Demon Slayer

master_marshmallow's page

5,616 posts (5,706 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,616 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
It's a difficult one. On the one hand, the trope is that the hero(es) overcomes a series of scaling encounters culminating in the BBEG, on the other there is nothing as boring as facing easy encounter after easy encounter.

Lol! That is only true when playing a combat minis game, primarily because the combat itself is the focus.

But, in an rp, the combat is just a backdrop, not the focus.

In this edition, it's roughly a third of the entire game space.

And considering that a large majority of play time would end up being spent on combat makes this statement misleading.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How many spells known is the sorcerer getting now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alric Rahl wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

If auto-heighten is to be a feature of the game, then it oughta be featured. The game design seems too worried about bringing character strength down in arbitrary ways.

Arcanist style casting on all prepared casters with access to auto-heighten fixes the balance problem with just nixing spontaneous heighten.

Ideally, the mechanics for all spell casting will be identical, you have a repertoire of spells and cast from that list by choosing a spell slot to spend. The only difference is the scope of that repertoire on the daily basis. Overall prepared casters have more options, but in the moment spontaneous casters feel stronger.

It’s not a feature, they missed key wording in the spells blog, they put heightened as a way to show what the spell does when it is taken at a higher level, rather then have 9 written iterations of the same spell. This makes sorcerers spontaneous heighten better because the sorcerer doesn’t need to take the heightened spells he can choose 2 to heighten as he wants.

Or let her heighten whichever spell she wants anyway?

Let wizards do the same with a smaller repertoire they can change daily.

It's better for everyone, ultimately, and less confusing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If auto-heighten is to be a feature of the game, then it oughta be featured. The game design seems too worried about bringing character strength down in arbitrary ways.

Arcanist style casting on all prepared casters with access to auto-heighten fixes the balance problem with just nixing spontaneous heighten.

Ideally, the mechanics for all spell casting will be identical, you have a repertoire of spells and cast from that list by choosing a spell slot to spend. The only difference is the scope of that repertoire on the daily basis. Overall prepared casters have more options, but in the moment spontaneous casters feel stronger.


Supposedly we are getting those stories from Amazon in film form.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like "Dex-to-Damage" being relevant may have sailed when PF2 decided to refocus the damage math from "lots of static modifers" towards "lots of dice".

Like the difference between 6d6+6 and 6d6+2 is not enormous, so whether the 14 str 22 dex monk with crane style gets dex to damage isn't that earth-shattering. Meanwhile the 22 Str 14 Dex monk with dragon style will be doing 6d10+6.

My real question is how is dex based offense going to keep up with anybody in any class since all finesse weapons seem to have small damage dice.

In one of the math threads with Mark, we went over something like this with respect to the size of the flat modifiers and it turns out you actually need those numbers to be lower for the balance of the game to not be thrown off, as I did all my Power Attack calculations with proficiency modifier being added to damage. This additional modifier throws the curves off so much that it would make something like Power Attack actually seem useless compared to other fighting styles.

If before it was a balance issue because of the implications of having higher DEX for other things, here it may end up being worse for balance.


I'm attempting to get into my account to change some things around, and the system is telling me that my account is not linked to my e-mail address. I tried using an old one from a few years ago and I'm getting the same problem.

But I am still logged in thanks to Chrome and I can still post. I am confused....


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Hell, giants may only exist because of millenia of exposure to magic which caused them to adapt to having this extra source of energy. In my setting, magical beasts are natural evolutions of creatures exposed to magic over generations.
Giants aren't magical beasts though. They're just humanoids. Also, there's nothing in the PF lore of giants even beginning to suggest that magic is what makes them big.

But every creature has magic within them, hence resonance.

At least that's my head canon.


graystone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Early on in Earth's history we had actual giant insects like you describe because we had a much more reactive oxygen rich atmosphere. None of us could survive a climate like that.

In my own setting, I describe magic as a natural phenomenon based upon stellar radiation from stars brighter than the sun. I use an A classification star (blue star about twice the mass of the sun) to explain where magic comes from. I'm still doing the math on how exactly I want my planet to work, length of a year, time slippage, seasons, etc. I also use it to explain the lens flare gleam effect you see in fantasy movies.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I posted.

Square–cube law and Biomechanics:
If an animal were isometrically scaled up by a considerable amount, its relative muscular strength would be severely reduced, since the cross section of its muscles would increase by the square of the scaling factor while its mass would increase by the cube of the scaling factor. As a result of this, cardiovascular and respiratory functions would be severely burdened.

In the case of flying animals, the wing loading would be increased if they were isometrically scaled up, and they would therefore have to fly faster to gain the same amount of lift. Air resistance per unit mass is also higher for smaller animals, which is why a small animal like an ant cannot be seriously injured from impact with the ground after being dropped from any height.

As was elucidated by J. B. S. Haldane, large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. This is due to allometric scaling: the bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight. Haldane illustrates this in his seminal 1928 essay On Being the Right Size in referring to allegorical giants: "...consider a man 60 feet high...Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim's Progress:...

You're missing the point, their environments come from a much more reactive climate which means they have a lot more energy per calorie and thus have to have much higher metabolisms and larger bodies to handle it.

Pathfinder is an abstraction to be sure, but actual giant insects existed when we had a lot more oxygen, heat, and radiation going on on our little rock here.

The rules for what determined their physiology were different as they actually had access to higher temperatures (and thus speeds).

Putting these two things next to each other is for damn sure impossible, but saying one could not exist is not in line with physics, unless you are establishing a domain within which it is impossible (which I negated by describing pre-historic Earth).

Also, I imagine magic is more than likely some form of energy intrinsic to matter in the Pathfinder universe, which may or may not counter base physiology of non-magical bodies.

Hell, giants may only exist because of millenia of exposure to magic which caused them to adapt to having this extra source of energy. In my setting, magical beasts are natural evolutions of creatures exposed to magic over generations.


graystone wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
graystone wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.
We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

Unless giants have extra sets of lungs that enable them to respire more oxygen, after all elephants are pretty big.

Dragons could have a chemical reaction in their bodies that fill bladders within them with ultra light gas that enables them to fly. It could even help fuel their breath weapons hence their extraordinary description.

Physics maintained.

Then how about giant insects? We know their exoskeletons couldn't hold their weight and they can fly [and we KNOW a praying mantis doesn't have an air bladder filled with gas]. SO the giant praying mantis by itself shows that pathfinder physics is different.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Their bodies need to be made of materials that simply don't exist in nature in order to support them.
I'd count that as a different set of physics when humanoids are created with exotic materials...

Early on in Earth's history we had actual giant insects like you describe because we had a much more reactive oxygen rich atmosphere. None of us could survive a climate like that.

