Kutholiam Vuere

Cheburn's page

Organized Play Member. 500 posts (533 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 500 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Roswynn wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
I am probably most excited to play Alchemist. Has anyone heard if thrown weapons can attack with strength? I ask this for no particular reason.

Nope! But if I had to hunch it, it's only Dex. Because it really makes no sense for Str to be involved in lobbing a bomb. Throwing a javelin or handaxe perhaps, not a bomb.

But again that's just my opinion.

Basketball players all over our world disagree with you.

That said, I don't mind if PF2e makes it Dex.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Darkorin, I missed your edits before I posted, and certainly don't want to put words in your mouth; however, I also don't agree that the devs are employing faulty logic here. I suspect, in fact, that they're speaking both from possibilities and from what they saw in internal playtests. That suggests to me that the starting assumptions of your logical chain may not be 100% accurate.

Darkorin wrote:
Thing is, you're ignoring the point that the sorcerer will become the default group-magic-item user of the group, which means that this is a burden he has to take for the whole group.

I see little reason for this to be the case. I expect that almost any group with a sorcerer could also get by with a wizard. That means they don't "need" the extra resonance that a sorcerer brings to the table. I don't expect that a sorcerer will have to act as a "Resonance battery" for other classes in PF2e any more than a wizard had to act as a "buff battery" for other classes in PF1e. If individual players choose to, then one could argue they're bringing a competitive advantage to their groups compared with a wizard.

Assuming that a sorcerer does not "need" to contribute more to communal uses of Resonance than a wizard does (which is dependent on the culture of the individual table), a sorcerer can invest in more items (probably using multiple lower cost items with different abilities) than a wizard. A sorcerer can use those items more times through the course of the day than a wizard. A sorcerer can invest Resonance in more staves than a wizard (potentially Investing in multiple lower level staves than a wizard). A sorcerer can use more scrolls when necessary than a wizard.

TLDR: You are assuming that all or most of a sorcerer's extra resonance will get dumped into the "party pool" and cannot be used for items. I think that while certain groups might want this, it is by no means a guarantee.

I will say, it's also unclear to me what the process for acquiring/purchasing new spells is in PF2e, as well as the rules for scribing a scroll. Thus, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to assume that a wizard will have any spells they need and a sorcerer will not (it may be reasonable, but we have to see magic item availability and crafting/scroll scribing rules in more detail than we have). I do think that a wizard will probably be more careful with spending their Resonance points than a sorcerer, and may think twice about activating especially low level scrolls that a sorcerer wouldn't have to worry about.

I like what I'm seeing for Ranger. Loss of spellcasting doesn't bother be from a flavor perspective, and we're going to test the class from a power perspective, so Paizo can calibrate it.

I'm happy to see Favored Enemy die, and won't miss it, for reasons similar to those voiced by others.

Hunt Target looks like a good situational damage boost, and I think will be very strong against stronger enemies. I feel like the 100 foot range is quite short though. I know PF2e is dialing back ranges for spells at least, but IRL you can easily mark someone at 300 feet (or far greater, especially if you have a scope). Because of the short range, I wonder how often players will get to use the bonuses to Seek and Track. I guess that Seek would be useful if a Target went into Stealth or cast invisibility . Otherwise, that particular aspect seems a bit limited, with the information I have.

Overall though, if the mechanics work well, I like this version of Ranger.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkorin wrote:
As the devs themselves said before: my playtest group never really hit hard against the resonance caps, even the ones with lower Charisma. (From Mark Seifter), which means that sorcerers having an edge thanks to their charisma is plainly false, and even the designers should know it

Alternative interpretation: Wizard players didn't go with consumable/use heavy builds, because they didn't want to blow through their Resonance in the first fight. Thus, they never hit hard against Resonance caps because they made reasonable choices. Sorcerers had more freedom in their item builds, and this is reflected in Dev comments

Pros: we don't have to assume the devs are incompetent or lying.
Cons: we have to assume playtesters behaved in a certain way

Gavmania wrote:
From every fluff perspective, excluding weapons from resonance does seem counterintuitive. I would have added 1 to resonance and say you have to invest them all, though it might be that you are supposed to have a few (magical) weapons that can be deployed according to need.

I'm for anything that allows martials to move away from the "one true weapon" phenomenon in PF1e, even if it seems counterintuitive.

Also, does making weapons cost resonance this mean that a two-weapon fighter with a ranged weapon needs to invest 3 points of resonance? What if they're using magical ammunition? Does that need 4 points? 1 additional point for each arrow (budgeted at the beginning of the day)? Got an alternate weapon (maybe a magical light mace or something for overcoming DR or exploiting a weakness)? Okay, that's at least 5 points . . . It could get ugly in a hurry.

The result: "I use a single two-handed weapon and don't have a magical ranged backup."

The alternatives, such as "you can invest all of your weapons for 1 point of resonance" are similarly counterintuitive and would also cause wailing and gnashing of teeth on the forums.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
Medicine in PF2E requires at least two proficiency bumps (Untrained->Trained->Expert) and a skill Feat (Assurance) just to make it so that you can stabilize dying people 100% of the time (or remove their bleed, but not both). But then, you have the stabilize cantrip which does the same thing, automatically (no idea about stopping bleed effects though). So the mundane option requires a much bigger investment than the spell option, which means you're back to where we were earlier with needing a someone specced just for healing to adventure. That or getting a positive energy cleric. Which is not something you should strive for.

