| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remaster Changes (Google Sheet)
And my dream was granted, YEEEEESSSSS!!!
Snake Lamias FTW!!! (no, I mean it really)
Yes and no, at least for me. While PF2(R) in general is a well made gamist RPG system (probably one of the best in existence), the first printing has too much errors for my liking. So I'm biding my order for now...
Related: T.rex art with pronated wrists always make me cry...
That was quick. Well, the physical book can wait, hopefully the second printing has less obvious errors...
I'd like to be more damage based on character level (like in old games), and other things for heighten, i.e. able to increase (or reduce, grant control with a value) the fireball radius, lightning bolt line to 10', or with scorching ray damage increasing more by level and extra rays when heightened. Hard disagree, the caster level based automatic scaling is well down the way of the dodo. As a single example (Level Appropriate Damage), in PF1 mid to high levels, ...when the martials (especially) were struggling with the RAW full attack rules forcing them to choose between appropriate scaling damage (mostly via iterative attacks, which are automatically gimped already with descending accuracy penalties which sadly stayed in PF2) OR their full movement unless they painfully go around somehow to get a pounce equivalent, ...the casters were enjoying free lunch damage scaling via the RAW spellcasting rules on even their weakest spell slots among other scaling things you mentioned, actually doing the martials' niche (damage) better by that alone (plus, the low DCs can be managed by save half damage by default, too). It, was, ...infuriating, to say the least. Like if somehow somebody in the original SRD's writers had a grudge against weapon users or the like and did some amoral compensation by sabotaging the very combat system.
What can I say, I'm at least quite satisfied with the idea and act of Ceiling Based Class Balancing. At least ceilings are way less arbitrary than the hazy "average assumptions" they had when the Other Game's 3e was born...
As long as they don't mess up their own hard made well working system of "power ceiling per Level" balance system, I'm good with any mythic system.
Looking at how people are analyzing the traditional schools, I am beginning to think that the Mage the Ascension sphere division is better. Was it like Energy, Matter, Life, Mind, Soul, Space, Time, and 2 more? As I never played MtA before, the names should be incorrect... Anyway said classification solely based on WHAT(subject) your magic meddles with is at least way more consistent than D&D-ist spell classifications...
True, but please let me mourn for the ideology of Simulationism getting bullied everywhere...
Agree strongly. Frankly I care less about the old score system being gone, but I'd like to equate "no ability" to a 0(zero), not an arbitrary -5...
Most changes are good, but I truly mourn the death of Ability Scores. It seems like the whole universe is trying to convince me that Simulationism is not cool, not that I'll ever bend though... ---- On monsters, I wish an Asian-esque body-form Dragon to join Monster Core from the very start.
So EN Publishing joins too, good. I like their pseudo-D6 WOIN system quite a lot. Though why I learn of it here first instead of their main turf (ENWorld) is a mystery...
I support firmly a more freely described "risque" content, as such act is a natural part of our lives. (though my biggest reasons are to be refrained in even writing out in this very forum, due to the very reasonable rules on "no RL religion/philosophy/politics"...)
1) Any True Elixir of Life drastically slows down your aging speed to a practical zero, for about a month.
Those are what I'd immediately change. Others, I might think of in some other free time...
(...) Should Paizo Staff read this, the first chapter in the PDF seem to have not the correct font or font-thickness. Looks like everything is written in "bold". It seems to be correct starting wit chapter 2. This was also the case in the 3rd printing. Seconding this. It is very uncomfortable for my eyes when reading...
This is a mess, really. I'd really like them to be sorted out in-house. ...or is the company DB structure quite byzantine enough to have an arduous time fixing this?
A great move, finally! I seriously hope ORC freely allows related fanworks of multiple genres, be it novels or pantomimes(snort)...
As my evergoing rant against the awful abundance of bootstrapped bludgeoning damage, they should have had water, air, earth damage types defined from the very start...
Ah, no Wishing for rituals now explicit. Shame, but understandable.
1. If spellcasting is all powerful, what use are non-spellcasters in a typical party (except cleanup duty)?The answer to the first is that regardless of how strong a caster is, it is meaningless if they are facing a party of adventurers. This is seen in most campaigns with a high level caster as the enemy. While you may actually be quite correct in the greater scale of world simulation, it still is a major concern intra-player-party-wise; namely As magic spells are fictional and can be up to any power level as the rules dev team see fit compared to skills, I'd rather have set up whatever limits personally cast spells have in the fictional world (like many books having a hard NO against resurrection, example only), then give out features for non-casters both in and out of combat so their "price" in XP versus spells available on equal levels would seem to be roughly fair.
