Crayon's page

205 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
I wish they had gone with +1/2 level; +level will lead to bloat, rolling d20+35 and what-have-you.

Bear in mind, Proficiency exists primarily to replace the various static bonuses that set fire to PF1's underlying math and danced in its ashes. They'll still exist, apparently, but they're said to be FAR fewer and don't generally stack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

I wonder whether the Curse mechanic might be pulled out and made into a handicapping option for characters of all classes? It might be designed to open up access to additional feats that are not necessarily tied to the Oracle class.

I doubt that would be the case as most of the 'Curses' barely hindered the character at all even at low level...


1. Yeah you can ballpark the numbers in PF1. Why don't you think you'll be able to do the same in PF2 once you get a feel for the system? Also, 20 is always a critical success.

2. That's just b!!+~$*%. There are tons of spells, feats, and situational modifiers in PF1 that alter AC on a round to round basis. Critical failure on an attack roll is no different from a regular failure unless the target explicitly has a reaction and chooses to punish it.


I really don't understand the OP's problem, I can understand mechanics based margin of success causing problems if the scale used is very small or is used inconsistently (GURPS), but PF2's crit mechanic always actives on 10 and since we use a base ten system of numbers anyway it seems trivial to me to add or subtract a numeral from the ten's place

Enemy AC = 16 Crit on 26
Misses 15 Crit miss 5

Am I missing something?


To expound upon my comment above, I feel that changing any of the above points the OP highlighted would cause the resultant compounds to behave so differently from how poisons work in the real world that calling them poison would be confusing.

If it's that important that poison be useful to PCs, I'd recommend reflavouring Sneak Attack or maybe Feat that increases damage.


All of the above points are fine with me.


glass wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

The difference that you missed is that, in D&D 4E, PCs can only make "Common" items. Items that are "Uncommon" or "Rare" can only be found as treasure. With the "Common" items mainly being those needed to keep the combat numbers up, there seems to be no way that Pathfinder 2nd edition would or could use a system like that.

Do you have a citation for that? I never managed to find confirmation of exactly what characters could and could not make, so I ended up ruling that PCs in my game could make Common and Uncommon but not Rare. I had thought it was a very rare example of an unclear rule in 4e, but it might have been an accidental house rule.

totoro wrote:
Whew! I'll take it as good news that anyone who likes 4e thinks PF2 looks unlike 4e. :)

I am also a 4e fan, and I concur that based on what we know so far, PF2 is not looking particularly similar to D&D 4e. Most of the things that people have brought up as being similar are at best superficial, and in a lot of cases not actually like 4e at all.

** spoiler omitted **

There have been a couple of relatively minor things that did remind me of 4e, but ironically they are mostly not the things that other people have raised as points of similarity.

_
glass.

I assumed they were referring to the specific example of how CLW interacts with Resonance and the (superficial) similarity to Healing Surge.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've been mulling it over for a while and based on Marc's descriptions of the categories, limiting Clerics or Wizards to just 2 or 3 of them would seem to cut-off access to many iconic spells - Plus, none of the sample spells given mention Essence at all.

My current hypothesis then, is that Essence is more a reflection of how a character casts spells than the types of spells they can cast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Crayon wrote:
Also, Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.

I agree. Circle never sounded right to me. Tier, rank, grade, layer, order, step, ect all seem fine: circle though... it doesn't imply any level of hierarchy like the others do. I mean, would squares or triangles make sense?

EDIT: now a circle COULD apply to a group of people so it could be uses for character level though i don't think I'd like that either.

I'm not really convinced of the need for a change, but 3.X already borrows heavily from Ars Magica so maybe use Magnitude?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know, seems to me that changing spell levels to something else would cause confusion for more experienced players and wouldn't help neonates anyway since the term would still have to be explained to them.

Also, Circles seems a particularly poor choice as it doesn't really fit with hierarchical structure and almost sounds like unrelated forms of magic.


Arikiel wrote:

This looks pretty good. I’m slightly annoyed that they’re still using “level” for both “class levels” and “spell levels”. That’s needlessly confusing when it could be changed to something like “spell tiers” or “spell ranks”.

Bouncing back and forth with the degrees of success/failure is also counterintuitive. Reminds me of the awkwardness saying double digit numbers in German. It seems the natural sequences would be Critical Success, Success, Failure, Critical Failure.

