Manijin's page

Organized Play Member. 8 posts (2,413 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since the game is already centered around this whole extra dice philosophy, what if we made finesse weapons deal bonus dice of damage when used with Dexterity. Perhaps with a Finesse value, similar to Deadly?

"Finesse: You can add your Dexterity modifier to attack rolls with a Finesse weapon instead of your Strength modifier. If you do, your attack with the weapon deals the listed additional damage. You do not add your Strength modifier to damage rolls with a finesse weapon."

Or something to that effect. That way, finesse weapons have a distinct flavor, Strength characters aren't trying to abuse the extra damage, and we have a way of providing additional damage that ignores attributes. You would see a value like "Finesse (1d6)" next to a shortsword, or maybe even "Finesse (1d8)" next to a dagger, providing niche benefits for certain weapon types that make them better in specific circumstances. You could even say, much like Deadly, that a Legendary finesse weapon adds two of those dice instead of one.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.

After considering it for a long time, put me in the camp of "We should remove +level altogether".

Let's look at the basic gameplay elements of it. You level up. You get a feat. The feat represents character growth. You also found a magic weapon. Awesome. As your experience grows, you become more proficient with your weapons, armor, and your specific skillset.

All of this is accomplished by existing game mechanics outside of adding level. While I think that increasing proficiency should be more satisfying, it accounts for getting better at specific skills. So what does adding +level accomplish?

It's entirely game-y. That, however, is a loaded statement, so let me elaborate. When I look at something like BAB in 3.0/.5/PF1, I see something that clearly delineates combat-based skill progression. I don't think it was entirely without flaw, but it was functional. Even saving throws had a similar thing: some you were good at, others not, and it was reflected as you leveled up. So what's the difference?

In Pathfinder 1, you didn't have "training" for all these things. You had basic proficiency, then what your class gave you, and because of this fluctuating numeric bonus each level, you had a built in way of determining which classes were good at what, and how good they were, relatively speaking. These higher or lower numerical bonuses were how you managed the PF2 version of varying levels of proficiency.

So, what does adding +level in PF2 accomplish? Your basic skill bonuses are determined by your attribute and proficiency rank. Same goes for Attacks, Armor Class, Spell DCs, etc. So what does it do? Adding +level in PF2 gates challenges, and serves as basic number inflation. That's it. Those aren't terribly compelling mechanics. Yes, it might feel nice to get a +30 to an attack roll, but if all you're facing is enemies around 40 AC, it doesn't really change the nature of the game. The numbers are simply bigger.

The difference, though, is that your DM is free to throw much higher, or much lower, level enemies at you without fear that the mechanics themselves will ruin you. In D&D 5e, for example, once the players hit 10th level or so and have a few magic items under their belts, you can basically throw whatever you want at them, with a few exceptions of course, because the math allows them to succeed, with harder fights requiring thought and planning more than raw numbers and character building. It's easier for the DM to go "My CR 15 Demon will be the big boss, but he'll have animated a cadre of ghouls in this hallway to flank the party and possibly paralyze the wizard, and some lesser flying demons will swoop in to try and poison the druid." He doesn't have to change stats, and for the most part all of those monsters, regardless of level, have a chance of succeeding. It means that the world is always somewhat threatening without needing to arbitrarily improve monsters.

Pathfinder 1 learned from what D&D 3.5 did, and unarguably did it a lot better, but we don't need number inflation. One of the reasons that D&D is currently crushing the market is that they did away with that sacred cow, and while I don't think Pathfinder 2 needs to do exactly that, I do think they should strongly consider at the very least reducing this static number dependency. Adding +1/4 or +1/5 level would be much more reasonable if you want a flat increase to PC abilities. Given the +/-10 Crit system, I think it's a great way to show improvement while not entirely removing the number treadmill for those that want it.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually kind of hope that archetype features are class-locked. It removes over-the-top complexity in character building, and gives classes something that makes them really unique.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Kai's wishes for healing...

--| Some form of reliable class agnostic out of combat healing. Treat Wounds checks this box.
--| Default in combat healing can't quite keep up with damage* (Cleric, Druid, Alchemist, etc out of the box).
--| More differentials between Magical Traditions
----| Perhaps Soothe heals and grants temp hp?
----| Primal gets it's own unique healing spell. Perhaps fast healing?
--| Only specialized in combat healing can outpace damage (Healing Domain, Life Oracle, etc).
--| The major healing classes all get Healing specialties (Alchemist, Bard, etc.)
--| More 'interesting' in combat healing options
----| Healing as a reaction (e.g. more spells like Breath of Life)
----| Healing as battlefield control (e.g. more spells like Pillar of Life from PF1e)
----| Healing from more sources (e.g. Bardic Performances, Rituals, etc.)
----| Ridiculously strong in combat healing spells at high levels (e.g. Deathless from PF1e's Mythic Handbook)

*Currently, the default Cleric's Channel Energy is way too strong. I'm okay with strong healing but it should be limited to specialties like the Healing Domain.

Once and Future Kai and I actually agree on quite a few things regarding he playtest, specifically in regards to healing.

My greatest desire for healing is that healing should feel ENGAGING. Right now, many spells simply don't, and there isn't enough variety. Heal is a great spell primarily because of the action economy nature of it. It's not that is't powerful, but that it's fun to use, and its versatility of use makes it engaging. We need more spells like this. What about a cantrip that tranferred conditions from allies to the caster for X number of rounds? Same action economy and everything (1 touch, 2 ranged, 3 aoe). That creates interesting gameplay, and is something I think healer types would actually really like.

