Cyouni's page

405 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

sherlock1701 wrote:
shroudb wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Paizo has to please both these guys...

Tbf, that's impossible, because we seek different things from the same game.

Thankfully, GM Fiat exists, and as long as the system works, both can be satisfied.

As an example, my "average" encounter with the old system was at cr+3,and my players still steamrolled those.

Pf2 might see me playing at cr appropriate and sherlock at cr-2 to capture the feeling he wants, or it might revert to old pf and force me to go cr+ and sherlock to cr appropriate.

As long as the system, as a system, works, difficulty level will stay adjustable between tables.

The problems with that are

A) It's dependent on GM fiat, which is not a guarantee
B) More importantly, you're then fighting weaker stuff, which isn't as cool. I want to walk up to a Great Wyrm Red Dragon at 18th-20th level and hit it (almost) guaranteed at least the first couple shots every round. Fighting a Marilith with a 20th-level fighter isn't cool.

I don't want a low difficulty, I want a high degree of success on actions in which I have specialized. I don't mind failing untrained/secondary checks, that's why you have a party.

I think if you're nearly guaranteed to hit a CR 22 thing at level 18-20, the CR 22 thing is not as big of a threat as it should be.

Because then we have level 16s guaranteed to hit level 18 martially-focused PCs, and then it starts getting stupid again.


Wulfhelm II. wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Wulfhelm II. wrote:
Page 168, where they talk about what the legendary medic skill feat does:

They also happen to talk about what the "Legendary Medic" skill feat means, namely:

Quote:

You’ve invented new medical procedures or

discovered ancient techniques that can achieve nearly miraculous
results.

So, no. That skill feat is most definitely not simply a descriptor for a skilled surgeon. It also would make very little sense to restrict the ability to perform surgery to 15th-level characters and above, which would practically guarantee that in most campaigns, there would be no such ability.

But let's just stick with the rules we are given, shall we: Someone claimed that First Aid was just basic things like CPR and stopping bleeding. They also claimed that they could do it (even though I am willing to bet that this is because they received a modicum of training.)

So, first aid. If a loved one was in mortal danger due to a stab wound, who would you rather have perform first aid on them:
a.) A relatively novice, but trained EMT.
b.) Some guy who saw a training video on first aid once, but happens to be a crack computer programmer or successful athlete.

I'll let you decide. But the answer is a.) You know that. I know that.

Let's imagine that we actually model this out with the system.

The EMT would have at the very least 14-16 Wis, for a score of +3 or +4.
The other person, if they are the Einstein of programmers, would be level 5 and have a Wis of around 10. They'd still have a score of +3, due to being untrained.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of the point of the playtest is to put stress on certain sections where they want to see how people respond to it. Certain parts will be harder than they should be in a standard adventure, and other parts easier. That's so they can tell if their predictions regarding standardized difficulty play out correctly.

Each section has a different goal:
Lost Star: Standard dungeon crawl. This one's the most standard.
Pale Mountain's Shadow: Traps, hazards, and difficult terrain at the same time as combat.
Somberfell Hall: Healing, encounter length, and sustainability.
Mirrored Moon: Higher-difficulty encounters, but with preparation and only once/day. Basically testing nova capabilities.
Heroes of Undarin: Durability and endurance of default mid-high level characters. There's a reason it specifically checks when people go down, and specifically limits gear choice.
Red Flags: Roleplaying, skill usage, and investigation-themed sections. Tries to go as long as possible without combat.
When the Stars go Dark: High-level play, difficulty balance, and checking for option paralysis.

The point is: this is a playtest. It's designed to stress test certain aspects. What it's not designed for is setting up constant roleplay scenarios or random 'interesting' one-off mechanics that will never be seen again. It's to test the things that need testing so that they can get the best information possible and use that to improve the game.


For simplicity, you always add level to TEML.

Unarmoured proficiency was noted in the errata - everyone is trained in it.

Spell rolls are usually used for things like Black Tentacles.

I find it's easier to parse Resonance if you note that every time you see (Operate, Focus, Command) Activation, it costs 1 RP. Invested is 1 RP.

Sorcerers know 4 spells per level (3 + bloodline) and can cast 4 per level at max (3 + bloodline).


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:

Also it means that the design space for monsters is very small, making it really hard to differentiate. And last it makes your character really static.

As a side note +1 to everything also means you can actually do Epic Levels that are actually playable. And I am looking forward to that.

