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.
David knott 242 wrote:
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
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.
I assumed they were referring to the specific example of how CLW interacts with Resonance and the (superficial) similarity to Healing Surge.
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.
I'm not really convinced of the need for a change, but 3.X already borrows heavily from Ars Magica so maybe use Magnitude?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
Ignore handringing by Martial characters. Critical failures NEED to count for meele & ranged attack rolls in Pathfinder 2E!
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...
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.
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.
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...
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 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.
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?
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...
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.
Ignore handringing by Martial characters. Critical failures NEED to count for meele & ranged attack rolls in Pathfinder 2E!
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.
The Raven Black wrote:
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
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.