMO the best use for it is if you have access to a Fighter's Reactive Shield. Now, you're golden as it counts as Raising a Shield.

[zlefin]

I've started analyzing combat math in PF2 as well! So far I've got a google spreadsheet that can calculate Power Attack, Double Slice, Furious Focus, Certain Strikes damage. More can be added, and right now you can't compare Power Attack with a d12 and Double Slice with 2 smaller weapons, but it's a good starting point.

Here's the share link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v7X4pHEcTI0n2seDZY-_Mwoxee1M8U5JTIPg7GvZHHQ/edit?usp=sharing). It's view-only, but I believe you can make a copy of it to tinker on your own.

My observations so far:


Power Attack is weak and needs a slight buff to be competitive with other options for 2H users. If overbuffed, it will quickly overshadow TWF;
Double Slice is in a good spot. It's a strong option for TWFers and scales well with accuracy;
Furious Focus is interesting. The math behind it is a bit complicated, but it's the best option at lower levels for those who want to Full Attack every round;
Certain Strikes is the best at adding reliable damage. Your expected damage is the highest when spamming Certain Strikes, but watch out for DR!
Haven't looked at Dual-Handed Assault yet, but if someone wants me to, I can;
No calculations for Fatal / Deadly weapons yet, but those don't add too much expected damage and are only for critfishers (not the best playstyle, but fun if you like variance).


EDIT: 2H weapons are the DPR king thanks to Furious Focus and Certain Strikes making their failure states bearable. They trade this high damage by having 2 less AC than other fighting styles (who get it from shields and parry moves).

I look forward to hearing whether the fatal/deadly calculations make them a worthwhile specialty weapon for facing certain lower challenge rating foes (wherein the new crit if you beat it by 10 system would make crits far more common when facing hordes of weaker foes; but it might just be overkill in such situations so not helpful)

[Firechanter]

Shield Cantrip is only +1 AC. It is the equivalent of a light shield, not a heavy shield. IMO the best use for it is if you have access to a Fighter's Reactive Shield. Now, you're golden as it counts as Raising a Shield.

Ah indeed, missed that bit of it only counting as Light Shield. I'm not sure if it works with Reactive Shield. The question is whether the "this counts as" phrasing is meant to work both ways. What I mean:

A: "X Action counts as Y Action"
B: "Z Action counts as Y Action"

--> "X Action counts as Z Action" - True or False? I'm not sure.

[Zman]

Ah indeed, missed that bit of it only counting as Light Shield. I'm not sure if it works with Reactive Shield. The question is whether the "this counts as" phrasing is meant to work both ways. What I mean:

A: "X Action counts as Y Action"
B: "Z Action counts as Y Action"

--> "X Action counts as Z Action" - True or False? I'm not sure.

It is somewhat ambiguous.

But, we are told the Shield spell works like a shield. It counts as using the Raise a Shield action. And it lists the Raise a Shield action in the sidebar.

I'm going to give the "counts as" quite a bit of weight here.

Hopefully it won't be one of those forever ambiguous questions.

[Firechanter]

Probably not worth arguing over it, seeing how it's only +1AC after all, and can't be used for Blocking.

[Zman]

Probably not worth arguing over it, seeing how it's only +1AC after all, and can't be used for Blocking.

Exactly. It is something that is good, requires a reasonable expenditure of resources to acquire, and is not imbalanced overall. Either they are a Wizard or Sorcerer or Elf(spending their ancestry) and spent two feats into Fighter to get it, or they are a Fighter and are either an Elf or Multiclassed into Wizard for a worse version and use up your reaction to no AoO for you.

One thing I like about shields and Shield is that they are circumstance bonuses, so things like screening and cover can negate them. And it makes sense.

[stack]

Seems like crit boosting weapons might be more worthwhile if you are casting truestrike, but casting will be limited (at first I thought it was a cantrip and got excited).

[Firechanter]

Seems like crit boosting weapons might be more worthwhile if you are casting truestrike, but casting will be limited (at first I thought it was a cantrip and got excited).

XD

Story of my P2 experience. See something, get excited, realize that's not how it works.

P.S. forgot to make my sheet public, should be fixed now.

[Pramxnim]

I made a mistake with Certain Strike and Furious Focus math and had to redo a lot of stuff, I was basically overestimating their damage by quite a lot because I forgot that critical failure chances increased as your accuracy gets lower (I was treating them as a flat 5%).

Also, Power Attack doesn’t count as 2 attacks for increasing MAP when you miss, making it a little better.

TWF doesn’t gel well with Certain Strikes. Anyone who wants to do TWF will end up taking Two Weapon Flurry (retraining out of Agile Grace when you do, because the 2 features don’t work with each other for some odd reason).