Not at all, there is way more to differentiate monsters than number inflation to basic stats, I mean, that's cool, and easy to grasp, but an extra +10 to hit and to AC does not make a monster that much different, or really open up the design space. There is a lot more to monsters, like, hit points, and the stuff they can actually do (actions, etc).

Also, having bigger numbers does not let you inherently do amazing things, they actually need to make Legendary play worthy of the name, I want them to bring some crazy epic features and feats, to differentiate from a lower lever fighter or what-have-you, not just "ooh, I have +10 more to my AC, Saves, Skills, and Attacks.

There's only so many ways you can cheat action economy by making increasingly better actions before the game breaks under your foot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

It is very probably I have incorrectly remembered the wording of Assurance.

I thought it was replacing only the die roll, essentially providing like a 10 mechanic which improved as your proficiency improved.

If you don't actually add your normal bonuses it's a pretty terrible feat that serves only to make sure you don't screw up trivial things, but doesn't make you a master of your chosen skill. Which is what I thought it would do.

I mean if expertise just gives you a result of 15, but requires level 7 to become an expert then... That's +8 from being expert and level 7. Which means it's giving you an effective roll of 7. If you have a decent ability score to back it up, you can probably have a +12. Meaning it's only giving you a 3. Which is absolutely terrible.

You're thinking master, by the way. Master is level 7 gated. Expert is possible at level 2.

So judging by the earliest - expert Assurance gives you a roll of 12 if you have a stat of 10, and master Assurance gives you a roll of 11. Assurance is really mainly good for skills that you plan to level, but are in a bad stat or have penalties. (I think the numbers still need to be increased, though.)


Ryuujin-sama wrote:
Remember the Errata only removes the common word from Quick Alchemy, it does not do the same for Advanced Alchemy. So you still can't make Mutagens at the start of the day using Advanced Alchemy. And grabbing the level 20 feat to make Philosopher's Stones still does nothing as it has to be made with Advanced Alchemy, not Quick Alchemy, but is not common and Advanced Alchemy still can only make common items.

Page 45—For the alchemist, in the Proficiencies section of the sidebar, under Skills, change “2” to “3”. In Advanced Alchemy, in the third sentence, remove “common”.

The third sentence is "You can use this feat to create common alchemical items as long as you have their formulas in your formula book, though their power is fleeting."


Huh, are you sure about the math on the bard crit? I'm pulling up the numbers to check them myself, and with Inspire Courage, I think from what you're stating he should have a +5. That's an 18 crit on the Pyro, a 19 crit on the Warriors, and a 20 crit on the Commando. If you manage flanking, that would be 16/17/18 respectively. (I think with the crit system, flanking is going to be dangerous in an unprecedented way.)

Dying DCs from an attack roll should probably be 10+level+(Str or Dex) in most cases. From my memory, when you're at positive HP but dying, you still need to make the Fort save to get back up, but your dying condition won't increase from there. When you get up, dying goes down by 1 at the end of each turn.


Dasrak wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Just thought I'd make a postive comment in the flood of negativity :-)
I think part of the negativity problem does come down to levels, in fact. A lot of people (myself included) are still mostly focused on 1st and 2nd level play and haven't really done much more than do a first-pass reading of the higher-level stuff, and from what I've seen I think that 1st level play is where the system is at its weakest. Everything is just less impressive, less varied, and less interesting than 1st level play was in PF1. But as more and better options become available at higher levels, a lot of those problems go away.

I actually do find that curious - I find 1st-level PF1 play to be incredibly uninteresting. Martials have one attack and are incredibly dependent on luck to not die thanks to HP being very close to damage, casters have very few spells and get stuck with crossbows very quickly, most options to differentiate you don't really exist...

I'd like to hear why you think PF2 level-1 play is less varied and interesting than PF1 level-1 play.


You can travel with your weapon out - you're just never going to get the benefits of Raising a Shield on turn 1.


You might as well add Improved Grapple and Trip, since those are both folded into base Athletics usage as well, and neither provoke AOOs.

I believe you can also add Double Slice, since there's no half Str mod anymore on the off-hand.


Soothe spell, and if you need to be the primary healer Spontaneous Heighten it.


Akiva266 wrote:

Why is perception no longer a skill? Why is it totally controlled by class? Why is Wisdom now used to determine initiative? Why is there only one feat to increase the prof, and it only goes to expert? Why is it that only rogues can be masters in perception?

Don't get me wrong, I like the use of perception for all the things that it is designed for. BUT, I don't know many fighters that are going to waste points in wisdom just to increase their initiative.

