Can I please have a cleric / etc who can heal as a single action while still getting to attack and cast other real spells with the rest of their actions? This was one thing 4E did right, "Healing Word" and similar abilities that let a cleric still play the game while also getting to heal on the side. You only ever had to spend your full turn healing if the party was /really/ messed up.
Heal costs 1, 2, or 3 actions depending on what you're doing with it. The 1 action version is the touch spell we're used to, so you can slap your buddy's wounded ass for one action, move, then hit the enemy with your mace as your turn.
Yeah, I can only imagine that S&B fighters were doing too much damage for how much defense they get without penalizing them an action. The rule doesn't make any sense otherwise.
What if being Master at Perception means you can take a skill feat that ensures you always act before non-masters?
I really prefer the "1/2 level to damage if using different stats" approach. No dexterous melee hero is walking around with 7 strength.
I suspect that most narrative control is going to come from your Ancestry and Skill feats, at least for the martial classes. Certain classes will be pushed towards certain skills (I like how the Fighter is apparently a Master at perception!) and hopefully the full casters will have weaker access than the martials.
I think the biggest revelation in this blog is that Power Attack as a feat that literally everyone who uses a melee weapon takes is no longer a thing; the new Power Attack seems like something you'd want to enable a 2-hander build while TWF and sword and board builds would put their feats elsewhere.
You might want to take a look at Spheres of Might; the Striker and Prodigy classes both have mechanics very similar to what you're describing.
As for some of the near superhuman abilities a Legendary training non-magical character can do, I saw someone mention upstream stage magicians. After seeing the Illusionists show last night, that was top of mind for me as well. The guy who did the Houdini upside down straight jacket escape in 60 seconds clearly was legendary in escape artist, and the guy who seemed to create cards for about 5 minutes straight was legendary at slight of hand (or thievery now - I'd think he'd be pretty good with locks if he's that much a master of fine tuned manipulations.)
I think those guys are Masters at best. Someone who's Legendary at Escape Artist is escaping a Maze spell, or basically has always on, [Ex] freedom of movement.
How many people in this thread are a level 20 wizard? The design paradigm of PF2 is that a level 6 character is a world record holder in their field. Past that you're beyond the bounds of realism.
Likewise, in over 30 years of gaming, I can count the number of campaigns on one hand where the party didn't have a strong melee fighter or two. Why? Because it WAS REQUIRED. No muscle in the party tends to make parties too squishy to survive. Yet I don't see anyone looking for eliminating fighters from parties.
Classes in PF1 that can fulfill the role of a frontline DPR: Cleric, Bard, Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, Rogue, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Shifter, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Cavalier, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Vigilante, Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai, Hunter, Investigator, Warpriest, Brawler, Bloodrager, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Kineticist, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, and Spiritualist.
Classes in PF1 that can remove status effects on an appropriate curve: Cleric, Oracle, Druid, and Witch.
I hope this illustrates why there's a problem with healing being so exclusive.
If the 20th level wizard is trying to climb something that's a challenge to a 20th level character then he's going to fail miserably at it.
A regular rope is a 1st level challenge. If you don't care about the wizard being able to beat a 1st level fighter with a stick then why should you care about him being able to climb a 1st level rope?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Could you tell us the earliest one could expect to pick up a Master level skill?
How does proficiency interacts with spells? are by school? I really hope not that would kill the generalist wizard.
The generalist wizard needs a nerf, to be quite fair. It's too easy to just be good at everything as a wizard in PF1, to the point it makes not being a generalist a poor idea.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Some of the exotics are just simply better than the non-exotics, but should be just as easy to use (falcata I'm looking at you!) If they were available to any martial character, nobody would use a longsword or a battle axe, because the falcata has the advantages of both with no downsides (1d8 damge and the 19-20 crit range of a longsword but the x3 crit multiplier of a battleaxe). It's just exotic to make it not the default one-handed weapon. So yeah, exotic should be for weapons that are fundamentally weird to use like the spiked-chain. Not just a better sword. And then just don't make super-weapons like the falcata, they're cool swords but not superior lot later medieval ones.
I'm of the opposite opinion; the only weapons that should be exotic are ones that are straight up better than martial options and therefore worth considering a feat on, such as the falcata, fauchard, or butchering axe.
