tivadar27's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 344 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 24 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 344 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
IF witch makes it in, then I'd say it's up in the air whether bard is occult or primal, the other list that seems to best suit it thematically to me. Or maybe even picking spells off every list. But given the witch is probably NOT present, it's almost certainly occult.
Yeah, now that I think about it, the Bard seems most suited to the Primal list (the original class, well, PrC, was "under Druidic tutelage"), as Occult magic seems to be the sort of psychic/aberration/octopus-boy magic.

Wny is there an assumption that the Playtest *has* to have one primary class for each magic school and then sorcerer? It's a playtest, Abberation Sorcerer will ensure the Occult spells get tested, so there's no reason to add an Occult class unless it fits the class. In particular, adding another spontaneous casting class for Occult is probably not that useful in stress-testing the system.

I still think Bard will pick off of every list, be spontaneous, but have restrictions in how they can cast what they pick (perhaps starting with one school and feats giving them access to more, perhaps casting spells at one level higher, so cantrips are 1st level...).

Occult *really* doesn't fit bard. Yes, fortune tellers, soothsayers also fit in with traditional psychic stuff... but that fits Wizard as well as it does Bard.


Elleth wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Benjamin_Mahir wrote:


With all that said, I just want to take a moment to address those in this thread who see the Bard as being the full Occult caster of the Playtest.

The Bard... isn't a caster at it's heart.

As how it should be, this argument has merit. As a prediction for how the Bard will be, I fear it is doomed. We know there's a spontaneous caster yet to be revealed, so it's the bard. And with the heightening framework and lack of custom early access spell lists by class, the old partial caster framework appears to be dead outside of limited spell point powers. So the Bard is probably going to be a full caster.
Wait, where was it said that there are 2 classes that cast spontaneously? I might have missed that...
Can't find the comment rn but one of the devs (Mark or Logan) mentioned that there was another spontaneous caster in the playtest, in an earlier comment here.

Thanks for the reference!

I still think it highly unlikely Bards will be Occult casters. That would change the lore of the world substantially, which isn't something Paizo wants to do.

Then again, I doubt Bards will be spontaneous casters off a single list exactly like Sorcerers. If there is, in fact, another spontaneous casting class to go and its Bards, I'm guessing they'll play up the "jack of all trades, but master of none" and have Bards have access to *all* of the spell lists, but do something like consider all spells 1 Spell Level Higher.

Either way, pretty sure Occult is for things in Occult Adventures, particularly with "Aberrant" being the Bloodline... That speaks to things in the Dark Tapestry, which we already know have Psychic powers, and aren't bard-like at all...


Xenocrat wrote:
Benjamin_Mahir wrote:


With all that said, I just want to take a moment to address those in this thread who see the Bard as being the full Occult caster of the Playtest.

The Bard... isn't a caster at it's heart.

As how it should be, this argument has merit. As a prediction for how the Bard will be, I fear it is doomed. We know there's a spontaneous caster yet to be revealed, so it's the bard. And with the heightening framework and lack of custom early access spell lists by class, the old partial caster framework appears to be dead outside of limited spell point powers. So the Bard is probably going to be a full caster.

Wait, where was it said that there are 2 classes that cast spontaneously? I might have missed that...


edduardco wrote:
Sorry DMW to hijack your discussion with magnuskn, but I think something to consider is that although PF2 Sorcerers have overall a little more spells known, PF1 Sorcerers have the advantage of automatic spell progression, and no and I don't think 2 Spontaneous Heightening is good enough compensation for that.

I'm not sure I buy this argument for a couple of reasons:

1) Many spells weren't automatically heightened previously, because they were different spells (invisibility, summon, cure). These spells actually give you *more* options than you had previously when you apply Spontaneous Heightening.
2) Spells that did scale well with level were fewer, and Sorcerers tended to focus on a few of them (Burning Hands, Fireball...). For these, you could use spontaneous heightening, or simply learn them at a few different levels.

This seems to me to pan out to be a somewhat similar number of spells, particularly when you consider that the absolute number of spells known (now just your number of slots) is similar to what you got in 1e.


Almarane wrote:
Having to pick Detect Magic as a cantrip is not a big problem because we tend to quickly forget that cantrips exist since they are so weak in PF1 and we have enough spell slots to get all the cantrips we needed, but if they become useful in PF2, loosing one slot may be a problem, even more now that we know we will have less slots than before.

Maybe this will make selecting Detect Magic a meaningful choice in PF2 rather than a "requirement". I've played with parties where no one had Detect Magic and we generally got by. It may make those cantrip slots both more precious, and more valuable, which I don't think is a bad thing necessarily.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Only bummer, is this reminds me, as others have said, at how late bonuses to Spell DCs come on line, I mean, you have to wait to get past 10th level to get +1 (Expert) to your spell DCs...?

Check my analysis in the first post on this page to see why that might be. :)

I think it actually works out pretty well.

I agree with your analysis here, but not really your conclusions. The problem is that DCs don't keep up with save bonuses, so even an optimized Sorcerer targeting an "average" save is, yes, going to have a 50/50 chance of succeeding (approximately). The problem comes with the way they've done their critical system. In this situation, the opponent will only critically fail on a natural 1.

I'm not sure how this all plays, but at least in my head, I'd expect someone who was an "expert" at their craft to have a better chance to critical against an "average" opponent than the default... We'll see, but I worry about these numbers for *many* types of things, attacks included (AC scales faster than to-hit because of armor bonuses...). If we advertise a dynamic critical system, but it boils down to "1 critically fails, 20 critically succeeds", then we haven't done any better than 5e.