Two proficiency bumps, one of which can come from your background, and a feat? You and I have different definitions of "someone specced for healing."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find the idea that a party that spent some in-character resources on healing should have an easier time than one that didn't.

Similarly, a group that includes options for battlefield control will generally have an easier time than one that doesn't, and a group with good options for social skills will also have a better time than one that doesn't.

As long as it's "some resources from some characters" (aka a secondary role) and not "all resources from a single character, and that character is useless for anything else," (aka a primary role) I have no problem at all with PF2e rewarding groups that bring HP / status / ability healing to the table.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wonderstell wrote:

I feel the time reduction is the most drastic change to TDW, and it will have a major impact on combat as it allows mundanes to heal great chunks of their HP during encounters.

Frankly, I'm surprised this feat isn't locked behind a prerequisite of Channel Energy +3d6, an alignment of good, and two feat taxes.

[whisper]Shhhh! They'll hear you.[/whisper]


Voss wrote:
-Archery: Really haven't seen class feats supporting this or even general feats. The new action economy favors melee (or seems to), as do shields, but having fewer attacks of opportunity out there aids archers. Being a switch-hitter seems more doable in PF2 (money aside).
Can you explain the reasoning here? The action economy would seem to favor ranged attackers, as you don't have to burn actions to move to engage, and melee enemies have to burn actions to get to you.

@Voss, I feel it's actually more that the PF1e action economy heavily disfavored melee. Having played with the Unchained action economy, which shares similarities with the PF2e action economy, it was a pretty substantial buff for melee. So archers "lost ground" relative to melee, even though I feel they were still a bit ahead.

Of course, all of that applies to a system built around numbers that are changing. I believe that the advantages of not having to move may still slightly favor archers, but how much depends on (1) average damage of melee vs ranged per hit, and (2) how much the "tighter math" in PF2e puts a damper on that third attack at -10.

Cantriped wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:

I think the proper term is not "trap". The proper term is "trade-off".

No, I used the intended term. In this context a "Trap" is a subtype of opportunity cost or trade off that punishs you for making the "incorrect" choice. For example, the Spike Trap punishs the party for not making the correct choice to send the Rogue to scout (or the choice to have one at all). Resonance punishs the party for not choosing the correct choice of saving RP for emergancy healing. Ergo it is a trap.

As for the "math tells me to play this way". It does, that is an unavoidable fact. It will punish you if you play the game wrong, so don't rebuke people just because you (or they) choose to play the game poorly for whatever reason.

Although it would suck to TPK because a party member prioritized glory over survival when spending their RP. Such a player will suffer additional social punishment in the form of their group's peer preasure to "stop sucking on purpose".

Why do you assume that there is a static amount of healing that you're going to require? Spending resources (Resonance in this case) on a consumable that enables you to overcome the encounter more easily can easily prevent you from needing healing in the first place. You're just being proactive about it, rather than reactive.

Your "logic" is the same "logic" that would argue a (positive energy) Cleric in PF1 should never cast any spells except for heals. Because, you know, I'd always be angry if a cleric cast dispel magic, invisibility purge, or wind wall instead of saving that spell slot for cure serious wounds. After all, they've wasted potential healing and are going to lead to a TPK.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In PF1e at least, potions have unique tastes. I doubt they're going to complement the soup.

Malk_Content wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
You want the impossible!
It is hard for sure, especially when we don't have the actual book to examine the whole of! But I hope before folks get angry about anything take a moment to think "how does this relate to everything else we have seen so far."

To be fair, I don't think it's actually impossible, but people's tendency sure is to focus on one specific thing they don't (or do) like in a vacuum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You want the impossible!

I have no problem with alchemist getting bombs at 1 and mutagens at 5. IRL, bombs are stupidly easy to make. A mutagen that doesn't kill you would be really complicated, comparatively.

And not front loading classes is good game design in a game that allows multiclassing, in my opinion of course.

graystone wrote:
In fact, a background [pirate] is more archetypal that the archetype is as everyone that has it gets the same set of abilities.

I feel that's a real misuse of the term. Of course, what makes something an "archetype" of anything is open to debate IRL, and there is always opinion and judgment involved.

Let's look at your example though. Since we don't know what it does, let's assume for the second that the Pirate background gives you:

  • Two ability boosts.
  • The fictional "Rope Climber" skill feat
  • Training in the Piracy Lore skill.
    which is pretty similar to other backgrounds.

    So you have two characters:

  • One is good at climbing ropes (useful on ships), and knows a few things about piracy.
  • The other knows how to sail, can move and balance effortlessly on a ship as it pitches in the sea, knows how to use a hatchet, scimitar, and spear, and is amazing at acrobatics. As they continue to advance, they also get better at swimming and learn to board enemy ships with great success.

    Your claim is that the first is a better typical example of a pirate in a fantasy game than the second? It's a bit like claiming that the very archetype of a soldier is ... anyone who's completed basic training, because all soldiers have done that.

  • I'll throw my hat in the ring as someone who prefers the term "Archetype" to "Dedication," though I'd prefer it more in its adjectival form.