In my own setting, I describe magic as a natural phenomenon based upon stellar radiation from stars brighter than the sun. I use an A classification star (blue star about twice the mass of the sun) to explain where magic comes from. I'm still doing the math on how exactly I want my planet to work, length of a year, time slippage, seasons, etc. I also use it to explain the lens flare gleam effect you see in fantasy movies.


graystone wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
BPorter uses the vacuum of space as an example for Survival Assurance...will it mean players can ignore basic physics? That's the part that bothers me.
We KNOW that physics work differently in pathfinder or giants couldn't survive under thier own weight and dragons wouldn't be able to fly. So how do you prove it's against pathfinder physics?

Unless giants have extra sets of lungs that enable them to respire more oxygen, after all elephants are pretty big.

Dragons could have a chemical reaction in their bodies that fill bladders within them with ultra light gas that enables them to fly. It could even help fuel their breath weapons hence their extraordinary description.

Physics maintained.


I want to test the new paladin and see how it plays compared to the other classes, as it's been completely changed in mechanical theme from where it was in 3.x/PF1.

I want to see if the 'aggro' mechanic that replaced smite evil actually works, and if it still feels like a paladin if it's not dumping mass damage onto things to vanquish evil, but rather plops itself in front of squishy allies to protect them and whether or not that incentifies enemies to just avoid them all together.

If the result is the latter, I feel the class will be exceptionally boring, because its job is literally to sit there and be a deterant from enemies. If you move into the action and away from whomever you're trying to defend, then this class feature becomes useless. Conversely, if this class feature is a resource to the group, we may see more squishy allies being willing to jump into the fray if there's some real defense going on.

I also want to see if the new role in 'defender of the weak' rather than 'vanquisher of evil' does something to the class's identity, and whether or not it really feels like a paladin or if it serves better as a more generic knight class to complement the offensive builds designed for the fighter.

This is not meant to be indicative of the whole alignment debate thing, but rather an aside to see if the massive kind of damage a paladin would have with something like smite would otherwise break the new game's math (I don;t think it would, if it's tied to spell points and has its action cost balanced with other combat styles). This information would remain true in any alignment based scenario.


Crayon wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
The potential for treating Perception like a skill again go beyond what I think we are going to get, and I think Perception being treated like a skill and having options to enhance it like a skill may end up creating a better game.
I think they want Perception to autoscale roughly in line with the characters best Skills which is why it was divorced from the Skill List. In any event, the option actually being removed is to NOT enhance it like a skill though whether that's a significant difference depends upon one's perspective.

Then does it also automatically scale in proficiency as well? How else is it used?

Sense motive is also no longer a skill, thus it wouldn't have these options either.

I'm fine with everyone getting perception trained as a base (like Craft and Profession in PF1), but what's the actual applicable difference between the Perception mechanic and skills?

This is what I would like to know; why isn't Perception a skill?


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

How does Perception fit into this?

If Perception is not a skill, but is used parallel to them for things like initiative, then how does one deal with someone taking Assurance on their chosen "go-to" skill for initiative in Exploration mode.

I would think things like tracking, sense motive, wild empathy, and the like would all be uses of Perception that ought be improved with Skill Feats, but if perception is not a skill, even though it's used like a skill, then where do we go from here?

I love the new d20 engine, and I really like the uses of skills and different feats to gate abilities. I wish the rest of the game was designed with this in mind to reduce uncertainty as you progress, not to increase it. This is the best part of the new game.

I notice there is a lot of confusion for myself in the new system of having a bunch of things that function the same way, but are specified not to be the same thing, in an indistinguishable way aside from what's printed on paper telling me that it's different. Spells that aren't spells but are still spells, and a skill that isn't a skill but is used in the same scenarios as skills.

This I fell needs tightening up.

Perception doesn't fit into it. As one of the proficiency outside of Skills I'm guessing the resource you use to interact with it will be the far more limited General Feat pool.

Assurance and Initiative doesn't strike me as a problem. If you've got something like a +10 you might want to roll anyway, but taking the safe option for a middling initiative may be appealing sometimes. Seems like an okay choice to make.

Tacking and Wild Empathy seem to be better fits for Survival and Nature respectively. Sense Motive is confirmed to be part of Perception.

I don't think it's all that confusing at all.

It's not the mechanism which confuses me, but rather the implementation.

If it works like a skill, and is used the sane way (and sometimes in the same scenario) as a skill, then why isn't it a skill?

Are there skill feats that enhance perception to allow you to "see" invisible or ethereal things? A skill feat that allows you to perceive and thus attack and damage enemies that are incorporeal?

The potential for treating Perception like a skill again go beyond what I think we are going to get, and I think Perception being treated like a skill and having options to enhance it like a skill may end up creating a better game.


How does Perception fit into this?

If Perception is not a skill, but is used parallel to them for things like initiative, then how does one deal with someone taking Assurance on their chosen "go-to" skill for initiative in Exploration mode.

I would think things like tracking, sense motive, wild empathy, and the like would all be uses of Perception that ought be improved with Skill Feats, but if perception is not a skill, even though it's used like a skill, then where do we go from here?

I love the new d20 engine, and I really like the uses of skills and different feats to gate abilities. I wish the rest of the game was designed with this in mind to reduce uncertainty as you progress, not to increase it. This is the best part of the new game.

I notice there is a lot of confusion for myself in the new system of having a bunch of things that function the same way, but are specified not to be the same thing, in an indistinguishable way aside from what's printed on paper telling me that it's different. Spells that aren't spells but are still spells, and a skill that isn't a skill but is used in the same scenarios as skills.

This I fell needs tightening up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thievery = Finesse
Perception = Alertness


Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
And if it matters, my calc came from 18 STR and +2 from proficiency that fighters get at 3rd level.
Just as an aside Proficiency doesn't add to damage.

Could've sworn someone did say any time you add an ability modifier you also add proficiency. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time I didn't have all the relevant information that changes things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

My issue comes in when we consider that it is a principle of the new game's design that critical hits happen more often.

As a result, if the probability for primary attacks landing a crit ever reaches one (or 95% for us) then comparing the damage linearly results in double slice being better.

People have been breaking this down several times, so I'll try to do so definitively here. Let's suppose that the damage between Power Attack and Double Slice is roughly equivalent not counting critical hits. For this purpose, we'll use level 1, where this is definitively true (Power Attack 17, Double Slice 16 from one 8.5 hit and one 7.5 hit, so Power Attack does more). There is simply no way in which the damage from critical hits can adjust this in Double Slice's favor, at any critical hit rate.

Consider a 20% critical hit rate (meaning you hit on a 7, critical hit on a 17, so 70% hit rate). Without criticals, Power Attack's expected damage is 17*.7 (70% hit rate), or 11.9 and Double Slice is 8.5*.7+7.5*.7, or 11.2.