For pure DPR with a vanilla magic weapon, it seems the ranking is 2H > TWF > Dueling = Sword and Shield > Bow.

If you factor in property runes like Flaming/Frost/Shock, TWF pulls slightly ahead thanks to being able to make 9 attacks in a round (Double Slice - Strike (from Quick Condition) - 2xTWFlurry - Desperate Finisher to use a 3rd TWFlurry). TWF also benefits more from any bonus to accuracy, due to the large number of attacks made.

[Zman]

I look forward to hearing whether the fatal/deadly calculations make them a worthwhile specialty weapon for facing certain lower challenge rating foes (wherein the new crit if you beat it by 10 system would make crits far more common when facing hordes of weaker foes; but it might just be overkill in such situations so not helpful)

I can attest to lucky critical from low level bad guys with shortbows is nasty. When they are dumping -5 and -10 attacks out and rolling a 20, that unexpected 2d6+d10 hurts. Had a character take one at -5, then the next attack at -10 was another one.

They are sporadic, but when that deadly weapon crits it is absolutely brutal. As for a lower level squasher, if you can reliably crit, they will mow stuff down. So, I see them as effective by crit fisher weaklings and for smiting weak enemies.

[Zman]

I made a mistake with Certain Strike and Furious Focus math and had to redo a lot of stuff, I was basically overestimating their damage by quite a lot because I forgot that critical failure chances increased as your accuracy gets lower (I was treating them as a flat 5%).

Also, Power Attack doesn’t count as 2 attacks for increasing MAP when you miss, making it a little better.

TWF doesn’t gel well with Certain Strikes. Anyone who wants to do TWF will end up taking Two Weapon Flurry (retraining out of Agile Grace when you do, because the 2 features don’t work with each other for some odd reason).

For pure DPR with a vanilla magic weapon, it seems the ranking is 2H > TWF > Dueling = Sword and Shield > Bow.

If you factor in property runes like Flaming/Frost/Shock, TWF pulls slightly ahead thanks to being able to make 9 attacks in a round (Double Slice - Strike (from Quick Condition) - 2xTWFlurry - Desperate Finisher to use a 3rd TWFlurry). TWF also benefits more from any bonus to accuracy, due to the large number of attacks made.

Power Attack DOES count as two attacks for MAP, making it worthless.

[Pramxnim]

Power Attack is a Strike with an enhancement. When you miss, the enhancement doesn’t take place. The MAP condition for Power Attack is part of the enhancement. Thus, if you miss with a Power Attack, your next attack that turn will be made at -5, not -10.

[Firechanter]

The math of Furious Focus is a bit tricky indeed, because your 3rd attack's hit chance depends on the outcome of the 2nd attack.
So if we call the hit chance for the 2nd attack "q", the hit chance of the 3rd attack is ((1-q)*q)+(q*(q-0,25)), which resolves to 0,75*q.

It just occured to me that I forgot to adjust the crit chances for FuFo, need to figure that out but it won't change very much -- basically it means that FuFo gets yet a bit better for very low ACs.

[Pramxnim]

The math of Furious Focus is a bit tricky indeed, because your 3rd attack's hit chance depends on the outcome of the 2nd attack.
So if we call the hit chance for the 2nd attack "q", the hit chance of the 3rd attack is ((1-q)*q)+(q*(q-0,25)), which resolves to 0,75*q.

It just occured to me that I forgot to adjust the crit chances for FuFo, need to figure that out but it won't change very much -- basically it means that FuFo gets yet a bit better for very low ACs.

FF and Certain Strikes is not that simple. A failure is different from a critical failure. At very low hit chances, your critical failure chance increases, which adds a sort off soft cap on your failure chance.

Example: You normally hit on a 10. On your second Strike, you hit on a 15. However, you also critically miss on a 1-5. Your crit fail chance is 25% and affects your FF math.

Thankfully, for the average case scenario, the crit fail chance increasing doesn’t change the chance of FF and CS proccing too drastically.

To use the example above of hitting on a 15. Your hit chance is 30%, crit fail chance is 25% and fail chance is 45%.

On your 3rd Attack, you only have a 5% chance to hit, but your crit fail chance is now 50% and your fail chance remains 45%.

If your hit chance on the 2nd or 3rd Attack is high enough (55% chance and up), your chance of proccing FF or CS decreases, but thankfully that doesn’t happen very often unless you’re fighting really low level enemies, and most of the time you won’t.

Therefore, as a rule of thumb, you can assume for most reasonable scenarios that Furious Focus and Certain Strikes will work 45% of the time (as in, you’ll fail to hit but not critically miss).

