The Scribbler

kaisc006's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 853 posts (858 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 13 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 853 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

I have not played a magus but have seen a few in Pathfinder Society. I think your concerns are well founded. The Magus is really high risk high reward. The majority of the time they are a subpar frontliner. Worse than almost any martial besides maybe swashbuckler. But occasionally you’ll score a crit hit on your spell strike and explode… but honestly if you’re crit fishing you’ll get better mileage out of a fighter.

Lantern Lodge

Captain Morgan wrote:
An adult red dragon with 15d6 breath could easily deal 100 points of damage to a single character. If it chooses to leave that target unharmed in order for everyone else to take less 11 less damage a piece, that is a huge win for the party.

In this situation the dragon dealing 100 damage to say a party of 4 pcs (one is a level 9 champion) has the following options:

1. not deal damage to target member and deal 100 to the other three
2. deal 89 damage to all members of the group and suffer negative effects.

I hadn’t considered using it on someone who critically failed their save. In that instance, the enemy would most likely choose option 2.

So I guess in cases where the enemy can put out an overwhelming amount of AoE, the ability has merit. It probably depends on how hot the enemy rolls AoE, and how well PCs succeed their saves, as to which choice they pick.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
We have the gunsligner, inventor, vehicles, firearms and many clockwork items...

Golarion has had those things since skulls and shackles (maybe even before that?) Like forgotten realms it’s a mishmash setting designed to accommodate multiple product lines / genres. Each region brings with it a particular flavor that usually doesn’t overpower the others. So while more products will likely come out to enhance steampunk-esque characters it’s unlikely to have a broader impact on Golarion unless the marketing team believes steampunk will be more marketable than a flexible fantasy setting.

Lantern Lodge

GM OfAnything wrote:
Because the rules say that if your interpretation of the rules results in them not working, your interpretation is wrong. Your version of Glimpse of Redemption is explicitly countered by RAW.

From Glimpse of Redemption:

The foe must choose one of the following options:
- The ally is unharmed by the triggering damage.
- The ally gains resistance to all damage against the triggering damage equal to 2 + your level. After the damaging effect is applied, the enemy becomes enfeebled 2 until the end of its next turn.

From the exalt ability:
You can apply the resistance granted by Glimpse of Redemption to yourself and all allies within 15 feet of you, including the triggering ally, except the resistance is reduced by 2 for all.

Glimpse of redemption is either / or and only applies resistance if the enemy chooses to damage your ally. The exalt ability enhances when you apply resistance therefore only occurs when resistance is applied. How is anything contradicting this RAW? If people believe it should not function this way then there absolutely needs to be an errata clarifying this.

I’m not interpreting anything the rules are very clear how glimpse of redemption and exalt interact. Bear in mind the ability is not “broken” in that language prevents it from working, it’s just that the mechanics are so skewed in favor of one decision.

GM OfAnything wrote:
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience.

Again you don’t get to just disregard RAW because you want an ability to function a way it does not. I’m in the same boat that I’d like it to function that way, but the rules don’t work like that. PFS DM’s can make judgements on rulings not explicitly in the rules, but this one is.

Lantern Lodge

Castilliano wrote:

"Therefore defeating the purpose of your exalt" indeed, hence that interpretation is grossly in error. It'd defeat getting the upgrade, and those are strong upgrades for the other alignments. So yeah, you might worry about GMs who make such poor rulings on it using the rigor of PFS as an excuse, but that ruling wouldn't fly in my local PFS circles.

How is it in error? It's very explicit how Glimpse of Redemption works.

In PFS you cannot look at an explicit rule and say "Oh well I believe it's intended to work this way so at my table it works that way". Under that logic the game doesn't have any concrete rules at all.

Lantern Lodge

Castilliano wrote:

And while the Exalt ability works poorly vs. ranged enemies (which is true of all the Champion Reactions), there are more local effects like many breath weapons, trample, hydra-like attacks, exploding dead monsters, or just a caster in melee (i.e. many fiends want to both cast and Strike).

That’s interesting about PFS and RAW. I guess what I meant is if there were any rulings on the matter because anything that allows table variation isn’t really viable in PFS so I stick with concrete rulings.

As for breath weapons, aoe trample, etc those are all circumstances where the exalt ability still appears useless as most intelligent enemies will just opt to deal full damage to everyone else and no damage to the target of your resumption (therefore defeating the purpose of your exalt).

Lantern Lodge

Can someone explain how RAW works regarding grappling a creature at range with the gill hook? Are you able to continue attacking that creature and or other creatures?

I’d like to use this weapon in PFS but couldn’t find any clarification on how ranged grapples worked. Thanks!

Lantern Lodge

breithauptclan wrote:

Running the ability as being able to decide to avoid dealing damage to just the primary target ally may be literally what it says. But I really don't think that is how the ability is intended to be run.

It is a good thing to point out so that the developers can see. But, seriously...

I play PFS exclusively so it’s important to follow RAW. Also, I missed the point that both the enemy and the ally hit must be within 15 ft. (I thought you only needed an ally). That limits the ability of this feature immensely… I think the guides rating it highly are pretty inaccurate but again I haven’t played at that level so wondered if anyone had practical experience.

But the only way I see the ability working is if the “negate all damage” applies to the entire damage effect.