Gregg Reece wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Gregg Reece wrote:

So, as much as I do like all of this, I do have concerns with the examples listed specifically in the blog.

Primarily, you've got a spontaneous primary caster (squishy edition) with what is traditionally thought of as the buff spell list that gets a bite attack. Now, I could see ways of making this interesting, but the fact they likely won't have much in the way of armor gives me a bit of pause unless there's something I'm missing in all of this.

Are the squishies less squishy in order to make the melee caster work alongside their bite attack? If so, this works well. If not, I still have some concerns about the play of it.

I realize that there's no arcane spell penalty on armor, but at first level I'm more scared of them getting bit than them doing the biting.

So HP will always be a problem for Sorcerers, but they won't suffer from the BAB problems that 1e sorcerers have. We also know Rogue gets Dexterity to Damage, so there *may* be a way to get that as a Sorcerer as well (I'm guessing there is, as that's *probably* something that will be made generally available). Assuming this much is true, and combining it with Mage Armor (possibly heightenable?) and the Shield Spell, Sorcerers can probably can have a comparable AC, and be able to do some damage with their bite. But we'll see. I'm hoping melee builds for Sorcerer won't be out of the realm of possibility in 2e.
See, Mage armor and Shield are what give me pause. Those are traditionally arcane spells. Demonic bloodline Sorcerers use the divine spell-list. Which means they wouldn't necessarily have access to those spells.

This is a totally fair point... It's going to be a shift thinking of Sorcerers casting divine! You're probably right that the power isn't that useful for a pure sorcerer. Still, the Draconic bloodline power in 1e was probably *less* useful than this will be, so in a side-by-side comparison, not so bad. It does give you a way to respond to enemies who get up in your face, which isn't the worst thing in the world. I'm assuming you'll be pretty good at hitting them, just not being able to take damage.


Gregg Reece wrote:

So, as much as I do like all of this, I do have concerns with the examples listed specifically in the blog.

Primarily, you've got a spontaneous primary caster (squishy edition) with what is traditionally thought of as the buff spell list that gets a bite attack. Now, I could see ways of making this interesting, but the fact they likely won't have much in the way of armor gives me a bit of pause unless there's something I'm missing in all of this.

Are the squishies less squishy in order to make the melee caster work alongside their bite attack? If so, this works well. If not, I still have some concerns about the play of it.

I realize that there's no arcane spell penalty on armor, but at first level I'm more scared of them getting bit than them doing the biting.

So HP will always be a problem for Sorcerers, but they won't suffer from the BAB problems that 1e sorcerers have. We also know Rogue gets Dexterity to Damage, so there *may* be a way to get that as a Sorcerer as well (I'm guessing there is, as that's *probably* something that will be made generally available). Assuming this much is true, and combining it with Mage Armor (possibly heightenable?) and the Shield Spell, Sorcerers can probably can have a comparable AC, and be able to do some damage with their bite. But we'll see. I'm hoping melee builds for Sorcerer won't be out of the realm of possibility in 2e.


Bailey Allen wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Bailey Allen wrote:
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

The only thing I'm not liking so far is that Spontaneous Heightening has nothing spontaneous in it. Two spells per day, and not two spells chosen at the start of the day. That would solve it to me.

Sorcerers are meant to be spontaneous, to have magic in their blood, so choosing the spells they want to heighten in the heat of the battle, as their blood is running wild, is far more thematically appropriate and mechanically enjoyable.

The problem is the decision paralysis Mark mentioned earlier. This would run into that same problem, though at a lessened magnitude.

It's really hard to think of an elegant solution that still keeps the theme you just describe. I'm of the opinion the theme is more important, but it would be ruined if every battle was stopped by the sorcerer running through their spells weighing the cost and benefit of heightening them until they used up those slots per day.

Yeah, but some player could feel compelled to look up stats of every Summon Monster they could summon.

Players not willing to deal with analysis paralysis is a problem regardless.

But anyways, here is other compromise:
Two spells designated as "Spontaneously Heighten-able" but you can change those two spells AT ANY TIME by spending a full round or 1 minute or whatever.
So it is not necessarily only two spells for the entire day, but at same time your choice at any given moment are still limited to 2 spells.

Hey, that's actually a pretty elegant solution. Making it so it can't be redirected without cost, but you still have that option available. Maybe throw in a spell-point cost as well so you have to be sure you want to commit to changing it.

Unfortunately I'm guessing that's abusable. Let's say I'm a Sorcerer who knows both Inflict, Cure, and Summon. I probably walk around before battle with Inflict and Summon, then after battle I can swap into Cure to heal up the party and swap back...

I don't mind the two-spell limit, overall. I did like the idea of choosing spell already known levels for your spells daily, but others don't like the idea of any "prepared" aspects for sorcerers, which is fine.

However, I will say, that if I need to potentially keep re-learning my spells to have the highest two levels, for example, of any given spell, it better be *real* easy to retrain these...


Mark Seifter wrote:
Elleth wrote:

Is there any precedent for ruling it at "treat all simultaneous hits against the same creature as single damage source if from one spell, hits not against the same creature are multiple iterations of the damage"?

Thematically it's a bit wibbly but it seems like it should play closer to intended, and against resistances and weaknesses more like Double Slice.

That's essentially what I have mocked up in a file of possible clarifications.

I'd like if that clarification was made for all multi-roll damage combinations (not just spells). Having some things operate as two hits and others operate as one (flurry of blows, double slice...) just confuses the matter. So long as that isn't game-breaking, it seems like a good standardization to have.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Quandary wrote:

OK, let's say the 2 Spontaneous Heighten spells are designated as Dispel and Slow (functioning exactly like it does in Blog).