The Fighter gets a healing ability that's just "Rub Some Dirt On It".
Mark Seifter wrote:
You just made my day, Mark. Not having a good way to heal the really dangerous inflictions without 9th level divine progression was one of my biggest pet peeves with PF1.
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Hmm... Could stuff like "Weapon Focus" that locks you into using one kind of weapon be going away/modified to be more flexible? That's one of the problems with the longsword/shortsword style, you were seriously doing TWF wrong if you weren't dual-wielding two of the same weapon so all your bonuses affect both weapons.
I mean... they definitely did add an additional class to go with the additional race. It's the Alchemist. They made a new iconic for the pairing and everything
Since archetypes will be in the core rulebook from day one this time, I would definitely prefer the "core" monk to actually be a much less mystical brawler, with the super mystical weird versions from D&D of old being given over to archetypes. Like, I assume even the less mystical version would still have some sort of Ki, even if the character "in context" doesn't "grok" it as such or follow a mystical philosophy. But you can push it more towards Tifa from FF7 and away from having the default be a "philosophical ascetic" who for some reason is immune to poison and eating and breathing.
The problem is the less mystical you make the Monk the more of a Fighter archetype it becomes. The Monk really needs its (Su) abilities to maintain any sort of identity that isn't it's playstyle as an unarmed unarmored fighter. IMO classes that are defined wholly by unlocking a playstyle like the Swashbuckler should be avoided and there should just be options to make that playstyle valid with existing classes in the first place.
I kinda like Monk as a hyper-supernatural martial, that does a lot of things that are magic but are not spells. By the same vein I'd like to see the Fighter (and possibly other martial classes) able to pick up options to be played unarmed and unarmored so the Pugilist-type character is properly supported.
One of the best things about the kineticist (and later the vigilante) is how "your job" talents and utility/out of combat talents don't compete with each other. I'd love to see this expanded to the new feat system so that you can always pick up fluff stuff that expands your character's overall design and options without hurting your main focus.
Matthew Downie wrote:
If you're reducing the enemy to 20% effectiveness then you've reduced yourself to 0% effectiveness. You've done nothing to help beat the enemy, you've just made the fight last longer. Prolonging the fight can be a useful tool in some circumstances but it's certainly nothing to build around.
Mark Young 800 wrote:
The fact that it is actually possible to get good at what you do rather than be beholden to the dice forever is one of the reasons why pathfinder is better than 5e.
Mark Seifter wrote:
If you guys follow through on this then you've already earned me as a customer. This may be the most exciting news I've heard thus far.
GM Wageslave wrote:
It's already basically an instant lose if you can only hit an enemy on a 20. Making it official wouldn't change that.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Hmm... Could this, perhaps, be a feature of the new ancestry system?
The problem with this analogy is that, in reality, Pathfinder is the smart phone. The more you know about the device, the more possibilities open up; you're rewarded for your system mastery with tons of extra stuff you can do beyond just "I make calls".
For a crank phone, or 5e... It's been stripped to the bone until you have exactly one option of what to do with it. There is no customization, there are no extra features, just the one exact purpose the device is built for.
Best make sure you have a knowledge monkey in the party to watch out for those types of enemies, then!
Even better, your aimed shot that took 3 actions to perform would have a MUCH higher chance to crit than your rapid fire shots because of the new crit system. Line it up for that headshot!
It's been mentioned in another thread (I think it was Mark but could have been another dev) that crit failures on attack rolls don't have any effect by default but may trigger an enemy's abilities (theoretical example, maybe monks have a reaction where they get a free trip attempt on you if you critically fail your attack). So we don't have to worry about the worst possible iteration of critical failures being the case.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I'm a little surprised by the concern over level = skill; I've only been playing for a little over a year, so bear that in mind, but most people I play with choose the same skills to rank up every level, essentially leaving their skill ranks be equal to their level. Is this not commonplace?
There are a lot of skills where it can be useful to just dip a few points in rather than invest wholly; a rank or two in climb/swim can be the difference between breezing past simple environmental encounters or making yourself look silly. Knowledge skills are another one, I usually try to put at least one point in every knowledge skill I have as a class skill unless I happen to be dumping Int with this character.