These are just annoyances however. What’s truly troubling is where it says “one foe (or minion)”. Please tell me they aren’t a separate rules set for “minions” like in 4th Ed. That whole 1 hp cannon fodder, who’s sol reason for existing is to glorify the “heroes”, BS made me want to vomit and would be a deal breaker, for me, if implemented into PF 2E. :(

Mark Seifer clarified that he was referring to one of a PC's servants or underlings in that passage and that Minion wasn't a System term. Whether the concept makes an appearance elsewhere, however, remains in questions as there seems to be much equivocation.

Also, I don't know if it's true, but I've been told Minions were introduced into 4e in an attempt to shorten combats by adding CR without adding HP. If so, they did at least have a purpose...


I'd like to see the text for Vampiric Exsanguination given another pass. I realize we don't have all the rules yet, but assume we cast the spell for average damage (35) and hit four creatures - each of whose save result is different:
CS takes 0
S takes 17 or 18 depending how we round
F takes 35
CF takes 70

It's not wholly clear though how much HP the caster receives. I think it's half of the rolled damage (17 or 18), but as written could also refer to half the total damage inflicted (122) though that seems too much even for temporary HP


Captain Morgan wrote:
There's also room to create new spells which include a weapon attack as part of the casting. "Your blade is wreathed in energy" type stuff. Though I'm sure that won't be as appealing as the flexibility of being able to strike with any touch range spell.

What you're describing is very close to how I visualized (and described) using Arcane Pool to make a weapon magical! :)


From what I remember of 4e, the default method for determining Ability Scores involved distributing numbers from a static array and then applying racial modifiers.

Even with all the ? floating around PF2, I don't see any similarity. If anything, the proposed method seems like Starfinder or a mash-up of PF1 and some sort of lifepath system.


The magus, as it existed in PF1, has been rendered redundant by the new ruleset. I suspect we might see the class again someday in a different form, but I can't really think what the magus' shtick would be in PF2


My thoughts on alignment and the various takes on it are as follows:

Actions: Ascribing specific alignments to individual actions quickly becomes muddled and unless you include enough addendums and exceptions that the system is basically unusable. It also tends to fall apart pretty quickly in play.

Consequences: Judging actions by their consequences is arbitrary since the actors have no control over what the consequence of an action are. This reduces a character's alignment to nothing more than an accident of fate. It also fails to deal adequately with situations where an act may have multiple long-term consequences.

Intent: I have the fewest qualms with this method, but it does struggle where characters are acting without complete knowledge and is more subject to cultural differences than the other two outlined above.

My own preferred method incorporates elements of all three and is based on the idea that a character's personal worldview and morality brings him or her into alignment (pun not intended) with the associated Outer Plane thus allowing the character to access powers associated with that alignment and determining the fate of their soul after death.

When the character makes a moral choice in accordance with their professed beliefs, they become closer to that plane. If the GM feels the choice contradict the character's current alignment (and the player can't make a compelling argument otherwise), they move away from that alignment on the relevant axis.

Thoughts?


DM Alistair wrote:
Surely I'm not the only one who read the post and said "Why do these spells look like Powers from 4e?" Right? Not saying that's a bad thing (I loved 4e) but still, it reminds me a lot of that.

Being written in 2nd person is a bit weird, but maybe they'll be OK once we get used to them.

Also, given Spell Points sound mechanically identical to 'Uses per Day', it seems a bit silly to introduce a new name for them. Especially one as potentially misleading as Spell Points...


Sounds pretty good thus far. It will be interesting to see more about these spells and the characters who use them in coming weeks and months.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still don't know why we still have Ability Score modifiers. Classes no longer have minimum ability scores as prerequisites so if we're not trying to prevent certain Ancestries from persuing certain design opinions, what purpose do they serve?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Considering I find low-levels of 1e doesn't give characters enough to define themselves, and normally start my games at level 4 at the lowest, I'm probably going to have to start my PF2e campaigns at level 8.
There's really basically no evidence that anyone but Alchemist (and maybe not even them, as I note above) is getting anything delayed like this. At all. Indeed, Rogue and Fighter seem to distinctly not be doing this...so I think all this panic about it is premature.

While I do generally agree, the Fighter and Rogue were already fairly modular classes and lack any truly class-defining abilities for them to 'push back' or remove.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking purely for myself, my avoidance of high-level play had nothing to do with the math problems that plagued PF1 and more to the fact that I prefer a grittier, street-level feel to my fantasy RP than the cartoonish antics associated with Epic/Mythic/Legendary rules.