But let's add in criticals to see who that helps more. Power Attack adds on 17*.2 damage for the one big hit being doubled 20% of the time, so 3.4 more damage, total 15.3. Double Slice adds on 8.5*.2+7.5*.2 damage, or 3.2 damage, for a total of 14.4. Power Attack has actually grown its absolute advantage from .7 to .9 (the proportional advantage remained the same). This plays out no matter what you choose for the crit rate, even if you somehow crit on a roll of 2 (in a situation as bizarre and unlikely as that, though, making separate greatsword attacks is more powerful than both options).

Now Double Slice does have some good situations for it if you only need one hit, or if you need about 24 damage but not 32, or if you want to inflict a critical specialization effect, and many other situations (Power Attack excels in others, for instance if you *do* need about 32 damage it's very unlikely to crit twice on Double Slice). But critical hits simply don't...

I really tried to get him to tell us about enemy design and AC on monsters guys, I really tried.


My issue comes in when we consider that it is a principle of the new game's design that critical hits happen more often.

As a result, if the probability for primary attacks landing a crit ever reaches one (or 95% for us) then comparing the damage linearly results in double slice being better.

WBL being factored into the game's damage engine seems faulty, but it works so eh.

I'm more inclined to be affirmative to this if there's more of a solid base for power attack, the belle curve problem seems hard to design around.

And if it matters, my calc came from 18 STR and +2 from proficiency that fighters get at 3rd level.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Where are you getting -8 from? It's only -2 on agile weapons, and thus -4 on tertiary attacks.

It's -4 on agile, not -2. Thus, it's -8 on tertiary. A month ago, I mistakenly said -2, and I think it got circulated. They've clarified since. Now I understand where you're getting the idea that Double Slice makes you much better at crits.

master_marshmallow wrote:
I never suggested you could make multiple attacks with power attack or double slice. You do get to make two more attacks, with haste. For Power Attack you get one at -5 and one at -10. With double slice, both these attacks are at -4. In all cases, you get better odds of a crit with two weapons, way more often.

I misunderstood- I thought those two -4 attacks were you doing a second Double Slice in a weird way. It should be two attacks at -8, which compares more favorably.

master_marshmallow wrote:
(stuff after that)
I'm not following the rest of this, I'm afraid. I can't tell what's based on the assumption of -2 per iterative rather than -4 per iterative.

Perhaps I need to show more work.

With double slice, any strikes you perform after your feat are treated as tertiary strikes (normally -10), since an agile weapon's tertiary attack oughta be -4 (-2, twice) then with haste your two tertiary attacks have a better chance to hit than the Power Attack user's secondary and subsequent tertiary attacks.

This also improves their odds of landing a crit by a large margin.

I have no idea where you're getting -8 from. How is that calculated?
Ninjas

In light of the revelation that 3rd+ iterative attacks are at a -8, does that change your opinion of TWF balance?

I think Double Slice is roughly balanced when exactly 2 actions outperforms a heavy weapons with power attack and heavy weapons w/ power attack outperform it otherwise.

Bardarok wrote:
I was going to comment but then got lost in some math for
...

It changes little, as our ultimate equating of power attack being tripled damage vs double slice being quintoupled still applies.

That means average die value needs to be adequate to make up for that 3:4 ratio. (Taking away that crit to account for the -8)

Spoiler:
Subtract flat bonuses, which means your dice need to make up for that ratio. The problem I fear, is that the damage doesn't add up, especially since we've done the math for when it doesn't have double slice applied to the other attacks.

Compare:
f(Power Attack) = 2(2d12 +6)
f(Double Slice) = 2(d8 +6) + 2(d6 +6)

Average results:
f(Power Attack) = 36
f(Double Slice) = 40

It gets worse the better your characters get until power attack gets you extra dice. Even then, you'll never get more dice with a power attack as you would get with two attacks.

My solution is to double the base damage as well, which puts power attack ahead in damage, but with less odds to hit and/or crit.


QuidEst wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Where are you getting -8 from? It's only -2 on agile weapons, and thus -4 on tertiary attacks.

It's -4 on agile, not -2. Thus, it's -8 on tertiary. A month ago, I mistakenly said -2, and I think it got circulated. They've clarified since. Now I understand where you're getting the idea that Double Slice makes you much better at crits.

master_marshmallow wrote:
I never suggested you could make multiple attacks with power attack or double slice. You do get to make two more attacks, with haste. For Power Attack you get one at -5 and one at -10. With double slice, both these attacks are at -4. In all cases, you get better odds of a crit with two weapons, way more often.

I misunderstood- I thought those two -4 attacks were you doing a second Double Slice in a weird way. It should be two attacks at -8, which compares more favorably.

master_marshmallow wrote:
(stuff after that)
I'm not following the rest of this, I'm afraid. I can't tell what's based on the assumption of -2 per iterative rather than -4 per iterative.

Perhaps I need to show more work.

With double slice, any strikes you perform after your feat are treated as tertiary strikes (normally -10), since an agile weapon's tertiary attack oughta be -4 (-2, twice) then with haste your two tertiary attacks have a better chance to hit than the Power Attack user's secondary and subsequent tertiary attacks.

This also improves their odds of landing a crit by a large margin.

I have no idea where you're getting -8 from. How is that calculated?
Ninjas


Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
An extra bigger die plus doubling isn't going to outweigh two dice plus bonuses plus doubling, ever. Even according to Mark's post Double Slice still pulls ahead when bonuses and magic weapons kick in, which is exactly what I'm pointing out.

Doesn't power attack DOUBLE damage dice? Do you have a different interpretation of the rule than what I posted in my math above? In my post above, I that power attack pulls ahead.

I will note that STR bonuses will tend to be between +3 and +8 over the course of the game, it seems.

I am also confused as to why you think having two chances at crits is important when the higher power attack damage will also double on a crit.

Because the odds of landing a crit twice with Double Slice is way better. This is because they are both at your full attack bonus.

Just adding in the die, then doubling it will never exceed the math on landing a whole extra crit unless you can guarantee that the average damage on you extra dice will exceed the flat bonuses on the secondary attacks.

The odds of landing a crit needs to either change, or the weight of what that crit is worth needs to be better on Power Attack. Double Slice is explicitly superior not only because you get to make two attacks, but even your last attack will only be at -4 when Power Attack's secondary attack is at -5.

It only gets worse, unless you always roll amazing, and even then, the math is working against you when the TWF gets high enough bonuses to land crits on attacks other than the primaries.

Doubling the entire damage function for Power Attack from the start solves this discrepancy as factoring in the chances to crit boosts Double Slice's damage far above Power Attack's overall performance.

Arguably, the old system had way better math for balance purposes, though this system may have some promise if I only care about

...

I have neither of these rules incorrect, at least according to what I can double check in the blogs.

Tertiary attacks with agile weapons should be -4, not -8.

I never did math for multiple uses of either feat.


QuidEst wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Short hand version of the math says Power Attack will likely deal 3x base damage overall per turn where Double Slice would deal 5x base damage in the same conditions.

Unless the extra dice you gain add up to be worth as much damage as two whole attacks overall, never take Power Attack.

