thflame's page

480 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pramxnim wrote:
The Fighter is more than 3 times as effective as the Wizard when it comes to fighting with a weapon he's Legendary in. Does that feel appropriate to you yet?

Firstly, that only works in your very specific circumstance. If the target's AC is lower, the fighter has a smaller advantage over the wizard.

Secondly, when I think of "Legendary" vs "Untrained" I think of a curb stomp in favor if the Legendary guy. That doesn't happen in PF2.

For example: A wizard with a DEX of 18 and a Fighter with a DEX of 18 with Legendary training in bows decide to have an archery contest. They use the same bow and the higher roll indicates a closer shot to the bullseye. 27.5% of the time, the wizard shoots closer to the bullseye than the fighter on a given shot.

Yes, certain Skill uses are only available to the Legendary guy, but in a basic test of skill, he loses more than 1/4th of the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pramxnim wrote:


In order to propose changes like this to the system, you'd either have to show concretely what effect it would have on the game and why it'd be beneficial or demonstrate that there is a need for such a change in the first place. A proposed change based on feeling alone while dismissing the system at hand is not helpful.

I disagree. It's Paizo's responsibility to make a game that is fun and intuitive to enough of their potential customers to sell a game.

Balance is only one aspect of the game that needs to be considered. If the rules don't make sense, or lead to illogical outcomes (the Untrained guy rolls better than the Legendary guy 27.5% of the time on trivial uses of the skill) then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Furthermore, having everyone capable of contributing is NOT "realistic" and shouldn't be a design goal (in my opinion). If you don't want to invest in Stealth, then you are essentially giving up on being stealthy. You shouldn't get the +level participation trophy.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
But your suggestion doesn't assume that every character that wants to effectively dual wield is a filthy, optimizing munchkin who should be punished.

Personally, my biggest issue is that attacking with two weapons doesn't yield any more attacks than attacking with one weapon. That just makes sense and feels like a requirement for any dual wielding mechanics.

Heck, 5e allows you to make an attack with your off hand weapon as a Bonus Action. It kinda sucks there, but at least you get ONE extra attack for having split your character wealth between two weapons.

EDIT: Even though I feel like you were being morbidly facetious with your comment, I DO get the feeling that a lot of Paizo's new rules for PF2 appear to have a "Powergamers Not Welcome" theme.

The problem is that Paizo is "burning own the crops to kill the weeds", if I may invent a metaphor.


Tamago wrote:

I wonder if part of the problem is that the Feats are missing the short description line at the top.

first edition wrote:

Double Slice (Combat)

Your off-hand weapon while dual-wielding strikes with greater power.
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit: Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon.
Normal: You normally add only half of your Strength modifier to damage rolls made with a weapon wielded in your off-hand.
second edition wrote:

[Two Action Icon]DOUBLE SLICE FEAT 1

Traits: Fighter
Requirements: You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand.
Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait (see page 182). If both attacks hit, combine the attacks’ damage, and then add any other applicable enhancements from both weapons. For purposes of resistances and weaknesses, this is considered a single Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty (see page 305).

The 1st edition version has a few important things that help readability:

1) It has a summary sentence at the top: "Your off-hand weapon while dual-wielding strikes with greater power." That lets you quickly know if this is something that fits your character concept without needing to parse all the rules about it.
2) The Benefit section is much shorter and isn't chock-full of game terms that require looking up three different page references in order to know what the feat does.
3) There's a "normal" section that tells you right away what rule this feat is breaking (so you know if it's something that would affect your character).

The 2nd edition version would be easier for a new player if it included some of these things. For example:

[two action icon]DOUBLE SLICE FEAT 1
You attack with two weapons at the same time, combining your blows into a single, powerful assault.
Traits: Fighter
Requirements: You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand.
Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait (see page 182). If both attacks hit, combine the attacks’ damage, and then add any other applicable enhancements from both weapons. For purposes of resistances and weaknesses, this is considered a single Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty (see page 305).
Normal: Each Strike increases your multiple attack penalty, and the damage is not combined.

Not only this, but Double Slice, as mechanically described in PF2, doesn't make thematic sense.

Let's assume that your flavor text

Quote:
You attack with two weapons at the same time, combining your blows into a single, powerful assault.

is what the designers envision (which I believe is a fair assumption).

Why does "attack[ing] with two weapons at the same time" take as much time as attacking with a single weapon twice? (They have the same action cost and the Quick and Slow conditions imply "actions" are a measure of time in your turn.)

Why does hitting something with two separate weapons simultaneously avoid DR? Are they stabbing the exact same spot, or does DR work as a sort of magic force shield that reacts to all damage sustained at a single point in time?

Double Slice would make more sense if it allowed a character to attack with each weapon as part of one action at a penalty.

Granted, this would take tweaking to be balanced, but it a whole lot easier to remember what an ability does when it's effects are intuitive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For a videogame, I like the idea that enemies start out a bit weaker than you, then slowly ramp up to surpass you to the point that you have to rely on strategy/skill to succeed.

In my TTRPGs, I like for the GM to be able to set the difficulty as they see fit.

Maybe they want a typical videogame difficulty progression? Maybe they want Dark Souls? Maybe they want you to start out struggling, and wind up being Superman at the end?

All should be viable and I wouldn't want Paizo to explicitly design enemies around any of these ideas.

Personally, I want a CR X to be an approximately fair challenge for a party of level Xs. As a GM, I can start my party at a higher level if I want an easy start, or throw higher CR enemies against my group if I want them to struggle.

If I want a typical videogame progression, I can start the party at level 2 or 3 and have them face CR 1 foes, then have them fight CR 10 enemies at level 10, and end up at level 18 to 20 fighting CR 20+ enemies.

If I want Dark Souls, I can just throw CR (APL+1 or 2) enemies at them the whole game.

If I want a strong sense of growth, I can start with Level 1 PCs and CR 2-3 enemies and end with Level 20s fighting CR 16 to 18s.