[Zman]

Power Attack is a Strike with an enhancement. When you miss, the enhancement doesn’t take place. The MAP condition for Power Attack is part of the enhancement. Thus, if you miss with a Power Attack, your next attack that turn will be made at -5, not -10.

Oh, you are absolutely right. Thanks!

[Firechanter]

Oh, been meaning to reply to this thread for ages.


FF and Certain Strikes is not that simple. A failure is different from a critical failure. At very low hit chances, your critical failure chance increases, which adds a sort off soft cap on your failure chance.

Example: You normally hit on a 10. On your second Strike, you hit on a 15. However, you also critically miss on a 1-5. Your crit fail chance is 25% and affects your FF math.<snip>

I searched through the entire PDF. There is no such thing as a critical failure on an attack roll. You auto-fail on a 1 but that's it. There are no extra effects for staying >10 below AC -- you miss, end of story, proceed to next Action.

I did that search before because I had an idea that the Einhänder fighting style might be good for provoking crit fails. But no, nothing.

--

Good catch on the Power Attack clause. Would have missed that, too.

In other news, Reach + AoO still works reasonably well. ^^ Just a pity that apparently, you can only make a Strike with an AoO, no control maneuver like Trip or Shove. At least I found nothing to that effect.

--

Direct damage-related Fighting style discussion aside, when looking at skills, Athletics seems to be a lot more useful than Acrobatics. With Expert level in Athletics, you can take Powerful Leap, which (in combination with good Speed) allows you to negotiate lots of obstacles and affords you plenty of battlefield mobility, without ever having to make a roll. Acrobatics offers less mobility and forces you to roll and potentially lose your Actions. Long story short, I think those two skills could be balanced better.

[AtS]

Oh, been meaning to reply to this thread for ages.



I searched through the entire PDF. There is no such thing as a critical failure on an attack roll. You auto-fail on a 1 but that's it. There are no extra effects for staying >10 below AC -- you miss, end of story, proceed to next Action.

I did that search before because I had an idea that the Einhänder fighting style might be good for provoking crit fails. But no, nothing.

--

Good catch on the Power Attack clause. Would have missed that, too.

In other news, Reach + AoO still works reasonably well. ^^ Just a pity that apparently, you can only make a Strike with an AoO, no control maneuver like Trip or Shove. At least I found nothing to that effect.

--

Direct damage-related Fighting style discussion aside, when looking at skills, Athletics seems to be a lot more useful than Acrobatics. With Expert level in Athletics, you can take Powerful Leap, which (in combination with good Speed) allows you to negotiate lots of obstacles and affords you plenty of battlefield mobility, without ever having to make a roll. Acrobatics offers less mobility and forces you to roll and potentially lose your Actions. Long story short, I think those two skills could be balanced better.

Powerful Leap looks great, judging from your use of it in Zman's Arena! :smallbiggrin:

Sword and Board (and TWF) has many issues with actually performing actions with the Manipulate trait in combat because both your hands are occupied and you can't just drop a hand like 2H style. Unless I'm missing something in the rules about how shields interact with Manipulate/grip, or if there's some sort of feat to alleviate this. This puts you at an action disadvantage whenever you need to do anything with the Manipulate trait, because you have to spend an action to stow/sheathe your weapon, and then another to draw it when you're done, instead of just dropping a hand as a free action and changing grip as an action when done. I suppose you can drop the weapon as a free action, and then spend one Interact action to pick it up later, but that is extremely annoying and unrealistic to me.

Basically, I think sheathing a weapon should be a free action, with a trigger of "Your turn starts, ends, or you start to perform an action with the Manipulate trait." or maybe just "you start to perform an action" but I'm not sure if that wording would be problematic. This would put the action economy at parity for all styles of combat whenever you need to do something other than Strike. Right now, 2H has a pretty significant advantage.

Or maybe, the right answer is to drop the action tax for all of these cases and just make changing grip, sheathing, and drawing a weapon free actions?

[Firechanter]

Total agreement about hands issues. Basically same old problem as ever for, for instance, a Mace-and-Shield bearing Cleric trying to cast a spell.

Personally, I find it totally okay to just say you hold the weapon with your shield hand for a moment, or tuck it under your shield arm. After all, you need to _do_ absolutely nothing with it, just not drop it. That's also my favoured solution for 3E games.

Apart from that, I also think that the legacy rule that you can combine the drawing or sheathing of an item with a Move should be retained. Especially when you Stride it shouldn't be a problem to do something simultaneously. After all, you _can_ walk and chew gum at the same time.

