Kerobelis's page

I had a session today and my players purchased two pack animals. Lester they were attacked by a hungry river drake and I couldn't find their stats. It was mid session so I just used the stats for a riding pony. Do they have actual stats for donkey or mules in the beastiary or Core rules? I still can't find them.

By the end of the session the drake was well fed and the party had one less mule!

hmm, further reasons to dislike exploration mode. There is too much verisimilitude lost. I prefer the DM to handle this stuff like in previous editions.

SuperBidi wrote:

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:

More than any other class, I was looking forward to making a Mutagenist.

It no more exists. In PF1, Alchemists were having a strong specialization, with Mutagenists and Bombers being built in a very different way. In PF2, all Alchemists are very similar. The specializations are just a little advantage, but nothing to specialize on. So, a Mutagenist is built with a bit of strength, but still a lot of Dexterity and Intelligence as he will also have to toss bombs, brew poisons and give elixirs.

To be fair, that mostly sounds like it calls for class archetypes like the old vivisectionist and what not. But we will get those eventually too.

I disagree. Look at the Druid or thief specializations. They were well done. Each takes the character down a different path. The alchemist specializations seems like an afterthought. Its the PF1 monk or the 5e animal companion ranger. For a class that is unique to PF, it is shocking that the ball was dropped so badly.

I am just stating a fact, I am not crapping on PF2e. PF2e doesn't support abandoning a class well, while PF1 does. And it can do it effectively (i.e. the dipping problem of 1e) and it can be garbage (F10/W10).

PF2e is great at making a multiclassed caster compared to 1e (although people are still angry, see all the proficiency threads). Each edition has it strengths and weaknesses.

Kerobelis wrote:

The hero who ends one profession to start another (usually due to finding some old mentor or discovers she is a jedi).

It is odd that I can't stop being a wizard if I want to.

That's usually handled in background (I was a smuggler and criminal, but reformed and became a paladin), or by talking with the GM to swap around the base class.

It could be in some cases, but not all. My main point is that this is one fantasy trope that cannot be replicated in PF 2E. A caster will keep getting more spells no matter what he does (aside from stop adventuring at all or breaking your faith/anathema).

The hero who ends one profession to start another (usually due to finding some old mentor or discovers she is a jedi).

It is odd that I can't stop being a wizard if I want to.

I'm currently performing an incident investigation and I agree the DC gets higher with more people in the meeting....

One thing that is great about this edition, which was not as prominent in PF1 and which is lacking a lot in 5e, is how easy it is to buff classes on the future.

Classes are extremely modular and have a very light "chassis". Which means nobody is stuck with weak abilities as long as better ones exist. You could just publish stronger Wizard feats or stronger Arcane spells to improve them whenever, and Paizo is known for spamming splatbooks. There could later be strong class archetypes (How PF1 fixed things) and such.
I think the current Wizard is decent and fun to play, just different, but time will tell how they perform in play and whenever that happens, there will be many avenues to improve them. Not as much like 5E ranger that got a bunch of unofficial reprints and fan content because it was stuck sucking.

What you can't do is Nerf classes without erratas (Which we almost never see), so there is a strong possibility of power creep as time passes. Whoever is the strongest class right now (Fighter?) is likely to become the baseline to flatten the power curve down the line.

I have no side in this argument but I disagree with what you are saying here. Publishing more to fix problems is a terrible thing. Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.

I think this is a great question as I find the mutagenist the class that seems like the biggest trap. It isn't a straight forward build and I could easily be missing something. Is it supposed to be a melee build? A mr. Hyde type of character.

I see you can also go with a more finesse build with quicksilver and use bombs but I was thinking that would be more for the bomber alchemist.

Lets say I want to go Mr. Hyde route. How do I make it work? The Bestial mutagen requires ST as the attacks are not finesse (or am I missing something)? The quick build suggests strength.

With poor armor and average dx (+ the penalty from bestial) it looks like I am going to get murdered.

