I keep alternating between ‘this will be awesome’ and ‘this will be horrible’ when following PF2 news. At the moment, I’m doing nothing but reading the blogs reserving my judgement until the full thing comes out, but this certainly on the optimistic side. It’s hard to say what exactly I like, but overall it just sounds right.
Throw a phylactery into a volcano and let it sink into the molten crust.
Fire, Earth, Water, Air, and Void. Something of a riddle, isn't it?
Plenty of good places to hide your soul, and eternity will give you plenty of time to bring yourself omnipotence.
My interest in PF2 has slowly been dying, but this blog most certainly caught my attention. I love some of the little details, like Cantrips scaling as time goes on, but the number one reason I'm speaking up is a simple one:
THANK YOU FOR MAKING HEALING NECROMANCY. I have wanted that for so long. Still not sure if I'll end up switching (overall, PF2 just doesn't have a lot of why I like 1e), but that bit right there means I'll give it a second glance at least.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What? No. This is the first time I've made the comparison, actually. It's just that this is quite similar to what people don't like about 4e (only cosmetic differences between classes) that it seems like a fair comparison to make.
The problem with 'it takes 2-3 castings of a spell to do anything' is that, often times, Casters don't have that many spells to spare. If they got an at-will, "attack a different pool of not-HP than the rest of your teammates" that would be another story (still not one that I would like, but still a story- if the caster can't do anything to directly help their teammates take down a foe, what's the point of playing one?) but when I, playing a caster, gets a only one or two Dominates a day, there's no way I'd blow them on trying to take down a single encounter that likely won't even matter because after 2-3 rounds of being attacked by the martial characters, there's likely not going to be enough of them left to control. An at-will power would start to solve the problem, but then any encounter in which you spend trying to Dominate your foe is one where you effectively contribute nothing, unless everyone is attacking the same pool, which at that point, may as well be HP. It then breaks narrative if you can spend 20 seconds and have anybody you meet under your absolute control.
And that’s how we get 4e.
If PF2 dropped SoS completely, or made it key off of ‘alternate hitpointd’ it would lose a ton of its players.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Any character of high enough level (roughly level 10 for 'epic' storytelling of the nature I was referring) that has actually made any amount of effort into making their build in that regard should be able to pull off those tricks no problem. A power attacking Barbarian (especially one built around one big stroke) is pretty darn likely to take down a foe in a single round. It's why RAGELANCEPOUNCE is a thing. The rogue actually stands a decent chance of backstabbing someone (though that is admittedly a trope that is sadly lacking, admittedly), and the fighter could have easily invested in Cleave and cut through hordes of goblins with ease.
And the hit point thing is a non sequitur. I can think of plenty of fantasies where fights are won through attrition, small wounds leading up to the final blow.
In any case, are you arguing that because we are missing some fantasy tropes, we should remove more of them? That's... honestly kind of confusing to me.
I have trouble imagining that a game would be better without the enchantress able to put enemies to sleep with the wave of her hand or crush the mind of a giant and use it as an attack dog, where a medusa, basilisk or gorgon can't turn anyone to stone, where the evil cleric can't banish their foe to Hell, where the wizard can't turn someone into a newt because they annoyed them, or where the good oracle can't banish a fiend back to their home plane.
All of those are save-or-lose effects, and there's a reason they've been kept. It plays into the fundamental fantasy of the game, and removing them would hardly be an improvement.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Really? I've always said DAY-mons.
Plus, Daemons are a greek supernatural being distinct from demons, so there is precedence to that.
I see people are completely misreading my post.
(Side note: I'm not actually 100% of the stance that we shouldn't have a new game, P1e is perfect, yadda yadda- I'm just vocalizing that side)
I think the easiest comparison might be something like this:
Imagine walking up to a die-hard Star Wars fan. The kind with a life-sized Jabba the Hutt statue in his living room, and every model of the Milennium Falcon ever made sitting on his shelves. Now, imagine telling that fan, "You know, the new trilogy and prequels are absolutely the best thing that's ever happened to Star Wars. We got to learn about how the Force works, we get to see Luke be a grumpy old man, we get to see Darth Vader flirting using sand-based pickup lines, we get to see Han die. You know, you really should like them. Oh, you don't? That's okay. You can just completely ignore them and pretend that the original trilogy is all that ever existed and ever will exist, while the rest of the world gets more and more stuff from the Galaxy far, far away. You just sit in your little corner with your toys, that will never change and you can rewatch over and over again to your heart's content."