I also think I discovered a general flaw with the Aid mechanics. The long and short of it is that investing 2 Actions (and 1 Reaction) to _potentially_ get a +2 or (even less likely) +4 for a roll is typically a worse deal than simply being prepared to try twice. This holds for basically any skill use that has no further penalty for failure (other than wasting the Action). On the other hand, in a system where most skill rolls are more or less a coin toss, you can't impose too harsh penalties for failure or the game would be over real soon.
I realized that when trying to figure out my next move in the Arena, so still not sure how to resolve what I have in mind.

[Zman]

Powerful Leap looks great, judging from your use of it in Zman's Arena! :smallbiggrin:

Sword and Board (and TWF) has many issues with actually performing actions with the Manipulate trait in combat because both your hands are occupied and you can't just drop a hand like 2H style. Unless I'm missing something in the rules about how shields interact with Manipulate/grip, or if there's some sort of feat to alleviate this. This puts you at an action disadvantage whenever you need to do anything with the Manipulate trait, because you have to spend an action to stow/sheathe your weapon, and then another to draw it when you're done, instead of just dropping a hand as a free action and changing grip as an action when done. I suppose you can drop the weapon as a free action, and then spend one Interact action to pick it up later, but that is extremely annoying and unrealistic to me.

Basically, I think sheathing a weapon should be a free action, with a trigger of "Your turn starts, ends, or you start to perform an action with the Manipulate trait." or maybe just "you start to perform an action" but I'm not sure if that wording would be problematic. This would put the action economy at parity for all styles of combat whenever you need to do something other than Strike. Right now, 2H has a pretty significant advantage.

Or maybe, the right answer is to drop the action tax for all of these cases and just make changing grip, sheathing, and drawing a weapon free actions?




Total agreement about hands issues. Basically same old problem as ever for, for instance, a Mace-and-Shield bearing Cleric trying to cast a spell.

Personally, I find it totally okay to just say you hold the weapon with your shield hand for a moment, or tuck it under your shield arm. After all, you need to _do_ absolutely nothing with it, just not drop it. That's also my favoured solution for 3E games.

Apart from that, I also think that the legacy rule that you can combine the drawing or sheathing of an item with a Move should be retained. Especially when you Stride it shouldn't be a problem to do something simultaneously. After all, you _can_ walk and chew gum at the same time.

I also think I discovered a general flaw with the Aid mechanics. The long and short of it is that investing 2 Actions (and 1 Reaction) to _potentially_ get a +2 or (even less likely) +4 for a roll is typically a worse deal than simply being prepared to try twice. This holds for basically any skill use that has no further penalty for failure (other than wasting the Action). On the other hand, in a system where most skill rolls are more or less a coin toss, you can't impose too harsh penalties for failure or the game would be over real soon.
I realized that when trying to figure out my next move in the Arena, so still not sure how to resolve what I have in mind.

Right?! Powerful Leap doesn't sound like much when you first read it, but in a set up like my Arena, man it looks pretty damned spectacular!

Now, about the hands issue. I'm not opposed to letting someone draw/sheath/change grip with a stride or step action, at least for weapons or weldable items like an instrument. I am definitely ok with requiring and action to get a pack off your back and another to get something out of it. That is the kind of thing that doesn't have a place in a battle without significant cost. Make players kind of manage their pouches and quick combat items. And now it might not take up a whole turn, you could still get an attack off which strikes me as better.


About Aid, you've got my thoughts in the PMs on that. It has its places when failure has real consequences, when you need the circumstance bonus to hit a really hard DC, or when that particular character needs to be successful. Otherwise, brute forcing by tossing actions at problems is generally more efficient. Also, there is something to be said when a character has an action to spare. How valuable is a -10 attack? Maybe less than likely giving +2 on another character's check.

[Firechanter]

Right?! Powerful Leap doesn't sound like much when you first read it, but in a set up like my Arena, man it looks pretty damned spectacular!

Bounce Bounce Bounce xD


How valuable is a -10 attack? Maybe less than likely giving +2 on another character's check.

Total agreement. That's kinda why I decided to change my strategy in the first place; I figured that the Bard can contribute more with Assists from a Flanking position than inflicting an average 4DPR with her bow on a >100HP monster. Keen to see how it works out. ^^

That being said, reading up on the other challenge runs, the primary use of -10 attacks seems to be having a bunch of lowlevel minions churn out volley after volley in the hopes of getting a 20 now and then, particularly with a Deadly weapon. Two out of three contenders can confirm the effectiveness of this method. :smallamused:

[Callin]

At level 4 I plan on using Dual Handed Assault and Improved Combat Grab with a Bastard Sword. 1d12+6 and then a Possible Grapple with a Definite Flatfooted till start of next turn on a miss.