Lantern Lodge

I’m new to PF2E and building a champion. From guides I’ve seen people mention that the redeemer’s exalt ability to protect against Area effects is really nice… but I don’t see an instance where it would occur? Why would any enemy choose to not just negate damage against the single target? In that way they’d avoid all your negative status effects and the exalt ability protecting your allies…

Lantern Lodge

Alex Speidel wrote:
Yep, email me at orgplayreportingerrors[at]paizo[dot]com and I can get you sorted out!

Thank you email sent!

Lantern Lodge

Hello! I'm a new player for PFS2E but was a long time PFS1E player. For my first character I wanted to play a character from the Home Region "Tian Xia" but the player's guide was specific on what option were available:

"This is also the stage at which you should choose your character’s home region (Core Rulebook 420-429), and in the case of human characters (or other ancestries with multiple ethnicities), your ethnicity. (Core Rulebook 430-431)."

I didn't see Tian Xia listed on those pages and looking online it seemed people said you needed the World Traveller Boon to access it since the region isn't listed in the CRB 420-429. I purchased it for my character but now when presenting it to the GM for my first game they said the boon isn't necessary for access to the katana / wakizashi and that anyone can select that home region... Is there a way to delete the boon / get a refund for the 20 points?

Thanks!

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mewzard wrote:

To me, from what I've seen, Pathfinder 2E's going to find a nice home as a healthy middle ground between Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E. For Pathfinder 1E players who want something simpler without hitting 5E, and for 5E players who want something more complex, but not at Pathfinder 1E's level, this could be the perfect home to many players.

I highly doubt many people will jump from 5e to PF2. The math behind the systems, and it’s effects on the fantasy world, are way too different. If paizo wanted that market they would’ve kept bounded accuracy but added complexity to class choices and combat.

PF2 is designed to appeal to those still playing PF1 or 3.5. At the core it’s essentially the same math but with more bonuses baked into classes rather than items, an added Crit mechanic that keeps the math super tight, change in action economy, and a mixed bag of simplification / complication concerning conditions / poisons. So at its core it’s still the same game engine, unlike 5e which took core concepts of the math and radically changed them.

I also don’t think 5e players will be keen to paizo’s publishing strategy which will be sure to pump out splatbooks all the time. 5e on the other hand only publishes 2-4 books a year and mostly adventures / flavor very little splat.

So while I think there were many hoping for PF2 to fill the gap between PF1 and 5e, I think it’s disingenuous to suggest PF2 is the gap between the two. More PF2 is an “upgraded” version of PF1 with no similarity to 5e... and I think that’s exactly what paizo was going for.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Malk_Content wrote:


Because feedback disagreed with his personal view of what makes an enjoyable game. That feedback is the best data on player preferences they had so it makes sense to adopt it as the baseline and design systems to make the most of it and then provide deviations from that as options rather than the other way round.

I mean it’s not really a personal view. Go back and look at those debates. I was decently involved in them, others more so on both sides. Both sides clearly understood the problem being addressed (untrained becoming obsolete due to number bloat). One wanted to raise all the numbers while the other lower all the numbers at the top. Not a half and half that does nothing to solve that issue. So I question what data lead to that decision.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
3Doubloons wrote:
You have it backwards. If a trap is set by an NPC, you use that NPC's stats to determine the DC. If it's a static hazard like a ledge, you choose what level adventurers should see it as an average challenge and use the chart to determine the DC based on that (and if your party returns to the same ledge under the same conditions after they gained a few levels, they'll find the ledge easy to cross because its DC was set for a challenge a few levels lower)

Yes and this system will break down just like it did for PF1. Your level 1 players come up to a castle and decide to scale the wall. Not wanting to be a terrible DM and say that’s impossible, you determine with proper equipment it should still be a DC 20 for the scale (the PC can secure a rope for the rest). Still a decent chance of failure for a specialist. Fast forward 5 levels. Due to number bloat that PC is now significantly more capable at scaling that wall. Now you have to start constraining the world around them to match the conflated PC numbers. It gets even worse for a world like golarion where PCs are amongst a sea of heroes. The number bloat shatters verisimilitude.

But skills in general had some really strange design decisions. For instance in a different thread Mark admitted he doesn’t like the no bonus to untrained and will likely houserule... why is a core designer of the game houseruling a major component?

I understand the ship has sailed on this one but the both sides understood one thing: untrained skills/saves/weapons become useless at higher levels. Those for level to everything knew it solved that issue. Those against level to everything knew it solved that issue and drastically simplified DCs (they become static). No one wanted a mixture of the two because both sides knew that did nothing to solve the problem.

As for armor and weapon proficiency in PF1, with investment yes you could be great with one. But for fighters their armor bonuses were generic for all armor.. it wasnt until archetypes / hybrids started specializing. Which is totally fine just not for the base class to be focused around one thing. I understand if they make light armor legendary it will make it “the only” option or obsolete heavy armor... but that’s a huge flaw with the AC system. Everything in the world should be legendary possible and everyone should have some way to become legendary on what they want regardless of class (some should of course have a much easier time than others, abilities can still be locked such as spell casting in armor and what not)

Lantern Lodge

BretI wrote:
I am really hoping they will go more towards allowing you choices on weapon and armor proficiencies. Allow the fighter to become legendary with light armor if they want, allow other classes the choice between expanding their options or getting better (higher proficiency) with what they know.