Even taking away a crit from the TWF gets you a 3:4 ratio.

Add in haste and Power Attack is even worse.

The math doesn't hold.

It's not the same base damage, though.

1d12 is worth almost as much as 2d6.

Crit chance being higher for double slice is balanced out by the crit damage being substantially lower (it's only critting on half the damage).

You said, "It also really shows how broken the game math is when a 'full attack' from a Power Attack player is +x/+x-5/+x-10, and a Double Slicer is +x/+x/+x-4/+x-4," but that's not true. Haste grants an extra action that must be used to strike or stride. It's not going to give you an extra use of Power Attack or Double Slice. Power Attack is attacking at +x(extra damage)/+x-5/+x-10, and Double Slice is attacking at +x/+x/+x-8/+x-8 (since Double Slice applies two attacks of penalty to your third action). Haste gives Power Attack an extra attack at x-10, and Double Slice an extra attack at x-8, but the Power Attacker has a much higher base damage for one attack, and makes the third-action attack at a higher bonus. (Additionally, Power Attack cares a lot about that third-action attack, so getting a stride to use helps it out more.)

I don't know if the math holds up or not, but the math we've seen definitely holds up more than what you were looking at.

Where are you getting -8 from? It's only -2 on agile weapons, and thus -4 on tertiary attacks.

I never suggested you could make multiple attacks with power attack or double slice. You do get to make two more attacks, with haste. For Power Attack you get one at -5 and one at -10. With double slice, both these attacks are at -4. In all cases, you get better odds of a crit with two weapons, way more often.

Again, the odds don't linearly decrease when comparing crits on both builds. Average damage doesn't add up on the extra dice from power attack, which is what matters when you compare it to double slice.

The extra dice need to exceed the damage on a regular attack. It's possible with bigger dice, but not often likely, especially when your chances to crit get even better on the double slice build.

Power Attack could just start with the extra die to make up for the average not catching up, and you just deal with it from then on.

There's plenty of fixes, but math suggests that we need one.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
An extra bigger die plus doubling isn't going to outweigh two dice plus bonuses plus doubling, ever. Even according to Mark's post Double Slice still pulls ahead when bonuses and magic weapons kick in, which is exactly what I'm pointing out.

Doesn't power attack DOUBLE damage dice? Do you have a different interpretation of the rule than what I posted in my math above? In my post above, I that power attack pulls ahead.

I will note that STR bonuses will tend to be between +3 and +8 over the course of the game, it seems.

I am also confused as to why you think having two chances at crits is important when the higher power attack damage will also double on a crit.

Because the odds of landing a crit twice with Double Slice is way better. This is because they are both at your full attack bonus.

Just adding in the die, then doubling it will never exceed the math on landing a whole extra crit unless you can guarantee that the average damage on you extra dice will exceed the flat bonuses on the secondary attacks.

The odds of landing a crit needs to either change, or the weight of what that crit is worth needs to be better on Power Attack. Double Slice is explicitly superior not only because you get to make two attacks, but even your last attack will only be at -4 when Power Attack's secondary attack is at -5.

It only gets worse, unless you always roll amazing, and even then, the math is working against you when the TWF gets high enough bonuses to land crits on attacks other than the primaries.

Doubling the entire damage function for Power Attack from the start solves this discrepancy as factoring in the chances to crit boosts Double Slice's damage far above Power Attack's overall performance.

Arguably, the old system had way better math for balance purposes, though this system may have some promise if I only care about making a single big attack (or pair of attacks). That said, I still

...

You have to calculate probabilities over the max.

D12 averages 7.5, where d8 averages 3.5.

The difference is 4, so based on the difference you need to make sure those dice land there, as your level and damage progresses this becomes more difficult.

The extra die in power attack lessens the discrepancy, but doesn't balance it.

You have to compare the average extra damage to the weight of a whole attack, but thanks to Double Slice, you also have to compare it to double that because the odds of it being a crit you have to compare to are just as good. It takes the power attack problem that it had alone and completely wrecks the math.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
An extra bigger die plus doubling isn't going to outweigh two dice plus bonuses plus doubling, ever. Even according to Mark's post Double Slice still pulls ahead when bonuses and magic weapons kick in, which is exactly what I'm pointing out.

Doesn't power attack DOUBLE damage dice? Do you have a different interpretation of the rule than what I posted in my math above? In my post above, I that power attack pulls ahead.

I will note that STR bonuses will tend to be between +3 and +8 over the course of the game, it seems.

I am also confused as to why you think having two chances at crits is important when the higher power attack damage will also double on a crit.

It does not double damage dice. If it did, then once magic weapons hit, d12 weapon Power Attack would be drastically better than all other options, especially TWF.

That said, you are absolutely correct that if you have, say, a 20% chance to crit, critting on the Power Attack doubles the whole thing whereas your two chances to crit on the Double Slice each only double half the damage, leading to the same expected value increase of 20%. Similarly, Power Attack is better against resistances because you only need one hit to do the bigger amount of damage through resistance while Double Slice requires both to hit, and Double Slice is better when the enemy is low and you just need to do a bit of damage to end the fight, since you have two chances to hit.

Ahhh. I got ya. Rereading your post from just a little while ago, I see now that you gain additional damage dice from power attack at higher levels. Have you guys revealed how many extra dice this caps out at?

If that progression is too slow (or caps out too low), I worry that double slash (like with a short sword and shield) will tend to mechanically dominate power attack (with like a greatsword). I imagine you've looked at the math already, though.

I am also interested in how...

There's a whole thread on it.

We got some really good looking numbers by the end of it, now that we have a good grasp on the damage calcs.

Really the only actual math we "need" is in how often do you expect to really see critical hits.

All we have are hints from Mark that you expect them to happen a lot more often, and it looks like every weapon more or less has a unique ability to trigger on a crit. It's interesting, but if the math is bad then we need a much more immersive action system to make us completely stop caring about if damage is balanced.

I'm pressed to find better solutions to the combat style dilemma, since I know none of it matters yet. Most of my negative commentary has been on what the implications are for the game as a whole when we look at how damage scales.

Just as Power Attack gets worse the better your secondary attacks get, it gets exponentially worse compared to Double Slice.

Short hand version of the math says Power Attack will likely deal 3x base damage overall per turn where Double Slice would deal 5x base damage in the same conditions.

Unless the extra dice you gain add up to be worth as much damage as two whole attacks overall, never take Power Attack.

Even taking away a crit from the TWF gets you a 3:4 ratio.

Add in haste and Power Attack is even worse.

The math doesn't hold.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
An extra bigger die plus doubling isn't going to outweigh two dice plus bonuses plus doubling, ever. Even according to Mark's post Double Slice still pulls ahead when bonuses and magic weapons kick in, which is exactly what I'm pointing out.