If going for just as much damage as you can toss out I think grabbing a Pet from Cavalier at lvl 2 would be better. Either Bear or Bird for their Work Together Benefit. Depending on what you want to do. With first action Command Bear to Work Together, then Double Slice with a Longsword for 1d8+4+1d8 and Shortsword for 1d6+4+1d8. OR Go with Bird for 1d8+4 and 1d6+4 with Persistent Bleed 1d4, then have Bird Attack twice each round after for an additional 1d6+2.

Bird I think is better versus a Mobile Opponent.

[Zman]

Bounce Bounce Bounce xD



Total agreement. That's kinda why I decided to change my strategy in the first place; I figured that the Bard can contribute more with Assists from a Flanking position than inflicting an average 4DPR with her bow on a >100HP monster. Keen to see how it works out. ^^

That being said, reading up on the other challenge runs, the primary use of -10 attacks seems to be having a bunch of lowlevel minions churn out volley after volley in the hopes of getting a 20 now and then, particularly with a Deadly weapon. Two out of three contenders can confirm the effectiveness of this method. :smallamused:

I believe that is pronounced *Boing* *Boing* *Boing*, haha.

Yeah, the bard's assist strategy is good, but I am keen to think its better in a larger party. The one on one lack the impact of Inspire Courage and the target rich environment for Inspire Competence etc. Sorry about the luck on that last one. I'm thinking there are some issues with their encounter building guidelines, especially where fewer than four party members are concerned. That was supposed to be an even match.

Yep, that is about all they are good for, and in Unbound the use is the same as the -5 attacks too, just roll for 20s. Not everyone just lept the massive divide and slaughtered two of them in a single turn, and had the mobility to do so again.

[Firechanter]

Sorry about the luck on that last one. I'm thinking there are some issues with their encounter building guidelines, especially where fewer than four party members are concerned. That was supposed to be an even match.

Well, I told you so. :6 *points to PM box*

In a way, the system does work as intended. In actual play - in an ongoing campaign with characters I want to keep - I would have simply refused that challenge, particularly without forward preparation. You can't just wing an APL+4 encounter, not at those levels at any rate (APL2 vs CR6) - and as I said, Dragons in D&D tend to be notoriously under-CRd, and this was no exception. "Even Match" means it comes down to a series of coin tosses, so you don't really test tactical skill or build competence or anything else that matters, you test luck. Losing 3 coin tosses in a row was enough to throw the match. Even if I had won all three of them, the fight would still not have been in the bag, as the dragon has superior action economy (such as move+action denial+damage with 1 single action), better Hit chance, more HP, and more damage per hit, not to mention that a single crit from the monster basically is an encounter ender.

[Zman]

Well, I told you so. :6 *points to PM box*

In a way, the system does work as intended. In actual play - in an ongoing campaign with characters I want to keep - I would have simply refused that challenge, particularly without forward preparation. You can't just wing an APL+4 encounter, not at those levels at any rate (APL2 vs CR6) - and as I said, Dragons in D&D tend to be notoriously under-CRd, and this was no exception. "Even Match" means it comes down to a series of coin tosses, so you don't really test tactical skill or build competence or anything else that matters, you test luck. Losing 3 coin tosses in a row was enough to throw the match. Even if I had won all three of them, the fight would still not have been in the bag, as the dragon has superior action economy (such as move+action denial+damage with 1 single action), better Hit chance, more HP, and more damage per hit, not to mention that a single crit from the monster basically is an encounter ender.

And encounter guidelines have been notoriously bad with characters hitting way above their weight class. That appears to not be the case in P2, at least at these levels. As I said in PM, mistakes were made and revisions are going to be needed. Encounter guidelines have issues, at least st low levels. The Skeletons wa supposed to be “high difficulty”.

[Firechanter]

Well, I can entirely imagine that it's possible to build a team that would have trouble with the skeletons. ^^

Yeah, the encounter guidelines / CRs of monsters never worked really well in 3E. It's entirely possible for the same level 5 party that crushed a CR8 giant to be wiped by a CR3 swarm.
Basically, in my experience, 3E combat is pretty binary: either you have the required options to fight a monster, then you'll mop the floor with it, and if you don't, better you ran. Acquiring said options is mostly a function of system mastery, as is knowing to stack your numbers so high you can't miss.

I agree that's not an ideal way to design a game. But taking system mastery out of the equation almost entirely is not very satisfying, either.