How do you think they would respond to that? Because that's basically what's happening here. People are saying, "Oh, you don't like the new stuff that they're asking our opinion about? That's okay, because you like how things were, you can sit in the corner with your old stuff while we get shiny new things to play with. You have plenty of things, stop complaining!"
And that's where people have an issue.
Anyway, guessing on what the various examples are:
So, does this mean that a medusa will only turn you into a statue if you fail the save by more than 10? That seems... incredibly counter-genre.
That said, I can't say I'm opposed to the four degrees of success, just that it could prove problematic in certain situations meant to be highly deadly.
Still, I was kind of hoping we would get something new in this blog, not just the crit system, which we've known about for a while.
Huh. It's... cool, I guess? It doesn't really feel all that earth-shattering, and, like with the fighter, I guess it just leaves me with a 'meh' feeling. Not that it's not cool or anything, it's just that nothing in here leaves me particularly excited or terribly interested in trying a rogue in this new system. At the same time, though, I can't say I spot any big red flags, so... good job at making something that doesn't sound bad?
I'll just have to keep waiting for the wizard preview, I guess. But the blogs keep being pretty bare-bones, so I'm not sure if that will excite me either. All the blogs just keep either not revealing anything particularly interesting or framing something in such a way that it makes the final product seem as though it won't work out.
Oh cool. Rouge blog on Monday? Should be interesting
That said.. there’s just... not a ton here. There’s almost no new information here, and most of the new feats kind of yell TRAP to me. Like... spending a reaction to deal damage to an enemy that’s right next to you... and just crit you?
I guess Handle Animal is wrapped up into Nature now as well? Having multiple skills able to heal now is kind of cool, I guess, but the way it’s presented here is underwhelming.
Re: the time span
Remember, Pharasma knows basically everything. She knows exactly when every creature in the multiverse will be born, die, be raised from the dead, and die again. I can totally imagine a waiting room in the Boneyard filled with people waiting to be Raised.
And, of course, the one really lonely, really bored Azlanti guy whose fate it is to be raised from the dead in Starfinder time by a Deathstar Coven.
Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Core only? Hmmmm... that does make things trickier. What level are you?
Isaac Zephyr wrote:
Forbidden? Unless you're playing with houserules or as a Thassilonian Specialist, it would only take you double the spell slots to cast.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that all of PF is completely correct physics-wise. We have concepts of conservation of energy and matter, but in Golarion, alternate realities (planes) are very real and full of very real matter. I always figured that for things like trolls, they gain their extra mass/energy through a wholly natural connection to the planes, and that fire is able to cut off that access. Dragons... yeah, no real explanation for that one. It's possible that they too have semi-access to the elemental planes, particularly that of air, and when they fly, they're actually micro-channeling the plane's negligible gravity, allowing them to ignore most of their mass while flying.
Most of physics as we know it goes out the window with the possibility of any given system not being isolated, but instead multidimensional. Think MCU Dr. Strange- no physics is violated, it's just that extra accessible dimensions full of energy do all sorts of weird things to our assumptions of what is/isn't possible.
Isn't that basically what prestige classes are supposed to be?
I mean, if they worked well in PF beyond niche builds.
If the endless martial/caster disparity threads on this forum have anything to say about that, you're not completely correct. Well, you may be right in that people want Casters to do stuff that violates science while Martials can't... but it seems the general sentiment is that people aren't happy with that.
Have you.... ever fought with a sword and shield? Because that's really not true. Holding a shield is about as intuitive as it gets. Almost immediately after picking one up and learning proper shield stance, it becomes more of a subconscious thing. It required more effort to drop the thing than it is to block with it.