What about Temp HP shield buffers? Reasonable AC boosts (+2 or greater on a regular basis)? Fast healing on Primal heal spells? I've mentioned it in other threads and I'll mention it here, too: Healing needs to feel unique amongst classes, and it should have lots of interesting interactions with the mechanics of the game itself. Heck, it could even interact with different character archetypes in unexpected ways. I love the idea of a Druid Wild Shaping into a troll, then casting a spell that shares his Regeneration with allies. Stuff like that.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually don't mind the overall trimming of the system math, but I feel like the considering of the +10/-10 crit system has led to a deflating of meaningful bonuses on the general scale. It seems like UTEML should progress +0/2/4/6/8. That'd provide a really noticeable feeling when increasing proficiency. If the numbers get too high, take it to -2/0/+2/+4/+6. But +1's aren't terribly noticeable, and it's a shame the system seems fixated on them.

I would be willing to entirely remove the +/-10 system if it meant getting more impactful buffing and debuffing choices.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed, OP. I was actually relatively vocal in my dissatisfaction with available playstyles for a long time. The revamping of Dedication feats stemmed that a little bit, but I still feel like there is work to do: not because Pathfinder is so broad, but because there were things PF1's core rulebook didn't do that I want PF2 to learn from.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually like damage being tied to a magic weapon. It makes sense from a gaming perspective, and he idea of property runes being transferable from weapon to weapon is a nice convenience.

It makes sense from a versimilitude perspective as well. Why should a high level fighter be hitting THAT much harder than a low level one? Isn't that what all the feats are for: to show your increase in skill? A bastard sword is a bastard sword, and one person might be more skilled (mimicked by Increased Proficiency), but it wouldn't really make sense for it to do that much more damage. An enchanted, flaming Bastard Sword, however, makes sense to do more damage.

I feel like a small sidebar in the rulebook regarding automatic bonus progression for people who want to run low-magic campaigns is all that's needed, not a complete redesign of the progression system.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If my players didn't like it, I'd houserule that a +X weapon adds the weapon's average die of damage, rounded down, to each hit per plus. So a +2 Longsword would deal 1d8+8 instead of 3d8, a +1 dagger would do 1d4+2, and a +5 Greatsword would deal 1d12+30. It would certainly give a feeling closer to classic Pathfinder, even though I prefer rolling dice, personally.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Medicine skill and Healing Surges are, effectively, the same thing. Now all we need is a feat that lets you spend a Spell Point or Resonance to use it as an action in-combat and you have that basic 4e interaction.

The only difference is the context in which it's framed, and in that sense I think using the Medicine skill as a replacement for Surges is a nice flavor touch. I'd still prefer rituals, but it seems reasonable enough.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm seeing a lot of posts about DPR, needing an 18 in a stat to be even remotely decent at anything you plan on doing extensively, and how difficult monsters are, and I'm wondering if anyone has done any DPR testing with a few simple builds/classes to indicate the expected damage output of the party against a CR=APL foe.

Now, that's just handling encounters on one end, not accounting for monsters (in which case, we'd do an AC vs. Attack Bonus comparison), but I can't help but wonder if the game is half as cutthroat as the boards seem to suggest, and instead if GMs haven't learned how to run/create balanced encounters in the new system yet.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the Inspiration progression rate, I would look at a heavily reduced rate, perhaps based on the Envoy from Starfinder. With the math being so condensed in this one, anything above a d8 would be a bit too far.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Talsharien wrote:
I also had an investigator, and after several attempts, went with Bard on the conversion.
My first impulse was Bard but he doesn't want to play a caster and he's already done some alchemy - just no bombs to date. He's also in love with Inspiration due to his terrible luck.

If it were me, I would take the baseline Alchemist chassis, sub Bomb progression for Sneak Attack progression, and give them a spell point pool based on Int at 1st level that gives them "Inspiration" stuff. You could have feats that reduce the spell point cost of certain Inspiration uses, and make Sneak Attack cost inspiration as well to use (Perhaps as a Reaction?). Should be pretty cut and dry from there.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
...a time reversal version, etc...

Look! It's the Arcana/Arcane version! Sweet...

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Disagree, do not want.

I don't want easy free healing in PF2.

I like the idea of player characters not healing up to full after every fight. I like player character healers to be more than an unnecessary convenience. I like PF2's healing situation as-is.

I do not like the idea of a 5e-style short rest.

At no point in time did anyone suggest easy, free healing to my knowledge. All the healing stated in this thread has been based on existing characer/player skill choices, with some sort of cost/healing ratio that the balance team can figure out. Characters don't need to heal up to full after every fight, but a way to keep the party playing the game that is flavorful can be a good way to keep the narrative flowing when the party is running low on a specific resource.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Brondy wrote:


What about "short rest in disguise" do not you understand?

What's wrong with short rests? Again, you've failed to give details as to why that would be a poor design decision. PF1 had short rests. They were called "Everyone sit still for 5 minutes while I jab you with my wand."

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brondy wrote:

This ritual is basically short rest in disguise, sound good but not a good idea.

Better add something like medicine/surgery skill as a better and mundane healing.

What's wrong with it? I mean, I get that you might not like it, but is there a legitimate reason?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will again state that the problem is not that we get too few feats, but that feats gained are not impactful enough at their current progression. If we got these feats every level, it might be too much, especially given how successful the "Every Even Level" worked for PF1s class talents. I would just like class feats to be balanced around their current rate of acquisition.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Davor wrote:
You could also easily say that expenditure of party resources makes rituals more difficult to cast the more you use them, either by imparting a resonance cost (I know you guys hate it, but it's a way to make the current system work), or by increasing the DC's for the ritual every time the party attempts to use it consecutively. Want to double down on that healing ritual? DCs go up by 2-5, whatever's balanced. If you include critical failure effects for rituals (and I believe they should), that could make performing consecutive healing rituals just as dangerous as performing them in an unsafe dungeon.
I feel like "we're going to do it again" is a perfect excuse for a GM to use those random encounter tables that aren't in the game yet but will be.