MaxAstro wrote:

I will also say, as someone who has a player that every time he rolls his attack has to go through "Oh, I have a +2 bonus from this... oh wait, I forgot my +1 bonus from this feat... Oh, also I cast this spell for a +3 bonus... oh and I also have a +2 bonus from my Teamwork feat..." *rolls* "Wait I forgot +2 from flanking! No wait, +4 from flanking, I have that feat!"

I agree with Paizo this is a problem and I fully support any efforts to address it. XD

How often does this REALLY happen? Surely your players are adding up stuff like BAB, Enhancement Bonus, Weapon Focus, etc. out of game, leaving situational bonuses as the only things that can slow down the game.

Most of the time, players are going to KNOW that they have a flanking bonus, because they will have actively moved into position to flank and, in my experience, casters tend to remind everyone every turn that they have bonuses from their spells.

This theoretical "4+1+3+2+5+3+2+6" is either hyperbole or players not adding up bonuses they should before combat starts.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Tamago wrote:

My group struggled with this sort of thing too. I think it's less about picking one of the four class feats, it's that just about everything is so rules-dense that you need to go look up stuff all the time if you don't already know the system.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

PF2 has TOO many game terms.

This coupled with the fact that virtually every action in the game is hard wired mechanically, and there isn't room for simplification via extrapolation. EVERYTHING is a game term to some extent, and almost everything has MORE game term traits explaining how it works. It's such a slog that it FEELS much harder to play than PF1 and I know it shouldn't be.

This is sad, seeing as we lost a TON of customization (and I don't count picking stuff that was free previously as "customization") and the rules are now HARDER to understand. In it's current state, I have to agree with the OP's wife. Why would I play this over PF1?


As title.

If they do, it isn't printed in their Advancement Table (3-19)

If they don't, then why do some of the Sorcerer Feats have prerequisites of level 1?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem I have with + level to everything is that it doesn't make sense.

Level represents your experience (IMO) and experience shouldn't have THAT much pull on how good you are at something. (But is SHOULD have some pull.)

If Proficiency tiers were +2 or 3 per tier and you only got half of your level to checks, it would feel more "authentic".

I think it is fairly self evident that the reason behind +Level to everything is just to make designing stuff easier.

On a side note, as far as characters in PF1 being unable to contribute or being severely outclasses by their peers, it's a balance.

On the one hand, having splits between skills/saves/etc. so large that a challenge for one character is a pushover/death sentence for another can be troublesome.

On the other hand, failing a check on something you're supposed to be good at by rolling below average, then having the layman in the party beat you by rolling slightly better than average feels horrible.

Don't get me wrong, it IS funny when the expert rolls a nat 1 and fails, then the idiot rolls a nat 20 an succeeds, it just isn't funny when the expert rolls a 5 and fails, then the idiot rolls a 15 and succeeds.

I think we could have toned down the Skill system of PF1 and achieved the goal we wanted without resorting to a "bounded accuracy" system.


willuwontu wrote:
Forseti wrote:
This is especially unattractive when you consider how few spells the sorcerer learns per spell level: 4, 1 of which is dictated by the bloodline.

Aside from ya'know, it not actually being dictated by bloodline.

Quote:
At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline (see page 130). You choose these from the common spells on the spell list corresponding to your bloodline in this book, or from other spells on that spell list to which you gain access.

All that means is that you can only pick common spells on your bloodline's spell school, unless the GM allows you to get access to the uncommon or rarer ones.

You don't get to pick different bloodline spells and you don't get to pick spells from other spell lists.


Kerobelis wrote:

While this is varying into off topic, I find the justifying using a skill for initiative to be unnecessary. There was nothing wrong with the PF1 system. Now people will try to game their best stat for initiative.

Or, just pick a stat for initiative (if we are worried DX is too powerful) and be consistent with it. In your case (@ shroudb) you are suggesting intelligence. I would be fine, but I think people would argue about it (as DX = reactions or WS = perception would make more logical sense). In the end you say INT modifies intelligence for stat balance reasons...

My system's solution is the lesser of WIS and DEX for Initiative. You can be quick enough to react to danger, but if you don't see it, you don't know to react to it. Likewise, you can see danger coming, but if you're too slow to react then it doesn't matter.

It also makes DEX a bit less strong and WIS a bit better. Characters that traditionally want high DEX and WIS are generally the types of characters you expect to react to danger quickly anyway (monks).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If you can imagine it, it should be possible (assuming it fits with the general power level and theme of what they game is trying to replicate: a swords and sorcery fantasy setting).

Telling me that my totally reasonable character concept isn't allowed because it doesn't fit into the tiny box that the devs decided defined my starting class is horrible game design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
I'm really not seeing the parts where this is more like a boardgame than a roleplaying game or how it can't be used for a fantasy world.

Compared to PF1, it does feel like a board game. A very complicated board game that is desperately trying to be an RPG. (Maybe "videogame" would be a better word for it?)

The sheer lack of options, especially how stuff is gated behind certain classes feels like a videogame where you pick a pregenerated character and click boxes as you level up to get cool abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
thflame wrote:
The "bastard sword" is, depending on the source, wither another name for a longsword (the Italians) or a slightly shorter longsword that can be used in one hand more easily (basically everyone else).
Historical bastardswords and longswords were virtually identical in length.

The HEMA community isn't unanimously in agreement on this topic, hence why I provided both schools of thought.

Although, I did mis-attribute the group that called the longsword a bastard sword. That would be the French, not the Italians.

The French called the two handed sword "epee batarde" (sword bastard)

The Italians called it "spada a due mani" (sword of two hands) as opposed to "spadone" (big/great sword)

The Germans called is "langschwert" (longsword) as opposed to Bidenhander (double hander) or Zweihander (two hander).

Perhaps the idea that the bastard sword is a shorter version of the longsword comes from the short jokes attributed to the French or the fact that French longswords were shorter than German ones?

Needless to say, there are swords that are obviously mis-proportioned to be classified as a longsword or arming sword, and they were common enough to deserve a classification, hence why I side with the school of thought that a "bastard sword" is a shorter longsword designed for the purpose of being more easily used in one hand.

Regardless, this is no more than a history lesson in a thread about how a sword should work in a fantasy game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:


The wizard might argue the point when the fighter pops an Anti-Magic Sphere while standing right next to him, but it will most likely be a very short argument, and not in the wizards favor.