This. If this isn’t done the system is unplayable in my opinion. I’m not going to regress to a system that class locks you to certain weapon / armor types based on your class with no option to make other weapon / armor types viable.

But in terms of skills I still don’t care for a level chart at all. It’s still the same old skill treadmill.

Lantern Lodge

Charlie Brooks wrote:
While the D&D starter set is fine for what it is, I much prefer the Pathfinder Beginner Box, which does a good job of covering all the bases of the game. That includes creating characters, playing the game, running the game, and creating your own adventures.

To be fair all of these are possible with the D&D starter set because the basic rules are available for free on the wotc website along with plenty of articles for how to start. Don’t even need to buy anything going that route. The starter set points players in that dorection if they want to make their own PCs.

Also, 5e has a starter set that just came out tied to Netflix Stranger Things. With the new season coming out in July, I suspect many more fans new to rpgs will pick up the stranger things set not to mention those who already own the original (the Stranger Things set should arrive any day for me now lol)

Lantern Lodge

For me I didn’t like the mismatched binding for all the books. Hardcovers had different color schemes and the mix of hardcover and softcover books was jarring. I had the same problem with 3.x.

To be honest I only had the crb in print and the rest digital for pathfinder. 5e is the only system I have purchased every book mostly due to a manageable number of books and matching art / binding format that looks amazingly on the shelf... unfortunately due to the high volume of books paizo publishes and large variation in page count I doubt that will change so I don’t see myself purchasing pf2 in print provided I actually end up liking the system.

Lantern Lodge

The only feasible improvement I could see is what occurred in the living campaign for arcanis. One of the most incredible living campaign moments I’ve seen.

The season adventures culminated in a helms deep esque defense while the evil wizard summoned an earth shattering Titan. The first part saw the players defending the walls while NPC scribes divined how to defeat the Titan. For these two encounters GMs were given a few variations of wall maps to pick and a set CR for each party level. Using the provide data monsters for the wizard army, GMs built the attacking force. At the end of the event it made the thing truly feel like a battle because we had all defended different parts of the wall against different enemy compositions.

But the best part was the second half. The NPCs had determined how to defeat the creature but at grave cost. They asked for volunteers of high skill (those from the high tier tables). Six brave souls stood and proclaimed their character names and volunteered to the cheers of the crowd. They then went to a separate table on a podium. What we didn’t know was when they got there they were informed it was a suicide mission. They were to be transported into a pocket plane fueling the Titans energy and would perish upon destroying its heart. Our job was to hold out against the onslaught for as long as possible.

We were successful and the six volunteers had their character names PERMANENTLY added to the lore of the region and had statues erected in their honor. This was added in a future sourcebook. Incredible they were all hugging and crying and I thought holy cow what an amazing experience and reward for these guys who put in so many hours into their characters.

That kind of interaction at exclusive GenCon or Paizo Con events would make PFS even better than it already is.

Lantern Lodge

It's my understanding that different Panache Pools from two sources essentially "stack". Normally this occurs because they both operate on the same rules. So my question is if I was a Paladin (Virtuous Bravo) 4 / Swashbuckler (Inspired Blade) 1. The Virtuous Bravo operates like a panache. The Inspired Blade alters normal Panache.

Per RAW would I then still get panache points for a killing blow since the Virtuous Bravo adds that option?

Thanks!

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree PF1 had the same problems with the superhero narrative / PCs growing too strong for any sense of structure in the world... but that’s a problem I figured PF2 would fix. Instead the crit system and 3-action damage scaling make that even worse. Yes the top numbers are smaller but the crit system paired with scaling AC/saves changes the math significantly.

And there is a reason the superhero genre doesn’t work in a d20 system, especially one that tries to emulate a butcher becoming a god for wandering into the world and fighting monsters. It’s because high number inflation devalues the d20 roll. So much that you need a scaling world to challenge them. This story could work if the PCs are the only of such heroes in the world but golarion is a place where everyone can do that.

And no legendary armor proficiency was precisely due to math. It’s because the devs are having trouble balancing armor with the +1 per level AC. Coupled with the ridiculous four ability bumps, they know if they allow legendary it will be super easy to get more AC and negate the purpose of medium and heavy armor. To make matters worse they also locked armor types into class progression (along with weapon style abilities). A big no no.

As for voluntarily not making skill rolls or lowering your stats... aren’t you guys tired of playing a system that punishes you for roleplaying? PF1 did this all the time by requiring you give up the static bonuses provided by traits or feats to gain something you considered roleplaying material for your character. Or not being able to perform some interesting maneuver in combat because you didn’t have x,y, z feat that allowed you to perform a highly situational maneuver. And PF2 will get worse with skill feats. I speculate that future splat books will keep adding all sorts of Skill feats that effectively gate you out of using the skill unless you have that feat.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Some good maths
I stand corrected on the PF1 front. The point still stands that I can't find narrative fault with the +/- 10 system.

The problem revolves mainly around skills / spell saves. If you have players interact with a king at low level, the king will critically succeed against them because he is a super hero. Why must this happen? Because when those players level up after clearing a few dungeons and come back in two weeks they would crit the king otherwise.