*ding ding ding!

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You could also easily say that expenditure of party resources makes rituals more difficult to cast the more you use them, either by imparting a resonance cost (I know you guys hate it, but it's a way to make the current system work), or by increasing the DC's for the ritual every time the party attempts to use it consecutively. Want to double down on that healing ritual? DCs go up by 2-5, whatever's balanced. If you include critical failure effects for rituals (and I believe they should), that could make performing consecutive healing rituals just as dangerous as performing them in an unsafe dungeon.

Scarab Sages

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Why do we not want out of combat healing to be mundane exactly? Because I want that. I'd much rather have conventional first aid fill this role than rituals.

I personally like the idea of the "Healing Ritual" being a combination of multiple things, not just "We cast some magic and everyone regains Xd8 + X HP."

One person casts the ritual, which has a base effect based on the ritual type (Arcane, Divine, Primal, Occult), but other characters can help out, each in a way that ensures that the group is save, and each with additional beneficial effects. Medicine, for example, would bandage wounds and provide additional healing to the final total if successful. Stealth would help to reduce the chance of the group being disrupted while the ritual is being performed. Nature would be utilizing nearby flora/fauna/terrain to help bolster your allies, perhaps removing conditions or, again, restoring additional hit points. You could even keep those "Out of Combat" healing feats for Medicine and Nature, but have them allow you to start a Healing Ritual with those skills as a base.

I want every character involved, with everyone finding ways in-game, and mechanically, to help out during this time. It makes resting an engaging experience for everyone involved, and helps foster the idea of teamwork instead of just having the one healy guy do all the work. You could EVEN go so far as to have CLASSES also have unique mechanics that interact with a Healing ritual (a bard playing music to soothe the party would be a classic example, though that could also just be covered by the Perform skill), but that's a whole other subject.

Scarab Sages

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually support this idea as a foundation for handling out-of-combat healing. Because they're rituals, they're doable by any class with the appropriate skill ranks, which means it bypasses class requirements for healing needs, and it's flavorful and thematic. You could even simply make "Cast a healing ritual" an exploration activity that has its own hazards, but can be boosted by any allies that decide to take part.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:


He knew which plant would cure the corruption, which serves as an example of his knowledge of nature more than healing. Could you sight specific examples of him patching up the other members of the fellowship after fights? Which is the role of the healer.

So, the problem with this question is that it assumes that all of fantasy roleplaying is based specifically on Lord of the Rings. In reference to D&D, that game pulled from a LOT of different sources, including Lord of the Rings, but also the works of Jack Vance and simple medieval history, including the heavy involvement of the Catholic church, and that's not even getting into things like Beowulf. Since D&D pulled from this medieval era, it made sense to have the church, and priests (aka, Clerics) play a prominent part in the original setting. We also get Vancian casting injected into it, as well as the core races coming from Lord of the Rings, creating a sort of hodge-podge of a number of different settings and styles.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that the "ideal adventuring party" when it comes to D&D, and to an extent all fantasy RPGs based on D&D's legacy (including Pathfinder), draws from a lot of different sources at simply a base level, before we even get into modern gaming archetypes and stereotypes, and as the genre grows, so too do the types of characters people expect to be able to play.

All that to say, asking "Who was the Healer in Lord of the Rings?" is about as relevant as asking "Who was the Halfling in Le Morte d'Arthur?" or "Who was the Dunedain in Dying Earth?" It's a loaded question that fails to address the hobby, or its roots, on the whole. The "support/healer" archetype, whatever the source, is one that has always existed in fantasy ROLEPLAYING, even if it wasn't in all of its source material, so it makes sense that players should be able to fill that role if that is the kind of character they want to play, but they should also be able to fill that role in the WAY that they see fit. Want to play a naturalist ranger who heals using herbal remedies and tinctures that take a while to find/apply? You should be able to do that. Want to be able to play the divine healer that is sent by the church to ensure the success of this venture? You should be able to do that, too.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still don't see why "Give every class a way to provide sustain support to the group" isn't the clear solution. Give Barbarians a battle-cry that grants a few Temp HP to their allies (Like Shared Rage, only not a 20th level feat). Give rangers the ultimate "patch up during a rest" support. Just give everybody something, so that if the group doesn't pick the "Best Single-target healing" in the game, they have a way to patch up their support so that it's not necessary. That way, when someone comes along that wants to play a "Best Healer in the Game", the group says "Really? Sweet! Looks like it's all Damage/Control options for us!"

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Signature Skills are gone? Good. That alone is a huge step in the right direction. Now we just need to do a few feat updates, maybe change ancestry feat acquisition around a tiny bit, and give more options for playing support characters of ALL classes, and we'll be in business.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't mind if combat is designed around the necessity for SUSTAIN (the idea that characters need a way to restore HP/abilities above and beyond their base), but am firmly opposed to combat, or the game in general, REQUIRING 1-3 classes in order to simply play. I got to play for the first time the other day, and another player stated that the group really NEEDED a cleric. I can't convey how furious it made me, but only because he was right. Combat can be pretty lethal from what I've seen, and groups can need an amount of healing that few classes can provide, and once you've required a class capable of large amounts of healing, and focused all healing into it, you've stripped players of agency.