Then you have Fireball as Spell Known. That defaults to a 3rd level spell.
But you have OPTION to designate your Fireball spell known as a 5th level spell for the day, meaning it can't be cast with 3rd level slots.
Anybody who doesn't want to use this, just can ignore the option to 'prepare' Spell Known at non-standard spell level.
There isn't real shift in casting dynamic, besides option to change the 'default' spell level a given Spell Known "points to".

But what happens to your actual 5th level spells that day? Can you just not cast them?

I don't understand your question on the clarification here... A sorcerer is going to know X spells of any given level and can choose one to cast. Sacrificing the ability to cast Fireball as a 3rd level spell to be able to cast it as a 5th level doesn't mean you'd lose the option to cast your other 5ths, you'd just lose the option to cast Fireball as a 3rd.

Also, I think the better idea is "spells default to being of the level you took them at." So if you declare nothing, you have your spell list as normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Quandary wrote:
I can see how 'spontaneous Heighten of everything' could be inbalancing and overwhelming in gameplay. But I think allowing Sorcerors BOTH Prepared Heighten and Spontaneous Heighten works on both accounts. It's not overwhelming in gameplay because the Spontaneous Heighten still only applies to a few spells. And preparing Heighten for other spells has same sub-optimalities as a Wizard (Sorceror Prepared Heighten could be compared to 1e Arcanist, just for Heighten versions).
Honestly, that would avoid both the analysis paralysis and the optimality, but it then adds an extra complication to sorcerer casting where sometimes you're locked into prepared spell slots (I think this is what you're suggesting, locking in certain slots to be a particular heightened spell?), which makes the sorcerer much more complicated to fully grok, even for people who wouldn't want to use that option. It seems like it would be a good thing for a feat so that not every sorcerer has to learn it (and maybe since you spend a feat, the feat might also give you an extra lower level spell slot each day that is only used to prepare heightened spells, or something).

I'm not talking about preparing SLOTS, but preparing what version of spell is referred to by it's Spell Known (which now defaults to it's lowest level). Like Arcanists prepare spells which then are spontaneously cast, a Sorceror preparing the spell level their Spell Known will function at for the day will still fully spontaneously cast that spell, so no slots are being locked. Since it doesn't change basic casting mechanism, I don't think this really creates confusion for players who chose to ignore it, the rules interaction solely happens at "Heighten Preparation" time.

The Wizard would still have certain advantage in being able to prep 3rd + 5th level Fireballs (and so on for all their spell slots), while Sorceror would have dedicate to one spell level version of Fireball for the day (outside of

...

I think I understand the general idea here. Let's look at something a bit lower level though, say 5th level Sorcerer:

3 1st Level spells: Magic Missile, Shield, Mage Armor
3 2nd level spells: Something, Something, Something.
1 3rd level spell: Fireball
Let's say we happen to know we're going into an area where things are going to have fire resist. At the start of the day, I know that I won't need Fireball, so I declare my Magic Missile to be known as 3rd level. Since downcasting isn't a thing, I won't be able to cast it as a 1st level spell, but I'll have it there for me at 3rd level.

It does add another level of "declarations" for Sorcerers, but it's only for a spell once. And it gives them interesting flexibility if they *do* choose to "know" a spell more than once... Given the hit they take needing to know spells at multiple levels, this doesn't feel *too* overpowered, at least to me.

EDIT: It's also a nice compromise for things like "Dispel Magic", so if you choose to know it at a higher level, you *have* to use that slot to dispel, even if facing something of a lower level, it's not *completely* open.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:

This certainly seems thematic, I like it. I also love the concept of the evolution feats. Selective heightening is strange but I'm glad it means some spontaneous heightening is possible. Also, not sure if anyone noticed buuuuuuuut...

blog wrote:
Occult Evolution gives you a skill and lets you pick a spell with the mental trait to add to your repertoire each day.
I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like occult Bard to me.

It sounds like spell-less bard, and they're including Psychic magic in Core to me...


It's all happening! This pretty neat. Though I do worry that rolling all(?) of the spontaneous casters into a single class is a bit of overgrouping and doesn't give them as much room to make their possible feats more niche.

In addition, we're missing one spell list... Still have Bard to go, but they don't seem very "occult" to me... Kinda curious there. Seems like bards might end up being spell-less...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wultram wrote:

Well your numbers got corrected but that is not really relevant here. And yes you can die from 5ft fall, also the average 5 year old has enough strenght to kill an adult with a strike to certain areas. Are either of these likely? Like 20ft is a height that I regularly jump down from to just avoid the hassle of climbing, granted with somewhat favorable ground to land on.

Now let's look at those numbers 20ft=10 damage. A greatsword wielded by one in peak condition does average damage of 10.5. If you had to choose one or the other IRL which one would you choose?

So... you as a human being commonly jump off the roof a 2 story building to avoid going down two flights of stairs? Right... And yes, a hit from a greatsword is should probably cause about the same amount of damage as a jump off a 2 story house.


jasin wrote:

I'm becoming skeptical of largely divorcing training from skill check odds, and requiring both for success. There's some interesting nuance there, but it seems little gain a a lot more work: setting difficulty is now picking a point on a two-dimensional scale.

If picking this lock seems like it should be somewhat harder than breaking it, does that mean I want a higher DC? Or the same DC, but more proficiency? Or more proficiency, but a lower DC, since only a seasoned locksmith would even know what to do, but it's then it's fairly easy for them to actually do it?