You seem to be very involved in 5E, so I don't need to tell you how "well" encounter design works there. ;) When I played it, our party regularly cleared Deadly encounters without too much difficulty, and Double Deadly required some focus but was entirely doable. Encounters suggested as "Moderate" or "Hard" would have barely slowed our pace. Basically, we only really broke a sweat when the encounter was Triple Deadly, and we only ever fled once - that was when the DM had paired Shambling Mounds with Shocker Lizards. [On another occasion, we saw an Iron Golem paired with a Fire Elemental guarding a room. We decided to leave that room alone.] ;)

[Zman]

Well, I can entirely imagine that it's possible to build a team that would have trouble with the skeletons. ^^

Yeah, the encounter guidelines / CRs of monsters never worked really well in 3E. It's entirely possible for the same level 5 party that crushed a CR8 giant to be wiped by a CR3 swarm.
Basically, in my experience, 3E combat is pretty binary: either you have the required options to fight a monster, then you'll mop the floor with it, and if you don't, better you ran. Acquiring said options is mostly a function of system mastery, as is knowing to stack your numbers so high you can't miss.

I agree that's not an ideal way to design a game. But taking system mastery out of the equation almost entirely is not very satisfying, either.

You seem to be very involved in 5E, so I don't need to tell you how "well" encounter design works there. ;) When I played it, our party regularly cleared Deadly encounters without too much difficulty, and Double Deadly required some focus but was entirely doable. Encounters suggested as "Moderate" or "Hard" would have barely slowed our pace. Basically, we only really broke a sweat when the encounter was Triple Deadly, and we only ever fled once - that was when the DM had paired Shambling Mounds with Shocker Lizards. [On another occasion, we saw an Iron Golem paired with a Fire Elemental guarding a room. We decided to leave that room alone.] ;)

3.P Encounter design wasn't good either. But, now I know just how far to trust P2's, haha.

One thing about 5e's encounter design most people miss as it wasn't as clear as it needed to be and wasn't a great implementation; in 5e you are assumed to have approximately six to eight encounters throughout a day with two short rests interspersed. It was not build around one encounter a day. If you run only a single encounter you often needed double or even triple deadly to make them life or death encounters. 5e put a big emphasis on resource conservation throughout the day. Under the right circumstances, ie part of the multi encounter day, a deadly encounter was more challenging. Sill, often not "deadly" but significantly more challenging. When allowed to Nova on a single encounter 5e's guidelines were terrible. 5e really struggled with the 10 minute day. That is before factoring in some of the balance issues certain things in 5e had that allowed them to hit way above their weight class. Those are things that I had to "fix" before 5e started to hit the sweet spots for me.

[Firechanter]

Toyed around with the raw numbers a bit.

Purely looking at Attack rolls, Fighters appear to hit their peak around level 14, concerning numerical advantage over other the other classes. Level 13 they get that extra +1 for being "Legendary" *cough*, by then they should have Str 20, and Level 14 should give them access to the Strength item, so Str 22. I suppose they might have a +3 weapon by then. All of that adds up to a +26 on their first attack - _if_ they have the Str item.
Most other Martial classes will be 1 or 2 points behind I suppose, and Nonmartial classes should bench around +21 if they have any business rolling attacks at all. ("Martials" can basically be defined as "any class whose primary stat is Str or Dex". These classes also become Expert or better in their keyed weapons.)

Level 14 monsters, on the other hand, seem to universally register at AC33. This means that our optimal Fighter has about 70% First Strike chance, while Nonmartials sit at 45%.
So far I'm not looking at Flanking, Assist, Inspire Courage/Heroics or other situational boosts, I know. These can improve hit chances, but Assist and Heroics are contingent on being lucky with the dice in the first place.

Conversely, the same monsters have about +26 Attack, looking to strike against a baseline AC of 35, or a bit more for certain classes and builds (Shield users, Parry etc). So basically, I suppose it comes down to a 50-60% hit chance.

Damage per Hit will be very similar between PCs and Monsters, I suppose. Monsters seem to get higher static bonuses, while PCs get more dice.
A level 14 monster has on the order of 300-400HP.
A level 14 PC will probably bring around 180-200HP to the table. So a party of four will have around 750HP combined.
Uncommon or rarer monsters tend to have superior Action Economy. AE upgrades for PCs are rather sparse.

So, the _maths_ of the game probably pan out as long as you keep PCs and Monsters at an even level. The question for me is, will it be _fun_ to play out these fights. That will yet have to be tested.

[Callin]

If you basically always sit at 45-55% chance to hit even level enemies throughout the 1-20 career do you actually feel like you are getting more powerful? I mean you roll more dice for damage but if you always need to roll over a 10 to hit and it never gets better...? That just does not feel mathwise fun to me.