If I can make a wizard that provides the same effective support, or a barbarian, or a fighter, then I'm fine with it. Otherwise, it's just bad design for a game that is supposed to reward player agency.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's not a bad idea, but the problem is that hero points are a discretionary system, while the DM doesn't REALLY get to arbitrate the number of spells you have (he CAN, but that's clearly houserule territory).

I would prefer if, rather than coming up with a way for EVERY class to have the same kind of healing, that every class heal in a different way. MMO's, to some extent, have kinda gotten the hang of this, and there are some signs of progress in this regard. For example, a Paladin's Lay on Hands doesn't only heal, but provides an AC boost. The Soothe spell (as opposed to Heal) gives a bonus against mental effects. I would just like to see more diversity in how healing works. For example: We have persistent damage, so why not have persistent healing? What about temp-HP granting as a main source of damage mitigation? I feel like there are a lot of avenues that we could explore before getting into NEEDING something like Healing Surges/Hit Dice/Stamina/Hero Point HP.

Off the top of my head, what if:

Clerics: Divine spell list offers the highest single-target burst healing, wit cleric's extra uses allowing them to corner the market. They can be good at other things, but this is something they can cover with no investment.
Druids: Primal spell list offers the longest-duration, or maybe even sole access, to persistent healing effects. These effects have the potential to heal for VAST amounts of HP, but the over-time mechanic requires interesting group planning to work around.
Bards: Occult Spell list offers healing with benefits, primarily focused around offensive bonuses and mental condition removal, and is particularly efficient at group healing. They can sustain a large number of allies, and are particularly adept at removing frightened and other mental afflictions.
Paladins: Lay on Hands is the unique Paladin heal, and options for increasing your number (possibly up to 1/2 your level, or at least 3+Charisma Modifier) would really open up the Hospitaler style paladin a bit more. Lay on Hands should keep its niche, which is single target moderate healing with beneficial defensive effects and physical condition removal.
Wizard: Abjuration is a really underwhelming school, but what if it was the go-to school for defensive support? Abjuration spells grant allies Temporary HP in the form of magical shields, etc. and wizards are usually also uniquely positioned to grant elemental resistances and damage reduction. These two things combined would make the idea of a support wizard a unique spin on the classic.
Sorcerer: I mean, you just pick one from the above (except Paladin, of course).
Alchemist: Specializes in versatility via potions, and excels at long-term, cost efficient care. Alchemist is your catch all, being one of the few classes with access to basically every form of healing, but with it being more limited due to the class's nature.

You could even have unique supportive abilities baked into the martial classes, and you already see this a little bit with abilities like the Temp HP from a Barbarian's rage, or Wholeness of Body for the Monk. I just think they should be opened up more.

Overall, I understand the concern. Too much healing access can slow down games, but I don't think any group really WANTS to do that. I just think it make sense for every group, regardless of composition, to not NEED to play a "Healer" character, or if the group later decides they need some support for their playstyle, nobody says "Who wants to be the cleric?" Forcing a single class on player is bland. Giving players options for unique playstyles all while offering the role of support? That's cool.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I've been pretty vocal about some of the things I struggle with or am frustrated by, but there are some elements of the game that I find are REALLY well done. If you have some, feel free to add. I might disagree, but that's okay. For me:

1) Runes. Specifically, weapon runes. Weapon runes are SO COOL. I can't say anything about the pricing, because I'm not familiar enough with the economy, but whoever changed weapon properties into the existing runic versions, or had the idea for it, did a great job. Each elemental property feels very distinct in its application, returning got an appreciable buff, and all of the other runes feel really spot on. I've found myself trying to do buildcraft around RUNES rather than classes, so to me that's a great thing (in regards to runes, anyways).

2) Unarmed combat. Monk unarmed combat, specifically the style feats and their progression, is pretty rockin'. Even better, other classes get access to unarmed combat, and they do so in really flavorful ways. The difference between an unarmed Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin is appreciable due to class choices, and that's a wonderful thing.

3) Multiclassing. I know that some people are sore on this subject, but I actually think that this method of multiclassing is really well done. I hope we get to playtest more multiclass/progression feats, because I really want them all to be spectacular. The amount of character concepts this opens up is pretty decent, even though it sometimes feels like a patch for boring feats. (But I'm still mad about my Arcane Trickster touch-cantriper.)

4) Heal/Harm. These two spells in particular define what almost all damage-dealing spells should be like. The way it interacts with action economy is brilliant, and changing damage-dealing spells to function like Heal & Harm ALONE would create cool gish-characters.

5) Rogue. Every time I look at the Rogue, I want to play one. The skill progression is awesome, getting tons of skill feats is awesome, and most Rogue feats feel like they're in a good place, with lots of interesting choices. This class may have my gold medal for best designed, and for me to say that about the rogue is a big deal.

That's all for now, but as I think of more, I'll post. I just want the crew to know that I actually really like some elements of the game, and want to see more of these good elements show up. Post your favorites, too!

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would argue that the issue isn't that classes don't get enough feats, but that enough feats don't feel impactful enough for the pace at which we get them.

Take, for example, the now famous 1st Level Paladin Feat: Warded Touch. This is a feat that lets you do something that doesn't really seem like it should need a feat to do (Lay on hands with a hand full), but it also lets you avoid AoO's, if those are prevalent in your adventure. Using a shield and healing someone seems like it should be a basic thing, but now it requires a feat to be able to do something basic. Most classes have many feats like this; they tend to either do something that seems like it should be baseline, or that has a very minor effect. I would RATHER have feats that have a larger impact on play. There is, of course, a balance they have to strike: Weaker feats would be fine if we got them more often, and stronger feats would feel great if we got them less often. For what it's worth, I actually think most Skill and General Feats are in a pretty decent place for their pacing, but the class feats do feel very conservative.