Setting difficulty, ad hoc, fairly, quickly, consistently, is something a DM has to do all the time. It seems this approach makes it a lot more demanding, of only a small increase in texture.

Maybe it's just because it's new. Anyone who actually played a bit: have you found this to be an issue?

Yeah this is my worry as well. Particularly in a d20 system, the difference in chances of success between the various trained levels is extremely small. While this works for things like combat, where you're doing these things repeatedly, they work poorly as gates to success outside of combat.

PF1e had a larger disparity in skill bonuses, and that actually *helped* to solve this problem. Having to gauge things along two axes is going to make design harder... and going to make training either super meaningful, or not meaningful at all.

I'm not sure the right solution here, but it *is* a problem...


9 people marked this as a favorite.
RicoTheBold wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Wow, it makes sense now that you say it. But that is so NOT intuitive to how its written, that this is how it works. PLEASE for the love of all that's holy, make these stat block entries intuitive so its understandable at a glance.
It's the kind of thing that will feel intuitive when you're used to it. There's always a design language learning curve that people forget about once they're past it....

And that's exactly what second edition should be trying to avoid. Natural language is preferable here. We don't need things from the *trap's* perspective. Say what the rolls are to notice it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The stealth notation feels awkward. I assume it means that you make an opposed perception check against the DC, but it might make more sense to simply say that. For cases where it's an initiative bonus, list it as such Initiative (Stealth): +10.

EDIT: Also, for the initiative case, it indicates (Trained). Is that to say that people who are untrained can't roll initiative?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Stats cap at 24 in PF2 all bonuses included and Classes seem to never add to them directly.
Right on, I thought the cap was 22, can you break it down for me?
The 'natural' cap is 22 (start with an 18, put Ability Ups into it ever 5 levels), but stat-boosting items exist and can give another +2 on top of that for a 24.

Do you mind if I ask where this was stated/confirmed? Namely that the maximum bonus from an item to a stat is +2.

NOTE: Classes adding to stats, as I mentioned, emphasizes the role of classes in determining saving throws... not base stats really. Still, item enhancement bonuses do factor in, and that could swing things at least a bit in PF2. Even so, are you arguing that classes play as big a role in determining saving throws in PF2 as they do in PF1. Do you have any numbers to back that up?


Mark Seifter wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

in PF2E, where at most, your class will provide a difference of 3 at 20th level, with stats providing up to 8 (ignoring stat-boosting items). In PF1E, this was 6 vs 9 (also ignoring multiclassing, and note this requires *big* stat specialization).

I have a fair handful of datapoints for 20th level or near 20th level, and 9 is a significant underestimate for how different someone's max and minimum ability score modifier would usually be. I don't think a single character had such a small difference. While PF1 makes it pretty easy to dump an unfavored stat to 7 and relatively expensive to raise it after that (beyond perhaps a slotless ioun stone for +2), a top stat is going to generally be 16-20 at start (usually 18) + 5 from stat raises, +6 from enhancement, +5 from inherent by 20, and that's assuming just bog standard stuff with no further hijinks like rage or the like, mutagen or the like, size bonuses from polymorph effects, etc. Just from that baseline, you get to 32-36 (usually 34) in top stat for a +12, versus a low stat that's probably still a penalty or +0. The character might even be adding a second ability score bonus to the save in PF1 for even more variance.

You seem to be jumping bonuses vs stat amount here a bit. First, I specifically said I was ignorning stat enhancments, as I'm assuming the cap on those will be similar in both systems. Second, you state +5 from stat raises, but that's really +2.5 (so only +2), as each stat boost is only a point.

Still, my main point here was regarding how big a role stats played in your final saving throw modifiers (and other modifiers, in general) relative to class in PF2 vs. PF1. It's significantly larger in PF2. Not to mention, you quote stat bonuses *from* class features, which is really a bonus coming *from* your class... I didn't actually factor that in either (hello Paladin!). I also didn't factor in multiclassing, which had a huge effect (due to class) on saving throws in PF1 which I also assume won't be present (to that extent) in PF2.

You're arguing the exact number ranges, here, perhaps correctly, but I think the resulting conclusion is the same. Stats have an amplified effect on things in PF2 relative to PF1, because the dynamic range relative to level of proficiency bonuses is so low.

Quandry wrote:
So what you're choosing to assume is "They invented Untrained category, but it's never actually used". Have fun.

No, what I'm choosing to assume is that they never actually use Untrained for PC saving throws, which greatly reduces differences in saves between characters due to class. I don't think I ever stated anything more/different.


We "know" that druids, rogues, and barbarians do not have any untrained saves. I don't think it's a ridiculous projection to assume none of the others do either...

In fairness, I'm used to a system where your class has a larger role in your saves than do your stats. That's pretty much *definitely* not the case in PF2E, where at most, your class will provide a difference of 3 at 20th level, with stats providing up to 8 (ignoring stat-boosting items). In PF1E, this was 6 vs 9 (also ignoring multiclassing, and note this requires *big* stat specialization).

It actually seems like this is true across the board, stats are playing a *much* larger role in a character's effectiveness (in basically everything that uses proficiency) at tasks than they did in PF1 (as does level). Out of curiosity, was this a conscious decision.


So, we've been sold hard on this proficiency system. While there's been push-back on its dynamic range (-2 to +3), we've been told repeatedly that those differences *really* matter! Okay, so yeah, maybe a dynamic range of 5 will matter, right....