This made my day. Thanks for the humor in this otherwise depressing thread.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Why can't we just say "immune"?


Saedar wrote:
velwein wrote:
velwein wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
While this is a playtest and we are evaluating everything, I think it's a pretty safe bet that we will not be removing classes from the game.

Sadly, what looks good on paper isn't always in practice. That and you might not see x + y = infinite combo until it's too late. That or if you're making new feats later, you've got to go back, run through every possible combination of other feats and make sure they play nice.

Ideally, I agree, it'd be awesome

Overly complicated, while I've played my fair share of rpgs. New players might look at all these options and be overwhelmed. There is so much to choose from, that and when you add supplements?.
FWIW: One of the players in my playtest group has never played PF before (one campaign of 5e) and they were able to digest character creation without too many issues and enjoyed the process.

And I have a friend that never played 3.P before who moved from 5e to Pathfinder, and he had few issues. This friend also doesn't like PF2, because it feels more limiting to him than 5e.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Soul wrote:
Can't for the life of me figure out a reason for this change other than to directly nerf a popular weapon. The weapon should be S versatile P like all of the other arming sword variants. It really feels like it was simply an oversight. It's exactly the same as a longsword, except it can be held in two hands like a greatsword.

Good lord.... So these two weapons are now almost exactly the opposite of their actual historical counterparts?

How much more badly can they screw this up? (Make them both daggers, I suppose....)

Well, the "longsword" is historically a two handed sword. You CAN use it in one hand, but it's really tiring after a while. You would generally only take a hand off of it if you meant to go for a grapple, or were trying to sneak out a bit of extra reach on a swing.

The "arming sword" is the one handed sword we think of when someone says "longsword". It was usually used with a shield by people who weren't wearing plate armor.

The "bastard sword" is, depending on the source, wither another name for a longsword (the Italians) or a slightly shorter longsword that can be used in one hand more easily (basically everyone else). The idea behind this was that a knight on horseback may want an arming sword to use while he rides the horse, but doesn't want the reach disadvantage of an arming sword of he loses his horse and has to fight other knights with longswords. It's a compromise.

The greatsword is basically an over-sized sword that is used like a polearm. If PF2 wants to be historically accurate, it should have reach. Making the greatsword OP would be historically accurate, as their use in warfare was banned by a few countries (mostly due to the nature of the German mercenaries who were famous for using them).


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
While this is a playtest and we are evaluating everything, I think it's a pretty safe bet that we will not be removing classes from the game.

Even if they turn out to be more trouble than they are worth?

You guys have made everything a feat at this point, you might as well drop the chassis.

Most of the complaints I am seeing are about how restrictive the classes are currently.

For new players, you could do what M&M does and give "example" characters that fit tropes, if the idea to make it simpler for new players to build characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

They could take inspiration from 5e and just make the bastard sword and the longsword the same weapon.

Or they could make it work like PF1 where it always deals a d10, but you need a feat to use it in one hand.

Or they could beef up the greatsword somehow.

Lost of potential solutions.

I just hate that it takes an action to go from one handing a bastard sword, to two handing it. That's stupid. Nobody wants to burn an action doing something that used to be a free action on their turn.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The official reasons for sorcerers not being able to spontaneously heighten were "analysis paralysis" and unlimited spontaneous heightening being OP.

I don't buy either reason because:

1) The wizard doesn't experience analysis paralysis when he prepares spells and 99% of the time, players have a rough idea of what they want to do.

2) The Wizard feat that allows you to overwrite any prepared spell in 10 minutes makes him just as effective as a spontaneous caster (likely more due to sheer volume of spells he has access to) most of the time.

Yes, it's nice that Summon Monster X is now one spell, but the sorcerer STILL has to learn it multiple times UNLESS he wants to devote one of his 2 slots of spontaneous heightening to it. This applies to all the spells he learns such that, eventually, you will be forced to learn certain spells repeatedly if you want to be able to cast more than 3 spells at different levels in one day.

If the wizard had to learn each of his spells at each level he wanted to cast it at, then it would be more fair (except that there wouldn't be a point in the redesign of the spells at that point). As it stands, the wizard is the superior caster if he has 10 minutes to spare. If not, it comes down to what the wizard did prepare from his nigh infinite list of spells vs what the sorcerer happens to know from his hard limit of spells (and maybe what spells he prepared to heighten). Historically speaking, this has been the case in PF1 and wizards are STILL considered the stronger class by a large margin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not the way Paizo wants you to play PF2, haven't you heard?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
Bardic Dave wrote:
Back on topic: I agree with your concerns, especially because the more you carry, the more likely you are to drop stuff entirely by accident (e.g. the scroll laden scribe stumbles, sending paper flying everywhere). If the rules don't let you drop multiple objects intentionally, then it seems to me that the rules can't let you drop multiple things by accident either, otherwise you open the door to loopholes and rules abuse.

Well, if by 'accident', you mean 'fall unconscious', then yes you can. When you fall unconscious, you drop all items you are wielding or holding (page 296). So a Wizard carrying his library in his hands would drop them all if an arrow kills him.

While I admire the attempt of explaining this rule by extrapolating a different model of gravity, there's a simpler explanation, one that fulfills a better verisimiltude. All adventurers everywhere are trained to treat their tools for dungeoneering with the utmost care. One does not just drop their crossbow on the ground after using it, unless they want it to be broken in the fall. Dropping a scroll in a dank cave is sure to ruin it, hence you place it down gingerly, where it won't be ruined or get trodden upon. It's only when an adventurer loses consciousness that things go flying.

Proper care of your weapons is an universal drilling point for police and military training, and having the Drop action be an unbreakable standard for even Barbarians and Goblins is an excellent case of making a setting with societally-recognized guilds of adventurers possess more verisimilitude.

So in an emergency, when I desperately need both hands free to not die, I must still spend multiple actions gingerly setting my gear down, because I don't want to break my warhammer or my steel shield? No. Tools can be replaced. Your life can't be (aside from the metagame knowledge of resurrection spells and drawing up a new character).