Now you could say well the king went to dungeons too or war so he gained levels as well. But that’s exactly the point. The mechanics are forcing a narrative. Same with those talking about how if you make a tree at level 1 difficult to climb, then every tree players encounter at level 5 must be brittle or in a sleet storm so you can justify the jump in DC.

A level 10 rogue could rob an entire small town pretty Willy nilly. Unless of course you start putting in other superheroes which poses its own problems.

Now in PF1 you could do that with skills, but it was generally at huge costs. People referencing +75 skill are 9 times out of 10 are doing something incorrect with the rules. Plus they never reference what else the character is good at. Let’s say you did get there but you are probably sacrificing item slots, spell slots, multiple feats, class abilities, and taking a specific build path where you could’ve excelled elsewhere. In PF2 you can achieve huge numbers simply by being trained in a skill / weapon / save.

For combat it makes the CR gap much tighter to where fighting just a single CR+4 creature can be daunting. Your players will hit 20% less, fumble 20% more, get hit 20% more, get crit 20% more, against saves fail 20% more, crit fail 20% more, 20% less success for spells
Cast, 20% less crit chance for spells, and likely suffer extra attacks since higher to hit means more extra attack opportunity. That’s just a four level difference.

And again you can argue these were still problems in PF1 and I would agree... because number inflation. In PF1 the deviation between 1-20 characters was generally 40-50 points with maybe something you were crazy at going higher. PF2 lowers that to about 30-40 points with crazy being 50. But the +10/-10 drastically inceases that power creep to where I would argue surpass PF1 nonsense.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree about number inflation but PF2 has inflation baked into the system.

Great roleplaying game design occurs when the mechanics and narrative work hand in hand. As a GM you never want to force the narrative on your PCs with no mecihanical explanation. Similarly when homebrewing or designing a game you never want to push math on PCs without it making sense in game.

PF2’s core functions (3-action economy and +10/-10 crits) force many factors that don’t make any narrative sense in order to work.

Lantern Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course game design involves math. But you use math to emulate the narrative not the other way around. Especially in a roleplaying game. Right now there are things like no legendary light armor users, monsters / bandit NPCs dealing increase damage for increased damage sake, no concrete method for calculating static skill DC, every PC is a superhero which means golarion is full of super heroes (since PFS is a thing making it not so the PCs are the only god characters... and even if they are they would rapidly exceed the NPCs around them), and the excuse for all of this is tight math. Well honestly it’s the +10/-10 crits that is the prime culprit.

And I get it’s a playtest and supposedly what is coming out is going to be vastly different than what occurred... but I find this a weak defense of PF2. The point of a playtest is to test the actual system. If that was the case then I feel it extremely disingenuous to fans to call something a playtest and you’re building a game based on feedback, then say oh what you played was not the game we are doing that behind closed doors.

Lantern Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Ugh am I the only one who finds the excuse “tight math” for almost all of PF2’s problems annoying? This is the first roleplaying game I’ve seen where the math comes before the narrative / world building...

Lantern Lodge

Was there ever a dev comment on why to start stats at 10 and not allow “dumping”? I know PF1 started at 10, but of course everyone lowered to 8 or 7. Seems to me they should’ve started stats at 8. Not only do you get more than enough boosts, but it’s odd to me that RAW every PC (and I would think other rangers fighters wizards etc in the world) are at least average at everything... although I’m not sure if an average stat is represented by 10-12 in PF2 did they raise the bar to match how easy it is for PC to attain 18 in four stats?

Lantern Lodge

I use my BROADSWORD!!!

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it works to say higher level PCs take on vastly higher level challenges so can be vastly more powerful than lower level PCs (such as the above example saying you are above human by level 8)... If the game is vacuum where the PCs are the only level 8 or among a handful of level 8 characters in the world. But this totally breaks down when you throw in other NPCs who are also at that level and strength. And PF2 requires this for the treadmill to work. Also falls apart when creating static DCs.

The reason the super hero genre works is because those super heroes had something extraordinary, bit by a radioactive spider or gene mutation from birth etc, that gave them strength. It’s not that Bob the butcher learned how to wield a sword and is now capable of slaying armies at lvl 12.

Don’t get me wrong this is a legacy issue from PF1 /3x but sadly the +10/-10 crit system and magic weapon damage reliance makes the disparity even worse.

Lantern Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2 paladin over 5e paladin? Lol 5e paladin’s are practically gods in both the defense and offensive department.

I beg to differ about innovation. Almost all the mechanics in PF2 are derived from previous mainstream systems (d&d 4e and Star Wars Saga being the prime ones). In those cases pretty much all the problems (players on treadmill, arbitrary monster/npc/skill DC, etc) transfered over. The three “innovative” ideas are the three action system, skill proficient naming structures, and +10/-10 crit. All of these are a source of major problems in the system.

The three action requires single attacks to deal more damage to scale with hp. So far they have weapon runes to do this which not only makes a high magic setting mandatory, it also makes monster damage scaling for no in-world reason. Also presents issues for disarm balancing. Math around iterative attacks gets wonky as less AC means you’re prone to more attacks and more crits.