Many feats simply don't grant enough of a bonus, or grant it too late. Why do fighters have to wait to get Combat Reflexes at 10th level? In PF1, an early Combat Reflexes is a build-defining feat, and I would argue that Combat Reflexes is actually one of the better carryover feats from D&D 3.5. I understand that it may be intimidating to front-load classes with cool/eclectic options, but with traditional 3.5 multi-classing gone there should be more freedom to allow for this. As it stands, class feats feel to conservative for being class restricted, and many build/style-defining feats are acquired too late in character advancement.

Scarab Sages

8 people marked this as a favorite.

It still boggles my mind that Pathfinder, and most modern RPGs, haven't learned from the old Guild Wars Protection Monk, undoubtedly one of the most popular specializations for their support-themed class.

The basic idea was that Prot monks were proactive healers, and the player based loved them for it. Providing high amounts of damage blocking without actually restoring hit points is a really cool way to proactively support, and most modern d20 RPGs have had systems in place that mimic it for ages! (Ever heard of Temporary HP?) Why we don't have a cleric archetype, paladin variant, or heck, make Abjurer wizards cool by giving them cool, temp-hp support spells just makes no sense to me.

Paizo, this is your moment. Make Temp HP an effective form of proactive damage mitigation. It will inspire so much variety in the game.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Doering wrote:
Isn't the idea of a playtest to playtest the rules they have? Not to immediately look for ways to do things not covered in the rules? Maybe those of you who want more out of the game have already run all the current race and class options that have been given. I haven't had the time to run through all the combos I could do with the rules as is, so I'm not to the 'why can't I make x character' yet.

Oh, of course. I definitely want to play a bog-standard elf evoker wizard. /sarcasm

I am under the impression that playtesting is a way for us to see what Paizo is focusing on for the next edition, and to see if it works. If the next edition is focused on only allowing stereotypical characters in a clean, but uninteresting system, I feel like they should know that I'm not a fan, and that it could be improved upon.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I really like all the discussion about this. To be clear I actually DON'T like PF1 as much as it might seem I do. I enjoy systems like 5e a bit more, which may come as a surprise, but 5e is actually pretty robust as far as character customization is concerned, mostly because, despite they pretty tame base class structure, the way that they've structured their feats and multiclassing rules actually allows for some pretty varied character concepts.

As for being powerful, it's a little bit of that. I will admit that I enjoy building Pathfinder 1 characters that are extremely effective, but honestly, if you knew me, you'd know that what I want isn't a high level of power, but the joy of being a "Johnny" player.

For those of you unfamiliar with that term, it's a Magic: The Gathering name for the kind of player that likes building weird, combo-centric decks that, while not necessarily the best, utilize unconventional options in order to make what is actually an effective whole. In PF1, that was things like my Starknife-Paladin, or my Lore Warden/Slayer fighter. It was taking things that rarely got used, and going super-overboard with them to the point that they were really quirky, and turned heads at the table. I LOVE doing stuff like that, not because it's powerful, but because it's unconventional and it works.

I feel like a lot of PF2 at the moment is sticking too close to enforcing convention, to the point that it feels really limiting. I don't want to take away from the base game of Pathfinder for everyone else, nor do I want to bump up the power level. Instead, I want the rules to be more open to doing unconventional things, or messing with Action economy, or combining unique effects without unbalancing the combat. It really doesn't bother me if swinging a longsword and casting a cantrip isn't overpowered, but I WOULD like it if there were a way to do that with a modicum of success.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
While I entirely agree that that particular rule is unnecessarily restrictive, I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to state that
Davor wrote:
almost every time I think of a neat concept that I can't FATHOM being overpowered, the rules just flat out tell me "No!"
and then only give one example. Could you maybe provide some other instances where the rules have prevented cool builds?

Okay.

1) An animal companion-focused character. Animal companions seem really cool, with archetypes, fixed progression, and Work Together benefits coupled with unique attacks.The rules for them are actually really neat! Buuuuuuuut...

Pathfinder Playtest wrote:
...though with the exception of barding allowing an item bonus to AC of up to +2, they never benefit from item bonuses.

So... I can buy all the magic runes and items for my companion that I want, but the vast majority (and I do mean vast) will have no effect. Why? It's completely arbitrary! Why in this fantasy game can I not have a bear with flaming claws? Or a gleaming horse with barding that reflects spells? Or heck, why can't I,from a mechanical perspective, have a companion that stays relevant later in the game? Because honestly, the stat bumps from Barding or Unarmored proficiency and saving throw proficiencies are not going to save your companion, and their attack bonus is going to be really darn low.

2) A Paladin that can Smite Evil. I tried this one with available resources, and Paladin is just... so disappointing as a whole. I don't mind some of the abilities, but Blade of Justice (the only thing resembling Smite Evil) is just sad. To be clear, when I say Smite Evil, what I really mean is "Be a warrior that situationally hits really hard." And I tried. I looked for spells or abilities that allowed for that style of gameplay, and they just aren't there. There are some spells that increase your item bonus to your weapon by one, but that's really it across the board.

Actually, I take it back. A CLERIC could do it by channeling negative energy and taking Channel Smite. So, yeah, a negative energy channeling cleric. Paladin could never do it, not even through multi-classing, because their Channel Life feat doesn't even give you the prerequisite cleric ability to qualify for Channel Smite, and of course cleric multiclassing doesn't give you access to channel energy.