    "Jack Silver a rogue and is the archetypal pirate."

    Captain Morgan wrote:

    We also have high level ways that a shield can just straight up regenerate. I'm not overly worried about broken shields.

    That said, I agree that hardness 13 doesn't feel like a lot for preventing damage to the character.

    I agree, the number feels a little low to me as well. I instinctively want a shield that will deflect 30 or 40 damage per hit (or more) at higher levels.

    That being said, what my gut wants might be too much to make the numbers work.

    Taking 40ish less damage over 3 rounds, PLUS the decreased damage from -2 AC (less crits, more misses), PLUS the decreased damage from feats like Aggressive Shield, which pushes your opponent away and thus deprives them of actions starts to add up in a hurry. I could easily see 100+ damage reduced and avoided in 3 rounds with this combination. That doesn't include any feats that increase the damage you block with your shield (which seems like a reasonable feat, somewhat akin to Power Attack, but for shields. Who knows, it might go against design philosophy though).

    At a certain point, shields add so much survivability that it becomes really suboptimal to use anything else (the inverse of the general PF1e issue with 2H vs. 1H/shield). The designers need to find a way to walk that tightrope, where shields add toughness and survivability, but it is still reasonable to play without one.

    Eagerly awaiting stress testing this in the playtest.

    Sadie wrote:

    What I meant to ask was something more specific than this, and relates to multiclassing.

  • In Pathfinder 1e, each archetype is specific to a class. You can be a Rogue (Thief) + Alchemist (Mad Scientist), for example. The Mad Scientist archetype is attached to the Alchemist class.
  • In Starfinder, archetypes aren't specific to classes any more, but they are still attached to class when you take them. You can be a Soldier (Cyborg) + Envoy (Phrenic Adept). The Phrenic Adept archetype is attached to the Envoy class, since it replaces class features.
    In Pathfinder 2e, archetypes have some requirements, need a dedication feat to unlock, then provide further feats. We know they're not necessarily specific to a class, but are they still attached to a class? If I play a Rogue + Alchemist with the Pirate archetype, am I playing a Rogue (Pirate) + Alchemist, or am I playing a Rogue + Alchemist + Pirate? Is there even a difference?

    Understanding that is key to seeing how Paizo sees archetypes now. Are they specialisations of classes, or are they specialisations of whole characters? It so far seems to be the latter, which is why I'm not sure the old name 'archetype', with its connotations of class-specialisation, fits them.

  • We don't really know how multiclassing works in PF2e yet, but based on the Archetypes blog and the general structure of classes and feats, I'd be absolutely shocked if the sorts of archetypes previewed are attached to the class you are when you take them first feat. That really defeats the entire purpose of the modular character design that PF2e seems to be going for.

    In other words, I strongly suspect that you'll be playing an Alchemist(4)/Rogue(5) who has dedicated herself to becoming the most piratey pirate of all (Pirate archetype, 3 feats).

    Malk_Content wrote:

    Are you being sarcarstic? You spent 8 bullet points to describe the process in PF1 (for only the CRB classes) and then one line to describe the process in PF2 (for all classes forever) and then think the former is easier to pick up?

    It is harder for you because you are used to bullet points 1-8. But that you need a description for how each individual class shows it is more complex than a similair description you only need to learn once.

    Ah, sorry. I thought the juxtaposition between eight bullet points for CRB classes in PF1e and a single sentence for every class in PF2e would make my position clear. I should have used [sarcasm] tags.

    The new class system for PF2e is way easier for a newbie, and I greatly prefer it to the class system from PF1e. I feel it is much more simple and versatile at the same time.

    Alchemaic wrote:
    They were being sarcastic. Though if you were to now translate that into 2e verbage, it would be "Rogues get FEATS at every level, but half the time they're FEATS and the other half of the time they're CLASS FEATS (which are legally distinct from FEATS but some FEATS can give you CLASS FEATS, but CLASS FEATS can't give you FEATS except for the CLASS FEATS that do)."

    You're welcome to call me "he" in the future, as it matches both my forum avatar and my actual sex, though if you continue to call me "they," that won't really offend me.

    <CLASS> get FEATS at every level. Odd levels give GENERAL FEATS (see list) or SKILL FEATS, while even levels give CLASS FEATS (see class-specific list) and SKILL FEATS (see list). Rogues in particular get an additional SKILL FEAT at every odd level. See? That just replaced the mess of bullet points I gave above.

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Alchemaic wrote:
    dragonhunterq wrote:
    Alchemaic wrote:

    It's all just names to learn, so not sure that it matters over much but for me if they act the same way I'd prefer a unified naming convention.

    I mean calling class feats 'talents', or skill feats 'fortes' (for example) just gives me more stuff to memorise for no good purpose.

    'x-feat' means I know how it works (it's a feat) and I know what it...

    Except they don't act the same. At all. General feats act like normal feats, class feats are class-locked and aren't interchangeable with general feats, skill feats are locked to specific levels unless you're a Rogue, and archetype and prestige class feats are class feats that replace other class feats but might also be general feats under certain circumstances?

    Plus consider this from the perspective of a new player. Instead of a Rogue getting FEATS every odd level and TALENTS every even level (which is easy to keep distinct), they get FEATS every single level, except they have to alternate between two completely separate lists of feats.