I'm pretty sure level...9? fighters get Battlefield Surveyor, which is master in Perception, as well as +1 to initiative based off Perception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
What if proficiency scaled up to +6?

Hmm, -2/0/2/4/6 wouldn't be too bad personally, especially since it also smooths out the numbers to be even between the proficiency levels. Investment would mean more, and it'd expand the range of min/max from 17 to 20.

I'm just unsure about what it'd do to the math (especially fighter vs. not-fighter) and DCs, especially since I think part of the design goals were for the optimization to be more along the lines of utility rather than pure numbers.


Caveat: +5 to any particular saving throw will visibly warp the game around it. +3 is generally about +50% effectiveness to a particular roll, so you can imagine how effective a +5 is.


RangerWickett wrote:
Which is why most people can't charge, or wield two weapons in any useful fashion, or take feats to be good at maneuver X, Y, or Z. Or multiclass. Or have a divine grace to protect them from evil, or a holy smite that makes them terrifying against evil-doers.

But...old-charge is literally just Stride, Strike, Strike, except you can go around obstacles in the way. (This is incredibly important - I cannot count the number of times that's messed up a planned charge, meaning they're stuck too far away instead.)

Two weapons are still completely usable to get a big first attack and more accurate secondaries.
Improving maneuvers is literally just increasing athletics proficiencies.

Multiclassing was definitely complained about. I had a Swashbuckler 3/Sorcerer 2 at the time of death who was honestly quite useless for his level. I also have a Mystic Theurge who plays like a Cleric 5/Sorcerer 6. I've also seen a Slayer 5/Shadowdancer 9 who basically was good for being a pile of health and not much more, and would easily lose in a fight to his shadow. The fact that you need to understand the game at a certain level to know what trap options exist and how to avoid them is not a good thing, because it discourages new players.

On the other side of the ballpark, people who dipped Paladin 2 for Divine Grace were also pretty common, and instantly got a portion of an oracle capstone as a result.

RangerWickett wrote:
And finally they thought that strict accounting-style lexicography was superior to natural language, because they wanted to reduce disagreements among gamers and because it would let them fit more content into the same page count, so they stripped out a lot of the charm you'd get from 'normal' writing and instead described stuff in legalese. Lots of tags and traits and such, which works great for the back end code of a video game, but not for the public facing gameplay.

Let's be fair, part of this is a problem with description - there's no reason the two parts can't coexist. Trying to go full 'normal' writing leads to constant FAQs and arguments about which of the three different interpretations is correct, part of which will vary by table. A clean system is significantly better than having a questionable system that has 'normal' writing.

That doesn't mean the approach can't be improved to smooth things out (I'm especially looking at you, Warded Touch), but it's a significantly stabler system.


Tamago wrote:
PrinceofPerdition wrote:
Do sorcerers start with 2 1st level spell slots or 3 1st level spell slots? The rulebook says you get an extra spell slot from your bloodline when you learn a spell of a new level. At first level, you are learning 1st level spells. I assume you gain the extra spell slot, but maybe I'm wrong.
My sorcerer player was confused about this as well. Since all the bloodlines grant you an extra spell slot, why doesn't the table just include them?

Also for the purpose of spells known. Because every time you get a spell slot, you also get a new spell known, if it was written directly on the table, there'd have to be a line counting the bloodline spell for that purpose.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Except a Druid doing that made martials obsolete even earlier than normal, so let's not pretend they didn't need to be reined in.


bugleyman wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Not a error, but a formatting inconsistency: The way monk saves are presented vs. the way paladin saves are presented. One of them (paladin, IIRC) reads:

Expert in Fortitude
Expert in Reflex
Expert in Will

Whereas the other reads:

Expert in Fortitude, Reflex, and Will

Probably because Paladins are only trained in Reflex.
Hmmm...must be have a different class, then. Is no one other than the monk trained in all three any more? (I don't have the book in front of me).

Huh, yeah when I got to Ranger that's what I saw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather see them be gated by weapon proficiency, if anything.


bugleyman wrote:

Not a error, but a formatting inconsistency: The way monk saves are presented vs. the way paladin saves are presented. One of them (paladin, IIRC) reads:

Expert in Fortitude
Expert in Reflex
Expert in Will

Whereas the other reads:

Expert in Fortitude, Reflex, and Will

Probably because Paladins are only trained in Reflex.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Ventnor wrote:

Except in 2e, anyone can 2-weapon fight without a feat. In fact, it's a fairly decent idea to have a stronger weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the other which has reduced penalties when making multiple attacks in a turn.