[Florian]

If you basically always sit at 45-55% chance to hit even level enemies throughout the 1-20 career do you actually feel like you are getting more powerful? I mean you roll more dice for damage but if you always need to roll over a 10 to hit and it never gets better...? That just does not feel mathwise fun to me.

I don´t think you can compare the old CR values to the new CR values on a 1to1 basis. It´s not only the raw DC numbers, but also the chances for critical hits/failures that is affected by the underlying math.

[Zman]

Toyed around with the raw numbers a bit.

Purely looking at Attack rolls, Fighters appear to hit their peak around level 14, concerning numerical advantage over other the other classes. Level 13 they get that extra +1 for being "Legendary" *cough*, by then they should have Str 20, and Level 14 should give them access to the Strength item, so Str 22. I suppose they might have a +3 weapon by then. All of that adds up to a +26 on their first attack - _if_ they have the Str item.
Most other Martial classes will be 1 or 2 points behind I suppose, and Nonmartial classes should bench around +21 if they have any business rolling attacks at all. ("Martials" can basically be defined as "any class whose primary stat is Str or Dex". These classes also become Expert or better in their keyed weapons.)

Level 14 monsters, on the other hand, seem to universally register at AC33. This means that our optimal Fighter has about 70% First Strike chance, while Nonmartials sit at 45%.
So far I'm not looking at Flanking, Assist, Inspire Courage/Heroics or other situational boosts, I know. These can improve hit chances, but Assist and Heroics are contingent on being lucky with the dice in the first place.

Conversely, the same monsters have about +26 Attack, looking to strike against a baseline AC of 35, or a bit more for certain classes and builds (Shield users, Parry etc). So basically, I suppose it comes down to a 50-60% hit chance.

Damage per Hit will be very similar between PCs and Monsters, I suppose. Monsters seem to get higher static bonuses, while PCs get more dice.
A level 14 monster has on the order of 300-400HP.
A level 14 PC will probably bring around 180-200HP to the table. So a party of four will have around 750HP combined.
Uncommon or rarer monsters tend to have superior Action Economy. AE upgrades for PCs are rather sparse.

So, the _maths_ of the game probably pan out as long as you keep PCs and Monsters at an even level. The question for me is, will it be _fun_ to play out these fights. That will yet have to be tested.

At lvl 14 assume a +3 weapon and armor. The system pretty much assumes you have both at lvl 12ish. There is a spreadsheet that has been posted that has all the Bestiary Monsters in it by level. I have a copy and added a tab for the Bound numbers as well. The underlying math definitely scales roughly equally for to hit, AC, etc between players and Monsters. There is some separation between specialized and non specialized PCs which is to be expected.

The rough advancement scale for monsters AC and To Hit improves(sans level) by ~+1 every 2 levels. Saves, especially Fort advances a bit faster.

They've definitely tightened the math, you will always have roughly the same odds of hitting a monster on your level. And due to +1/level you'll have a very easy time hitting Monsters below your level and a difficult time hitting those above you. For example, Monsters on average hit themselves on a 7-9+, and that rate is extremely constant beyond the level 0s they boosted up to keep relevant for a couple of levels.

Those differences between martials and amateurs, will feel significant in play. With this tight of math, having a +4-5 over another character is massive.

This is a reason I prefer Bound, by keeping monsters relevant longer they can be used, and PCs will have a more usable benchmarks for their progress. IMO, with +1lvl the faux power difference becomes so blatant it is hard to lend it credulity. The underlying Bound math of this system is IMO better than 5e, and I really like what lies underneath the level scaling.


If you basically always sit at 45-55% chance to hit even level enemies throughout the 1-20 career do you actually feel like you are getting more powerful? I mean you roll more dice for damage but if you always need to roll over a 10 to hit and it never gets better...? That just does not feel mathwise fun to me.

That is a good question. It will always feel like a monster at your level is that rate of challenging, a monster lower than your level is significantly easier, and a monster tougher is significantly harder. That relationship will remain constant.

You have to ask yourself, would almost automatically hitting an enemy on your level feel fun? If they are actually on your level, would they need to almost automatically hit you back? Is that fun? This isn't 3.P where the to hit and BAB were disjointed where your first attack would become very reliable and you relied more on the addiotnal attacks for extra damage. Now, you rate of hit is going to remain roughly constant against equal level foes.

[RedWarlock]

I guess my issue with the whole level-scaling complaint is, what is the alternative you want? You’re calling it the same, but the thing is, you’re throwing a higher CR at the player, so yeah the numbers should be higher. But that CR 6 dire aardvark still has the AC of 19, even when the player reaches level 7. It’s not like it gets upgraded to AC 20.

Are you being thrown against the same level -2 minions, level +0 brute, and level +1 boss all the time, that this becomes transparent?