  • Rogues get FEATS at every odd level and TALENTS at every even level.
  • Barbarians get FEATS at every odd level and RAGE POWERS at every even level. Of course, they can also spend FEATS to get extra RAGE POWERS, and many do. They get gradually increasing DR/- every three levels, starting at seventh level.
  • Fighters get FEATS at every odd level, and a FIGHTER BONUS FEATS or COMBAT FEATS at every even level.
  • Paladins get FEATS at every odd level, and MERCIES at every third level. MERCIES modify the class ability LAY ON HANDS, which Paladins get a second level.
  • Wizards get FEATS at every odd level, and WIZARD BONUS FEATS (METAMAGIC FEATS, ITEM CREATION FEATS, or SPELL MASTERY FEATS) at every fifth level.
  • Rangers get FEATS at every odd level, and COMBAT STYLE FEATS at second level, and then after every additional four levels.
  • Bard gets FEATS at every odd level, VERSATILE PERFORMANCE starting at second level, and every four levels thereafter, and ... something else different pretty much every level, unless we start breaking down Inspire Courage / Competence / Greatness.
  • Cleric gets FEATS every odd level, and increasing CHANNEL ENERGY dice at every odd level. Oh, and they get DOMAIN POWERS at first level and usually eighth level, but sometimes at other levels, depending on the domain.
    This, of course, doesn't count the profusion of other class abilities that don't follow this pattern.

    Seems easy enough. I'm not sure why Paizo would think that every class getting GENERAL FEATS, CLASS FEATS, and SKILL FEATS at defined intervals would be easier for new players to pick up.

  • 2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I should add, the playtest is the perfect place to check these out and see the relative power compared with class feats. If people find that characters built with archetypes typically underperform those built with class feats, I'm sure that would be very useful feedback for the devs.

    Of course, if you're playing a pirate in an urban/high society intrigue campaign in a landlocked city-state, you're unlikely to get to use some of these abilities. So caveat emptor.

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Aestriel wrote:
    Dedication feats seem quite like a feat tax to play an archetype. Pirate dedication doesnt quite have the same power as the class feats it would replace, do the further archetypes feats make up the difference? At face value here it seems archetype players will be set back in power level a bit than a base class player.

    Considering that the Dedication feat adds a signature skill, in addition to its other benefits, I'm not sure that it's really underpowered. Signature skills are (as far as I understand) required to take a skill to Legendary proficiency, which gates a number of the most powerful skill feats. People have been wondering about ways to get additional signature skills, and the Pirate archetype chain offers at least two of them (Acrobatics and Athletics). Not too shabby IMO.

    For myself, I like the design, don't think it looks at all underpowered, and plan to use the heck out of it on characters I build.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Saint Bernard wrote:
    Given how conditions work, I feel having a cleric or bard in the party may be helpful. Debuffs on the enemies and buffs on party may be even more valuable than in PF1.

    Heaven knows, I love me some bard in a party. And cleric is pretty great as well.

    Note that even traditional martial classes seem to be able to inflict conditions on enemies at times. In the Crypt of the Everflame preview (Glass Cannon Podcast), the paladin's Retributive Strike was applying Enfeebled 1 (2 on a crit) if it hit.

    Crit specialization on weapons also has the potential to add conditions. Monks who critically hit with unarmed attacks may be able to apply the Slowed 1 condition on a crit,* which is huge.

    I'm sure there are other options; we just need to see them.
    *with Brawling Focus at level 4

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    @Secret Wizard I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Most or all of that "design" are indeed "legacy" design issues, and most of them should not be transferred to the new edition. There is a lot of agitation on the forums, however, advocating for keeping the status quo, however, and this risks dragging legacy issues into the new edition.

    There is a potential for meaningful differentiation between a fighter and a monk, and for the monk to occupy a fun and unique design space. I can think of a number of ways you could differentiate the two, and the set you described seems like one reasonable version.

    Comments from those who have done internal playtesting (Ssalarn and Mark Seifter, both of whom seem to be very honest posters) indicate that the monk does good damage, and can be defensively strong, with specifics depending on how the monk is built. That's the first test I think any class has to pass, and it sounds like they're accomplishing it.

    The second test is the "does this feel like a monk" test. We have an unarmored combatant, who is mobile, deals good damage, and has good defenses. This combatant has a variety of combat stances, flying kicks, special punches, the ability to run up vertical walls, deflect arrows, and even has the option to have other fully mystical abilities. By default, the combatant uses unarmed strikes, and is very effective with them; he or she can also use monastic weapons from the first level, with some character resource investment.

    To me, this sounds very much like a "monk," and very different from the fighter preview we saw, which makes me happy. Out of combat, I'm hoping there is similar distinction between the two classes, but that the distinction is not just "monk gets a big advantage, and fighter gets nothing" that my original comment was based on.

    I personally think that adding mystical abilities to the baseline of the monk goes against the overall "modular" design that PF2e seems to be embracing. I do think that monk having access to mystical abilities that (for example) fighter lacks is a great distinction, and one I wholeheartedly support. That being said, I myself would be more likely to play the class if I have the option to avoid ki powers and spellpoints, and I am happy that seems to be the default.