Naming skills legendary - untrained makes little sense in a d20 system where your number denotes how proficient you are. It would be much simpler to just use the normally trained / untrained. Maybe it could work for feat gating but there is talk of also gating uses of the skill behind what rank you are. So a legendary can attempt checks a trained couldn’t despite the possibility of them being the same numerical bonus. So now DMs have to come up with a DC for a skill and remember if a player can even attempt it in the first place. Or try and arbitrate for instances that aren’t defined. The skill system also suffers from a built in treadmill requiring the DM to change the narrative to match DC or have no grounding for static DC. Also, it’s strange that only a fighter can become legendary with a weapon, there are no legendary users of light armor, armor proficiency is baked into class features.

The +10/-10 crit system requires the math to be tight across the board or else the game becomes swing central. It is probably the main problem on the system as it affects other things (such as no legendary light armor users because math). If you pit players against level -4 it’s laughable and level +4 practically unwinnable. This transfers over to skills as well. It makes the verisimilitude in the world fall apart. Some of this is a legacy issue from PF1 but the +10/-10 excacerbates it.

Oh I forgot resonance which was innovative but so bad it got scrapped. I actually think the drive to be innovative is hurting PF2. As keeping these in place is hurting the system and I can only wonder if other devs tried the same thing but ultimately left them out because they don’t work well in a d20 system.

A good thing is transferring weapon runes but this has been a houserule at many tables. But it’s good to see a system adopt that from the get go.

Lantern Lodge

Helmic is right in that PF2 skill DCs only make sense for tasks where there is a monster influencing a DC (such as persuading or bluffing your way past guards, etc). But it totally falls flat when used for static DC. For this it has the same legacy problems as PF where if you set static DCs they become trivial at higher level and / or untrained skills become useless... But PF2 has it even worse.

How? Those who defend the terms legendary, master, etc talk about how it lets GMs gate uses of a skill. For instance someone who is legendary at a skill can attempt things that someone who is a master or expert can’t even flat out try. This despite the potential of equal level PCs only having an +2-6 difference in their skill modifier. So on top of deciding a DC (which is a treadmill in the game’s current state) you also have to remember what a legendary/master/expert/trained are capable of attempting. Coming up with tasks only someone with legendary proficiency is easy but it gets more muddled down the line. Also, it varies between skills how easy it is to gate.

Lantern Lodge

I find it interesting some of the conversation is shifting back to dropping + level completely as this would fix many, if not all of PF2 problems. Although I think dropping the +10/-10 would also be a big benefit.

However to the OP unicore and I were on opposite sides (him wanting +1 to all and me none) but I totally agree dropping + level to untrained makes no sense. It doesn’t fix the problem of inflation making those untrained worthless which was a core issue of PF1 / 3.x. At least +1 to level and no bonus from level solve the issue of untrained becoming irrelevant...

That part aside the skill proficiency gating is poorly implemented. It can work alright for skill feat gates but when determining skill checks becomes less clear. I think it’s easy to come up with a legendary task but gets more muddled when thinking what separates a master from expert. DMs have to consider this on top of creating a supposed static DC.

You could theoretically have a trained lvl 15 PC with +4 stat at +19 skill and a PC master at said skill with +4 stat at +23. That’s only a difference of +4 but people say there are certain instances where a GM just says nope you can’t attempt what you are trying to do at all because you aren’t a master. And those occasions aren’t even clearly defined? And if they are clearly defined the DM has to remember what things a legendary can do over expert over master over trained... Sounds terrible.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually PF2 encourages min max even more. Sure the spread will be smaller but there is more value to every +1 due to the +10/-10 crit system and penalty for extra attacks. Practically any option that gives a +x bonus will be superior to others.

Also, with critical misses activating monster effects you can bet people will be upset if you show up at the table with an unoptimized character. Before you’re character was just
mechanically bad but now you could hurt the party.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m honestly surprised this wasn’t brought up earlier.... Huge game breaker to believe there are no legendary armor users and it appears only trained people in light armor no experts / masters in the world?

Wasn’t the whole defense of the terms legendary/ master / expert, in a d20 game where those names make no sense (numbers represent skill), was that the gate you from using certain abilities. So there are no master / expert light armor abilities?

I understand the math doesn’t allow it but quite frankly then they need to fix the math.

Lantern Lodge

Sorry I can’t seem to find a way to become legendary or master in light armor? It appears the fighter is class locked to heavy armor, a problem I’d like to address in a different thread, so I figured the rogue would get boosts to light armor but don’t see anything?

Lantern Lodge

Unicore wrote:
I agree that a lot of players are struggling to separate number bonus from what you can do with a skill.

I don’t think people are struggling to separate it. We just don’t think it works well in a d20 system and a binary solution such as trained/untrained or proficient/non-proficient makes more sense.

But I definitely agree with you that mathmuse’s suggestion would defeat the purpose of naming expert/master/legendary reducing it to just a number.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Make combat styles general rather than class locked. That’s a deal breaker for me and one of the main reasons I didn’t jump to 4e.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
“Helmic” wrote:


but there's always a 5% chance of failing spectacularly.

PF1 and 3rd edition did not have a 5% chance of failing spectacularly. There was no such thing as a crit miss or crit hit on a skill for good reason. However some particularly dangerous activities, such as climbing or disarming a trap, have if you fail by 5 or more x happens. So that would still be to the skill user with +5 benefit.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

You might as well remove the crit mechanic with it.