2. If non-spellcasting is capable enough, what benefit(s) did the wannabe spellcasters expect when learning how to cast in the first place?The answer to the second is that a non-spellcaster gains buffs and utility from casting. Maybe an a few specific damage spells for emergency. Yeah, buffs and utility are (literally) classic domains of magic spells. Most old fairy tale wizards were helpers, not the acting hero (usually). A personal tangent though.
Btw you forgot the third, "what do half and 2/3 casters get out of the split?" The answer to that is same as the second but to a much greater degree due to getting more spells (if such a caster is ever made). No personal feelings nor investments on this part. Although, if I ever made PF1 classes, I would have started with a HD d12 class with all(3) good saves and 8+Int skill points plus no spell slots, then trade off each set of HD step and 2 SP plus a good save with a step of slot growth, ending with d6 + bad saves + 2+Int SP + 9th spell progression.
But even then, considering the massively versatile spells of PF1, I think my hypothetical sunfish-fry-frail full caster would still be more potent compared to the somewhat tougher other classes... * P.S. Occult really does have the best spells overall, which is a shame for the Wizard. On this, I roughly guess that the 4 essence lore and spell functions map like Mind -> IndirectOffense (mind assaults), Spirit -> IndirectDefense (envigor our spirits), Life -> DirectDefense (includes Healing), and Matter -> DirectOffense (kaboom). As the player casters' main goal is to survive adventures to grow further, spending spell slots on any kind of Offensive acts should feel economically worse (especially the all out "offensive" Arcane)...
I wonder how Unbound Step would work out. Will they ever get to teleport more frequently? Would a 20th level class feat that enables at-will short range teleportation still be world-economy shattering OP?
I have no strong enmity on neither keeping nor swapping old mechanics for Kineticists. Except, Burn. It's just a foul way of harshly penalizing the PF1 version just because some bizarre consensus in the old design team severely overvalued the Constitution ability being a proactive stat, which it shouldn't had been (especially as CON has no other proactive function like skill bonuses, unlike the other 5).
What is the difference between houseruling a specific change and an errata making that same change? The latter is considered more "official" and "default"; which means the majority of anonymous GMs will accept it way easier than an unreliable homebrew. To be blunt, a sizeable number of players have this mental hierarchy of rules acceptance; starting with the printed default rules on the top, official variants (some of them like Free Archetypes considered good enough to be almost treated as default for some groups), 3rd party splat, then finally plain homebrew on the bedrock...
LG: Captain America
As a supporter of the "RPG Mechanics Verse" trope, I do agree wih your (supposed) opposition to the arbitrary level treadmill syndrome. Although, while I enjoy the idea of randomly progresed heroes and vilains dotted around within a sandbox world influencing its course greatly, some others might detest it for various reasons;
If my memory is correct, for 4E it was something like a hit for on level targets on a natural 8, so 65% success / 35% failure. BTW, said edition lets you only make 1 weapon swing per turn, AFAICR. Whether that ratio is acceptable or not is up to each player, though. For me, it seems OK, as it lines up with the current meta in which only the first two attack actions are expected to score a realistic hit.
I wish like PF1, they make it easy to compare the currrent printing of a book to whatever previous version it differs with (like 1st or 2nd primting to the "current" 7th, for example).
Probably the side effect of PF2's greatest achevement, of making Levels actually meaning something accurate (in this case, the performance ceiling of an individual).
CON as the main proactive stat was actually overvalued in being unfairly punished with the sorry excuse of burns. I mean, as it has no other proactive functions like skills, it's no way even half as broken as a potential DEX to damage situation...
I'll most likely never understand those "majority" in that awful poll, who thought crippling martial (or any PF2 character) performance in general by making their expected math dependent on external equipment so badly was a good thing, for the rest of my life (especially when your on-level NPC adversaries blatantly enjoy those expected bonuses as essentially ABP for free)...
As 2 of my 3 greatest RPG pick checklist was passed (#1 via OGL, and #3 via actually broadly competent martials), most of my dislikes within PF2 has to do with (#2) Verisimilitude, plus some Lost Omens lore stuff. ---- - I don't like PC-NPC Symmetry no longer being default just for the sake of ease of gameplay. -- A direct tangent of the former, it's especially jarring when PCs require fundamental runes in order to "catch up" to the hit/dodge numbers for NPCs of playable ancestries.
- I don't like how Sorcerers (and other innate spellcasting monsters) still need to vocalize and wiggle elaborate digits to cast spells, when they're supposed to be a natural function of their beings.
- I don't like the "official" interpretation of the Timeless Body/Nature feats prohibiting the feats' taker from enjoying "immortality until slain or succumbing to various affilctions".