    10 people marked this as a favorite.
    John Lynch 106 wrote:
    If non-combat abilities are being quarantined into skill feats, I hope monks get more skill feats than fighters do.

    I don't see any reason why monks should be more useful and powerful out of combat than fighters. In fact, I see plenty of reason why they shouldn't, unless you're okay with monks being less useful and powerful in combat than fighters (I highly doubt you are).

    This sort of thinking leads directly to (possibly unintentional) underpowering of the fighter compared with every other class. Here's a fictitious example of how that design works. Let's see what the monk needs.

  • Monks definitely need all good saves. After all, high saves are a core part of the monk, so monks need the best possible saves.*
  • Monks also need to have high AC, able to match high-defense classes like fighter and paladin.**
  • For 2e, monks definitely need to be accurate and highly damaging (like the unchained monk). Otherwise, we'd have terrible design like flurry of misses or flurry of tickles.** That's unfair design, since combat is a very important part of the game, and monks are primary damage dealers. They need to have parity with other damage dealers, like fighter.
  • It's very important for monks to have easily accessible and strong mystical powers, with plenty of uses, since this is a core version of the class.**
  • It's also unfair and thematically stupid for monks not to start trained in weapons. It makes wizards better at weapons than them.**
  • And finally, monks definitely need more skills than fighters, since they had +2 SP/lvl relative to fighters in PF1e.

    You end up with (compared to fighter):

  • Higher saves
  • Equal HP
  • Equal AC (higher TAC)
  • Equal damage with unarmed or armed styles
  • Unmatched mystical powers
  • More skills and out of combat utility, in a system where skills are supposed to be much more powerful than they were in PF1e.

    Maybe we could balance some of these with fighter combos, but those are already counterbalanced by monk stances.

    You can of course repeat this exercise with pretty much any martial class. It's not unique to monk. Basically, the fighter gets used as the baseline of "I can't be functionally worse than this," but then you get extra goodies on top. This was the common situation at the beginning of PF1e. I don't like that design, and I don't think Paizo does either. Hopefully they avoid it this go around, and provide fighter with useful and fun things to do both in and out of combat. This probably means evening out fighter skills with many other classes, including the monk. We'll see when the playtest comes out.
    *see: Forum furor over unchained monk
    ** see: This thread.

  • I have to say, I'd also go with a fighter (sword and shield primarily). This was a playstyle that really disappointed me in PF1, and it looks to me like Paizo might have, through a variety of rules changes, made it much more interesting and viable.

    Racewise, I always always go with human, just because it's a good default, but I think I might go for an elf in this case. I can think of a few nice uses for that extra move speed, especially when coupled with feats like Sudden Charge (if I remember the name correctly).

    I'd also be very interested in cleric, rogue, and wizard (in that order), but the first would be an elf sword and board fighter.

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? Foreign magic is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core wizard works. I can no longer sit back and allow wizard infiltration, wizard indoctrination, wizard subversion and the inter-dimensional wizard conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Milo v3 wrote:
    Crayon wrote:
    Whatever grants the totemic powers in probably substantially weaker than a Deity (though they may also be pettier) and are probably correspondingly easier to placate.
    You don't need anything to grant totemic powers.

    You need something, although that might just be a very particular state of mind. Otherwise, the word "totem" is meaningless.

    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Wultram wrote:
    2) This is not 1 group, this is roughly 30-40 people, and maybe around 15-25 barbarians not counting my own or multiclass characters. I would say if not a single person even in that small sample size had any care about totems as the argument made in the blog post, it is a pretty good indication that the premise is wrong. Wich was my initial point, the conclusion is flawed because it relies on false assumption why the totem powers were popular. I am sure there are some people who like the fluff of them, but that does not change the fact it based on poor logic or data.

    A goodly number of players. Still, I guarantee you're working from a much smaller data set than the developers at Paizo. Even just Mark Seifter's experience with organized play has a sample set that is significantly larger than yours (based on his claim of 150+ organized play tables). The other developers, I'd bet, also have personal sample sets that are much larger than yours. These personal samples don't include any data they may have gleaned from organized play or conferences. Thus, I trust their data and conclusions more than I trust yours.

    And even if you are correct, and players universally take totem rage powers to get pounce or DR or wings, the developers finding a relatively minor mechanical reason (anathema) to draw attention to this major class feature and get players to not ignore its "fluff" is a good thing in my opinion.

    Clearly, you have a different opinion about anathemas and Barbarian than I do. That's totally fine. But you should recognize it as what it is (opinion and preference), rather than treating it as some sort of logic-based conclusion.

    "Wultram wrote:
    Call them as I see them, might be subjective matter. So is music, but I will still call bubblegum pop garbage music. Neither do I need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know that it is a bad idea. And yes I use strong language because that gets the point across I am trying to communicate. If someone takes offense to my use of language that is their problem not mine.

    Since your stated goal is communication: your posting style comes across as arrogant and dismissive, and is insulting towards the developers at least. This style will generally lead to ideas being dismissed out of hand and not even being considered, even if they are good ones. It will also tend to make people who have the different ideas dig in as opposition.

    In other words, it's your problem, because it prevents you from communicating effectively. If your goal is actually communication, I'd suggest adopting a more pleasant tone in your posts. If not, have at (within community guidelines).