3) The Wizard Gish. So, this one may seem a bit odd, because for a lot of people the Eldritch Knight was mostly wizard, with a hint of martial, and for the most part you get the vague outline of this in the playtest. But it's really depressing when you look at it. Buff spells, the source of what really made Eldritch Knight work, are basically gone as a form of balancing your character. Now, for the most part that's a good thing, as balancing between 6-12 effects on your character, all with different durations, was frustrating, but we didn't really get anything equivalent in their place. To make matters worse, there aren't even any Eldritch Knight/Magus core elements encorporated into the game. Where's the "Cast a Spell on Crit" feat? You could put that in Wizard + Sorcerer no sweat. It would even have SOME synergy with the existing Magical Striker feat and oh no I said Magical Striker.

This feat is probably the most disappointing one I've seen. The design philosophy behind it is actually REALLY good. It's the sort of counter to Cast a Spell on Crit: Cast a spell, free attack buff! The problem is action economy, efficacy of use, and the fact that you're a wizard and you kinda suck at combat and there isn't really anything you can do about it. At low levels, this spell can actually be pretty cool. Combining True Strike with this actually gives you a reasonably hard-hitting, high accuracy attack (Suck it, Power Attack!)... but this feat falls off so hard, especially once that +1 item bonus stops mattering as much. Without any other support, and with almost no spells that allow you to move/strike/cast in any sort of productive way, the whole thing just feels very underwhelming.

4) The Support Character/The Debuffer Character: These two are a bit of a longer discussion, but I'm going to keep it brief in the hopes that someone will point out something I missed and I'll be able to salvage these character concepts. As far as I can tell, Conditional buffs, and conditional penalties from debuffs, don't stack. In a way, this is understandable. The overall tightening of the math around level means that buffs/debuffs actually can work really well in tandem. The problem is that, alone, these things simply don't feel very impactful. If you had a whole group doing them, it could be cool... except most of them don't stack, so realistically you're looking at about a +4 to any given roll on the net (including debuffs to enemy defenses). That's pretty solid, but I can't, for the life of me, see any way to build a character around doing both well, let alone one or the other well. It's depressing, because the Arm/Anvil roles are my two favorites.

I'm sure there are more, and I realize that a couple of those are kind of a personal taste thing, but I'm very tired, so I'll have to let those suffice for now.

I would be sad to think I'm the only person seeing these issues, but I feel like the Paizo crew are good enough game designers that I shouldn't be finding what I would think are simple problems. Maybe I am crazy. It certainly wouldn't be surprising.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:

So, you've got a couple different ways to play an Arcane Trickster, if you define it as some kind of rogue/wizard hybrid. The magical rogue concept can be addressed, most likely through a Rogue(Wizard) multiclass.

Now, what I see you wanting is probably more along the lines of an Arcane Trickster PRC that can be taken with multiclass feats... we just don't have one yet.

More in general, as to your comment about how "limited" P2 is, think back to any core book of any of the previous systems, what exactly could we do with them? How limited were they? Lets not forget that this is the playtest, how much content is currently missing? How much more content will we have in a couple of splat books?

Okay, so I have thought about all this things:

1) "We don't have the Arcane Trickster PRC via multiclass feats"

Correct, but why not? They showed us the Cavalier as a prestige class (which they actually did a pretty decent job with), the Pirate (a sort of proof of concept), and the Gray Maiden (again, a proof of concept, but from a world-building perspective), but didn't think to put into the playtest what was a Core prestige class? Some of the core prestige classes are represented in some way (Mystic Theurge receiving a noticeably HUGE boost in this version of the game), but the gishy ones really aren't in any recognizable way, and that's kind of disheartening.

2) I understand that previous systems didn't have all the options in their core that we eventually got. But 2nd edition is supposed to iterate and improve on the first, not simply rehash it. They proved they were willing to do that by making the Alchemist a core class, yet a handful of feats and rules that would have made certain character archetypes exciting (not just possible, but EXCITING) simply aren't there, and that I can think of relatively simple fixes leaves me perplexed, and I haven't really seen a response from Paizo in this regard.

Scarab Sages

15 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, small rant incoming. I'm getting ready for a homebrew campaign starting in the playtest rules and I'm coming up with characters. The problem is, almost every time I think of a neat concept that I can't FATHOM being overpowered, the rules just flat out tell me "No!"

So, I was thinking about Rogues, as I often do because they're a pretty well-designed class in the playtest, and trying to make the whole "Gish" character work without resorting to Cleric/Wizard, because it really irks me that the Mystic Theurge is probably the best Gish in the game. (FYI, Gish is a magic/martial hybrid, for those of you who might not be aware of the term). I started thinking: What about Arcane Trickster? Could I make that work? I remembered reading that Sneak Attack worked with Unarmed strikes, and sure enough, melee touch attacks from spells count as unarmed strikes! With all of these spells costing two actions, but targeting Touch AC, including cantrips, I really liked the idea of a melee spell-slinging rogue.

Then I get to the rules on spell attacks:

Pathfinder Playtest wrote:
Spell attacks are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell.

I will give the rules this: They've covered the base for this kind of interaction. But COME ON! Almost every time I think a character concept might work, I'm sent into this spiral of frustration with this game. I get that the rules are tight, but why are they so freakin' restrictive? Is there going to be some super special rule surrounding the Arcane Trickster dedication feats? Are we really worried that, what, MONKS are going to start picking up cantrips because they might get an accuracy bonus with them?

Actually, stop right there. That's a thing that could be neat, right? Monks critting more frequently with cantrips and touch spells because of their accuracy bonus? Well, no, not any more than wizards and sorcerers anyways, so it's basically a waste of time. And don't get me started on how "meh" sorcerers are. I heard they were going to be spontaneous primal casters and got so excited!... and there's basically no incentive to play them over a druid. Ever.