Doesn't power attack DOUBLE damage dice? Do you have a different interpretation of the rule than what I posted in my math above? In my post above, I that power attack pulls ahead.

I will note that STR bonuses will tend to be between +3 and +8 over the course of the game, it seems.

I am also confused as to why you think having two chances at crits is important when the higher power attack damage will also double on a crit.

Because the odds of landing a crit twice with Double Slice is way better. This is because they are both at your full attack bonus.

Just adding in the die, then doubling it will never exceed the math on landing a whole extra crit unless you can guarantee that the average damage on you extra dice will exceed the flat bonuses on the secondary attacks.

The odds of landing a crit needs to either change, or the weight of what that crit is worth needs to be better on Power Attack. Double Slice is explicitly superior not only because you get to make two attacks, but even your last attack will only be at -4 when Power Attack's secondary attack is at -5.

It only gets worse, unless you always roll amazing, and even then, the math is working against you when the TWF gets high enough bonuses to land crits on attacks other than the primaries.

Doubling the entire damage function for Power Attack from the start solves this discrepancy as factoring in the chances to crit boosts Double Slice's damage far above Power Attack's overall performance.

Arguably, the old system had way better math for balance purposes, though this system may have some promise if I only care about making a single big attack (or pair of attacks). That said, I still think action taxing is not the way to go with this edition, and reducing actions is instead the better way to go to grant more agency and better flow to the game.


Arachnofiend wrote:
All due respect marsh, but I'm gonna trust Mark's math on this matter more than yours, considering he has the whole picture and half of what you're talking about is just guesses.

It's not guesses though, it's hard math, and Mark seems to have left some figures out.

The biggest one is the propensity for critical hits, which is equal for two attacks on Double Slice, and halved for Power Attack.

The issue I have is having the actions available, which seems to be a real problem with PF2. It would seem the devs are really enforcing the 1 big hit plus 1 other thing per turn (either move, or something equivalent).

An extra bigger die plus doubling isn't going to outweigh two dice plus bonuses plus doubling, ever. Even according to Mark's post Double Slice still pulls ahead when bonuses and magic weapons kick in, which is exactly what I'm pointing out.

If Power Attack's action cost is being designed around the fact that you want to crit more often, then there needs to be better math that balances how much that critical is worth compared to the other options that let me crit more often, especially when the threshold for when those bonuses come online (level 3) becomes a huge factor in determining how much bigger your average is going to be vs. what you could guarantee with better numbers and a better designed feat.

By no means should this be interpreted as me bashing Double Slice, I love it for what it does. If Double Slice had been previewed instead of Power Attack, my presence on these forums would have a very different tone.

Also, why bring up weapons types when we know Sawtooth Sabres exist? And we know they're designed around being used in pairs. If we're comparing straight damage, me feels TWF wins every time now.

If you care:

Spoiler:
Now that I've seen Double Slice, the simplest solution to the math is to remove the clause that gives Power Attack an extra die later on, and have it simply double your damage. That means 4x on a crit, and different spikes in damage by comparison to Double Slice, even though the formulae are the same.

Observe:

f(new Power Attack)= 2(dx + STR + bonus)
f(same Double Slice)= [dy + STR + bonus] + [dy + STR + bonus]

solve

dx = dy

this seems off, or does it?

Then calculate critical hits, for ease we'll say a full martial character expects a primary hit to crit .75 of the time, a secondary hit would then crit .5 of the time, and tertiary attacks .25 of the time. Or with agile weapons, .75, then .65, then .55.

g(new Power Attack)= .75c * .5c = .375c^2
g(Double Slice)= .75c * .75c * .55c = .309375c^3

x^2 doesn't compare to x^3, oh crap

derive
g'(double slice)= .928125c^2
g''(double slice)= 1.85625

g'(Power Attack)= .75

In other words, you'll have way better odds landing crits on the Double Slice build, when compared straight to Power Attack. This is due to the higher chance to land a crit with such weapons, and the fact that you get to make more attacks at those higher crit chances.

What does this do to damage? Compare average damage outputs that Mark gave us and we see that Double Slice wins every time, not just some of the time.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm not surprised at all in how Double Slice works, mathematically it dwarfs Power Attack, with its trade-off being what happens to your third action.

I do not like action taxes on martial characters to initiate a combat style, this means the new feat abilities you have may not work either if they are all going to require an expenditure of actions.

With the clunky design they seem to be forcing, action economy will be worse in this edition of the game than in the previous. The difference? A paradigm shift in which combat methods are superior. Used to be Power Attack, now its Double Slice (since I'm pretty sure you can use weapons to grant yourself a shield bonus as well).

The maths are not aligned:** spoiler omitted **

Honestly, I'm a fan of everything in this edition but the classes and combat system. Everything out of combat aligns with my house...

Well, since magic items now multiply damage dice, power attack will tend to be the better option when you are wielding two handed weapons like greatswords and great axes. On a +5 weapon, the difference in expected value between a 1d8 weapon and a 1d12 weapon is 12 whole damage points and that is on top of the fact that you can still make a second iterative attack at a -5 rather than a -10 (in those admittedly somewhat uncommon situations where a "third" iterative attack is available).

But they only scale up to +5, and we don't know how reliably we will obtain said items.

Who's to say that TWF won't have just as much access to magic weapons?

More than likely, I'd expect the TWF guys to win overall, because agile weapons are a thing, which nets them +6 on their iterative attacks if I've read the blogs correctly.

What was the price difference in PF!? 50k for a +5 vs 64K for two +4's?

or worse, 40K for a +2 and a +4, which in our system yields the same average results.

The math is not on Power Attack's side, no matter how you slice it, unless the cost for magic weapons scales even more exponentially than it did in PF1.

You simply cannot use this function to balance the two styles, Power Attack will need its math redone during the play test. I know I don't want to take a feat that specifically makes me worse, especially when Double Slice is better in every way but bulk. It's the same action to use, but offers two full chances to crit (making power attack worse even on crits) and I feel less punished in the action system, in fact Double Slice is good design for what it is, an actual benefit to using your style since movement is supposedly supposed to be more active in this version. Not seeing it with all the action taxes though.

Action taxes are bad, if you have to use them to design the game around because of the new proficiency system's relationship with critical hits (which are meant to be a major part of the new game math), then in a vacuum those options need to be better than using nothing. Double Slice does this, Power Attack does not.

I also see they used my second option fix for haste in RAE, I like it, it's elegant. It also really shows how broken the game math is when a 'full attack' from a Power Attack player is +x/+x-5/+x-10, and a Double Slicer is +x/+x/+x-4/+x-4.

TWF lands more hits, more crits, just by virtue of the new d20 system. Having a maximum potential for 8 extra damage on max rolls does not counteract this. I can do the math if you like.


I'm not surprised at all in how Double Slice works, mathematically it dwarfs Power Attack, with its trade-off being what happens to your third action.