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Late to the party here, but . . .

    I think the changes to rage look great. I think the 3/1 round rhythm has the potential to add some tactical depth and decision making to playing a Barbarian, especially since it adds a bit of a "HP tank" aspect to Barbarian, which I personally like the flavor of.

    I like the totems listed, and am glad to see that some of them are still giving magical abilities. I also think the option of a totemless Barbarian is a good call.

    I like having a specific anathema tied to a specific totem as well. The listed anathemas seem fun, thematically appropriate, and relatively lightweight in terms of day-to-day impact (well, giant totem's looks lightweight. Superstition totem's is more severe, but that's apparently a balancing mechanism).

    All of these reactions, of course, are subject to change once we get to see the playtest.

    MerlinCross wrote:

    This is something I've always wanted to try. Healing might be a bit of an issue.

    Now I don't think Magic SHOULD be needed all the time but gonna need some healing. It probably would vary table to table, but probably have 1 Cleric's worth of healing. Or Adept. Mind you that's total. If each fighter can heal 1d6 once, or something like that, probably will be fine.

    Mark Seifter's previous statements lead me to believe that healing wouldn't be an insurmountable problem for a group of Fighters, though it might require a few non-standard builds.

    I'd be more worried about "utility" magic (true seeing, fly, etc), though I don't know the skill / magic item systems well enough to judge how much of a loss that would be.

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    Cleric first and paladin last. Not sure what to read from that

    There's no money in being a Hero of Justice. The clergy, however ...

    johnlocke90 wrote:
    CWheezy wrote:
    The coming from yoru square part probably doesn't matter. It matters more if emanations are like an object your are holding. Like if you have a sword, then drop it, the sword becomes visible. If the emanations are not part of you then they are visible.
    It matters a lot. If it comes from my square, enemies know where to attack to stop the casting.

    That only works if they have readied actions. Also, they still have to get through your total concealment (50%) and probably mirror image. So if your have 4 images up, they have a whole 12.5% chance to actually hit you and disrupt your spell. Of course, if you see the whole party stopping what they're doing and readying actions, you could just preemptively move out of their line of sight before casting ...

    So it goes from "this really obvious strategy* is almost impossible to stop unless there is an arcane caster in your party," ("I win" button) to "this really obvious strategy is difficult to stop unless there is an arcane caster in your party." (major advantage) To me, that doesn't seem so bad.

    I've seen casters in first edition PF with invisibility (casting buffs, etc). run with the spell manifestations FAQ. It's still a huge advantage, and challenging unless the party has, for example, glitterdust or some other way to deal with it.
    *greater invisibility and spellcasting

    Trauma. Most likely blunt force to the skull. That's how I'd roleplay it at least.

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
    I think some folks said it earlier -- my interest in Alchemist isn't in BIG BOOM but in transformative capabilities that aren't Druid. Hopefully there's an Archetype in the works that flip-flops those priorities.

    From a flavor perspective, I don't mind Mutagen being a higher level ability than throwing a bomb.

    Mixing substances and having them blow up is very easy. Mixing ones that blow up when you want them to is slightly harder (need some training in alchemy), but not nearly as hard as mixing a short-term Mutagen that gives net benefits and doesn't immediately kill the subject.

    In other words, if I'm playing an alchemist modeled on Dr. Jekyll, I personally don't mind if it takes a few levels to "find a working formula" for a Mutagen. And personally, I would probably roleplay that way, if I had such a character in mind. Could lead to a pretty fun moment when I finally "make it work," especially depending on how the rest of the party had been reacting to my self-experimentation.

    RumpinRufus wrote:

    In some ways, the >10< system multiplies the effect of bonuses by ~3x. You are more likely to hit, more likely to crit, and less likely to fumble. Is that going to make encounter design more challenging? In PF1, if you gave a monster an extra +2 to-hit it wouldn't really alter the fight all that much. But in PF2 that +2 could have a major impact (especially if the enemy has riders on a crit, or if you have PCs who have built around taking advantage of fumbles.) Likewise, a -2 to-hit could turn an encounter from challenging to easy. That's just the hypothetical case of giving a monster an arbitrary +2/-2, but more practically, is this going to make selecting a level-appropriate monster from the Bestiary more challenging?

    CR is already notoriously unreliable as a metric to judge how difficult a fight will be. You see countless stories of people saying "I gave my party an APL+3/+4 encounter and they didn't even break a sweat." So is the new crit/fumble system going to make this more difficult - you give them a CR8 encounter and they stomp all over it, then give them a CR10 encounter and it's a TPK?

    Is the "level-appropriate window" between cakewalk and TPK going to shrink? If so, can this be mitigated? Are the new Death and Dying rules going to be enough to prevent TPKs, or will it become a precarious balancing act for GMs everywhere?

    The curve of average damage as your necessary roll "to hit" decreases doesn't look too bad, though it scales faster than in PF1 when you start hitting on less than a 10. Even in the steepest part of the damage curve though (where you hit on a 10 or less, and thus are adding both hit and crit %), the average damage per attack goes up by around 20% of attack damage when you increase attack by +2. I haven't run specific numbers on it, but it seems unlikely that this alone would turn an encounter from "easy" to "lethal."