It’s not like they tell you to run skeletons that are CR 1, 6, And 13, with otherwise-identical stats but for the level scaling. That aardvark is CR 2, and when you get to level 6, it’ll still be CR 2, never mind that there’s a similar-but-higher-statted dire aardvark at CR 6.

Is it just that you want more abstraction in how the levels differ? More powers per monster, or what? How would you prefer the level/CR comparison be made?

[Callin]

That is a good question. It will always feel like a monster at your level is that rate of challenging, a monster lower than your level is significantly easier, and a monster tougher is significantly harder. That relationship will remain constant.

You have to ask yourself, would almost automatically hitting an enemy on your level feel fun? If they are actually on your level, would they need to almost automatically hit you back? Is that fun? This isn't 3.P where the to hit and BAB were disjointed where your first attack would become very reliable and you relied more on the addiotnal attacks for extra damage. Now, you rate of hit is going to remain roughly constant against equal level foes.

Always having the same chance to hit even level monsters does not feel fun to me. I dont want a huge imbalance like in 3.P or the Bounded System like 5th. But +1 to every level basically seems like a Bounded System to within 3 levels or so each way.

I just dont know what it is about PF2, but something I cant put my finger on just seems off to me.

[Zman]

I guess my issue with the whole level-scaling complaint is, what is the alternative you want? You’re calling it the same, but the thing is, you’re throwing a higher CR at the player, so yeah the numbers should be higher. But that CR 6 dire aardvark still has the AC of 19, even when the player reaches level 7. It’s not like it gets upgraded to AC 20.

Are you being thrown against the same level -2 minions, level +0 brute, and level +1 boss all the time, that this becomes transparent?

It’s not like they tell you to run skeletons that are CR 1, 6, And 13, with otherwise-identical stats but for the level scaling. That aardvark is CR 2, and when you get to level 6, it’ll still be CR 2, never mind that there’s a similar-but-higher-statted dire aardvark at CR 6.

Is it just that you want more abstraction in how the levels differ? More powers per monster, or what? How would you prefer the level/CR comparison be made?

What alternative do we want? Remove the level scaling and reveal the quite well balanced bound system underneath.

The numbers get higher and the problem is the numbers don't mean anything, they are artificially inflated by level until it is the most important factor. Once you move outside that +/- 2 levels sweet spot monsters become far less useful. Once you hit the edge of +/- 4 level barrier the game breaks down. With level scaling removed number have relevance in an absolute sense, we can quantify them, and monster become usable longer. Instead of the +/- 4 system we have that rises or drops sharply at the edges, we get a more granular system that stretches to +/- 6ish levels and is more workable around the edges.

For instance, say you've got a party of level 10s and you want to throw Gargoyles at them. That is a pointless encounter, at + 6 levels the party is just way beyond them and the encounter will involve a lot of hitting on 2s and rolling for 20s. Now, the same encounter Bound will still be quite easy, but hits won't be guaranteed and they party could be challenged, or at least expend some resources and HP in the process. If the characters had faced a Gargoyle when they were level four they would have a more tangible measure for progress instead of the slap them down like gods progression of the artificial +lvl inflation.


Always having the same chance to hit even level monsters does not feel fun to me. I don't want a huge imbalance like in 3.P or the Bounded System like 5th. But +1 to every level basically seems like a Bounded System to within 3 levels or so each way.

Look at the Monster by Level, look at the mid to high levels. The effective range of usable monsters is very small and populated by a limited number of viable monsters. That is problematic and can break immersion. Imagine running a into Hell campaign, you'd have your starting level and only a couple of Demons that were viable competition. The rest would either be too weak to not even be worth putting on the table, and others could be too strong to be even usable. At best you'll have like 3-4 reasonably usable demon types. At best at around level 14 you have like six to seven usable demon types, and some of those will be single fight bosses.

Also, the bound system supports mixed level parties very well, stock requires them to all be the exact same level or things break down.

I just dont know what it is about PF2, but something I cant put my finger on just seems off to me.

No, it is geared that when facing something on equal footing as yourself, ie fighting yourself, the numbers are always goign to float close to the designed balance point. There are a lot of factors that push those around, especially facing weaker or more powerful foes.

[Nigeretalbus]

I've recently realized that Assurance(Athletics) has a (valuable?) use:

You can replace a -10 MAP attack with a flat check result to Grapple, Shove, Trip or Disarm an opponent, ignoring the penalty altogether.

[Firechanter]

Yeah, but even supposing you're an Expert in Athletics, what do you hope to achieve with a Trip (etc) Result of 15? Any monster that's worth Tripping will have a higher DC than that.