Besides, scrolls are magical sheets of paper. They probably have magical protections to keep the ink from running. Weapons are MADE to hit things and crossbows can store well over 1000 pounds of energy. A drop would likely not noticeably effect the durability of any of these.

Heck, a rule that states that you must make a flat DC check when you drop something or your gear gets a dent would better simulate the rule than what exists now, and it would allow characters to choose between gingerly setting stuff down and just dropping it, instead of forcing them to do the former.

You can come up with edge cases where the rules make sense, but overall, these problem rules only exist for balancing reasons (though I will say that the dropping rules are likely just a bug).


Gloom wrote:
I think one of the issues that people are running into when thinking about old numbers, is that an attribute at 18 is no longer considered 'Offspring of the Gods'.

It wasn't in PF1 either.

Quote:

"Having an attribute at a 12-14 means that you are above average.

Having an attribute at a 16-18 means that you are well above average.
Having an attribute at a 20-22 means that you are the peak of your capabilities without magic."

There is a LOT of narrative space between "well above average" and "peak of your capabilities without magic" for the modifier difference being 1.

Quote:
In contrast to that I view an attribute of 10 as someone who is deadpan average. Someone who doesn't perform a day of physical labor in their lives would likely have something around a 10 Strength or Constitution.

Below that, an 8 means that you're at a disadvantage and considered below the average of what a human is capable of. This can be due to a forced disadvantage due to race or it could be due to an optional disadvantage that you took as a player. Either way, you're below human average.

Starting with an 18 means that you are well above average in an attribute, putting you at very solid starting position for your class. You are capable of starting lower in the 14-16 range if you want to spread your points out more but it is in no means mandatory.

When you pick up your adventuring career you aren't simply starting out as a random farmboy that picked up a sword. You trained to do whatever your class does. That's what picking up the class represents. If you have a background and ancestry that supports your primary class attribute, you're likely going to be starting at a 16-18 for that attribute.

A "farmboy" picking up a sword in PF1 would have a 13 in STR. (Using the NPC array). The average strong fighter in PF1 would have had a 15 in STR (using the elite array).

Quote:
You can choose to select a background that doesn't support your class or a race that isn't ideal for your class and end up starting at a 12-14 if that better fits your story.

This isn't the problem. The problem is that the absent minded, yet highly intelligent character trope doesn't exist. The super strong, yet mentally stunted trope doesn't exist either. Average starting attributes for your core attribute are going to be 16 or 18, and there is nothing above that, until you have gained some levels.

Let's say I want to play a strong dumb guy trope and my friend wants to play an average strength based fighter.

I max out my STR and take a penalty to INT so I can have an 18 STR and a 6 INT. This maximizes my potential to play the character I want to play.

My friend wants to build an effective strength based fighter, so he puts his free stat bumps into STR because that's the stat that most benefits his character concept. He also gets an 18, but he doesn't dump INT.

My friend has now built an entirely better character than me without even attempting to do so.

My character concept is ruined because my friend wanted to play an optimal character, and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, besides beg the GM to let me break the rules, or convince my friend that he can't have an 18 STR because I wanted to play the strong dumb guy trope, and his character makes my character just a dumb guy.

In PF1, given the same situation, my friend probably stops at a 16 to have room for other decent stats, while I am free to have an 18 (or even a 20) in pursuit of my character concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

@thflame To my mind the action is not "put your hand on the weapon" and if a PC just wanted to physically place their hand on their weapon for some reason I would not charge an action. The action, as it reads to me, is "adjust your stance to be ready to fight effectively with two hands" and to my mind, yeah, that is an action.

It might be my LARP experience speaking, but that one bit actually makes perfect sense to me. Starting from a two-handed stance and suddenly flinging out your weapon with one hand is basically effortless, but regripping your weapon and recentering your stance definitely takes a non-zero amount of concentration and often a little footwork.

I do agree that the bastard sword is a bit of a legacy weapon, though.

No offense, but my HEMA experience beats your LARP experience. The stances are VERY similar, if not the same and changing them takes so little time that it should be considered a "free action". It only costs an action right now because it balances switch-handed weapons with the other weapons.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Homebrew should never be used as a counter argument when someone dislikes a mechanic, especially for a playtest. Homebrew should always be a last resort.

I could theoretically homebrew Chess into PF1, but I would be better off just playing PF1.

Also, could we please stop with the excuses that the playtest doesn't include all of the options for the final book? This is our last chance to change anything about the game. If we "wait until the game comes out to complain" then it's too late.

If there are more options than what the book gives us, then Paizo should have included them for playtesting. (Heck, they can still give the to us in a PDF at this point.)

The point is, nobody here knows what stuff Paizo left out of the playtest book, if anything, and even if stuff was left out, we don't know the nature of it. (There totally could be 5 times as many feats available in the final book, but they could easily all be broken trash.)

At this point, I am assuming that, given no real complaints, the playtest book is the final rules. Period.

If we don't complain, assuming stuff will change, and it doesn't, we're screwed.

If we do complain about stuff that is changing anyway, stuff still get's changed.

If Paizo wants us to stop complaining about stuff, then they should release updated rules via "patch notes" to assuage our fears and stop the complaints.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point, the game has too many rules for it's own good.

I thought 3.P was rules heavy, but at least there was room for GM fiat to make stuff work.

This is approaching 4e levels of rules strangulation, where if there isn't an explicit rule for it, you can't do it.

Not to mention that some of the rules just don't make sense in the game world.

For example, drawing an arrow from a quiver, nocking it, pulling back the string, and releasing it are all part of one action, but putting your free hand on the weapon you are holding in your other hand costs an action.

Now, I will say that nobody would want to use a bow if you had to spend an action to draw an arrow, then spend an action to nock it, then spend an action to fire it(even though that would probably be more realistic), and nobody would use a greatsword or a longsword if there was no action cost for swapping your current weapon handedness for a bastard sword(given the current damage values for these weapons), but there are alternative solutions that don't make it seem like it takes 2 seconds to put your other hand on your weapon.

For one, the greatsword could have reach properties, since it is basically a polearm version of a sword. This makes it still better than a bastard sword being used in 2 hands.