Feat wise, there is minimal support until L8 (feral mutagen). I suppose I play more as Dr. Jeckyll until L8?

What advise would you give for this style of character. I like the idea of him, but I worry he may be more of a liability? Would multiclassing help?

Baby Samurai wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

Third, the fact that Armor choice is now a flavor decision is amazing. To me, equipment has always been one of the stronger essences of flavor, so knowing that the Armor Specialization and balance Paizo has put in has created this feel is exciting!

Yeah, this seems another page they took from 5th Ed D&D; I also dig spellcasting modifier added to spell attacks (dropping TAC in the process), amongst other bits.

Umm, armor in 5e isn't just flavor, there's basically one optimal type of armor in 5e for any given character.

Which I believe is the same as PF 2E. Have high Dex, go light armor. Moderate dex, medium armor, no dex = heavy armour. All 3 styles add up to the ~ same AC (+6 for PF 2e I think, AC 17/18 for 5ed). Basically, whichever way you go, you have the same AC. Proficiency will be the difference.

In 3rd edition, you could get AC 18 with full plate but the best unarmored could get was 15 with DX 20. So there is a big difference.

The same is true regarding TAC. Just like 5 edition.

It has been mostly silent with just a few developer posts here and there. The last blog was Nov 19 (Thanks). I think the developers are back from Thanksgiving and are hopefully rested up.

Has there been an update anywhere else? I only lurk in the forums. Maybe I missed something?

I am not looking for anything specific, even some general feedback.

Just a curious adventurer....

I think the alchemist should be reserved for an Advanced players guide sort of book and not the core book. It is fairly confusing and not new player friendly. The entire alchemical items section is a lot of space to use for just one class. Classes that require their own subsystem should come later as they can get their own play tests on their unique new systems (I.e. Guns for gunslingers, summoner eidolon, etc.).

Anyway, probably way too late for this comment. I just think the oracle or witch would be better for a core rule book as they use the same casting system as other core classes.

I'm curious. Why did the developers not use +level to damage instead of more dice? + level is an established mechanic in PF2 and seems like a natural fit. Then have weapons just add the normal + to hit and damage. At least if you are disarmed you can still do some good damage (if you hit). I believe this is used in Starfinder as well.

Other advantages of + level to damage vs. more dice is:

quicker game play
viability of low dice weapons (i.e. a dagger fighter)

I've always felt 5e has really good feats, with the major failing being how high the opportunity cost is for taking feats resulting in often getting very few of them. (Or at the very least, not getting them until high levels.) I think having 5e level feats delivered on a pathfinder feat budget would be really fun.

There is a big difference though. 5th edition D&D feats are rare and come at a cost of sacrificing your ability score advancement. Due to these two reasons, they need to be great. I also do not consider this a failure, i think it is a very meaningful decision in the development of a 5th edition D&D character. One of the few that gets made as 5th edition doesn't have a lot of character decision points as they level.

With all the feats in PF2, i cannot see how you could make that many that all have such a high power level as 5th edition.

Another main goal of 5th edition feats was to make them so all encompassing so you wouldn't need so many feats. It makes the game free from a lot of clutter.

In some ways i find the feat system for PF2 to be like magic the gathering deck building. Only a few of the many feats are viable. Only a few magic cards are tournament viable. So you need to pick those feats / magic cards to make that Character / deck work.

I have to say yes but it has been so long so it is hard to say why. The main thing for me with the PF2 playtest book is that it actually made me angry. I didn't feel that way reading PF1.

So what do i mean be feeling angry? I was angry as it wasn't fun to read. It didn't feel like a fantasy game, it felt like I was reading some sort of technical manual.

It needs more stories, examples, and plain language. The technical language was very off putting to me (especially modes of game play, and the condition followed by a number).

I also didn't like all the subsytems (alchemy, snares, poisons, powers merged with spells) that makes it difficult to grok some of the classes. I've played quite a bit of various versions of D&D and the alchemist is very confusing. So much page flipping to understand one class. To me, I think it may be better for a supplement. Lots of pages dedicated to one class.