Fighters and Rangers just 2-weapon fight better than other classes do because of their class feats. What I don't really see as a problem. If a fighter has nothing unique that they can do, then why do they deserve to exist as a class?

Anyone with more than one attack could have done the same in PF1.

We all understand that when we say "Two Weapon fighting" or "Dual wielding" we mean "Gaining an advantage (usually an extra attack) for doing so."

No, simply using an offhand weapon to do the same number of attacks you could have done with one is NOT the same.

I’d be frustrated too if someone gave me as pointless a reply as I surmise you found the one Ventnor gave you.

It seems you haven’t read the rules for agile weapons. You’ll be happy to learn that using one in your off-hand gives a not insubstantial bonus to dual wielders, even without double slice.

Let’s compare two level one fighters, eighteen strength, one using a maul (two handed hammer), the other using a long and shortsword in tandem. They’ll both use three actions to Strike.

The two handed fighter looks like:

Maul +6 (1d12+4), Maul +1 (1d12+4), Maul -4 (1d12+4)

The two weapon fighter looks like:

Longsword +6 (1d8+4), Shortsword +2 (1d6+4), Shortsword -2 (1d6+4)

The second fighter is much more accurate with their iterative attacks. The get something out of dual wielding without taking double slice at all.

No, that fighter is getting a +1 to damage with his first attack over the guy using a single short sword, at the cost of having to maintain multiple weapons.

Oh no, not my Doubling Rings, a level 3 item that solves that problem permanently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forseti wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Forseti wrote:
I think some of the un-awesomeness is due to many of the classes having a lot of feats that do nothing more than build toward what are baseline class features in PF1. I find that very unappealing.
Can you give concrete examples for this? I certainly think the range on certain things can be expanded (Legendary Climber/Swimmer, for example, though effective, I suppose, aren't very interesting), but I don't think there's anything that falls to the level of "baseline class features".

Paladin:

- Divine Grace: a feat that's a lot worse than the class feature in PF1
- Aura of Courage: a feat that's a bit worse for yourself but a bit useful for allies compared to the class feature in PF1
- Channel Life: a feat instead of the PF1 class feature.
- Divine Health: a feat that gives a marginal bonus in PF2, compared to the immunity granting class feature in PF1.
- Mercy: a feat with some follow-up feats in PF2 compared to a class feature in PF1.

That's 5 examples in the first 4 feat levels of the PF2 paladin.

Note: I'm not saying the PF2 abilities are without merit in the context of the PF2 game. The game will probably run fine. I just can't help feeling underwhelmed by the comparison to the PF1 games I'm involved in, that have years of life in them yet.

I do sort of see what you mean by that, but I do have to point out that not being forced to take them (unless you archetyped to swap a batch, not too many of which were compatible) allows for a greater degree of choice in building a paladin. For instance, a paladin without any of the "traditional" paladin abilities that marked a particular playstyle in PF1 is something that can be done in this case.


Forseti wrote:
I think some of the un-awesomeness is due to many of the classes having a lot of feats that do nothing more than build toward what are baseline class features in PF1. I find that very unappealing.

Can you give concrete examples for this? I certainly think the range on certain things can be expanded (Legendary Climber/Swimmer, for example, though effective, I suppose, aren't very interesting), but I don't think there's anything that falls to the level of "baseline class features".


brad2411 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:


CraziFuzzy wrote:
This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.
It's a second edition. It's not unreasonable to compare it to what came before and see where it improves upon what the first did or where it's worse.

And yet that's not what it's doing. It's cherry-picking certain parts so that it can passively-aggressively say "look at what we're losing in PF2".

It in no way attempts to regard the system as a whole, especially given there are things like "Double Slice is now fighter-only", something that's obviously only based on the name and not anything actually related to the abilities being described.

Double slice should be compared to two weapon fighting feat from PF1 and is locked behind fighter or ranger.

I mean, if you're trying to compare like to like in good faith, the actual comparison is Doublestrike, the level 9 ability in the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype.

Is Double Slice required to make a TWF build that's literally not a waste of actions? No? Then you can't compare it to the TWF feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:


CraziFuzzy wrote:
This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.
It's a second edition. It's not unreasonable to compare it to what came before and see where it improves upon what the first did or where it's worse.