Not that PF2 can't support both types of game, but correlation and causality aren't the same thing and I'm not 100% convinced fixing the rules will necessarily result in more games going past level 10 or so...


totoro wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:

My biggest complaint about charisma bonuses for halflings and gnomes is that they start the whole blog with this sentence.

"Overlooked and disrespected, halflings and gnomes get by in their own way."

Paizo, Please don't create a game with a rift like this between the math and the language. If halflings and gnomes are overlooked and disrespected, they have no reason to have a +2 charisma modifier. OTOH if they have a +2 charisma bonus they should be a race that other races respect, fear or admire.

... no?

Just because your race is inclined to be charismatic doesn’t mean other groups will respect you.

Agreed. Charisma is an attribute of the character, not an indication of their place in society.

Charisma isn't just diplomacy, which makes friendships. It is also Bluff and Disguise, which can lead someone to be overlooked. And respect comes from Intimidate, with which small races may still have a penalty.

You're predicting a penalty on Intimidation checks for Halflings and Gnomes? Really?

Anyway, I've always hated the "I'm big, so my skill at Intimidation is better." I always houserule that crap away. If you are a giant, you are intimidating, but you are only as intimidating as you look. The intimidation skill increases the level of intimidation over what you already have. If it is size that is intimidating to somebody, rolling intimidation increases your "effective size" for intimidation purposes, but if they aren't afraid of your size, like perhaps some faeries that live in tunnels into which they know they can escape, intimidation better add onto something else, like the arcane energy sizzling around your fingertips. Do you think you can intimidate a noble who is surrounded by an army of warriors? Not with size, your intimidation better be added to your social status. (A straight intimidation check, without size modifiers, should work in any situation, though.)

In other respects, I agree with the...

The +/-4 to Intimidation for relative Size difference isn't a House Rule (though I agree it didn't make sense most of the time). In any case, I seriously doubt we'll see anything like that in 2e as it seems diametrically opposed to the stated design priority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:

My biggest complaint about charisma bonuses for halflings and gnomes is that they start the whole blog with this sentence.

"Overlooked and disrespected, halflings and gnomes get by in their own way."

Paizo, Please don't create a game with a rift like this between the math and the language. If halflings and gnomes are overlooked and disrespected, they have no reason to have a +2 charisma modifier. OTOH if they have a +2 charisma bonus they should be a race that other races respect, fear or admire.

Charisma, while it relates to social interaction, is as much an intrinsic part of the character as Strength or Intelligence it isn't affected by who, if anyone, is around - though it may, of course, affect how the character can use his Charisma.


ChibiNyan wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
I propose that casters makes a concentration check every time they cast a spell. Critical failure = slot lost, zero effect. Critical success = no slot lost
Reminds me of the DCC RPG. Very punishing system for casters as they can trigger crazy wild effects for screwing up their arcana checks.

While I've enjoyed such mechanics in other systems (Ars Magica, Deadlands), I'm not sure how it could be made to work in a Vancian system. It seems as though it would prove rather too swingy though it might be workable if spells were made individually weaker and characters received more per day...


It's been a long time since I last read LotR, but neither Bilbo nor Frodo received much training in how to use Sting properly and, in any case, never really had to fight a determined atttacker who could see them so tthey might not be particularly good examples.


One of the cited design objectives is to reduce the amount of magic characters use. Resonance is part of this as is blanket increase to ability scores.

Personally, I'm fine with the former as I feel it is simpler and more elegant than the slipshod 'slots' method in the current edition, but dislike the latter as being a clumsy and uninteresting way to replace the absolutely inane stat-boosting items.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

At the end of the day, Ability Scores are probably the single least interesting part of the game and I for one think the game would go much better without them.

If, for some reason, their continued existence is necessary for the game's underlying math to work out, it probably doesn't matter how they're derived: roll, point-buy, stat-array? In the end it all comes down to a few static bonuses scattered about.


Dragonborn3 wrote:

So it sounds like the highest score you can have is a 14 at level one, and even then only if you have an 8?

14, 12, 10, 10, 10, 8
12, 12, 10, 10, 10 10

How is that array going to allow for much variety? The more I learn the less this sounds like they are 'fixing problems with the game' and it already didn't sound a lot like that to me.