And then during the character creation Twitch video, we find out that Barbarians (and probably every class) do not start untrained in any Saving Throw (Trained in Reflex, Expert in Will and Fortitude). So, dynamic range over 20 levels is at most 3... That doesn't matter. Even worse, at early levels that dynamic range is 1, meaning it really doesn't matter if you target that Mage with a Fortitude Save or Will Save, they're both, essentially, the same.

Why? What's the point of this? It just accents people's lucky/unlucky rolls on the d20 even more, de-emphasizes people choosing spells strategically. If you want to have a range of 5, then HAVE A RANGE OF 5 AND NOT 3!

EDIT: Excuse the ranty nature of this :). I just have all the feels!


Mark Seifter wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

Invisibility Armor:

- 10th level, 1,000 gp (or 8th and half that for very limited use).
- 3 uses, 1 RP each. (Unless you went for 500gp version, which just has one).
- One action to activate.
- Attunement included with armor (something you need to have attuned).
- Uses up armor property slot.

I'd be happier a harder push to ditch limited per-day tracking, but maybe that extra point of attunement is tough to balance just on price and add-on features alone.

That three uses was my biggest disappointment. If the rune needs to be more expensive or higher level to be unlimited, so be it. I only want to see 1/day or unlimited uses.
Logan and I were talking about this one too, since it's maybe one of the only X/day that isn't 1/day in the whole playtest. It's possible we should make it a two-action invis usable at will as like a level 9 rune (with the 1/day going down to 7), for example. It's the action economy advantages that really makes it push the envelope right now, even with 3.

Another way to mitigate this (somewhat) is to change the resonance costs to use between the lesser and greater versions.

a


18 people marked this as a favorite.

"+1 circumstance bonus"... Why? Why? Also, why? Why are we introducing more types of bonuses? It sounds as if this bonus applies basically no matter what, so just say it's a "+1 bonus" and not have a modifier.

Also, the phrase " 2 Operate Activation actions" needs to die in an *bleeping* fire. Seriously? I'm really looking forward to PF2E, but the mechanics around magic items are revealing themselves to be more and more unnecessarily complex as we hear more.


Castilliano wrote:


...

I like that Resonance veers PF2 away from that MMORPG style where superheroes stay in costume as they walk the streets.
If anything, Resonance should simplify gameplay by making one's magic items (or usage of items) significant choices, not just offhand purchases (which accumulate into mountains).
I like even more that the playtesters are saying Resonance hasn't been an issue. That suggests the lack of spamming & lack of minutiae magic hasn't altered gameplay enough to complain.
I also like that I can pump Resonance into what were limited use items in PF1 rather than have to buy a backup.

I agree with most of what you say here, but my main qualm with resonance comes not from its limiting uses of items (which I think is good), but from the fact that it means tracking an additional thing in specific cases (wands and staves, which also have charges).

Basically, I'm worried from a complexity standpoint. And yes, they've playtested... with people who are expert tabletop gamers and know the Pathfinder system extremely well. I don't blame them, but it's easy to overlook how hard keeping track of this all might be for a player new to the system, and I think that's happened here.

Note: Both of the double-tracking problems I mentioned could be fixed relatively easily in at least a few ways. I just hope they manage to get around to this... It'd be a shame to have publish or perish pressure cause them to miss things. Nine-ish months for feedback and incorporating changes is a pretty small window.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I get the discussion about resonance going on, but it's important to acknowledge/recognize that this wasn't *just* a CLW wand problem, and using that as a proxy for your argument against it has issues.

Resonance solved the problem of *all* low-level wands/scrolls (and to a lesser extent potions) making low-level situational spells basically obsolete. To point out some other problems (particularly in PFS, where 2PP gives you items for free):

Wand of Heightened Awareness, Wand of Feather Step, Wand of Touch of the Sea, Wand of Monkey Fish, Scroll of Fly, Wand of Comprehend Languages, Scroll of Tongues, Wand of Shield...

The list goes on. To be fair, wands were the *biggest* problem here, but low-level scrolls were also dirt-cheap. So yeah, let's not turn the resonance discussion into one purely about CLW wands. Yes, they were one part of the problem, but far from the entire problem. Even if we think CLW wands *aren't* a problem, that doesn't mean Resonance isn't needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bold suggestion:
1. Wands operate like staves currently do, they can cast a particular spell, but use Resonance to do so without charges (you can decide if they have to be invested).
2. Staves have their own pool of resonance that can be charged daily. You still have to invest in them (1 RP) but from there, get to use their resonance pool for casting their spells (and using their abilities).

This simplifies the pools a bit as well as tracking. Now using a wand only tracks one resource. I can't see how this significantly improves the power of wands, which had 50 charges previously anyway and were unlikely to run out quickly (before even having to think about resonance as well). For staves, now every use is tracked off of only their pool, and not both the staves pool and your resonance...

If this makes the cost trend slightly upward, particularly for staves, that's a cost I, at least, am willing to pay, as it significantly decreases the tracking overhead that exists currently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic item complexity has gone up significantly, rather than down. Resonance is not the core issue, but rather many of the mechanics that are needlessly complex:
* If you want wands to essentially be multi-use scrolls, make a scrollbook at a reduced cost (or do something else with them, as others have suggested).
* Types of actions are probably unneeded here. Say the number of actions, and, optionally, the way it us used, or leave that second part to player imagination.
* Descriptions are widely confusing in the way their laid out. I like some of the suggestions regarding organizing the abilities by type and then indicating what items at various levels do.

Also, as a final point, please don't build upon the "buy and throw away" economy that creates pressure on waiting to purchase items that Starfinder had. Include paths to upgrade between these items (Heal wands to the next level and between elven cloak levels for example).