And yet that's not what it's doing. It's cherry-picking certain parts so that it can passively-aggressively say "look at what we're losing in PF2".

It in no way attempts to regard the system as a whole, especially given there are things like "Double Slice is now fighter-only", something that's obviously only based on the name and not anything actually related to the abilities being described.


ChibiNyan wrote:
A bit rough that Cleric can't improve weapon prof with one of their class things. I realize not all clerics would want to boost weapons, but a lot do.

Mmm...Warrior Priest (level 14) puts their proficiency to expert in their deific weapon, as well as giving crit specialization. Looking at the levels, I also want to note that I don't think it's worth it compared to taking Weapon Proficiency as a General Feat. That's not a good scenario - a level 14 class feat compares unfavourably to a level 1 general feat.


Belthazar wrote:
Xalchs wrote:
Belthazar wrote:
So I want to point out that potions don’t cost resonance. Elixirs of life and Healing potions are two different items. Alchemists spend resonance to make elixirs but potions don’t have the investiture tag so they only require an interact action to use. Just wanted to clear up this misconception.

If thats the case this makes me feel much better about Resonance. From what i read and what i've seen i was under the idea that it costs a resonance point to use the potions effect.

Seems like I missed a rules passage actually. Which changes how my last two games have gone. Apparently activating an item of any kind costs a point even if the item doesn’t have the invest tag. Which means scrolls are supposed to cost two points it seems. I’ve gone 180 in light of this revelation. I agree now, resonance needs some tweaks.

The easy answer is: Does it have the Operation tag? Uses Resonance.


TheFinish wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

As a specific example in Simulationist vs Gamist, consider Raistlin. Undoubtably he's a high level wizard. How do you think he would fare against a group of low level fighters without using his magic? Or, if you'd like something more modern, Kvothe without his magic against any group of guards...

That has nothing to do with simulationism vs gamism, but with the kind of story those books are telling, and how wizards are in those books. I'm pretty confident Gandalf can beat 20 goblins using a staff. He can stale a combat against a Balrog, after all. Geralt of Rivia is another example of a wizard who probably can beat a lot of low level fighters into a bloody pulp using his hands. In Wh40k, a chaos sorcerer will spank those guards. If we widen the genre a bit, Jedi will do as well, even naked and without light saber.

Just wanted to say, Geralt of Rivia isn't a wizard by any stretch of the imagination (and certainly not by Pathfinder standards, or the standards of his own universe); a Chaos Sorcerer would beat them because he's a 7 foot tall supersoldier in power armor (assuming a Chaos Space Marine) or get completely obliterated (assuming a human sorcerer); and Jedi got slaughtered by mooks even with lightsabers.

Plus, PF2 is an evolution of PF1, so you'd need to look at those stories. And you won't find a PF1 story about an unarmed, magic-less wizard beating up twenty 1st level fighters. Because it didn't happen.

It can totally happen now though. The numbers are just incredibly skewed by level, it isn't even funny.

It actually probably won't happen, even now, unless the wizard is significantly tougher than he is strong. Wizard takes an average of 3 turns punching (assuming no critical failures) to down a single dwarven fighter (Con 14) with a shield. He'll also get hit for 8.5 damage (assuming a warhammer) every other turn. A goblin wizard with 14 Con has 134 HP. Assuming no rolls out of the ordinary, he'll probably take out 11 fighters before he goes down.

The fighters not actually using their shields have a good chance of speeding up the process. The wizard takes out a fighter every two turns in that case, but gets hit by an attack every turn (sometimes more than one). If we assume that the fighters only use their shield once they go below half, wizard's going down fast, in an average of about 13 turns - I think this requires about 14 fighters.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Bull Rush = Shove
Charge = Stride, Stride, Strike, doesn't need to be in straight line
Exotic Weapon Proficiency is in Weapon Proficiency

Things that are available to everyone:
Improved Combat Maneuvers
Improved Unarmed Strike

Edit: The actual 1E Double Slice is also available to everyone by default.


Question: what were the Wizard's stats? Something seems to not be adding up here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Indeed. If that lvl 16 goblin, instead of "a goblin" is Globerg The Dragonkiller, Son of Grafgh, heir of Magluybyet, the Widowmaker, Blood of Fiends, then slaughtering 20 low level guards isn't surprising. He is the goblin equivalent of Achilles. That is why he is lvl 16, a legendary level.