Paizo, please just consider loosening the reins a bit. The system has some upside, but the game is so restrictive it's aggravating. More cool stuff, less fuddy-duddy rules.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zardnaar wrote:


Everyone would want d12 weapons they obsolete everything else. There is no point having weapon traits.

I can't come up with a good reason not to get a reach weapon and multi-class fighter on every martial character. I would like to politely disagree with your assessment. Upgrading reach weapons with things like finesse or agile would be fun, as would momentum. Deadly could also be sweet, and I would love to see something like a fatal gnome flickmace.

You could easily limit properties based on die size, etc. if it were an actual issue. I just wanted a ROBUST system, and what we have is... again, meh.

Scarab Sages

Zardnaar wrote:


Its because you would end up with 1 weapon that is just better than everything else. An agile. finesse great sword for example.

Then let it happen. Or tie it to limited proficiency bonuses. I was just really excited about the revamping of weapon properties, and it's so... MEH. For two-handers, you either want a d12 or Reach, for one-handers you either want a big versatile die, finesse and/or agile, and... that's about it. There isn't nearly enough done with it, and I want more!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues eventually get Expert proficiency with weapons of their starting proficiency at 13th level (Weapon Tricks). That's about it.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think my primary problem with Opens and Presses isn't that the mechanics are clunky, but rather that they don't do enough. I feel like Opens should be more focused on debuffing, and Presses should be more focused on damage spiking. That gives the whole combo feel they're going for. Right now, presses are just... meh. Hopefully we get some cooler ones in the final version.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Visanideth wrote:
Your insistence that acknowledging your real life beliefs is so important makes as much sense as christians demanding God and Jesus to be included in the setting would.

Fun aside: My recent favorite character archetype has become the guy who has actually heard God's voice in this fantasy world, and needs to figure out how to share God with people who are like "Yeah, we can make fire from heaven too. So what?" It's very Exodus-like.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Davick wrote:
Davor wrote:

That page 288 thing is also inaccurate. Since, in the Pathfinder universe, your soul's destination is based largely on the being you follow in life, floating adrift in the multiverse makes sense.

Also, since you're just floating adrift, Pharasma might see fit to sacrifice you to hold back the end times. There's an odd kind of honor to it, actually.

Is it? It sounds like you're just trying to make excuses or reframe it to fit a more religious worldview. That's still the same problem.

Yes, it is. To quote you:

Davick wrote:
Then, turning to page 288 does imply that you can be non-religious but that such characters are the lowest of the low.

How do you get that from the page 288 text, which reads:

PF2 Playtest p.288 wrote:

Those who reject the divine might find

themselves adrift in the afterlife, without a home for their
souls to find peace, or possibly even sacrificed to stave off
the end times.

There's nothing about the quality of their experience, other than that their souls don't find peace, and they are single-handedly responsible for preventing the end of existence as they know it. That sounds almost heroic. But yeah, they don't find peace in the afterlife. Question: How many atheists believe in an afterlife? I'd wager not many, and not many with great cause. There's nothing that indicates they are the "lowest of the low" just because they don't find peace. Heck, what domain do the souls of the vast majority of true neutral humanoids go to? What about those souls who were evil in life, turned into slithering muck demons in constant pain and agony that serve the whims of every other powerful evil creature in Hell? Atheists don't seem to have it badly off, relatively.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That page 288 thing is also inaccurate. Since, in the Pathfinder universe, your soul's destination is based largely on the being you follow in life, floating adrift in the multiverse makes sense.

Also, since you're just floating adrift, Pharasma might see fit to sacrifice you to hold back the end times. There's an odd kind of honor to it, actually.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I don't like the idea of every class just having "Healing Power" but damage mitigation is something that works. Having healing as a function of spellcasting classes works well, but martial classes get goodies, too. Paladins get the ever efficient Lay on Hands for HP and conditions, Barbarians get flat damage reduction, rogues could get a reactionary damage 1/2, Fighters get sky-high defenses/parry abilities, monks could channel ki through their strikes, healing themselves as they attack, rangers could be herbalists/field medics that use their surroundings for tinctures and tonics.

There are SO many ways to make classes have unique abilities that fit their flavor to sustain themselves (and some of them already do). We just need them to be prominent options for people to take. There is some concern of a tanky playstyle slowing down play, but anything that moves groups away from "must have a healer" is a good thing, imo.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

I could debate this, but the fact is I think we just fundamentally disagree on what's "best" here. That's understandable and will happen, but my argument was made on the premise that gating feats behind class walls is bad (and there are a lot who agree with this, though also plenty who disagree as well). If you don't accept that premise, then I suppose there's not much for me to argue here :).

I think there is healthy room for compromise. I definitely agree that far too many feats are class-walled, and this is a real shame. It's important, however to think of "Feats" in PF2 as being more like "Talents" in PF1. I would never complain about a Rogue Talent being Rogue-only, so a Rogue Feat being Rogue-only isn't much different other than verbage.

What I DO think is that the idea of what is worthy of a feat needs to be brought up, and feats need to be more independent of each other. If something is going to be a Class Feat, and not a generic feat, I need to be wow'd every time I see one, or think "That's a weird feat" that I'll understand upon learning more later. As it is, it's too easy for a concept to be called a class feat (I'm looking at you, Power Attack).

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed with Zwordsman. Classes that have access to healing should be able to do it effectively, but in a way that is unique to them. If you're going to tie healing to spell lists, you could make it so that Divine is best Single-Target, Occult heals AoE the best, Primal does Heal over Time (think Persistent healing rather than persistent damage), and Arcane does Temporary HP stacking. Boom. Now a support abjuration wizard, a cleric, and a bard all feel different when supporting the group with heals.