Anyway, just some thoughts on my reading of the PF2 manuals. I do believe it can be improved and I am sure it is high on the list of the developers to improve.

I would say the Alchemist needs the most help.

The former is that issue where fighters are the only class where the class abilities are insufficient to fill their role. Fighters are supposed to be weapon masters, and yet they need to rely on wizards to actually deal large amounts of damage. If you make damage runes less common, though, and grant bonus damage dice for higher proficiency levels, they would be self-sufficient. Granted, that would lead to the interesting mental image of a fighter being able to pick a branch up off the ground and murder people to death with it, dealing more damage than a greatsword could in other people's hands. But to be honest, I don't have a problem with that. As an example of that trope in fiction, it would let you build Jason Bourne. Meanwhile, if damage runes still existed, they would let other people upgrade one weapon to be as good as the fighter, or let the fighter go from massive damage to obscene amounts of damage.

It isn't just fighters. Its Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues. All need magic weapons of the appropriate plus or are next to useless in combat.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.

I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?

Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.

5ed D&D doesn't have more character choice options than PF2. But I also do not think having a ton of options is necessary. The main thing about 5 edition D&D is its simplicity, focus on role playing, and elegance. Being super crunchy is not for everyone. Especially new players.

I have played most versions of D&D and Pathfinder, and I prefer 5 edition D&D. A lot of people say it captures the feel of D&D and I agree it does, especially after the failure of 4th edition. The book is a pleasure to read and the art is very inclusive. Its fun!

I am hopeful the 2ed PF will also be a good game. I have faith still.

The difference between a normal sword and a supremely expensive magical weapon of great power is... 3.

1d8+25 vs 1d8+22

you are missing the bonus to hit and ability to bypass DR (for the PF1 case and to hit does effect dps, but not as severly as in PF2).

My problem with the PF2 magic weapons is if the 15th level paladin loses his sword he now cannot compete against level appropriate foes if he picks up a basic sword. His to hit goes down by 3 (which is everything in PF2) and even if he hits, his damage is now a fraction of what it was (1d8 + bonuses vs. 4d8 + bonuses)

If PF1, the paladin would have a chance unless the target required a magic weapon due to DR. The loss to hit is not as big a deal being a Full BAB class.

I think they meant level +0, level +1, level +5, level +10. At least I hope that is what they meant.

The to hit seems wrong if the barbarian is the highest? How did he get +22? Paladin is an expert, while Barbarian is only trained. Barb also gets a -1 from using the big weapon. Something seems off...

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Yeah, 3rd Ed was a great game, until the inevitable M:tG attitude became fully embraced (characters are decks, neat!). This game died, in many ways, about 20-years ago, the attitude/approach, started to suck.

Could you elaborate on that part, because I don't understand on what you mean or are trying to convey here.

I believe he is referring to "net-decking". Using the internet to build the best deck. Like Character optimization forums and character builds.

Agreed. Snares are cool in theory (martial area controller) but terrible in practice. I think they should change it to a spell point power based abilities. Like how the paladin gets his own unique powers. This way they will be free and only take a few actions.

It is a fairly common argument on these boards. Is PF2 style even TWF?
One thing not mentioned is TWF in PF1 gives extra attacks, which is not true for PF2 until L14 (two-weapon flurry). Hence the feeling is different. If I get excited about making a character with the most attacks, PF2 doesn't have many options.

Just some food for thought. Your analysis is good comparing the two game systems. I just wanted to mention about more attacks vs. some people going for dps calculations.

As someone who used to get excited about having lots of attacks....

Yeah, i brought this concern up a long time ago, and I agree. Barbarians and rangers should have access to shields. They even explained how they got the idea from watching Vikings!!!

I guess the developers didn't do so because then they would need to make up more feats that fit the ranger and barbarian?

Just like the title says. We've gone through two parts, so I think we have a good handle on at least the low level stuff now. So what three things are you most excited about and what three things do you dread the most? (and maybe some kind soul will then collate all these answers into a list).