Sure. But you know what would happen to Globerg in PF1E if he'd try that stunt? He'd get his naked goblin ass spanked by the level 1 dwarf fighters, that would happen. And to me that is what should realistically happen, because Globergs shtick is lobbing fireballs, not beating up armored people with his bare hands.

Everybody has a different taste in how he wants his fantasy to work. Given how we all got here, i.e. we didn't want a too gamey Dungeons & Dragons and preferred the more simulationist approach of 3.X over 4E, I'm really surprised how many people are now demanding that we shed the approach which made Paizo's continued existance possible in the first place.

I'd argue that part of that difference comes from the fact that a PF1 character is insanely dependent on magic items to make up their stats, and that a naked PF1 fighter actually wouldn't fare that much better. Sure, they've got the BAB to attack four times (making it theoretically possible), but they'll take just as much damage as the wizard will.


Zman0 wrote:


3: Magic shields. Allow +1/2/3/4/5 magic shields. Does not affect AC bonus, but instead increases DR and number of dents.

What makes Sturdy Shields not qualify for that?


Untrained unless specified otherwise.


Xenocrat wrote:


Cyouni wrote:
What about Grapple? That'd shut down one of them so that AOOs can lock them down.
It wouldn't shut them down (except on a critical success), it would just impose the Grabbed condition a DC 5 flat check for every somatic and material component they cast. That's still an 80% chance to succeed at a self or ranged Heal.

Well, it also makes them fully vulnerable to AOOs since they're not going anywhere, and if they can pull off a crit success, it's guaranteed not to happen. Didn't sound like these clerics had high Acrobatics or Athletics, so it'd be pretty hard for them to break the grapple.


Flurry of Blows specifically costs one action, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about Grapple? That'd shut down one of them so that AOOs can lock them down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grimcleaver wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
It's 2018 and "video game" is still an insult?

Inasmuch as roleplaying games are supposed to be the medium where you're free to interact with the setting however you want and video games remain the medium where you must interact with the game bits exactly in the ways the designer prescribes. Yes.

People want their characters to be able to do what they want without the game censoring them within the bounds of reason and the tolerances of all those at the table. Games that unreasonably restrict what characters can do for reasons that are entirely gamist...yeah that's, if not an insult, a complaint at least

Do I really need to point out how far 3.5/Pathfinder are from a "theatre of the mind" system? It's an incredibly gamist system to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dairian wrote:

Could someone explain to me how pf 2e is in any way LESS complicated that PF 1?

In PF 1, you pick a race, and a little blurb give you all the info you need on what playing as that race does

In PF2, picking you race, literally the first thing you do, requires you to pour over a big list of racial abilities, and try to decide what will be most useful to you, when you ostensibly have yet to PLAY THE GAME.

In PF1, you have to actually know what all of the 6 different racial trais that apply to you are, and what they do. I have a player that I'm pretty sure still doesn't remember he has Hardy, because it was piled in a list of a ton of other things, and the only thing he picked out of that was a dwarven waraxe early because that was a weapon choice. And then we can get into alternate racial traits, and how valid swapping X for Y is, or swapping W and X is for Z.

Compared to that, you pick one to two things, and since you had a choice in it, it's a lot easier to remember than the ton of default choices you got slapped with.

I can buy an argument that it's less customizable, but more complicated it's not.

Dairian wrote:

In PF 1, aside from casters, most of your classes abilities are neatly summarized right on the class table. You can see what you will get, and its name gives you an idea what it does.

In PF2, the class table just points you to a long list of options to pour over for each and every level, making it hard to get a feel for a class at a glance.

I'm...really not sure how this has become harder from PF1.

The fact that you're limited to the pool you can grab from makes decision-making a lot easier (instead of the however-many-level 1-feats PF1 had, quite a few of which were also prerequisites for others).

PF2 is a lot like rogue talents or barbarian rage powers, both of which are in PF1 and reasonably easy to choose from. This is just standardizing that for everyone.

Dairian wrote:


In PF1, if you wanted to multi class, you just took levels in the class you wanted levels in.

In PF2, if you want to multi class, you need to again pour over a list of possible options, which are essentially copies of abilities printed elsewhere in the book.

This one is less due to complexity and more due to practicality in how multiclassing was generally an insanely bad idea unless you knew exactly what you were doing. Basically, it's to make it so that you don't have to be a system master to multiclass and not utterly destroy your character's efficiency.

Dairian wrote:
In PF1, combat feats, and metamagic feats are just that, feats, that only need to be printed once.