Level difference is what makes crit work.

Yea. Many of the mechanics are contrived to make the crit system and the 3-action economy work. Need to deal enough damage due to increased hp? Have monsters deal equivalent damage of magic weapons for no in game reason (since PC cannot do the same in game). Need to keep the math tight? Give +1 per level despite the narrative being designed for encounters within your level (making bloat pointless), with the new fix it makes untrained skills utterly useless (which was not their original intent), and breaks the immersion since everyone in the world becomes superheroes or for no apparent reason only certain ones the GM has chosen can (since monsters/NPC follow different rules than PC).

Honestly I’m not sure why people are for the crit system since many who like PF2 in its current state dislike min maxing from PF1. PF2 requires and rewards you for min maxing... Except there isn’t as much of a trade off to the min part at least ability score wise. This is due to the crit system and the added value of every +1 to your attacks / ac / skills. Before +1 attack just meant you could hit better. Now it’s + crit better + extra attack better + not crit miss better. For extra AC it used to be not get hit. Now it’s + not get crit + not get extra attacked. So you are encouraged to maximize as much as possible or you are punished. Heck even your character background imparts a mechanical benefit to your ability scores, potentially punishing you for choosing an odd background.

Lantern Lodge

PossibleCabbage wrote:
People got level to Attack in PF1, so I don't know why they shouldn't in PF2. I feel like that's a big change and I would not like it.

Trained - legendary granting +2-+8 is already a big change. Before you could only get maybe a +2 from feats (weapon focus and greater) or +5 from class (weapon training) over your level to attack. And both those options were tied to a specific class and either one weapon or a narrow group of weapons. And I didn’t mention things like rage because those were not “always on” effects.

Lantern Lodge

I honestly don’t think the superhero feel of PF1 is marketable anymore. Even during PF1 hey day, most campaigns only ran from levels 1-10 ish. In my own experience, which certainly does not speak for everyone, It seems a general consensus that play after those levels isn’t appealing. There is certainly a valid argument that it was because the system became too broken after that point, which I think PF2 fixes, but there was also the argument of verisimilitude and how ridiculous a world is where PCs become superheroes. So while PF2 fixes the balance issues, it exacerbates the problem of verisimilitude by having Higher level PCs and monsters be vastly more powerful than their low level counter parts. Also, the +10/-10 crit system requires precise math tweaking and the 3-action system requires excessive damage dice (through the use of
Magic weapons or arbitrary monster damage bumps) due to lack of extra attacks.

Prior to 5e, that’s all the mainstream in the d20 system (d&d and pathfinder) knew so it was just accepted. Sure there were fringe systems, like castles and crusaders, that somewhat achieved a more balanced d20 world, but they didn’t quite nail it. However, 5e finally created a world that could tell believable stories which fit closer to fantasy literature / films. A big part of its success involved removing number inflation.

Others have stated PF2 doesn’t want to compete directly with 5e. I just don’t think that’s a route they can take (unless of course there is some copyright law against removing number bloat). Telling a super hero story in a fantasy setting is such a niche market.

Lantern Lodge

Sorry I don’t quote everyone, I’m on mobile and it’s hard to copy / paste and what not lol.

Regarding number bloat not being the problem in PF1, it absolutely was. Yes you could push your numbers higher through system master, but the real problem was the difference between an unspecialized and specialized character. You could have someone sitting at the table with +20 diplomacy and one with nothing. It was a catch 22 where you could either keep DC relevant / realistic for all players and lose all tention whenever a specilisr went, or raise the DC to ridiculous amounts to pose a challenge for the specialist. Same was true for everything from attacks, AC, saves, etc.

To fix this disparity PF2 gave everyone a static bonus to everything. When facing encounters your level, there is little variation between players making it meaningless bloat. When facing things below your level you will crush them. When facing things higher level you will get crushed. This is due to how each level is effectively 5% anything in either direction. So a 3 level difference is -15% chance to hit, +15% chance to save, generally -15 % chance to crit, etc. The +10/-10 coupled with penalties to attacks really makes level difference a big deal.

They would accomplish the same goal (disparity between untrained and trained) by reducing the high numbers to keep the disparity between players still there just not as much. Yes bounded accuracy. I’m not sure why that’s something that can’t work in Pathfinder?

Also this leads to a much more believable world in that level 20 characters aren’t literal gods who began their career as peasants. You could say well PF1 was that way and no one had a problem which is partially true. That’s all we knew in a d20 system. Aside from fringe games like Castles and Crusaders that’s just what d20 meant. When 5e showed you can have a believable fantasy world from levels 1-20 not just 1-12, many players liked that. Most campaigns in PF1 ran from 1-12ish before the system really broke down not just in numbers but also verisimilitude.

As for copyright laws, they don’t have to be an exact replica. I’m just saying 5e has fixed many of the things listed as problems with this system on the boards. Perhaps there is some copyright protection preventing PF2 from being closer in design. If that’s the case I don’t see much of a future for PF2.