Two, the bastard sword and the longsword are the same weapon historically, why not combine them? 5e did this with the "longsword" dealing 1d8 one handed and 1d10 two handed.

Three, they could literally use PF1 rules. Bastard sword deals 1d10 two handed, and 1d10 one handed if you have a feat for it.

Four, just ignoring the hand swap cost will still grant you some utility in the game. You won't always have a free hand and if all you have is a two handed weapon, you might be screwed. (Climbing comes to mind as a case where you need a hand for something other than your weapon.)

Personally, I would like to see this:

Arming sword - 1d8 S/P, one handed
Longsword - 1d10 S/P, two handed*
Greatsword - 1d12 S/P two handed, reach 10 ft.

*Once you have reached Expert Proficiency, you may use the longsword in one hand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like the new stat system.

Historically, an average score for a stat was 10-11. PF1 characters had a 12 average to represent them being a cut above the average joe. Now characters have an average starting stat of 13. It feels like power creep for the sake of marketing.

A lot of people want to be able to play characters that are good at everything, but that's not interesting from a story standpoint. Characters should have strengths and weaknesses.

I liked that if you wanted an 18 (or even a 20) at level 1, you had to sacrifice other stats. It made 18 not entirely practical for some characters (and unfortunately highly practical for casters).

The way to fix SAD characters is to make ALL attributes matter for all characters. If you STILL want an 18, then you have to make a meaningful sacrifice.

The biggest issue I have with the game is that the trope of being exceptional at one stat while crippled in another is not playable. If you want an 18, you can have one with almost zero consequences for doing so and you can't get any higher at level 1, which means most characters are going to have an 18 at level 1, which means it isn't special.

Then, on the other side, a stat lower than 8 can only be achieved by voluntarily dumping your stats with zero benefit. Unless you are playing in a group where everyone does this, you are going to be weaker than everyone else in the party. This isn't fun for anyone, as your character becomes a liability for the party and they give no meaningful benefit in return.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see proficiency's effect increased with the level bonus decreased to compensate.

Something like d20 + attribute Modifier + 1/2 level + Proficiency

Untrained = -3
Trained = 0
Expert = +3
Master = +6
Legendary = +9

I don't like it when the "Legendary" character has a 30% chance to perform worse on a basic skill check than an Untrained character of the same level. (Ignoring nat 1s and nat 20s)

The above suggestion would have a Legendary character succeed on a check over an Untrained character of the same level 0.7% of the time, which I think is a good number for "the idiot randomly knows something the professional doesn't" funny moments. (Again, ignoring nat 1s and nat 20s.)


Paradozen wrote:
Ouranou wrote:
It should probably be renamed to Vital Strike, because it's Vital Strike.
I disagree. Other than the name being a holdover from 3.x I don't think vital strike fits the mechanics terribly well. A strike to someone's vitals would be easier to perform with a small, precise weapon like a dagger and would presumably hamper someone in a way damage doesn't. Vital Strike (from 3.x) helps very little if you are using a high-damage die weapon (like a greatsword), and is basically always a waste of a feat if you use a lower-damage weapon.

Just a nit-pick, but using a small weapon to strike at someone's vitals is video game logic. In reality, going for vitals is more of a skill/techinque based action than having the right tool for the job.

Daggers are the "go to" sneak attack/back stab/vital strike weapon mainly because we imagine assassins slinking in the shadows to deliver a deadly strike, and assassins used daggers because bigger weapons are harder to conceal.

On the topic of this thread, the devs intent, from what I understand, was for power attack to not be a guaranteed better option than just attacking a few times. The old way of having a penalty to your attack doesn't work as nicely because of the new +10/-10 system and the only other real cost they have access to is action economy.

I'm not happy with the new power attack, but I don't have a better solution without scrapping the +10/-10 system or somehow changing how power attack interacts with it.

I would have liked something more along the lines of "add double STR bonus by taking a -2 to hit", but I don't know exactly how that effects all the math.


David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
Does wearing armor mess with spells these days? Is that gone?

I don't think it does, but for a caster that is not proficient with armor, you take the Untrained penalty to your AC and TAC, so it is less helpful for them.


Greylurker wrote:
thflame wrote:

Quote:
- Players are incentivized to equip all their characters with the same old items (Cloak of Resistance, Belt of Stat Bonus, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, etc.), making magic equipment feel mundane.

The static boosting item benefits could easily be rolled into character progression. Resonance, or something like it, would fix the CLW wand spam.

it doesn't actually.

You just carry a Box of CLW wands instead.
Once you run out of Resonance you pull out the Box, Use a wand till you fail the roll. Set the now non-functioning wand aside till tomorrow and move on tothe next wand.

As long as you don't roll a 1 you can keep doing this until you've used up all the wands in the box for the day.
The wands are just 27 GP a each (IE: 270 GP by PF1 standards) with only 10 charges so a bit more expensive than the 750 gp in PF1, but nothing in the rules says you lose a charge when the roll fails, so they are better choice than potions once you are out of resonance. If you have more than one person in the group who can cast Heal you are in good shape cause each of them can use the wands till they fail, effectively doubling you potential heals.

Alternatively you hire a shmuck or two to guard the camp while you are in the dungeon and when you get out you have him use the wands on you till his resonance is out.

Few problems with this:

1) The issue with CLW wand spam was that CLW wands are more cost effective than stronger healing wands in PF1. Resonance makes you use better wands to get better healing.

2) If you ever fail a Resonance check by 10 or more or roll a natural 1, you can't use Resonance any more that day. Your first Resonance Check is a DC 11 flat check and that DC increases by 1 every time you try to spend Resonance. I ran a program a long time ago when the Resonance mechanic was first introduced and I found that, on average, you would get ONE additional use out of magic items after you ran dry on resonance. Given your example, each of your allies would yield one extra cast of Heal 1, assuming Heal is on their spell list.

3) Hiring some poor shmuck costs money. The better the shmuck, the more it costs. Trained shmucks cost even more money. The worse the shmuck, the more likely he is to fail a Resonance check or get eaten by a random passing monster while you're off adventuring. Not to mention that you have to make it back to your shmuck to get his help. Hiring a parade of civilians to follow your PCs through untamed wilds to help them raid a dungeon is not within the realms of what I would call "even remotely likely to happen".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
thflame wrote:


This is mostly due to overly strong and trap options. This could have been fixed by buffing weak feats/class abilities and nerfing or removing powerful ones. This would not require a brand new system.