The problem is the fact that basically everyone has access to every single feat choice at all times, and that makes decision-making for new players incredibly difficult unless there's someone guiding them. Even in the CRB, there's still more than enough choices in a single feat that it's easy to get lost in it.


Traiel wrote:
Isn't Assurance a final roll of 10, not like taking 10 used to be? how do you get assurance resulting in 15?

It's 10 at Trained. It's 15 at Expert, 20 at Master, 30 at Legendary.


JDLPF wrote:

Question #1

Can the bonus class feat from Natural Ambition be used to purchase a multiclass feat in place of a class feat provided the player meets the prerequisites?

Playtest Rulebook, p. 37 wrote:

NATURAL AMBITION

You were raised to be ambitious and always reach for the stars, causing you to progress quickly in your chosen field. You gain a 1st-level class feat for your class.
Playtest Rulebook, p. 279 wrote:
Applying an archetype requires you to spend your class feats on archetype feats instead of class feats. Start by finding the archetype that best fits your character concept, and select the archetype’s dedication feat using one of your class feat choices. Once you have the dedication feat, you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a class feat as long as you meet its prerequisites.
Example: Gish the Human Wizard decides to multiclass into Fighter. They take Fighter Dedication as their 2nd level class feat, Basic Maneuver as their 4th level class feat, and select Natural Ambition as their 5th level Ancestry Feat, gaining a 1st level class feat. Can Gish use this class feat to purchase the archetype feat Fighter Resiliency?

This is an easy one. Fighter Resiliency is a level 4 feat, and therefore invalid.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Paizo has stated that drawing people away from 5ed is not their goal.
Improving marketshare should be the goal of all companies that move product.
Quote:
Pathfinder has far better setting/adventure support than 5e will ever have, so that's one draw that remains no matter what.

All that "support" is PF1 product.

Frankly, what Paizo is doing to itself is about the best possible news for Hasbro/WOTC, because the 3e OGL has been their biggest loss of potential review for over a decade. WOTC will never again be as big as they were under 3rd edition & Living Greyhawk, and Paizo & PFS will similarly dwindle by abandoning the time-tested game everyone loves rather than refining it.

The more my proficiency with PF1 grows, the less fun I have with it because there's just so many things that break on contact. I spend more time planning to avoid those things than I do playing Pathfinder.


MerlinCross wrote:
wakedown wrote:
Skystarlit1 wrote:
At low levels, without putting feats purposefully into place to boost skills, ranks are all the low level character had to distinguish itself in skill from other characters.

Something I keep meaning to process.

Say you have two 2nd-level guard NPCs watching a hallway. Say they are nothing special, there's no feat investment into detecting/perceiving/guarding.

Take a 3rd-level halfling rogue who hasn't done anything significant to invest in Stealth feat-wise. He's picked it as best he can otherwise (picked it as a skill, or maxxed points in it).

How do PF1e and PF2e rate at the rogue's success? I can recall a Kingmaker adventure where our 3rd-level rogue was something like +14 (6 ranks, 4 Dex, 4 size) sneaking through some level 2 warriors at +0 (0 ranks, 10 Wisdom).

In PF2e, how different is this classic trope?

Rogue has +4 to his roll. He's at Expert and that's (Level +1) bonus. Now I actually went and looked at Stealth feats a day or two and I really couldn't find any boost to it. Nothing like a +2-3. And by level 3, you don't have any items to boost it either thanks to level gating. However let's give him the benifet of the doubt and say he or she has as high Dex as they can get away with. That'd be 18 I'm assuming. So grand total is 7.

Now let's take those NPCs, make them fighters. Because there's no Warrior yet.

Fighter is Expert in Perception and he's level 2. So that means he's at +3 for his Perception bonus by default. Now lets say this one knows what's up and knows how to do his job better, so Wis 12. And if we really want to complete that full transfer, there's 2 Guards.

So that Halfling Rogue has a +7 to beat two +4 rolls. Oh and is instantly seen if there's no cover so I hope the GM didn't just give you a straight hallway to try and sneak up to these guys.

Now I could be wrong. I'm willing to be wrong. It's a new system, I'm using questions like this to help test my own ability to math things out. I could...

I'm willing to actually comment on this. Remember that it's against Perception DC, so a single roll of +7 vs DC 14 for the two guards. If he's using Assurance, it'd get him a roll of 15, impossible to fail.