I realize those are broad strokes but c'mon. Paizo devs are game designers. Surely they can come up with something more fleshed out. :P

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to disagree a bit here: Putting most feats behind class walls is a really elegant solution to the sprawl of feats available to characters in PF1. I actually agree with some of the decision making here.

For example, let's take "Improved Critical" from PF1. Requires Weapon Focus, and BAB +8. This requirement makes it so that 3/4 BAB classes can pick it up around 13th level if they want (which is fine), and 1/2 BAB classes can't until around level 16.

But here's the thing: No 1/2 BAB class by itself is going to pick up Improved Critical. Even for touch attacks it's basically worthless. In fact, with the way feat investment worked, many 3/4 BAB classes couldn't easily fit such a feat into their repertoire. Sometimes even full BAB classes didn't. And that's a relatively simple feat. Let's not even get into feat chains, feat taxes, and feats that required certain ability scores and class features being listed as General Feats that most characters would never even consider taking. Discordant voice, for example, requires Bardic Performance and Perform ranks, but is listed as a general feat. Why? Well, partially because class features got bandied around by archetypes a LOT, and partially to say "This is a bard feat. Bards should take this". Why shouldn't stuff like that just be a bard thing and be done with it? Especially with the way they're doing multiclassing (which I fully agree with by the way), there's no reason to leave something like Discordant Voice out in the middle of nowhere for the majority of players to see and not use.

Now, I will agree that some feats should be more generic (several martial feats fall under this category), but the idea of saying "This is an X level Wizard/Sorcerer Feat" isn't REALLY any different than saying "Requires ability to cast X level Arcane Spells". It's just codified to not encourage someone to take Power Attack when their class isn't built for it, etc. This is a good thing, but only if the codified options are interesting and engaging.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the bigger problem is that most base class features aren't modular enough. Why not let us choose our armor-type proficiency increases? Why not make simple weapons actually good for Paladins/Clerics instead of pretending to make them acceptable?

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Making feat progression more consistent across classes would be much more inclusive, and is more intuitive, for players.

As for the whole "Why can't martials have some advantage over casters?!" argument, maybe feats should just be a way of specializing within your class, not a measure of power. Why SHOULDN'T classes be getting an equal number of feats if feats are no longer entirely shared between classes? These class-unique abilities can, and should, be designed around the class taking them and their viability as accessible multi-classing options, and there's no reason to remove sorcerer customizability just because they get spells. Make feats consistent, and make feats cool.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


Swift Grip – [1st Level]
Fighters can effortlessly flow with the tide of battle. They gain the Swift Grip action.

◇ Swift Grip
[Fighter]
Trigger You start your turn.
Effect: You may perform one of the actions listed below. Additionally, you may sheathe a weapon or shield.

  • You interact to draw a weapon or shield.
  • You interact to change your grip on a weapon.

...it would solidify the identity of the Fighter as someone who masters the versatile use of weapons.

See, this is the kind of thing that works with making a class distinct. It plays with the baseline mechanics of the game, and tells you that there is some element of nuance to playing a fighter. Sure, you could just pick up a two-hander and go to town (and there should be fun options for doing so), but it conveys to the player that fighter benefits the most from being able to switch combat styles on the fly, and those flexible Fighter Feats MEAN something when you can flow seamlessly from one combat style to the next. For what it's worth, feats like Reactive shield are neat for precisely this reason: They give you interesting choices. "Do I give up my AoO for this shield block?" Is a great question to have to ask yourself, and it makes gameplay more engaging.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Philippe Perreault wrote:


18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

As someone who actually played a fair bit of 4th Ed., I need to call out this hyperbole. Gamers tend to exaggerate the effect of character building decisions, but there were many character builds that involved unique race/class combinations that didn't have perfect offensive attributes (the old Eladrin Barbarian Fey Charger comes to mind). Being at a -1 on everything was an annoyance, but in 4e what mattered most was your feat/power/gear choices, not your initial attributes, as long as you were playing to win (i.e., not building a 10 Str. Fighter).

Pathfinder 2E seems to be doing something similar. Want an optimal offensive attribute? Here. It's easy. Want to be more well-rounded? Also easy. We're seeing, with all the math tightening, that level, item, power, and circumstance bonuses matter more than having an optimized offensive stat array, which is a good thing. Time will tell if that +1 really matters at high levels, but IF the difference between having an 18 and a 16 (or a 22 and a 20) at high levels is the difference between a playable and unplayable character, then PF2 would really be a failed system.

While I'm on the subject, that specific Eladrin Fey Charger build was a perfect example of what character customization should feel like. You took a race/class combination that didn't seem effective, along with an under-utilized weapon set, and gave them all combined a really cool synergy that played to their unique strengths in a way that produced a viable character that actually seemed like a unique entity. I wish we could see more elements of that kind of design in PF2.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Campfire Lucifer wrote:

I'd agree with this if the whole point of the system didn't seem to be stripping down the bloat and numbers heavy bits of PF. At least that's how I interpretted it with everything having lower numbers all around.

Buffing everything to Cleric's current level is A. a lot more work B. has a lot higher chances of breaking the current system, which might require some retooling of the approach as a whole. As thus, my suggestion is to bring Cleric down to a better baseline.

I will agree that clerics seem to have too many skill proficiencies, at least compared with martial characters, but it sounds like your cleric was actually fun to play and useful in multiple situations. Why should we want that for all characters?

1 to 50 of 431 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>