Power Attack is a no-brainer for a 2h Fighter.

It's a trap option for Wizard.

A new player will not notice that and will shoot himself or herself in the foot by picking Power Attack.

How does "buffing weak abilities" or "removing powerful ones" fix that?

There is a certain point where you have to assume that your players are competent enough to read an ability, understand what it does, and realize that it is a bad option for what they want out of their character.

What is the alternative? You prevent the wizard from taking Power Attack, even if he really wants to eventually play a greatsword wielding eldritch knight? That's worse than letting a dumb player grab a feat not meant for his build, in my opinion.

The former limits character options and potentially prevents a player from making the character they want, the latter can be fixed by retconning the choice and letting the new player pick a new ability in its place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
"Barbarossa Rotbart" wrote:
A good new edition simply removes all the mistakes and weak spots of the previous one but retains the overall feel of it.

The main weak spots of PF1 are (arguably) things like:

- There is a massive difference in power level between optimized and unoptimized characters, in part due to the level of freedom players are given, and this leads to internal party power imbalance or makes published adventures either too easy or too hard.

This is mostly due to overly strong and trap options. This could have been fixed by buffing weak feats/class abilities and nerfing or removing powerful ones. This would not require a brand new system.

Quote:
- High-level play becomes unbalanced due to too many modifiers, extra attacks, metamagic spell combos, etc.

See above.

Quote:
- Casters have a lot more flexibility and narrative power than martials, to the point that many skills become largely irrelevant.

Limit utility spells and grant martials more cool abilities. Again, this doesn't require a new system.

Quote:
- Players are incentivized to equip all their characters with the same old items (Cloak of Resistance, Belt of Stat Bonus, Wand of Cure Light Wounds, etc.), making magic equipment feel mundane.

The static boosting item benefits could easily be rolled into character progression. Resonance, or something like it, would fix the CLW wand spam.

Quote:
- The rules are really complicated and this makes it hard for new players to get into the game.

Have you read through the playtest book yet? It honestly feels MORE complicated. Not to mention, simplifying problem mechanics could be done without rebuilding the game from the ground up. See grappling rules from 3.5 to Pathfinder for a great example. Not to mention that 5e holds the corner on "simple" right now and Paizo isn't going to be able to compete with their brand recognition or marketing team any time soon. If simple is Paizo's goal, they have both failed miserably (as of now) and metaphorically brought a pool noodle to a wizard's duel.

Quote:
I don't think you can fix these things without changing the feel of the game.

We aren't talking about "feel" (which is very subjective, by the way), we're talking about the core of the system that we all know and understand.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Witch of Miracles wrote:
Aku-Arkaine wrote:

Action economy has become far more complex than I think it needs to be. Swift actions for instance I felt were a good thing, but now they are gone. Action, action, action may seem simple, but in reality it leaves you with a mess of options requiring a chart to figure out; it's especially so for casters.

It's not really hard to understand what happened. In essence:

2 actions = standard

1 action = move

reaction = swift/immediate (which are actually the same action cost anyways)

And martial is just target buffed by getting access to more attacks after moving without feat taxes/getting more attacks at lower levels.

Except it doesn't quite work out that way.

Some "standard actions" cost 2 actions, but most cost 1 (and some cost all three).

Most move equivalent actions cost 1 action, but there are exceptions.

Most "swift" actions and some "free" actions now cost an action.

Where I have a problem with the new system is that, under certain circumstances, one player might be able to accomplish in one turn what was effectively 3 standard actions worth of stuff in PF1, while another character might be stuck with doing 3 things that were swift or free actions in PF1.

It's cool when you get the former, but it sucks when you get the latter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garydee wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:
Everything pales in comparison to magic weapons. I would say that it worry me more than every other change added together.
This. I wish we could return to how magic weapons used to work and get rid of the hit point bloat.

I actually like that weapon damage scales up noticeably, but I don't like that it is tied to character wealth. Casters deal fist fulls of dice at higher levels, why can't fighters have a few? I feel like Martial classes should just get more damage as they level up because they are awesome.

Perhaps have each tier of proficiency in weapons give you an extra die of damage?

Untrained: ??? (maybe a small damage penalty)
Trained: 1 die
Expert: 2 dice
Master: 3 dice
Legendary: 4 dice

Then, make magic weapons TRULY magical. "My sword is on fire" and "My sword shoots laser beams" are magic weapons.

"My sword hits harder" should be a skill related benefit.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cfoot wrote:
"lot's of good stuff"

I agree with you.

PF2 ideally for me would have been a patch/bug fix of PF1.

Implementing new mechanics to fix broken ones, deleting stuff that was OP and expanding on stuff that needed expansion would have been great.

I really don't think the new engine was necessary, and I honestly don't see the target audience.

To me, PF2 is MORE complex than PF1 with fewer options (even in just the CRB). The only real advantage I'm seeing of PF2 over PF1 is "bounded accuracy" making bad characters harder to make and OP characters virtually impossible.

The only issue here is that "bad" characters are still around, because anything outside of the class tropes appears to be a trap option.

For example, sneak attack is limited to certain weapons. This makes anyone who has ever played a rouge that uses a odd weapon can't play that character. (Technically, you CAN, but there isn't much of a point.)


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo tried to raise the floor and lower the ceiling on character power, and a lot of character concepts got lost in the change. I know about half of my character concepts from PF1 are gone in PF2. This is a terrible design choice by Paizo.

Of my character concepts that survived, I have a generic cleric, an "archer", and a bard (ignoring the fact that I can't play a tiefling yet, but that's not a fair criticism at this point).

Paizo was so worried about people making bad or OP characters that they won't let anyone make characters outside of their small, preconceived boxes of what they think characters should be.

In short, I'd rather play a game that let me break the system both ways to make any character I want than one that straight-jackets me into playing a trope.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
The game, like most games, is made to assume you want to be good at things. It's not going to cover corner cases of wanting to be bad at things.