So a few comments:
1. I agree with everyone that naming these actions just complicates the system. State it's two actions, and indicate, generally, what those are in the description. Classifying them is unnecessary unless you're tying a mechanic to it (such as with spells).
2. I don't mind keeping track of "charges" on staves, but kinda agree with others that this feels unnecessary with wands, particularly if they're going to come with 50 charges. Either have a bulk scroll rate (and use the same mechanic) or just let wands have unlimited use that consumes resonance (and requires investiture, probably).
3. Please *please* avoid the pressure of delaying purchases in a disposable item economy and allow easy upgrading between Tiers of these items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
As with everything, I'll give it a shot. It could be I'm coming to the table with bias because I *do* feel Starfinder attributes were done poorly overall (though some of that might have had to do with point buy to begin with...), and this is at least a slightly different system, where the initial allotment is different as are the cut-offs for when you get reduced points.
Any unfriendliness to MAD characters in Starfinder vis-PF1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the initial attribute assignment; the level-up process is significantly more MAD friendly than in PF1, and the cornerstones are raising four stats and the diminishing returns. I imagine it might become a common houserule in Starfinder to use something akin to PF2 (add another free boost to each Starfinder race, a free boost to themes and increase the boost to +2, a +2 to key ability score from class, and a starting +2 to 4 stats) instead of SF point buy; I know I'm strongly considering it next time I run. That'll give you something more like Strength 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 18 for a starting vesk solarian rather than like Strength 18 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 14.

This is fair, now, thinking about it. I think there were a couple big issues with it:

1. Putting a 15 into any ability score meant you were doing it wrong. It cost you more initially and once you boosted it, it wasn't any better than a 14, and that was stupid.
2. Odd and even numbers prior to the switch point (15) meant you needed to be strategic about starting scores and boosts, for similar reasons to (1). Starting with a 13 was worse than a 12 if you were planning on boosting that stat a couple of times.

Since we start with all evens in PF2e, I think this is somewhat solved. You *can't* have these odd situations where you're halfway between the switch point. Also, with it being a bit higher, it at least means that at most one stat (your primary) suffers from diminished returns early on. Anyways, we'll see how it plays, but I can see it being fairly different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Will it be viable to play a Monk who's ability scores are Wis > Dex > Con > Str > Int > Cha?

Whiteboarding here, but I'm going to guess that's hard to sell given that your save DC and presumably your ability to hit is keyed off of your Dexterity. You can get around the second a bit, but if you're going to focus on Ki abilities, I'm guessing you want either to hit more often with them, or have their saves be more difficult. I can't see prioritizing Wisdom over Dexterity in that case...

EDIT: Note: viable, probably, but optimal, probably not.
EDIT EDIT: @Tholomyes beat me to the punch! Filthy ninja!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
We don't know this for sure. In fact, all the evidence we have suggests that the increments are +2 even for higher stat boosts (note that Mark gave a bunch of stat arrays and none of them included an odd number...). Personally, I like this way better. Essentially forcing characters to generalize (or get half the usual bonus) is bad in my book.

Confirmed in this thread, actually

Logan mentioned a stat progression with 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, etc.

Thanks for the link, I had apparently missed that one. Ugh, well, that's... horrible. I had thought they might have figured out this was a bad idea with Starfinder... So much for that. Going to make monk a lot harder to build with multiple stats as well... I'm really not a fan of essentially forcing players to have even stats/not tank a stat, but so it goes...
Though it might not be obvious at a glance, it's precisely that process that drastically benefits builds that use several ability scores; for instance, the reason that even the more extreme character (24, 20, 20, 18, 14, 8) eventually had a 14 in that 5th stat was entirely based on that, and it allows something like the triple 16 starting point mentioned earlier in this thread to be an interesting alternative build. A flat +2 means a lack of catch-up, which also means that if you don't min/max completely at the start, you are forever behind, and the gap between a high stat and a medium stat or a low stat is much larger. Those effects would harm multiple attribute classes dramatically compared to a class like the wizard (weirdly enough, they would also significantly weaken ancestries without a flaw, as the ability to silo more into your third-highest stat in character creation becomes another thing that never allows catch-up).

As with everything, I'll give it a shot. It could be I'm coming to the table with bias because I *do* feel Starfinder attributes were done poorly overall (though some of that might have had to do with point buy to begin with...), and this is at least a slightly different system, where the initial allotment is different as are the cut-offs for when you get reduced points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
We don't know this for sure. In fact, all the evidence we have suggests that the increments are +2 even for higher stat boosts (note that Mark gave a bunch of stat arrays and none of them included an odd number...). Personally, I like this way better. Essentially forcing characters to generalize (or get half the usual bonus) is bad in my book.

Confirmed in this thread, actually

Logan mentioned a stat progression with 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, etc.

Thanks for the link, I had apparently missed that one. Ugh, well, that's... horrible. I had thought they might have figured out this was a bad idea with Starfinder... So much for that. Going to make monk a lot harder to build with multiple stats as well... I'm really not a fan of essentially forcing players to have even stats/not tank a stat, but so it goes...


kaid wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Perhaps I should withhold my exact judgement on the state of MAD for the monk until I know all of the rules for attribute progression.
Flagged for wrong forum...
They are doing the starfinder type advancement every 5 levels. It is more efficient to boost scores 16 and lower so your primary one hits 18 then starts increasing slowly while the other ones catch up pretty fast. By level 10 your lower picks all probably have +4 boosts so it is WAAAY easier to keep even your third and fourth stat boosted to very good levels. For your dex to lag far enough behind to be a problem would have to be done intentionally by just refusing to boost it which makes little sense for a monk not to spend one of their 4 boosts on it when they get their boosts.