I do not like action taxes on martial characters to initiate a combat style, this means the new feat abilities you have may not work either if they are all going to require an expenditure of actions.

With the clunky design they seem to be forcing, action economy will be worse in this edition of the game than in the previous. The difference? A paradigm shift in which combat methods are superior. Used to be Power Attack, now its Double Slice (since I'm pretty sure you can use weapons to grant yourself a shield bonus as well).

The maths are not aligned:

Spoiler:

f(Power Attack)= 2dx + STR + bonuses
f(Double Slice)= 2dx + 2STR + 2bonuses

hence f(Double Slice) yields an extra amount of damage equal to what you lost from using Power Attack (which made Power Attack bad in the first place) except now Double Slice gives you just as good a chance to land two crits! This means Power Attack is even worse, and will rely on good dice rolls to matter in the long run, since the average difference on something like an 8 and a 12 (from dice) is gonna add up to only around 3-6 damage per turn. So unless by 3rd level you can guarantee those dice adding up above 6 every time (legendary proficiency at 3rd level plus 18 STR) then Power Atttack is hereby cemented as a mechanically induced mathematical trap.

This gets even worse when you consider that the rate at which martials progress with weapon proficiency is meant to score critical hits more often, rather than to bind accuracy to level, per the developers.

If you manage to combine Double Slice with the new mechanics for shield use and shield bashing, then we have our one-true style, based on the numbers. Those tactical feats had better be pretty f*cking amazing.

Honestly, I'm a fan of everything in this edition but the classes and combat system. Everything out of combat aligns with my house rules so much I'll only have to relearn the d20 engine, which isn't even hard.

In combat though, relearning how the best tactics work to design encounters around is not going to look very fun. I want the combat styles to be equal and different, not blatantly favoring one style, which makes me sad as RAE in PF1 did this so well.

Let's not forget that agile weapons are a thing and you can use them with your TWF antics to reduce that -10 to what? a -4 on your secondary attack?

I am disappoint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
C/M D is by the looks of things just having a paradigm shift, but isn't getting fixed. Unless the feats designed to encapsulate individual combat styles somehow are simultaneously designed to be worse both numerically and temporally as a feature of the game. Current math suggests it is not.
We have way too little data to say this (especially since the only math I've seen on this is on one Feat, which could be anywhere from a great Feat to an abysmal one). Particularly since C/M D is primarily not a combat problem, and we have almost nothing on Skill Feats.

Every single combat style presented imposes an action penalty. This is (seemingly) an attempt to balance tee styles against each other, but ends up favoring some. It imposes on the ratio of actions you get to choose vs actions you are taxed. Conversely, spell casters are no longer limited to a single spell per turn, and casting time on many spells is reduced to a single action (with options to spend more) increasing their agency by virtue.

It's a really bad start, as relative agency in a turn really changed C/M D in combat, especially when counter spells become a factor.

Out of combat utility looks to be on track to be solved via skill feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Thanks for posting this. It's encouraging to see a PF2-Skeptic find things they like in the blogs.

I'm still at the point of just feeling tired looking at my PF1 books and considering ditching them to relearn essentially a 'tweaked' version.

I've got a year and a bit to get used to it, so it's encouraging to hear other people's conversion stories. (Okay, conversion is too strong - 'concern alleviation' stories perhaps).

Been using the Unchained RAE since it came out, with some tweaks to iron out the problems that the obviously rushed system had.

Action type designations are my biggest issue, instead of having clear rules on just how many act[ion]s and whether or not it provokes, which is really all you need. The difference in the way they're trying to impose this "interact" tax on everything is destroying the freedom we gained imho.

C/M D is by the looks of things just having a paradigm shift, but isn't getting fixed. Unless the feats designed to encapsulate individual combat styles somehow are simultaneously designed to be worse both numerically and temporally as a feature of the game. Current math suggests it is not.


I agree with pretty much every point but the first one, as I feel the classes and class feats we've had previewed have not given us a good sense of balance between the execution of the different classes, compared to PF1 it seems the class imbalance may seem worse at higher levels thanks to how the new action system seems to be taxing on martial characters and more relaxed for casters than it comparatively was in either the stock action system for PF1/3.5 and the RAE in PF:Unchained. If it's just a more complicated way to play 5e then I'm not gonna be happy.

I love the d20 engine, modes of play, not opposed to resonance on principle, and I'm shaky on the same things as well, such as monsters/NPCs, though I'm not sure how bad Legendary skills really are, when we compare them to mythic (Ex) abilities in PF1 and compare the levels that they can be achieved at.

I like to see it as them incorporating the CRB, UCamp, and Unchained all into one book.


Plate.
Wizard plate.


LuniasM wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
LuniasM wrote:
Why is the door thing even an argument when you can easily shift your grip, wait a turn, then open the door and shift it back to have an action left over to attack? If the fight doesn't start until we open the door anyway then why bother trying to do it all at once?
Honestly, and for no other reason, because it complicates the game in an arbitrary way.

I mean, even assuming that removing a hand from your weapon does take an action, PF2 is no more ridiculous than PF1 on the door front. In PF1 it took your entire turn to move to a door and open it, and if you were already next to the door you could only open it and attack once. In PF2 you would move up, shift your grip, and open the door, and if you were already next to the door there's no reason you'd not have a hand free to start with since you've already been standing by it for a turn, in which case you open it and shift your grip back then make an attack. If you can shift grip down a step for no action (2H to 1H) then PF2 is actually superior to PF1 on the door argument.

I won't say that the concept of shifting grip taking an action makes much sense, as I'm pretty certain it's more of a game balance decision than a realism decision (ie grip shifting on magus causing headaches and the hands of effort faq). Whether it's one I agree with or not would depend on so many factors that I can't really judge it at the moment. If grip shifting actions answers the wonky interactions that led to the "hands of effort" clarification then I could probably live with it, personally.

See I'm on the opposite corner here, I'd rather see less dumb abilities that require arbitrary rulings that punish players for no reason other than "we wanted to nerf these couple abilities that we wrote."

New edition, new chance to get it right the first time.


LuniasM wrote:
Why is the door thing even an argument when you can easily shift your grip, wait a turn, then open the door and shift it back to have an action left over to attack? If the fight doesn't start until we open the door anyway then why bother trying to do it all at once?

Honestly, and for no other reason, because it complicates the game in an arbitrary way.


Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Yeah, you have to build for it, some classes are designed around the paradigm of bringing weaker combat styles up to par. Brawler was another one. Shifter.... existed.

Point is, it was still a viable option.

Sure, it might be viable. But wouldn't it be better if it didn't take intense system mastery or very limited class selection to make a fighting style viable? The War Priest could make crappy weapons viable. But most of us are still happy PF2 weapons will be more competitive with each other out of the box.

My fear is that it won't be, based on some of what we're seeing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).

They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.

Several issues there. You are then gating that particular fighting style behind particular classes, who then arbitrarily can't use features if they use something in the other hand. What if my Rogue wants to keep a free hand?