One of the unspoken rules of games like Pathfinder is that you get to play the character you want to play. Having arbitrary limitations on common fantasy tropes is antithetical to this.

It is EXTREMELY common for characters in fantasy novels/movies/videogames to be "bad" at things. It's also common for these characters to have exceptional skills in other areas to compensate (otherwise you wouldn't adventure with them).

This rules theme of PF2 paints a very "play the way we want you to play" mentality, that is NOT acceptable for a sequel to PF1.

Quote:
One reason is because being bad at things can make things more difficult for the party, not just for you.

Heaven forbid you have to accommodate a party member that isn't sufficiently skilled in required field at this moment. I guess that's why wizards past level 12 or so never adventure with non-wizards. (Sarcasm, if you need the hint).

Quote:
They may have to save you due to a weakness, and therefore put themselves in danger. If they elect to not save you it could cause OoC issues.

This is very situationally dependent. A party that let's Hodor die because he's to stupid to avoid a trap is a jerk party. The party that let's your quadriplegic, deaf, mute, and blind character die because he decided to flop into the water and drown (because his Wisdom is 3) is probably just telling you that you need to play a more competent character.

It's a balance. "I can't swim" or "I'm pretty dumb" are perfectly acceptable character flaws that fall within the realm of believability for a heroic character, especially if they have an extra boost elsewhere to compensate.

Quote:
I'd just talk to the GM about allowing you to be bad at ____ if that is what you want.

I don't accept homebrew solutions as valid solutions when the problem at hand shouldn't exist in the first place. If someone was requesting something that was truly "a corner case", then homebrew is a fine solution, but being worse than average at something is EXTREMELY common in fantasy.

There is also the issue that homebrew rules must be accepted by the group you're playing with. PFS isn't going to let you suck at swim checks, for example.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

Hold up a second here. Isn't PF1 multiclassing much *worse* on this count? Eating choice resources (levels) for "not good enough spellcasting." It takes what, three or four class feats in the playtest model (out of 10?) to get 8th level spellcasting.

So compare, e.g., a Fighter 16/Wizard 4 in PF1 to a Fighter/Wizard in the playtest who sinks 4 class feats into Wizard MC. Who's better off here? Pretty clearly it's the playtest MC (both in terms of fighting prowess and in terms of having "good enough spellcasting").

So, genuine question: What kind of "characters do [you] like to build/play [that] will NEVER be able to exist" in this kind of system?

I have some concerns about this system and will push it hard in the playtest. But I'm not following your concern as articulated in this post, would be interested to hear more.

Fighter 16/Wizard 4 is a bad analogy to Fighter with 4 Wizard feats in PF2.

1) If a new player wanted to play a Fighter 16/Wizard 4, I'd tell them to try Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 10, then decide whether they want more casting or more fighting after that.

2) The new multiclass system costs Class Feats, which are what give you class features. Since you only get Class Feats at every other level, you're losing EIGHT levels of fighter for your wizard stuff, not 4. (You get to keep fighter HP and proficiency progressions, but that's about it.)

3) The extra spells gained by the Basic Wizard Spellcasting Feat are PITIFUL compared to the PF1 Eldritch Knight. You get ONE spell per day per spell level and you know TWO spells per spell level, vs having 4+ spells per day per level in PF1 and DOZENS of known spells.

A Fighter 4/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10 in PF1 beats the pants off of a Fighter 20 with 4 Wizard Feats in PF2.

The PF2 build has 12ish more HP, 3ish more BAB, and probably a better Fort Save. (Assuming we equate "Full BAB" to "Legendary with weapons" and "Good Fort Save" with whatever PF2 does.)

The PF1 build has MUCH better spellcasting, which is where the real power comes from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladinosaur wrote:
Qazyr wrote:

Is there really a point to the Basic Arcana and Advanced Arcana feats, if all they do is allow you to pick another feat? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just add a clause to Wizard Dedication

"At level 4 and above, you may take Wizard feats (as a Wizard of half your level) instead of your base class's."
Otherwise, you end up with every class requiring two feats that all follow the same template.
I think these are feats so they count towards the multiple archetype restriction.

You should be able to take the advanced version multiple times.

I'm willing to bet that the reason why they are separate feats is to force you to grab a low level wizard class feat before you can grab any high level ones.

Why?

"Balance"


N N 959 wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
OOTS #126

Awesome, thank you.

Ragni, please read this strip as it totally applies to your question

The biggest flaw with the strip is that it assumes that it takes a long time under normal circumstances to become a wizard. There is no age restriction for being a wizard.

You can have the backstory of, "I found this old spellbook yesterday, and after reading it for a few hours, I was able to prepare and cast spells", and that's completely valid.

Given that an INT of 10 is all you need to be able to comprehend cantrips and 10 INT is average, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that a 14 or 16 INT character could learn how to cast a few spells in a day or two.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
I don't see why being a pirate rogue should make it harder to be a pirate rogue-wizard, but currently, that seems to be the case.

Hunh. To the extent that this is true and the fact that you seemingly have stat requirement to multi-class are the things I like.

It should be exceedingly hard to be a doctor/lawyer and then be firefighter as well. I think the dedication feat requirement is something that adds at least an iota of realism, if not balance, to the concept.

Firefighter is a bad example. You can get certified as a firefighter in a day, assuming you can pass the physical portion.

What doesn't make sense is that if I am a doctor, and I decide that I want to learn a bit about law as it applies to my medical field. I shouldn't have to take Law 101, then Medical Law.

After that, if I want to be a firefighter, I shouldn't have to take some other law class before I am physically capable to learning how to be a firefighter.


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


Doesn't it now take an action to change your grip on your weapon?

To add a hand, yes, but not to drop the weapon out of one or both hands. That's why the bastard sword is great here. If you could switch hands around willy-nilly, being a switch-handed weapon doesn't matter because you always just freely take a hand off, do the hand thing, freely put the hand back.