3 Loves:

1. Three action system. Its simple, it works.
2. Cantrips that scale.
3. Crits at +/-10 to hit, rather than just on a 20 or 1.

3 Hates:

1. Extra dice of damage attached to weapons. Move that extra damage to proficiencies.
2. Proficiencies that autoscale. Immersion-breaking in so many ways. Give us more skill points and let US decide.
3. Resonance. It's not getting the job done. Pulls the rug out from under the hero in the height of combat. Plus, resonance doesn't affect mobs. (We're always their first combat of the day!)

Mine are similar to yours, except I would put the crits at a hate. I think it limits many feats and abilities. The math has to be super tight, one accidental +2 bonus somewhere and you have an over powered feat/ability. I like my fighter to have a high bonus to hit compared to other characters.

So in the end I would say:

3 Loves

1. 3 action system
2. Default attack abilities for casters (i.e. cantrips) but alchemist needs one as well
3. Saving throws being good for all characters (as it sucks getting terrible saves)

3 Hates

1. Magic weapons and armor being required (just build this into the class and let magic armor and weapons be interesting instead)
2. Crit system
3. Exploration mode. I find it irritating and video game like. Something that is just not needed.

High level Barbarians get an at will (well, once a minute) localized earthquake. High level druids can become a Kaiju, high level clerics can become an avatar of their god. Most 20th level casters can get what is essentially a bottomless well of 5th level or lower spells. Rangers and Fighters can fill a 10 foot radius circle with arrows, striking every enemy in it at will. Bards can get an a power that instantly slays 16th level or lower creatures with no save.

For skills, a legendary character can: steal the shirt off someone's back without them being aware of it. Fall from orbit unharmed. Scare someone to death with a look. Actually halt battles with diplomacy.

I think there are some problems with the amount of abilities like this you get and perhaps how late you get them, but there's plenty of exciting high level stuff. Even some of the mid level abilities are really cool. By 8th level a monk can have full blown wall running and Prince of Persia style jump mechanics. Dragon Barbarians get the ability to elementally imbue their weapons at 1st, a once per hour breath weapon at 6th, at will flight at 12th, and the ability to turn into a dragon at will at 16th.

Lets look a bit more in detail at some of these:

it takes 3 actions (at 18th level) to attack everyone in a 10' radius (with -5 to hit). Perhaps it is better just to attack 3 times (it almost always is). not very impressive.

The elemental damage barbarian thing is just changing your damage type. The breath weapon is fun and flavorful, and flying for short bursts (remember you lose it when rage is off, every 4 rounds) is good but it is 12th level. At least it gives the Barbarians some utility so it is good. turning into a dragon is cool but has some issues (if you use weapons, now you suck as the dragon doesn't get the magic weapon stacking bonus).

Yes, casters get some really cool things at really high levels. Getting a new level of spells is always fun and exciting. I am not seeing as many cool and exciting things for martials. Many of the feats are marginal boosts or even trap options (anything with snares, power attack, mirror shield, improvised snare (or almost any ranger feat)). It seems like it is very difficult to make good martial feats at high level.

Felling strike is a pretty situational feat. Sudden leap is even worse. Both are 8th level. At that point, i would want a fly potion or something similar and use my feats on something more reliable or consistent. I do not deny that it would be cool when you make it work though!!!

As for the OP, it is an interesting thought experiment. If martials get all their attacks at first level, and bonus damage is magic weapon dependent, and my bonuses to hit do not matter as everything levels up the same as me, what am I looking forward to? Many feats are very small in their effects.

Oh yeah, and Hunt target is weak. I think it would be better if it added a damage die (say d4) to all attacks you make against your chosen target. This would scale like sneak attack. The damage is lower as you have less restrictions that sneak attack (basically have to burn an action).

No. Rangers just need some love. For whatever reason, they seem to be the forgotten class for the PF playtest. They were given few feats, only three paths of specialization (TWF, crossbows, and animal companion) and a trap based ability that is a trap for anyone to use.