I'm not sure I agree. I pulled up one of the end-game sections of Doomsday Dawn, for example, which has level 18-20 enemies, and enemies will be doing (randomly chosen), an average of 26 damage, 35 damage, 31 damage, 34 damage, and 36 damage on a single-action attack. Some other things are higher, like the average 63 on a breath weapon, but you get the general idea.

Now, the average HP of a PC at that level will differ, but at the lowest we probably have a 14 Con wizard. This is probably lower than any realistic aspects, but let's go with this for an extremely low bar. Even with that, they have 168 HP. Getting resistance 5 to the attack they're getting hit by will make it so they need another attack to be downed. A barbarian might have 20 Con and Toughness, having 368 HP. Resistance 5 would make them take two more attacks before they go down.

With the numbers I noted, I think anything over resistance 10 being common would be overkill on the pure amount of damage it's cutting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
ah, i see. that definitely could be clarified better if we get a playtest 0.1 (i really hope we do get more as tiem goes, rather than everything not included thus far just being an untested surprise etched in concrete on the full release) to jsut say "removes the free hand requirement from the somatic casting action" rather than the current, since like i said, the book just notes what things manipulate gets penalized by in the current version.

I think if they can somewhat slip it in so that it's clear that the hand-requirement is linked to manipulate, then it'll work out a lot better (and also future-proof any other things that require hand usage). Unsure as to how that would work while being clear, though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

So if I give you a sword, and then say "you can't get that sword because it's uncommon", it's irrelevant that it's uncommon because you already have the sword.

The same is true of a power.

Weapon Familiarity needs to give you access to those weapons because it doesn't actually give you the items.


graystone wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
graystone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
But sorcerers are still better off than their 1e selves due to spontaneous heighten, not to mention not being behind on spell levels.
A lot of PF1 spells were "affects one target per caster level, duration of one round per caster level" or "damage 1d6 per caster level, range 100ft + 10ft per caster level". You didn't need to heighten them for them to get better.
Yep. The spells auto-heightened so there wasn't a NEED to spontaneous heighten...

The removal of caster level is an objective improvement to the system as a whole for a whole number of reasons, though. That is one sacred cow that needed to die.

So with that conceit, sorcs are better off.

I don't see how that makes the new version of sorcerers better. A system improvement doesn't directly translate into a class improvement.

Secondly, from my perspective, removal of scaling spells is a detriment: you are going to have to illustrate how you came to this conclusion and who you are holding up as an impartial judge of it's wrongness.

I'd argue that as soon as you put auto-scaling spells back in, you might as well resign yourself to martial/caster disparity again. I'd say that was a massive contributor - i.e., the fact that the spells they got 6 levels ago are still easily keeping pace with anything they require.

And if you weaken the auto-scaling so that's not the case, then you run into the opposite problem - any new spell is going to be inherently uninteresting because they have to take auto-scaling into account, or you might as well not have had the scaling at all.


AndIMustMask wrote:

actually looking it (lay on hands+warded touch) and the rules for somatic casting over, there actually appears to be little reason to take warded touch, since even without the manipulate tag it requires a free hand to use.

i mean, it makes it not provoke AoOs anymore, but those are now FAR less common, and it makes you drown less while drowning, but i dont see much other point to warded touch now.

also jesus that's a lot of bouncing around the rulebook to actually see what the heck a manipulate action even means for that.

I'm pretty sure removing manipulate also is supposed to remove the free-hand requirement, from what people have said. That (or to be specific, one of the feats the pregen Paladin had, but that's the only one that qualifies) was explicitly the thing that lets you lay on hands with your hands full.


It's mainly just the fact that you attack with a longsword in one hand (d8) and then take two attacks with the agile shortsword in the other (d6). Since the multiple attack penalty is being reduced thanks to agile, you have better odds to hit at the cost of lower damage on the follow up attacks.


MerlinCross wrote:


Mind you, this is all without taking into account the Ordinary task. If not under any hurry your DC to beat for swimming is 5-6. A Mighty 13 if swimming in the ocean during a storm.

So even a Trained character can swim no problem. PF1 doesn't have that right? Err.., what is taking 10?

Err...are you sure you read the list properly? I'm reading:

Swim in an ocean - level 1 task; Modifiers turbulent; Trivial at level 6
Swim in a stormy ocean - level 6 task; Modifiers severe storm; Trivial at level 13

Checking the numbers, the low DC for a level 1 is 12, which can become 14-18 depending on turbulence. Low DC for level 6 is 19, which can become 22-26.

That's quite a bit harder than you're representing it as.

1 to 50 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>