    Players are getting additional reactions that (1) reduce incoming damage (Shield Block), and (2) trigger on critical hits. How much they help against a higher CR opponent will be determined by the exact abilities, and the numbers, which we don't have yet.

    Also, the new death and dying mechanic makes it less likely to go from "alive" to "dead" in one hit, which became increasingly common at high levels as enemy damage scaled much faster than your Con score. That should be a net boost to survivability.

    Finally, many battles in PF1 are determined not by HP damage, but by statuses and battlefield control. We still don't know what Paizo is doing with the spell system for PF2, but I to really comment on how much an increased CR increases lethality, it has to be accounted for.

    Overall, it looks like it's something they've considered, and the math doesn't look too bad to me. The playtest will give a better insight, and its definitely something to keep an eye on.

    Asurie wrote:
    Your calculation is incorrect somewhere, I believe. I just did the calculation by raw probabilities and came to the following conclusions.

    thflame already noted problems with the code that was based on, and rewrote it. The resulting discussion was moved to a new thread.

    Based on your detailed info, did you account for the criteria on a 2H with power attack correctly? Shouldn't there be an extra D12? Also, is there confirmation that PA done are not multiplied on a critical?

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Hythlodeus wrote:
    mach1.9pants wrote:
    Hythlodeus wrote:
    so the resonance caps are high enough that they don't matter anyway?
    I think he's saying they only matter when you spam some limited resource item, such as wand or potion of CLW many times over.
    so groups lacking a dedicated healer are now more f***ed than ever, I guess. That's nothing that bothers me on a personal level, but sometimes stuff like that happens. players have to drop out, no one else wants to change character and GMs still want to keep the game going even though the group is missing a Cleric. This complicates things for them

    Player 1 is down 45 points of damage.

    Strategy 1: Cure Light Wounds wand x10.
    Strategy 2: Cure Critical Wounds wand x2.

    One of these is unlikely to run into problems from resonance.

    That's definitely a design decision. In the Know Direction podcast, I remember one of the participants (sadly, I don't remember which one) say that they felt that cracking open a CLW wand like guzzling it down like a Gatorade was a crappy system, and one that was not found in any fantasy story ... ever.

    I agree with Lady Firebird.

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Bloodrealm wrote:

    I still think everyone is forgetting the fact that any damage that surpasses the Hardness of the shield when you Shield Block is dealt to the shield. This means that the shield will break very quickly, possibly in just one attack. The Shield Block reaction is essentially a trap option unless you use the Shield cantrip (and that can apparently only be cast one every 10 minutes, so you're not going to fully negate more than one attack per combat with its Hardness of 4). Shield Block is essentially limited to casters with the cantrip and pack mules with backpacks full of mundane shields.

    The +2 AC is far more useful than destroying your own equipment considering that you need to stack up as many raw stat numbers as you possibly can to avoid enemy criticals and avoid critically failing yourself.

    Without knowing the hardness and HP of shields, and the average enemy damage, it's pretty impossible to say this. Since they're completely changing shield mechanics, I would expect shield hardness and HP may be up for 'rebalancing' as well.

    Also, we have no idea how difficult it will be to repair shields between battles. In the current game design, mending (or a wand of the same) could patch up a shield pretty quickly.

    Finally, I think they mentioned the 'dented' condition with regards to shields in the Glass Cannon podcast, though I don't remember exactly where. It sounded to me like your shield could withstand a certain number of 'dents' before being broken, which is totally different from how sundering works currently.

    One question I had regards skill allocations. Did you use pregen characters, or did you build your own? And if you built your own, how much freedom was there in terms of allocating skill points (or at least choosing which skills your character 'focused' on)?

    2 people marked this as a favorite.


    TolkienBard wrote:

    A necromancer is still just a wizard. They just like playing with dead things. The difference is mostly cosmetic. Heck, by high levels the penalty for opposition schools is almost irrelevant. This is very different from making a dedicated path of each alignment.

    Off-topic, but this exact statement is one of my biggest gripes with the way wizards are built in Pathfinder. Pretty much every specialization only differs in their school powers, and can cast every spell on the Wizard list with nearly equal effect. The only major exception I can think of is building a specific blaster wizard.

    If (as an example) wizards specialized school was the only one they had 9th level casting in (and they could cast one spell level lower in non-specialized school, and two lower in opposition schools), it would feel like a much more important character choice. Heck, they'd probably still be the most versatile class in the game. [Obviously, you'd need to tinker with other facets of the class too.]

    I hope in PF2 that there is more distinction between Wizards based on which school they have taken.

    Now back to your friendly Paladin-related discussion, and sorry for the derail.

    Cuttlefist wrote:
    Can you elaborate on the new initiative system? I hadn’t seen any explanation on how it is different yet.

    There is no separate initiative score. What you're doing at the start of the encounter (when you're in exploration mode, probably) determines what skill you roll for initiative.

    So if a rogue is keeping to the shadows, he may roll a Stealth check for initiative. If a fighter is walking with her sword drawn, staying alert and looking for danger, she may roll a Perception check.