If a free hander isn't that different from a shield user, then they are less interesting. Having their own distinct niche is more fun than just patching an AC bonus onto a class. Especially when things like Parry or gishing are being replicated within the basic action economy.

If a free hander has the same AC of a shield user, but has a free hand, then they are now better than the shield user by virtue of having a free hand to draw items and interact. This will be especially prominent since it costs less to draw an item now.

So, I'm gonna have to actually break down a lot more of the old system for you, but short answers:

1) Duelisty stuff just happened to be done better by rogues, swash's, and daring champions because they had the best damage.

2) rogue's were good with one handed weapons, because they could spend an action on improved feint and still get in two attacks, if they had greater feint they got sneak attack on both, without taking the penalites on TWF. With haste you could do this twice and still make two attacks with sneak attack at your full bonues.

3) shields were still better, if built for it. It was a boring build, but there is a large factor by which your AC can improve with a shield, it is the best defensive option.

So what you are saying is that to make a free hand work, you need a very specific build. How is that better...

Yeah, you have to build for it, some classes are designed around the paradigm of bringing weaker combat styles up to par. Brawler was another one. Shifter.... existed.

Point is, it was still a viable option.


Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).

They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.

Several issues there. You are then gating that particular fighting style behind particular classes, who then arbitrarily can't use features if they use something in the other hand. What if my Rogue wants to keep a free hand?

If a free hander isn't that different from a shield user, then they are less interesting. Having their own distinct niche is more fun than just patching an AC bonus onto a class. Especially when things like Parry or gishing are being replicated within the basic action economy.

If a free hander has the same AC of a shield user, but has a free hand, then they are now better than the shield user by virtue of having a free hand to draw items and interact. This will be especially prominent since it costs less to draw an item now.

So, I'm gonna have to actually break down a lot more of the old system for you, but short answers:

1) Duelisty stuff just happened to be done better by rogues, swash's, and daring champions because they had the best damage.

2) rogue's were good with one handed weapons, because they could spend an action on improved feint and still get in two attacks, if they had greater feint they got sneak attack on both, without taking the penalites on TWF. With haste you could do this twice and still make two attacks with sneak attack at your full bonues.

3) shields were still better, if built for it. It was a boring build, but there is a large factor by which your AC can improve with a shield, it is the best defensive option.


Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Melee combat became a RPS of these three choices, all played differently, and all felt equal in execution.

What you are missing here is that there is a fourth melee style-- One handed weapon, with one hand free. It isn't that there is anything wrong with one handed weapons themselves. They worked great for sword and board and two weapon fighting. The issue is that some players want a character who has a sword in one hand and keeps the other empty.

The old grip rules meant that the only scenario where this style shined over any of the others was if you were grappled and couldn't use one hand, or if you had some class feature that artificially required you to have a free hand at all times. (Swasbuclers and the Magus.) Otherwise, you were almost always better two-handing your weapon and just free action changing your grip to and fro when you wanted to cast spells, open doors, or pull out an item. Technically, a one handed weapon was the most flexible choice, but in practice it barely ever mattered.

With this change, we now have 4 distinct styles. Two-handers hit the hardest. Shield users have the best defense and outlast their counterparts. Two weapon fighting gets you the most attacks per round. And the free hand fighter is the most flexible, making it an excellent choice for a caster, alchemist, or anyone who wants to be able to draw items or interact with the environment easily.

This specific change DOES hurt greatsword users, full stop. It only marginally hurts bastard sword users, who will see their damage drop a little if they have to take a hand off, but they still have the all the same options as before. (I'm not clear if adding a second hand to the longsword will increase it's damage anymore. The Weapons Blog calling out the "Two Hand" weapon trait makes me think they won't though.) But the free hand fighter now has an actual place to shine now. Two weapon fighters and shield users are exactly where they were before with new grip rules. (Not touching...

I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).

They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.

Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.

So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.

I totally agree with that example. Except for one thing - it should apply to almost all weapons if we're really talking realistic. Opening a door and getting through it with a rapier is actually smurfing awkward. Everything but light weapons should have to deal with this.

Which gets to my real point - verisimilitude with combat rules is overrated. Because the combat rules in D&D/Pathfinder have never even come close.

It's the sort of thing I used to care about a lot more. After 20+ years of both gaming and fighting with weapons, they're just not even close. What I really care about is - how does it play? If it works best from a rules sense, then I'm cool with it.

That being said, I'm still kind of worried about weapon traits...if a Bo is a better stick than a quarterstaff, I'm going to be very annoyed.

I absolutely agree verisimilitude only matters so much. I think the primary reason this change is happening is balance though, not realism. And it as at least intuitive that if you wield a bigger, more cumbersome weapon that you will not be able to get it back up as quickly when you have opened a door way and gotten through it. The short sword may be awkward, but it is less awkward. But the thing that matters more is if the one handed weapon feels competitive with the two handed, not verisimilitude.

I think the Bo Staff is...

Is the trade-off for using the one handed weapon the added ability to have higher defense in carrying a shield? You are trading damage potential for defense.

In PF1's RAE from Unchained, the 3 act system lended itself well to showing how each combat style functions while treating them all equally. In effect, greater agency was granted to players who could take a multitude of actions within the same turn that didn't affect their ability to serve their mechanical role in game. The mechanical niches of each style came in numerical ways in that edition, so BFW guys would use their Power Attack two-handed, and take on an accuracy penalty. One handers often were either duelist-types that got the damage back somehow (sneak attack was incredibly viable now), and most of the time they could also carry a shield which came with a higher AC, generally higher to hit thanks to a lack of power attack, but lower damage overall. Two-Weapon fighting traded a small amount of to-hit for more chances to hit, and actually got more chances to hit all the time. Melee combat became a RPS of these three choices, all played differently, and all felt equal in execution.

But they didn't have to waste a minimum of 1/3 of their turn just turning on their combat style. If you get taxed your actions to do this, then the added agency and versatility that martial characters gained (making them play more fluidly and simply) gets removed and the game plays the same as it did before (move + single attack, or single attack + single action ability) and martial characters are back to being on the bottom. This unfixes the problem they had already fixed with the flow of play.

Now to be fair, this was all done in a different mathematical system, one in which critical hits primary benefits were extra damage, and the chance to land a critical hit wasn't the same with all weapons. Given the new math of the game, it looks like critical hits are something that the new martial builds are designed to trigger much more often than characters who don't have such high proficiency in weapons. Because they are designed to happen so often, we will likely see a lot more one-big hit builds that focus on making a critical hit happen every turn, especially since it looks like most if not all weapons have a utility option tied to it's critical hit mechanics. Crits mean you get to do something, which is different from just adding damage like they did before (class abilities and feats designed for this notwithstanding).