I think if more effort was spent on them, the PF2 designers can come up with some interesting stuff.

Take snares. It seems like they wanted a non magical way to do this but ruined it by making it take very long to do, have weak effects, and cost money. But the idea of a martial area control player is interesting. Why not make snares a ranger only thing based on spell points. A limited form of magic that makes traps all over the battlefield that only takes an action or two? This could be fun, interesting, and different.

Another bad thing which we are seeing in some playtests is when one character has a magic weapon and the others do not. I guess this is a problem for the L4 adventure. Major bad feels for the character without the weapon!

I like the simple gain an extra dice every 4 levels. It could be made a bit more complicated by gating based on classes (i.e. martials, every 4 levels, casters, every 5 levels). Call it some sort of name and fill it in the class tables (i.e. Powerful blow 1, 2, 3, etc.). This way, no feel bads for martials and it further differentiates the martials from the casters.

I would like to suggest that in some areas, that PF2 follows the KISS principle. For those who do not know, KISS is an acronym for Keep It Simple, Stupid. Basically, most systems work best if kept simple rather than being made complicated.

I see two main areas that could be improved, by KISS

Initiative. The Exploration mode and using different skills and confusion about surprise or not is just so confusing. Turn initiative back to the way it was (dex roll), or another simple version (i.e. a perception roll). Hell make it an INT check just to make intelligence worthwhile. Just make it always simple and always the same.

Death and Dying Rolls. Wow, this system is complicated. I see no reason why it can't be an unmodified roll instead of the current scaling DC determined by threat level. There is already precedent for unmodified checks (cover, persistent damage). Something easy to remember and consistent. Say DC 15 modified by CON, or even DC 10 like 5 edition.

I am sure there are others that people may think of. Simpler systems, do not always mean a less complex game. Any suggestions for simplifying PF2?

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

PF2 : The ghouls roll20. Crit automatically.

It's 5% chance to took a critical hit by every Attac.

I believe in PF2 a natural 20 is merely a hit, it is only a critical if you would have still hit with just your modifiers (the ghoul can never crit a 20th-level character in PF2, they can only hit them on a natural 20). The DC+10 is where most crits happen.

Incorrect. Pg 178. Natural 20 or succeeding by 10.

See page 292

If your enemy is far more powerful than you or a task
beyond your abilities, you might roll a natural 20 and
still get a result lower than the DC. In this case, you
succeed instead of critically succeed or fail.

This was confirmed in a post by one of the developers a while ago.

The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them (like how in PF1 every monster got a crap ton of natural armor so that they could compete in AC without giving the PC's a ton of loot). Level 0 goblins being as good as the best possible level 1 PC was not part of the deal.

Level 0 goblins have 14AC and 6hps. They do d6 damage with a +6 to hit. All they are better at is the to hit.

The designers stated they will be not following and set formulas, i.e. abandoning the Universal Monster Rules. They will make monsters have signature abilities, and they have done so (see purple worm spitting people out that it eats).

I believe this is due to the 4 edition problem. Monsters in early 4th edition had ton a hit points, low attack and damage so battles lasted forever. It was later improved by reducing durability and increasing damage.

PF2 may be going in the same direction. But this is only a guess as we do not have the monster building rules. I am sure the concept is similar to 4th and 5th edition, which amounts to a large table of ranges for everything so characters are always hitting around the sweet spot (50-60% success) it could probably be back calculated by taking the averages of monsters AC, to hit, etc.

Maybe the to hit is too high? It is possible that the internal monster creature table is off. That is what playtesting will highlight.

ChibiNyan wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

O. N. wrote:

TheFinish wrote:

I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...

I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.

You forgot about the shortbows that are somehow at +1 over the Dogslicer.

Oh I was just looking at the Stock Goblin Warrior in the Bestiary, where both are at +6. Not that it makes sense for the shortbow either, at +3 Dex and Level 0 the modifier should be...+3.