And I want PF2 to be successful. I want to come back to Pathfinder. And I could be, but don’t feel like, I’m the only one in this position. But PF2 has so many things from inflated numbers across the board, magic item reliance for damage / monster inflation for damage to work with the 3-action system, fighting styles locked to certain classes, dex to damage locked to only rogues, races that don’t feel like races, certain feats level locked for the sake of level locking, etc. I think many people who come to the genre from 5e will look at those and think... why? Others are thinking why all these concepts that were explored in Star Wars Saga and 4e and were identified as problems... Why are they in this system? Why change back?

Also, the ship hasn’t sailed regarding the core problems of PF2. I think people just sailed away and gave up talking about them because they knew it would be a massive change to the system.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I have to say, Bryon, saying "there isn't as much excitement for PF2e as there was for literally the most popular tabletop system in the world" strikes me as a somewhat pointless comparison.

I think you’re being a little disingenuous to the success of PF1. For sure the name pathfinder didn’t stick it or resonate among players but there’s a big difference between knowing a name and playing the game.

Prior to 5e, PF1 was dominating the tabletop scene. Saying we are playing d&d pretty much meant we are playing pathfinder.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


It seems like most of your arguments is that the Playtest is functioning too well at balancing the game, and that you enjoy a more broken and loose system.

Hmm we misunderstand eachother. Not once have I advocated for PF1. PF1 is a totally broken system because of number bloat, feat taxes/traps, class bloat, etc. I have moved onto 5e. What irks me is it’s like PF2 was created in a vacuum without 5e, and 5e fixed many of PF1 / 3.5 issues. Many. So many that almost all the complaints I see on these forums (dex to damage, magic item reliance / effects on monster stats, unnecessary number bloat, etc) have already been fixed by 5e. That’s not to say it’s perfect.

Although I feel there is elegance in its simplicity to character design, with much more emphasis on flavor and character background over mechanics, some don’t see enough options which I understand. That is where PF2 should’ve started. Taken all the leaps 5e made (number bloat reduction, magic item reliance reduction, emphasis on this is your world rather than we give you x,y, and z restrictions, etc) and added in more options within character classes and tactics.

Instead we have a system that retains the main problems of PF1 (number bloat) and in some cases expounds on them (class/skill/ancestry feat bloat) to the point where we have abilities that were available in PF1 now behind gates, monsters / npcs with no grounding in their formula, skill DC that fluctuates based on level, etc. Also there are fighting styles locked behind classes... all of this is regression not progression.

Again the problems currently facing PF2 with skills is it’s trying to maintain PF1 number bloat rather than reduce it. The same can be said of attack, ac, and saves.

Lantern Lodge

To clarify I don’t see a problem gating certain skills like disable device or knowledge (x) to require training. It’s when you pile on a master / legendary with more gates that they don’t make sense for a d20 system. It should simply be trained or untrained like it’s been since 3x. I don’t think this is some revolutionary concept for master / legendary skills, I think other devs in the countless editions since 3.0 have probably tried it and realized it doesn’t work in a d20 system.

Classless systems commonly use terms like this because being a master in something means you have a higher bonus / die pool than you would if you were trained. Those systems are generally ability + skill training + item. D20 replaces skill training with level which adds such a significant bonus at a fast and prolonged rate you can’t put a title to a particular bonus. Not to mention the DC should be static across the board not adjusted based on level or training. Otherwise it’s an unnecessary step when the training could’ve just amounted to a static bonus meaning the same thing as lowering the DC.

As for interest in PF2 you might not hear much talk against PF2 in the forums because many have moved on or “watch from a distance”. As others have said it was apparent PF2 had core issues that don’t function well. It’s frustrating when all the updates have tried to make those rules work at the cost of creating a totally arbitrary, Unnecessarily restrictive world.

Skill gates and +1 / level were a problem outlined day one of the playtest. And we are nearing the end with another 300+ thread on the matter...

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is the PF2 ruleset is contrived to make the +10/-10 mechanic and the 3 action system function... but that just isn’t a fun system. I don’t think a majority of gamers are excited to see gated skill proficiencies / feats. Also,it’s an unnecessary complication. Now GMs have to remember what you can and can’t do as a trained, master, or expert for each skill? This ontop of creating an artificial treadmill to keep skill checks relevant.

People used to say there are set DC across player levels but that is flat out not the case. There are certain abilities that call for an easy DC which means scaling for the sake of scaling. I would hate to tell my players nope sorry can’t swing from the chandelier you aren’t a master in acrobatics despite +10 acrobatics. Or nope can’t do it you don’t have the skill feat to chandelier swing.

This was brought up in the beginning of the playtest and I’m not sure why it was never explored. Many people voiced their opinions for either a +1/2 lvl skill bonus or a 5e skill bonus, nix the concept of master / legendary skills (your bonus determines how “legendary” you are), nix the +10/-10 crit failure system across the board, and set static DC. This would fix a plethora of problems with PF2.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry if this was mentioned earlier but why not take the 5e approach?

Heavy Armor provides 2 more AC than a maxed out Dex user in light. Medium armor provides equal protection with the possibility of a feat to make a dex based character still have 1 less AC than a Heavy Armor user. For those not familiar feats are huge in 5e so that’s a big investment.