Well, for one, it sounds like there may be additional sources of Ability bonus beyond Ancestry in this new Edition. If not, however, a shallow stat array could still be reasonably argued to foster greater variety on the basis that choices made at character creation having little to no impact will facilitate the realization of a broader range of character concepts

PS. I'm also pretty sure you can't use your discretionary bonus to raise a stat that had already been increased by your Ancestry...


QuidEst wrote:
Crayon wrote:

I honestly don't think Paizo'd care. PF1 has basically run its course at this point. Even if PF2 is a failure, players will go back to PF1 and Paizo focuses on SF or making 3rd Party content for D&D5 under the new OGL.

It's a no-lose situation for them, I think...

Sorry to be blunt, but you are wrong.

The folks at Paizo really care about Pathfinder. Paizo isn't actually some business golem, it's made up of a lot of very passionate people. Just because there are some pretty drastic business fallback options available doesn't mean they wouldn't care.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was referring specifically to marketshare vis-a-vis WotC which I believe is pretty low on their list of priorities. I'm sure everyone involved wants PF2 to be the best game they can produce (and hopefully lucrative as well), but with WotC reinstating OGL, I think any thoughts that Paizo will seriously challenge D&D in terms of sales are very optimistic.


I honestly don't think Paizo'd care. PF1 has basically run its course at this point. Even if PF2 is a failure, players will go back to PF1 and Paizo focuses on SF or making 3rd Party content for D&D5 under the new OGL.

It's a no-lose situation for them, I think...


I seriously doubt PF2 has much to do with D&D5. I can't remember where, but someone at Paizo said years ago that they'd only consider a new edition after a decade or so and the trend has always been towards simplification of the antiquated 3.0 chassis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
Logan Bonner, “Gnome Blog” wrote:
Discerning Smell lets a gnome truly appreciate peculiar food and drink, or sniff out that invisible orc who's caked in the clay from a particular mountain pass, hasn't bathed in roughly 8 years, and recently ate a live bird. (A swallow, fittingly.)

Did anyone else notice this awesome gnome scent racial ability? I’ve never seen a gnome depicted as having a fantastic sense of smell, but I can’t wait to build one in PF2.

Hmm

I think it was an option in AD&D 2e either via subrace or in one of the Player's Advantage books. It was connected to the giant noses they were always depicted with in AD&D...


Well, the scale was already broken in 3e since Ability Scores only went down to 1 (-5), but had no practical upper limit. It does seem like characters will have universally high scores in every ability compared to the current edition (which is boring) , but this could actually bring things closer to a real approximation of the game world's 'real' scale. Especially if they can get rid of most negative numbers in the process.


Still seems like being shot of adjustments for Ancestry once and for all would be the way to go...


Gnomes and Halflings have generally been depicted with childlike proportions (particularly the oversized heads). In any case, I think both characters look quite nice!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The ancestry feats are interesting certainly, but I think might be difficult to appreciate without knowing just what the races look like 'out of the box' as it were...

Also, will your average Small character be able to carry her own Waterskin/Rope/Tent, etc or will they still sometimes need big people to help with that?


Think it would make more sense as an Occult or maybe Craft check...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If anything, I'm more concerned about excessive customisation resulting in the various classes and races losing their identity and being reduced to greyish blobs. At least that's the sensation thus far though, to be fair, Fighter and Rogue were always pretty flexible in that regard so I'll be watching the other Class previews closely over the coming weeks and months...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe just me, but I tend to find descriptive fluff to be the antithesis of fun. Just say what you're doing mechanically and everyone at the table can imagine it however they want.


master_marshmallow wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Continuing a bit from the other thread.

master_marshmallow wrote:

[Power Attack]= 2dx+ damage/ dx+ damage = 3dx+ 2damage

[Critical hit Power Attack]= 4dx + 2damage/ dx+ damage = 5dx+ 3damage
[no Power Attack]= dx+ damage/ dx+ damage/ dx+ damage = 3dx+ 3damage
[no Power Attack critical hit]= 2dx+ 2damage/ dx+ damage/ +dx +damage = 4dx+ 4damage

[comparison] If 5dx+ 3damage > 4dx +4damage, then Power Attack is good

If 5dx+ 3damage < 4dx+ 4damage, then Power Attack is bad.