None of the statted goblins make sense though, so there's that...

Its simple. Monsters do not follow PC rules.

If you do not like this, it is a different argument and has nothing to do with level bonus.

Luceon wrote:

I’m at my wit’s end. I can’t find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything / level. Wise players please help me. Is there a way to play this cool game without having Useless bloated numbers. Go look at at a level 20 character, it looks stupid. Seriously make a level 20 character. It looks utterly silly.

If an orc I fight at level 2 is just as deadly as when I'm level 20, monsters and encounters become very limited and same-y. At level 2, I fight 5 orcs. At level 20, I still fight the same 5 orcs, their difficulty remaining unchanged.

What's the point of levels if it doesn't really change the power or scale of what I fight or accomplish within the game?

Thats not the argument. At L20, the fighter will slaughter 5 orcs as they are not just as dangerous (no matter what system, assuming they are the same orcs from L2). In the bounded accuracy argument (i.e. 5th edition) The orcs may hit the fighter once or twice. In the PF2 case, they will only ever hit on 20's. It's just that in the 5e case, the fighter could fight an army of orcs, while the PF2 one could.

I'll be honest, I like that there's some way to show a character is powerful and skilled beyond just how much magic armor they have. They're just straight better at it (you could argue this should apply to weapon dice too, but that's another thread). The lvl 14 character I made had, naked, a minimum skill bonus +12 and maximum +21. I find that to be perfectly acceptable. He sneaks amazing, and while arcana is not his field, he's seen enough s~$! to recognize magic when he sees it. A ghoul tries to bit them and they just dodge without thinking about it, because ghouls are chumps. Seems fine to me.

And there is nothing wrong with thinking that way. Its the great divide, bound vs unbound (accuracy). I prefer it the other way, but I understand people wanting it this way.

Must resist urge to argue.....

@ Korahir (quotes for long messages don't seem to work for me) in regards to why I say he is one of the better martials and what martials are.

MY definition of Martials are non casters. The Martial/Caster divide. So Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue. The only one I am on the fence with is the Alchemist, but he is currently in a special class called SUCKS (But i am sure he will get fixed, I have faith).

So out of those classes I listed, I would say the Fighter and Rogue are the best off currently in the playtest. I didn't say the fighter was perfect, but he is very good at his role (fighting things in any way you would want to). He should have more skills, (I would go with all martials but the rogue should get more skills) and then he could contribute outside combat.

O. N. wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.

That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)

Ahh, but the PF2 fighter could do it naked!

Kerobelis wrote:

Noodlemancer wrote:

I was the Double Slice Rogue there. During the Manticore encounter, I shot at it 15 times with a shortbow. 15 misses. That rather miffed me. Monster attack bonuses and AC's are way too inflated to the point where they are blatantly unfair towards PC's.

You must have rolled really poor. As a rogue, I assume +8 to hit with a short bow? The first attack is almost 50/50 to hit. I suppose it could have been in long range but the short bow has better range than the quills.

The Manticore would rest at an altitude of 80ft on our turns, and then do the following chain of actions on its turn:

1. Descent by one move action to 40ft.
2. Attack from the edge of one range increment.
3. Ascend back to 80ft.
Thus giving the Manticore a huge accuracy advantage (+12 vs +6).

Its pretty smart for an INT -2 creature! I guess it would have instincts.

Another thing changed is manticores use to be terrible flyers (clumsy). Looking up flying, it is now simplified. I think in the past they couldn't hover (They can now at the cost of an action). The fly action (pg 309) also states flying upwards is difficult terrain, so that would have been in your favor.

I was the Double Slice Rogue there. During the Manticore encounter, I shot at it 15 times with a shortbow. 15 misses. That rather miffed me. Monster attack bonuses and AC's are way too inflated to the point where they are blatantly unfair towards PC's.

You must have rolled really poor. As a rogue, I assume +8 to hit with a short bow? The first attack is almost 50/50 to hit. I suppose it could have been in long range but the short bow has better range than the quills.

in a playtest, nothing is NEEDED, but this is the initial vision from the designers. I imagine it would require a lot of negative feedback to change it.