    It's detailed a bit in the Glass Cannon podcast (part 1 - https://glasscannonpodcast.com/the-pathfinder-playtest-parts-1-and-2/)

    35:04 (Exploration mode detailed a bit)
    41:40 (Combat starts - explanation of new Initiative system)

    It also describes Perception in PF2 a bit.

    Hopefully, Marc Radle can elaborate or give some more insight from his play experience.

    Those both sound like reasonable systems, though they don't match the information in Marc Radle's thread (which related that a 20 was a crit with no need to confirm). And I agree that it seems very likely in a playtest demo that you wouldn't have something with AC higher than 20, though I don't know the details for this particular one.

    It sounds to me like you (rooneg and David knott 242) are describing similar systems. I particularly like David knott 242's system (which is similar to the one described by rooneg for SF, but includes a chance to hit on a natural 1 ... if you're REALLY accurate), and it might be interesting to see something like that in play. Both do remove some 'randomness' in terms of crits and misses, which could be either good or bad. If during the playtest, PF2 feels 'off' in terms of nat1/20 mechanics, they might be suggestions on how to improve the mechanics.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Based on the GaryCon play experience of Marc Radle, there's a slight update to the plot I made before. Specifically, Marc states that a natural 20 is critical hit, without the need to confirm. This means that number [3] in my list above is no longer valid. There would be a slight buff to characters with a low hit chance when compared with the current rules (since it gets rid of the need for confirmation, which is unlikely if your hit chance is low).

    Updated physical damage plot for PF1 vs PF2.

    I'm a bit concerned that this may lower the survivability of AC-based characters, since (when attacked by a pile of mooks) each attack has a 5% chance of dealing critical damage, but it swings in the players' advantage on offense too. I'm curious to see how this will balance out in play.

    I also think that this may increase the relative value of shields, even against large numbers of weaker enemies, since you can spend your reaction to (at least partially) negate a critical hit. I'd guess you have to make a judgement whether you think you can soak an unlikely crit (and thus can afford to spend your third action on something else), or if you need the defense. There are way too many unknown variables (HP vs damage, available healing, other ways to avoid crits) to really definitively say whether or not this is correct right now.

    I should also add (at least) one more caveat: all of this is in terms of damage per attack. If the average damage per attack changes substantially between PF1 and PF2, the relative TRENDS in damage across 'to hit' values above will be correct, but the absolute comparison ("You do more damage when you need a 5 to hit") falls apart.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Mark Seifter wrote:
    I mean, we haven't said what happens on a 20 or a 1 yet. Details like those are probably best saved for a comprehensive blog on successes and failures.

    I was actually thinking that as I was working on this. I set this up under the assumption that you 'always miss on a 1', and 'always hit on a 20,' because I thought I remembered a similar mechanism for skills from the Glass Cannon podcast. Obviously, we poor forum folk don't yet have the playtest document (for good reasons), so it's the best I can do. :-) The exercise did get me excited about the new mechanics, though, so I thought I would share.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'd treat it as the equivalent of drawing a weapon, socially. I'd doubt that bystanders would react well.

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Mark Seifter's post and the subsequent discussion got me thinking about the new critical hit formula.

    As far as I understand it, in PF2 you crit (or are crit) when your attack roll exceeds the target's AC by 10 or more, as opposed to PF1, where you threatened a crit on a weapon-based target number.

    As I thought about it more, I realized a few implications of this new system:*

    [1] High-accuracy characters probably got buffed (depends on exact numbers), ESPECIALLY against low AC opponents.
    [2] Attack buffs do more for high-accuracy characters than they did in the old system.
    [3] Lower accuracy characters got slightly nerfed.

    I made a fast and dirty plot showing how your expected damage changes with the difference between AC and attack bonus in the old and new systems. The difference at the more "accurate" end of the plot is pretty striking. For the old system, I used a 19-20/x2 weapon. The qualitative picture doesn't change much with other weapons. For the new system, I assumed a crit was double weapon damage (no x3 or x4, for obvious reasons, and I think this is pretty strong evidence we won't see those crit modifiers in PF2). I also assumed you still miss on a natural 1.

    Of course, this all depends on the exact AC and attack numbers. But it certainly looks like a difference of 4-5 on attack could really end up being quite a bit of damage, and that the difference does not go away with party-wide buffs (e.g. bard).

    Overall, I suspect that's a slight buff of more 'martial' classes, and think it would be a good thing. I'll be interested to see how it turns out in the playtest.


    *I have not gone through this for iterative attacks. I suspect, however, that the trend would hold up pretty well, since the "inaccurate" end of the plot is very similar between the two systems. In other words, the first attack would do significantly more damage, and the later attacks would do at least equivalent damage. On net, a damage increase.

    Chess Pwn wrote:
    a 4 point swing? this is what I'm afraid of, when the difference between don't care and super invested is like 10 points it really makes you question why you cared to invest much or at all.

    So that you succeed nearly all the time (because of supposed failure on a 1) while they succeed only half the time?

    Or so that you succeed half the time and they can't ever succeed (or only succeed on a nat 20? not sure about that one for PF2)?

    Which case depends on the skill DC.

    I'm missing something here. Even assuming he has all of the burrowing feats listed: He has Darkvision, but no Tremorsense or any way to sense what's going on above ground as far as we know. How does the rogue know where the enemies are when he's underground?

    1 to 50 of 500 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>