I'm interested in how that comparison changes with different variables. QuidEst did an analysis for primary attacks that hit on 6. How does the math change when you hit on 11? 16?

If your third attack can only hit on a twenty (and can't crit), is it really worth taking over bonus damage on your primary weapon?

I put QuidEst's example into excel to find out more.

Hit on 13, d12+6
Power Attack:
Two Actions 12.5 * (0.4 + 0.05) + 6.5 * (0.4) = 8.255
Three Actions 12.5 * (0.4 + 0.05) + 6.5 * (0.4) + 12.5 * (0.15 + 0.05) = 10.725

No Power Attack:
Two Actions 12.5 * (0.4 + 0.05) + 12.5 * (0.15 + 0.05) = 8.125
Three Actions 12.5 * (0.4 + 0.05) + 12.5 * (0.15 + 0.05) + 12.5 * (0.05) = 8.75

I found an inflection point when you need a 13 to hit on your first attack. Against harder to hit enemies, you'll want to Power Attack even if that is your only attack. Between 3 and 13, you want to take your second attack instead.

If you are rolling d12+4 instead, the inflection point moves down to hit on AC 11. If a monster takes more than an 11 to hit, Power Attack is better.

Notes:

20's auto hit and auto crit, so 5% of the time, Power Attack is mathematically pointless.

The existence of Certain Strike guarantees a hit with flat damage and all variables treated as 1's. This affects Power Attack's usefulness immensely as before the argument was that it had value because that third attack was so unreliable. Now we have to find out how...

I haven't checked all of your math, but at best all of you illustrated is a (possibile) poor synergy between two unrelated feats. We simply don't have enough information about the new game to draw educated guesses much less conclusive data.


While fumbles can be fun in some systems, I don't think it fits well for PF - at least not as a core rule.

Critical success is easy - you do extra damage and maybe derive some other benefit as determined by the specific properties of the weapon being used so sword, club, bow or javelin are all roughly similar in this regard.

With a critical failure, however, you need to find something worse than missing, but also either universally applicable to all weapons or create a series of different possibilities for different weapons. Neither is particularly appealing.


It does seem a bit weird at the moment, but objectively is probably similar in complexity to the current system used.

We'll need to play it a few times to know for sure...


Maybe not.

They might replace existing race features or be able to reference some existing feats for other ancestries


I'm not so sure. The cleric was already one of the most OP classes in the game and I generally don't think adding features for the sake of having features is a good idea from a design or character perspective


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

Why put average speed from 30 to 25 instead of keeping it as is and giving the Elves 35 ?

They could even give 25 to the slow races

This way the gaps stay the same but no one loses speed

Because you're getting an extra action per turn.

So, you'll be able to move 90' as an elf, 75' as a human. Two move actions previously would have netted you 60'.

This means that most races will be "relatively close" to their prior round maximum. Elves get an additional bit of uniqueness by that small speed boost.

Good point but then they should reduce the speed of the slow races too by the same reasoning. But Dwarves still have 20 speed which nets then 60' when they were at 40' in PF1

So, from PF1 to PF2, Dwarves get +50%, and so do Elves, while the average speed races such as Goblins only get +25%

We'll see tomorrow what's been done with Halflings and Gnomes, but I think it's all likely related to matters of scale and simplifying movement. Now it looks like:

Slow = 60 feet
Medium = 75 feet
Fast = 90 feet

Which gives a bit more granularity than the old 20/30 division


Yeah, most of the crunchy bits will be uploaded to SRD sites within a few months assuming the new OGL is similar to the old one


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, to be fair, it cost a Move Action to 'handle' an Animal in 1e too. Druids, Rangers, and Hunters just got an exemption allowing them to do so as a Free Action.

Although, with the revised action economy, that may no longer be necessary.


I'm figuring on:
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer/Wizard
Universal


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Janet Kuhlmann wrote:
Clerics, actually, healers of any type are in need of something...anything to make them interesting enough that people want to actually play them. It's like pulling teeth to find a healer for a game. Can we get something to make them a little more fun to play?

Not a problem I've experienced. Why do people think the Cleric's unpopular?


Historically, in D&D, the Cleric didn't select her spells - her Deity did. She could pray to be granted a particular set of spells each morning, but what she actually got was determined by the DM.

While this would undoubtedly beunpopular today, it did help compensate for the small number of spells per day as the DM could ensure that the character always had spells that would be useful on a given day.

1 to 50 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>