There are many threads debating the whys, positives, and negatives of this feature so I am sure it is at least on the designers radar.

I for one, am against it, but it isn't a back breaker for me.

The fighter is one of the better martial classes in the playtest, if not the best. He has the most different fighting styles and decent options for them.

I think all he needs is more skills, no reason for him to only be at 3. I think he should at least be bumped up by one, if not two starting skills.

I guess he could also use armor upgrades for light and medium (currently only heavy).

Kerobelis wrote:

I will answer the question emotionally, which may have been your point. +3 does not FEEL legendary. Just like incredible initiative (+1 to initiative) does not feel incredible.

I realize the bonus may be significant, but it doesn’t FEEL significant.

Did you try playing a character who had incredible initiative and it didn't feel significant? Or does the sight of it make you have no interest in even trying it?

As I stated, it was about feel, emotions or first impression, not from playing. You read a feat title of incredible initiative and it's just a plus one. It probably doesn't help that I feel incredible is > improved, ( name wise) yet improved initiative is plus four. I know, different games, but I am talking about emotions and feel as the OP asked.

I will answer the question emotionally, which may have been your point. +3 does not FEEL legendary. Just like incredible initiative (+1 to initiative) does not feel incredible.

I realize the bonus may be significant, but it doesn’t FEEL significant.

This is a good idea that may require a bit of tweaking on when various characters level up thier proficiency.

The main thing I like about it is it makes proficiency really matter. There are a ton of threads about legendary being only a plus 3 or how characters do not seem to gain much as they level. All the feats are small little things, so make proficiency matter. Make the heroes the hero and not the magic weapon!

You are not alone.

Hunt target doesn't synergize well with the animal companion or crossbow options. Snares are pretty terrible. Maybe they should have made snares spell like powers. Then they could be cast quickly and have non monetary costs. It may then be an interesting area control technique. And where is the bow support?

I am hopeful it will get some love from the developers

So I’m not sure if I’m interpreting this correctly… But with the Giant totem you gain the Titan Mauler ability. Which allows you to use a larger weapon like last edition, and you get a bonus to your conditional damage while raging. However, you gain sluggish 1 as well which adversely affects the character.

Am I correct in my calculations?

When Raging without larger weapon:
+2 Damage, -1 AC, +Temp HP

When Raging with Lager weapon:
+3 Damage, -2 AC, +Temp HP, -1 Dex Checks, -1 Reflex Saves.

I haven’t played this character yet and I’m assuming the choice to add the Sluggish 1 to the ability is for balancing however in the end I’m only getting an addition 1 to damage when all is said and done. I feel that you could have applied the slowed condition to this ability instead leaving the rage bonuses as they were would work better thematically. You would still get the +2 dam, but only have 2 actions a round.

It doubles the rage bonus damage, so +4 damage. Where it gets confusing is some people are also adding in the large weapon change that was in a sidebar somewhere (I don't have my book on me). I do not think it gets that bonus.

Also, give back barbarians shields! I want my Viking raider.

You mean the lore that is published in, core books, monster manuals, supplements, and companion guides throughout 1e? The same lore that also give them negatives to Cha in multiple books and call them out as ugly and destructive, basically a blight to all races? I can't find an inconsistency with the lore and entries in the books. I am actually curious because I never got that from anything published for the Golarion world setting.

It’s a retcon. For many reasons:

The desire to add a popular race to improve sales.
The new ancestry rules not allowing two physical or mental stats to be boosted for ancestries with set bonuses (cause then you could get a +2 to all physical stats and be the ultimate warrior).
All races must be balanced (funny, goblins are one of the best now with free dark vision and no penalties for being a small race).

There is probably more....

Edit: this happens a lot in all fiction, I am not trying to make Paizo out to be monsters due to this change.

I noticed the same problem and I forgot the formula book! I guess my elf alchemist may need to pump some iron?