Because of what we know between the different editions, we might or might not like what we see, but I do not like that the game's combat engine is looking to seemingly reverse the relationship between casters and martials in combat, especially when what we had was just sooo good.

Especially if the one-big-hit thing is really a solid conjecture on what the devs envisioned for the game, I would rather have more actions that are worth taking in a turn (tactically speaking) to add actual variety to the game rather than having to plan my tactics around a system that takes those options away. I'd have to see how it actually plays out, but given what I've experienced I would be inclined to say that the things they are doing make the game worse than what existed before (as in less fun for me and my players) and it is my hope that somehow this information about my experience can inform you and others in thinking critically about the system when you go to play test it.


Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Let's not get petty over it, but the fact is that very post you mentioned included the clause "should be" which indicates even they don't have it down.

If they aren't even sure about it yet, then yeah, it's gonna be a little confusing. Right now, if things are still in flux. What actually matters is if it is confusing when we get our hands on it. I don't think it follows that just because something seems confusing now means it won't be confusing in the playtest. The reverse is also true: something which seems clear now could be unexpectedly confusing in the final product.

Quote:
Again, the game is not necessarily better by taxing away the actions they designed you to have more freedom with. It's counterintuitive to the game design.

I agree that taking away actions does not necessarily make the game better, and that the players losing those actions probably won't be happy. However, it is entirely possible that those changes will be better for the balance of the game. People were super upset that the number of spell slots is getting reduced, but that may very well be necessary to balance martials against casterts.

The grip change may wind up being a good thing for balancing two-handers vs people holding a one hander and keeping a free hand. In PF1 there aren't a lot of reasons to not opt for the higher damage of the two-handed weapon, at least without artificially creating barriers like Swashbuckler Finesse or Spell Combat.

In PF2, those barriers may be less necessary because wielding a two handed weapon makes it a little harder to do finesse work with your offhand, like manipulating the environment or casting a spell. Which is a pretty intuitive concept. This is a trade-off, and while I share some concern it might not wind up making the game more fun overall, there is a possibility that it will.

Quote:
This has been demonstrated, but it may be the intent of the designers, after all it's not like these aren't the same group that
...

Did you read through the previous thread I had, 15 minutes ago?

Not meant to sound snide as it might without being able to convey my tone, I just need to know how much I should retype and how much will be redundant.


Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.

Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.

So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.

But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.

No one tell my players I said that.

Lets not be overly dramatic. A door at worst (i.e when the players think they are in a situation that requires caring) requires one play to have a slightly unoptimal turn.

A door is an obstacle, it occasionally acting at such is not bad for the game in my view.

It's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.

I think if doors are hurting your fun, the better fix might be to make doors a free action. Rule that people can plow through doors like an action hero. Otherwise, the door is still a problem regardless of what needs to happen with your weapon grip.

I grant you that the weapon grip thing provides an ADDITIONAL cost which might not be fun, but that feels like a separate issue.

It's not about the door, it's about the fact that the rules as presented aren't clear and there was already confusion on the fact that it takes a whole turn to open the door, two to change grips, and one to interact with the door where in the previous edition two of those actions were not actions that taxed you on what the game
...

Let's not get petty over it, but the fact is that very post you mentioned included the clause "should be" which indicates even they don't have it down.

Again, the game is not necessarily better by taxing away the actions they designed you to have more freedom with. It's counterintuitive to the game design.

This has been demonstrated, but it may be the intent of the designers, after all it's not like these aren't the same group that gave us crane wing.


Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.

Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.

So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.

But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.

No one tell my players I said that.

Lets not be overly dramatic. A door at worst (i.e when the players think they are in a situation that requires caring) requires one play to have a slightly unoptimal turn.

A door is an obstacle, it occasionally acting at such is not bad for the game in my view.

It's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.

I think if doors are hurting your fun, the better fix might be to make doors a free action. Rule that people can plow through doors like an action hero. Otherwise, the door is still a problem regardless of what needs to happen with your weapon grip.

I grant you that the weapon grip thing provides an ADDITIONAL cost which might not be fun, but that feels like a separate issue.

It's not about the door, it's about the fact that the rules as presented aren't clear and there was already confusion on the fact that it takes a whole turn to open the door, two to change grips, and one to interact with the door where in the previous edition two of those actions were not actions that taxed you on what the game allows you to do.


Malk_Content wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:

I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.

Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.

So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.

But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.

No one tell my players I said that.

Lets not be overly dramatic. A door at worst (i.e when the players think they are in a situation that requires caring) requires one play to have a slightly unoptimal turn.

A door is an obstacle, it occasionally acting at such is not bad for the game in my view.

It's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.


Mark Seifter wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.

No one tell my players I said that.

Except in that one PFS scenario...you guys know the one! :D

MARK DON'T TELL THE PLAYERS!!!!

For real, my group is conditioned to be afraid of every closed door, forever. My bad... (or is it?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.

Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.

So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.

But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.

No one tell my players I said that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

See, taxing actions like that isn't making the game better though, it's making it worse than the one we had, or at the very least, unchanged.

Considering the wide range of possibilities that existed with your abilities separate from the combat style you chose, because it didn't affect your options. Now, seemingly you have to use your actions just to use your chosen combat style.

Which, may be the goal here, but if in that system I find not taking any of these combat styles benefits me more overall according to the math of the game, then I start to see a problem with the feat and class design. Your abilities shouldn't make you worse, especially when it's supposed to be a quintessential identifier of your character.

If we are talking specifically about shields, getting DR from them is crazy good. The math I've seen says using your 3rd action for the shield instead of a third attack is a very good move, and all of the first hand reports is that using shields is fun as hell.

Taking a second hand to grip, I'll grant you that. But shields aren't becoming worse.

But the DR isn't automatic, it costs you another action that I would rather have free to make an Aoo or something.

It takes two actions to get the DR. If it cost 1, and I could do it with an action (active defense) or a reaction based on my choice, then I'd say shields got better and it was worth the single action. I don't like it costing two actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

See, taxing actions like that isn't making the game better though, it's making it worse than the one we had, or at the very least, unchanged.

Considering the wide range of possibilities that existed with your abilities separate from the combat style you chose, because it didn't affect your options. Now, seemingly you have to use your actions just to use your chosen combat style.

Which, may be the goal here, but if in that system I find not taking any of these combat styles benefits me more overall according to the math of the game, then I start to see a problem with the feat and class design. Your abilities shouldn't make you worse, especially when it's supposed to be a quintessential identifier of your character.


Grey Guards are also paladins tho. They're my favorite paladins.

Hellknights function on a chassis so similar to the paladin, I don;t understand why having a choice of order at first level, similar to a cleric, with the paladin being an option is so abhorrent to you. You literally want to exclude us from this part of the game, unapologetically. You also really don't seem to be discussing the compromises either, might I suggest you step away from the keyboard for a while and really understand that other people are also allowed to have opinions, and it's okay for those opinions to be different.

1 to 50 of 5,616 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>