It sounds like the fighter is just different from P1e. No longer do you '5-foot step + full power attack,' it's now much more come-and-go, with power attack not being the absolute best.
That said, as someone who has done RL swordfighting with a sword-and-board style, I do not think that having to raise a shield with an action is that great, game-wise or realism-wise. Using a shield often made attacks way easier and I could pull off extra while keeping my guard up, because of the way reach, swords, and shields work. I could see it being an action to raise, but it then stays raised until you do something with it (use a Reaction to have it deflect a blow, shield bash, etc.) but even then it's easier to have the shield up than it is to drop it.
I do like the idea of blocking area effects with a shield, though, that's something needed for a while. Does it also grant bonuses to those behind you?
Also, does the power attack scale with level? An extra d8 won't do much if your +4 longsword is already dealing 5d8 or more.
I think the simplest solution would just be to introduce a rank below untrained, "Incompetent," which could be something like 1/2 level-4, and you could lower two skills to incompetent in exchange for an extra skill rank at character creation. You could still raise it to Untrained, Trained, Expert, or higher later if you wanted, but then people could be useless at as many skills as they want, but without too much benefit in return (as you essentially lose one skill rank each time). Then everyone is happy (if you're upset that you have a +6 to a skill you started off with a -4 in by the time you're level 20, I really don't know what to say).
May I ask a question that may shed some light on the situation?
So, let's say we have two characters in P1e:
One, a 6th-level Fighter with 20 strength wielding a longsword, using power attack two-handed, and having weapon focus. His to-hit is +11 on his first attack and +6 on his second.
The second one is a 20th-level wizard with 14 strength (say he has a belt), using a dagger. His to-hit is +12 on the first attack and +7 on the second.
Now, tell me. Which is of them is a better melee attacker? The wizard? His numbers are higher. Well no, of course not. The fighter is hitting for 1d8+13 damage, whereas the wizard is hitting for 1d4+2.
Alternatively, compare the same 6th-level fighter to a 20th level wizard with 8 strength, with the same dagger.
That, in a nutshell, is why your statline numbers really don't matter all that much when it comes to skill. They play a part, for sure, but they are far from the whole picture.
Personally, as for the whole 'wizards are better at climbing at level 20 than at level 1, despite never practicing,' I have three responses:
If the wizard ever had to be hoisted up on the end of a rope, it would make sense that, in some of his spare time, he might do some research on better climbing techniques, and thus have a better theory as to how to climb later on.
If the wizard has never, ever come across something to climb before in the campaign, well, maybe he was always that good, and it just never came up. Perhaps even he didn't know he was secretly a climbing prodigy all along.
Finally, magic (*insert sparkles*) could be the answer. Perhaps he's developed a minor technique that allows him to improve his skill with physical activities/substitutes normal labor for minor magic, to the extent that, with how efficient he's gotten with magic over time, and how much magic he has, it doesn't impact his daily magic power in the slightest.
I think 'finesse' would work well, because then that also opens it up to other fine-motor-skill uses. Stuff like high-DC checks to read a book by touch, and that sort of thing.
I feel like this is fairly accurate. Am I naturally charismatic? No, not at all. Have I put much effort into improving my social skills? Some, but not really. Am I way better than I was/better than someone younger than me (even if they're naturally more charismatic than I am) at cheering someone up or convincing someone of something? You bet I am. Simply because I've made the mistakes the younger person hasn't had time to make, and I can remember not to do that again.
I think it's more likely that Clerics will be automatically considered trained in Knowledge (religion) (or its replacement).
I just wanted to get this out here.
You've earned it.
I mean, I'm much more concerned that what skills let you do, the core of the Skill system, is suitably awesome. Remember, this will go through months of playtesting, so I'm sure that by the end of it, bonuses will feel sufficiently distinct, be that with a +5 difference or a +15, it just means a few numbers need to be scaled and DCs to match. I'm far less concerned with that and more with the fact that YOU CAN PICKPOCKET ARMOR RIGHT OFF OF A GUARD.