We don't know this for sure. In fact, all the evidence we have suggests that the increments are +2 even for higher stat boosts (note that Mark gave a bunch of stat arrays and none of them included an odd number...). Personally, I like this way better. Essentially forcing characters to generalize (or get half the usual bonus) is bad in my book.


Yep, sorry, had brain math fail! I edited the above post to indicate I was wrong, but left the context so people woudln't wonder what those afterwards were talking about.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

How much of a problem is having a 16 in your main stat in PF2? I know that +1 matters a lot, but I always have trouble with monk stats.

Like I'm thinking of playing a Dwarf Monk with 16 in Dex, Con, and Wis, 12 Str, and 8 Cha. Bad idea?

Pretty sure this will be impossible by the new character building system...:

Class: +2 one stat
Background: +2 two stats
Race: +2 three stats, -2 one stat
Floating: +2 four stats

I think at max you could have 16s in two stats, and that's giving up an 18 in one stat to do it.

EDIT: This is incorrect in my conclusion, as others have pointed out. You can have 3 16s even given the system presented above.


mrianmerry wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
somatic components being ... subtle gesturing
Do they have to be subtle? I mean, iconically, a wizard would make subtle hand gestures, sure. But is that strictly necessary...?

Well no, and Rage could increase your spellcasting abilities rather than your physical ones... Nothing *has* to be anything, but they have been for a very long time, and are in most embodiments of what people think of as a fantasy world. Immersion-breaking changes do actually hurt a system, in the end.

I'm not saying "this is the worst thing in the world", I'm just curious as to why this decision would be made, because it doesn't reflect on the way things have worked in the past, nor does it reflect how people generally expect things to work in a fantasy world.

NOTE: While it would be amusing, pretty sure I've never seen a wizard cast fireball by flippin' the bird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cylerist wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

The only reason I've heard for Wands of CLW being such a problem is because it feels stupid to sit around with a level 1 wand and heal up to full after every fight.

But why does that feel stupid? Is it the act of using a wand to heal up to full? Or is it a level 1 wand that's the problem? If it was a higher level wand would it then be okay? Is being at full HP for every fight a problem??

I don't really understand how the changes we've heard of PF2e are addressing the Wands of CLW problem.

The only problem I have with them is pricing as it is much more efficient to by CLW wands then higher level cure wands (you get more hp/gp on average)but I always saw this as a pricing problem not a "we need to change how magic works" problem.

Resonance just feels very metagamy IMHO

Paizo's pointed this out, but increasing the pricing makes lower-level wands inaccessible for lower-level characters. Without resonance, they'd have a couple options:

1. Redo all the pricing, and try to find a way to not price lower-level wands/scrolls/potions out, but also make it so they're not better alternatives than higher level versions.
2. Rework how the magic items themselves work. But this would be a pretty high overhead.

Note that it's not just Wands of Cure Light Wounds, those are really just the tip of the iceberg. For example, you'd think Sorcerers would have limited spell access? But wait! They can carry around 20 scrolls for a low, low cost, and be able to pull out whatever spell they need at a moment's notice. Also, wands such as Feather Step, Heightened Awareness, Touch of the Sea, Shield... also got abused.

Yes, Resonance does feel somewhat metagamy, even to me, but if you look at it objectively, so did the fact that you could only wear two rings in PF1e, or 1 amulet for that matter. The slot system was also a metagamey system, it's just the devil we know :).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Put me down for being confused about somatic components being the only one that doesn't require concentration... So speaking words and... having a material component can't be done when angry, but you can perform subtle gesturing? Care to comment on why this was chosen?


Sorry, you're entirely correct here, and I was in error. I should have looked closer prior to posting! I tend to use the lower end of the scale where things are near-linear, and think I had it shortcutted to "+1 enemy = +1 CR", which is obviously not correct.


Mathmuse wrote:
Dragonstriker wrote:
In my opinion, the “+1 to everything problem” is not a problem. It’s a feature which is a component of a deliberate design direction, one that I wholeheartedly embrace.
The deliberate design feature is not the +1 to everything nor the unbounded accuracy. It is the Challenge Rating (CR) system. The Pathfinder CR, which is much better than the D&D 3rd Edition CR, is exponential...

Do you have any evidence this is true? Because there's evidence to the contrary. The CR for PF1E suggest that adding a creature of the same CR increases the CR by a flat 1 per creature added, meaning that CRs are linear not exponential.

Granted, in practice, I'm not sure this was actually true, as was evidenced by the PF1E issue with "5 Goblins at level 4" for earlier scenarios, but it seems like that was, at least, the design principle. If it helps, I can cite these things, but I assume they're easy enough to look up as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I... kinda like the OP's solution. I'd agree that while Paizo has done a good job bringing in line flat bonuses from equipment and spells (as far as we've seen), the scaling due to level does feel like "grade inflation". For a simple comparison, let's look at level 10 v level 1:

PF1e: Level 1 hits Level 10 on 18-20
* Level 1 Fighter has a 16 strength, BAB 1, weapon focus: +5 to hit.
* Level 10 CR monster has an average AC of 23.
PF2e: Level 1 hits level 10 on a 20
* Level 1 Fighter has 16 strength, Prof of 1, Weapon Focus?: +5 to hit.
* Level 10 CR Monster Wearing proficient armor that gives +5, AC of 25.