- I really don't like that in the Lost Omens setting, trying to extend your presence (and self consciousness) post-mortem to prevent being turned into cosmic building blocks, then unto nothingness after the current universe dies, is nigh impossible as of now (unless you're the very last being and the very first being for the next universe, just like Pharasma).
The problem is that you sometimes can't reconcile the desires of people who want a game that's fun to play and don't care about the numbers under the hood and people who want a game that's a orderly simulation where every duck is in its properly shaped box but don't really care much for how it plays out in practice - cue all the folks who will discuss the game's mechanics to death and bemoan the lack of symmetry and consistency but have never played the game a single time, ever. Fair enough. A staunch "natural simulationist" (so much that despite entering the TTRPG world with 4E (Essentials) was quickly swayed towards PF1 and GURPS of all things due to their heavy(? consistent might be a better term) world simulating) like me is a rarity among actual players, yes...
In stark contrast to the post right above, my biggest gripe about PF2 (to be fair, all "modern" RPGs in genera including 5E) is that they moved towards PC-NPC Asymmetry a bit too much for my sensitive intestines. It's especially jarring to see NPCs of playable ancestries having unexplained statistic bonuses despite the lack of a (loot-able) magic weapon/armor. Although, if the ABP OPTIONAL rules were the standard (as someone someone implied it was to be if not for the final survey before launch going wrong) for players too, this one could be handwaved easily. And at least it's not like Starfinder, where NPCs don't even have Stamina Points (my #0 gripe with THAT system), absolutely crushing any hope for a faithful cosmic simulation (most visible when healing spells treat PCs and NPCs like either party were carbon based life and the other silicon based) unto oblivion...
AFAIK ever since the "Great HP Inflation of 3E" blaster spellcasters were never the same as before (in a bad way, of course). Well, every archetype which relies on reasonably high damage (so no 3E and beyond abominations like those "dungeoncrasher" thingies), TBH...
Interesting, this "thread" is...
That Stone Skin echo feat, if your 20th level champion got petrified to avoid death, will your sorcerer friend's wish copying flesh to stone work?
Realistically (or verisimilitude-wise, or whatever that means), all non-firearm weapons and unarmed strikes should have been DEX to hit and STR to damage.
Anyway, despite the default Initiative assumed as Perception(WIS) in PF2, DEX is still a STRonger stat compared to STR, so I see no harm in stacking some bonuses for the latter.
Pinocchio, I guess?
From PF1... I want uh, Wyvaran. Yeah. They'll most definitely lose the 1st level flight speed, though. Are you sure you can withstand the pain and cringe from that...?
I'm fine (even enjoy) with what you described as Macro, which probably maps well to others like "Combat as War", "Simulationism", "PC-NPC Symmetry" and other themes if I understood correctly. Though my biggest gripe on the older d20 systems was that to enjoy these "Macro" abilities, you must be able to cast mid~high level Spells without outside help. Non-casters might be able to oneshot equal CR foes if optimized correctly, but they were still deprived of surefire ways to circumvent the "Mother May I" situation (OTOH the casters were enjoying Macro by default with the GM having to intervene to stop spiraling out of control). So it seems that PF2 made an incredibly well done balance between players mostly by hammering down such world-defining spells, and other "definitive abilities" (like Monks losing their total immunity to all poison which let them freely inhabit radioactive wastelands in PF1). As such, no Tippyverse in canon Golarion, nil.
Erm, aren't Wish and its cross tradition sibling spells capable of copying the effects of Ritual "spells" with 2 actions...?
At least 3 out of 4 listed possibilities (Cook, Lift, Tidy) are effects covered by said school, so why is it an Evocation effect of all other schools (other than the now gone "Universal school")?
If Alchemist ever gets an overhaul intra-edition, it must be done as a CRB full text replacement, not an Unchained version. So many GMs out there who only acknowledge the authority of "core only"... Oh, and the fact it has less mechanical support as of now also works as a last chance to shake up its order of class features before it becomes too tangled to fix later on.
This is all good, except that Miniaturize is an 8th level evolution feat. ...Can someone ask Paizo to move it to another level, like 6...?
This begs me a question; Who should be better at Summoning spells, a Summoner, or a Conjurer (Wizard)?
This debate taught me to never base your character on exact quantifiable mechanics as such traits will inevitably be swept away on an edition change...
Burn seemed like some tacked on penalty for "daring" to use CON as a main stat anyway (aside from the reality that CON had no synergizing skill or any other proactive "thing" for it), so I'd be delighted to see it eliminated in PF2.
Trying to balance classes with different resource recharging schedule is a massive pain for any game designer, TBH... (means: 5 Minute Work Day SUCKS, hard)
At least one thing seems clear to me; Do not emulate Mordenkainen (as in mercilessly killing off whichever alingment side seeming strong ATM). |