Sure it matters. What if I need to carry something in my off hand? Drag a downed ally? Hold onto a ladder while fighting off a harpy? What if I like to swap between sword and board and 2 handing a weapon? There are plenty of situations where a switch-handed weapon would be beneficial over a two handed weapon without requiring an action to grab the weapon with my free hand.

More importantly, it makes in universe sense to be able to attach your free hand to a weapon you are already holding without monopolizing 1/3rd of your turn to do so. If it takes next to no tie to do IRL or it can be done simultaneously with something else, it shouldn't cost an action.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Blueskier wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
All I want to know is: Did the healer Barbarian have the Cleric multiclass archetype?
Yep. Some of you guessed it right away because I described her as unhealthily obsessed with Gorum.
Cool, so martial classes are dead then. If you don't have spells, you can borrow them from a class who does. Sigh...

Nope

Mundane character concepts are dead. Which is good. Being non-magical is not a character concept that is level appropiate after lvl 5

In YOUR opinion. Enforcing such rules is called BADWRONGFUN and should always be avoided.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Mark also said the fighter multi-class would count as 5 feats for a wizard so it seems like the feats do flat granting of proficiency for the most part.

Must've missed that one. If true, that probably means it gives you all of them, yeah.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Bardarok wrote:
It seems the cantrips you get with the wizard dedication feat scale with you though so they seem like solid choices. Now I'm a little worried that everyone will want to take a multiclass archetype since these dedication feats seem so powerful.
They only seem to scale at half the normal rate, which is somewhat limited, option-wise.
Nope, we're looking at full scaling (spell level = half your level rounded up), so you'll have just as good a cantrip as a full caster does. This fact is likely something that some in the thread are forgetting when thinking about getting "just a cantrip, item use, and sig skill" from caster dedication (they are probably thinking of PF1 cantrips).
Ah, still getting used to the new wording, I guess. That's much better and a much better comparison to all the Proficiencies you can grab from Fighter. I mean, since one unchanging cantrip is shown as worth a Feat elsewhere, this looks like it's worth about 4 (2 for cantrips, one for being able to change them, and a fourth for being able to use wands, scrolls, and so on).
Aye, something like that for sure. And a two-hander can definitely make use of shield. I recommend bastard sword for the "two-hand Fighter that MCs into Wizard." It's martial, so you have it no problem, it does d12 when two-handing it, and you can pull your hand off real quick if you ever need somatic casting.

Doesn't it now take an action to change your grip on your weapon?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:


If the "every +1 matters" meme is true then you'll never want to start with less than an 18 in your to-hit attribute. I'm pretty sure you can still get a 16 in your secondary attribute in that case, though.

I've actually been looking at tons of viable builds that drop your class's primary attribute really low and make up for it in other ways. The math is much tighter, but that actually gives you far more freedom within the system to move away from obvious optimization paths without shooting yourself in the foot. A fighter who doesn't max out Strength and decides to boost his Int instead could grab Alchemical Crafting and learn a few poisons to weaken enemies, using his greater skills and higher INT-based checks to make up for a lower to-hit value with buffs, debuffs, and skill feat options that boost his mobility. A sorceress (or wizard) who dumped her CHA (or INT) down as low as she can take it could still focus on buff spells, non-spell-point-based feats, and fighting with a weapon and still be suitably impressive. A cleric who dumps her WIS down in favor of STR is basically a warpriest.

Since you don't have as much deviation between specialists and non-specialists (which can stretch to 40 point differences surprisingly quickly in PF1) each number matters more, but it's also easier to compensate for that number being lower than would be standard for your build by taking options that improve your combat positioning or expand your capabilities in other ways.

With all due respect, 5e did this too with the same explanation and ultimately, we were lied to.

Forgive me if I am highly skeptical and unwilling to take your word for it.

Bounded accuracy just forces everyone into the same straight jacket in the long run.

These multiclassing archetypes just feel like trap options at this point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:


Wow, um. You made me feel worse about that.
I hadn't caught that retconning was in the game. 'You were a Multiclass wizard all along' makes me even less happy.

I get that some people really like retraining as a protection from trap feats and bad decisions, but it's the kind of video game feature that really aggravates me. Doesn't connect to the world or make any kind of sense. 'Because I went to chainsaw training, I've now completely forgotten C# programming!'

I personally don't mind retconning under certain circumstances.

If you grabbed an ability and realized that it doesn't work the way you thought it did or never used it and want a new ability, then I have no qualms with that.

If you just want to trade away something that has lost it's usefulness for something else, then I have a problem.

The retraining in core has been explicitly stated to allow your character to grab feats/abilities that they want just for a certain "mission" and retrain them away after the mission.

In the archetypes blog, the example was given of a party retraining into the pirate archetype before going to sea, then retraining out of it once they are back on land.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I see a lot of question dodging happening about how dedication feats are feat taxes. I'd really appreciate one of the devs explaining why:

1) You can't use wands/scrolls/etc without being the appropriate type of caster or having a dedication feat. This is a step back from PF1.

2) Why you have to take a dedication feat to get access to the feats you want in the first place.

3) Why you have to take 2 feats in your dedication feat tree before you can take another dedication feat.

4) In terms of the Basic Arcana and Advance Arcana feats, why does our level only count as half? These class feats were designed to be balanced for the levels a class can take them, no? If I burn a class feat at level 12 to get a different class' level 6 class feat, aren't I trading a level 12 ability for a level 6 ability? Won't that make my character weaker than other characters?


Tallow wrote:
Disk Elemental wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
yep, dipping led to broken characters, where as true multiclassing meant you couldn't do enough.

A bizzare stance to take, when the most hideously broken PCs have always been the Single-Classed fullcasters.

Now we're going to see these full-casters being able to take toys from other classes, at little loss to themselves. If a Wizard can get into Eldritch Knight without losing spell progression, why wouldn't they?

This is not true.

A level 1 sorcerer / level x Wizard was always stronger than a level x wizard.

Would you care to explain this, as I am fairly certain that your sorcerer spells/slots are completely separate from your wizard spells/slots. The only thing you would gain is a bloodline power from the sorcerer (which is usually a garbage melee based ability), eschew materials (which is covered with a spell component pouch), and a bloodline arcana, which is kinda meh and situational.

1 to 50 of 480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>