So for PF2, instead of heavy and light armor being even, make heavy with slightly more AC. That’s balanced by light having more skill access and less movement penalties (though 5e added high str negates movement penalties due to heavy armor which is a great effect too). If they are adding dex to damage it should not be class locked. It should be accessible to all classes for a feat. Sadly it seems fighting styles are all getting class locked though.

So in summary for PF2 it could be STR gets better AC, 1 extra feat, and 2-handed flexibility (better damage) while DEX gets better skills, movement, and ranged flexibility.

The swashbuckler in PF1 wasn’t badly designed because of dex to damage. Dex to damage was balanced quite well. Those opposed to it usually forgot to include the high feat cost (weapon finesse and slashing / fencing Grace) and extreme focus on one weapon (which is admittedly minimal in organized play but can be brutal in a home game).

Also, we saw a renaissance of dex based characters mot because it was broken powerful but because in previous 3rd edition / PF dex based concepts weren’t viable. Finally there were abilities that made them viable though as others have stated they were poorly implemented (put in multiple feats / unchained rogue locked rather than a single feat that allowed dex to damage with all finesse weapons).

Where the swashbuckler was too powerful was +1 level to damage which when paired with power attack / piranha strike put them at higher damage than a 2-hander. That paired with inherently AC buffs and access to shields, front loaded feats and class features that allowed dex based concept so to be realized from level 1, and no higher level class features that incentivized battlefield movement over stand and fight were its problems.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like this makes disarm an extremely powerful option too. Before it was still good but required significant feat investment. At least a fighter could carry a spare +1 weapon and not tank much in damage. Now they are utterly useless without their magic weapon.

Also makes this system only runnable in a high fantasy setting. To be fair I feel like PE1 only worked in high fantasy as well but there was at least the illusion of it being run in a low fantasy setting.
.

Lantern Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

D&D 5e is not a treadmill. Yes you get stronger and can therefore take on to tougher creatures but the challenges around you remain static. A treat wounds DC is the same at 1st and 20th level. A DC for climbing a steep cliff is the same at 1st and 20th level.

Pretty much every iteration of D&D worked like this. We started seeing the treadmill thought of scaling skill DCs in Star Wars saga edition where characters got half their level added to everything with trained skills getting a +5 bump... and that received a lot of flak just like the treadmill in pf2e.

The problem is in previous editions inflated numbers put pressure on DMs to inflate DCs. 5e solves this by lowering the inflation. PF2e is even worse in this regard because your high numbers mean absolutely nothing cause the mechanics are rigged.

Lantern Lodge

Vic Ferrari wrote:
As for Str to melee damage, that is pretty lame, too, as your rapier and shield wielding, light armoured Dexadin is superior to the longsword and shield wielding, plate wearing Paladin.

I’m not sure where you are factoring this. Prior to level 8, the STR paladin will have 2-3 higher AC. At level 8 he will have 1 extra AC permanently. If the DEX paladin at level 12 picks up medium armor master, now after over half his career, he is at the same AC. Meanwhile, the STR paladin could’ve selected Sentinel for more damage, Defensive Duelist for essentially massive AC (it acts as a metagame deterrent for GMs not to attack you in the first place, similar to parry riposte of PFS swashbuckler), or heavy armor master for 3/slashing,piercing,bludgeoning. This is also assuming the DEX paladin stayed single class as multiclassing would keep him behind for more levels.

So yes with one-handed weapons DEX is on par with STR in terms of attack and damage. However, as an overall combatant you won’t be as good. And sorry I meant no offense but I spell out all the feats for those who aren’t familiar with 5e.

Lantern Lodge

Vic Ferrari wrote:
you still blow Str out of the water (Initiative, Saving Throw, Ranged Attacks, Finesse Weapon Attacks, Stealth). With feats (Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter), it's over with.

Sharpshooter and crossbow don’t apply to melee. The debate is whether to allow DEX to melee damage. Regardless they are outclassed by polearm master and greatweapon master with the new errata.

Dex melee users don’t get access to any melee damage oriented feats. Unlike str which gets access to Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master. Both of which increase melee damage drastically.

Str is a saving throw. Arguably more important than dex since dex normally mitigates hp damage while str helps ability.

So for 5e:

Str= More damage, 1–2more AC (at lower levels chain shirt provides more than light armor), better carrying capacity, feats that improve damage/damage reduction (heavy armor master)

Dex= Better initiative, ranged utility, better skills, access to feats for ranged utility/ better skills

Lantern Lodge

STR is not a dump stat on 5e at all. In fact, sans the medium armor master feat (and in 5e feats are tough to come by) dex builds will always be 1 less than heavy armor (assuming +5 dex which you could only get by level 8 tops. Before that the str based puts on full plate and has even more armor than you). With medium armor master you are on par with full plate mail. Also, high STR lets you move at full speed in heavier armors.

Free dex to damage with finesse weapons opens the door to dozens of fantasy character archetypes. It was one of the best decisions in 5e and fits with simplifying the system.

For Pathfinder, I was ecstatic when they started to include dex to damage options but still feel as a whole the system would’ve benefitted from a single generic feat that let you have dex to damage with finesse weapons.

One of my problems with PF2e is being shoe horned into weapon style based off class. Being a dex based paladin, fighter, rogue, ranger, any class should be a viable option. Dex to damage should just be a given with the finesse property.

1 to 50 of 853 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>