Yes, some of this is speculation, but assuming +5 to AC doesn't seem ludicrous given we know a basic chain shirt gives +2 AC. The differences here may not seem huge, but as Paizo themselves have pointed out, +10% is a pretty big deal...

I like the idea of halving these bonuses for a few reasons:
1. It makes a party where one character is a bit under/over-leveled not seem completely out-of-whack.
2. It makes proficiency bonuses stand out more, as level plays less of a role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:
dysartes wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
We have a known discussion point where the fighter should very likely get Intimidate as a signature skill and also another starting trained skill, but alas, that omission was pointed out after the book hit the printer (after which we noticed it in several times from several places). I am guessing there won't really be two sides among you guys in the playtest as to whether we should carry through on that.
That's a couple of times we've seen you mention signature skill now, Mark - is it just a case of "these are skills we think are typical for the class", or is there some mechanical benefit for a character taking training in their signature skill?

I'm making my prediction now - signature skills are the replacement for Class Skills, and when you put a rank into them they start at Expert instead of Trained.

Now I just have to read through the rest of the thread to see if anyone else had the same idea.

I don't envy your work... :-P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
kwiqsilver wrote:

I don't think I like the idea that a 10th level fighter who has never touched a piano before is going to be a better pianist than a low level bard with training.

It also seems like the difference between untrained and legendary (5 points) is low enough that it'll be stuck in the shadow of the large die roll variation at lower levels or of the large level bonus at higher level.

The 10th level untrained fighter would potentially be able to do something impressive involving that piano for a quick little trick (I can imagine maybe playing Mary Had a Little Lamb with one hand while bench pressing the piano with the other hand), but is completely incapable of Staging a Performance of Sonnorae's Sonata #53 (the Betrayal Sonata).

This is my fundamental issue with the skill system using proficiencies as it is presented for Pathfinder 2E. Let's ignore the minor percentage difference granted between trained and legendary (+3) for the time, I have a hard time with suspension of disbelief that somehow heroes get better at all skills at a fixed rate. I totally understand the proficiency system as it relates to saves, attack rolls, and the like. Every adventurer uses these on a regular basis. Every adventurer is not playing a piano randomly, or studying religion...

I think *some* of this could be remedied by clever use of "trained only", but the examples given here are misleading. They're comparing an expert with magical items and master tools to a non-expert without these things... The tools shouldn't matter. Give those tools over to the non-expert and their bonus is going to be far too similar to the expert, and level overshadows all of this.

I understand locking some abilities behind levels of mastery, but I also feel some of this is compensating for a skill system that's just fundamentally lacking in realism.

EDIT: Note that I use the term "realism" loosely here to mean "fantasy realism." We've all have our notions of what a fantasy world looks like: the average goblin can't stand up to the average dragon, mages hurl fireballs, good clerics heal. For me, the 18th level fighter isn't better at sneaking around than the 13th level rogue.


So wait, there's no scaling of the DCs to treat a wound at higher levels? That boss knocks my buddy down and I just walk over to them being untrained at level 12 with a 14 wisdom and I'm like "you're good!"

I don't know, that sounds off to me.


Mark Seifter wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:

In PF1 a Craft feat made you rich and/or loaded with magic items, if you had the time to spend on it. Skills didn't matter in that equation. Mundane crafting and especially alchemical crafting got a real raw deal compared to that. Poison crafting was a hopeless exercise.

Now, mundane and magic crafting are more or less equivalent, both will make you rich and/or well equipped in proportion of the amount of time and skill you're putting into it. And there are alternative activities that can potentially enrich you just as fast. That's a much more realistic setting, and more balanced. I like it.

That's the idea. If you are a legendary sailor with a fleet of ships performing extremely high-level sailing tasks, or a legendary mason who decides to craft entire buildings or towns, you should be making similar gains as the legendary crafter who decides to craft magic items, and all of you should be making more money than an entry-level magic item crafter. This was not the case in PF1.

I *would* like to see someone who's crafting an individual item for themselves "earn" more than someone who's doing crafting/profession work for others. It makes taking a particular crafting skill related to things you want to make make sense, and it also is realistic, as personal crafting doesn't require operating a storefront/switching between items made based on demaind.


Mark Seifter wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Hmm, I'll have to see the system more, but I'm not sure how I feel about the notion of the price of an item having variance on the success of a roll. We've taken rolling out of character creation and leveling (fixed stats/HP), why is it being introduced to really the only other permanent thing affecting a character, wealth?
The item's price is unaffected by the roll. The amount of price you can reduce per day (the discount) depends on the roll, in much the same way that you might make more money from a great Performance on a critical success.

This fair. I actually edited my post a bit too. In PF1e (particularly PFS), the only variance on wealth, essentially, is your Day Job, and that's a pretty small percentage of your wealth. You've even done a lot to ensure that you can't play up and earn extra wealth. This was done because of the power disparity that arose from characters with very different wealth-by-level.

The blog here mentions that the cost starts at 50% of the price, but doesn't indicate that you can't reach a final price close to that. However, it sounds as if you're saying that you'll reduce the final cost by a fixed amount the more time you spend on it. So long as that amount isn't unreasonably high, and is similar (or even slightly better than...) the current wealth contributed by your Day Job, then I don't think it's a big deal. If it's too high, then you'll have a situation where everyone will essentially be forced into Crafting (similar to item crafting in PF1e, if you're doing it right :-P). I sorta assume you've considered this, but that's not obvious from the post, or at least not to me.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, I'll have to see the system more, but I'm not sure how I feel about the notion of the price of an item having variance on the success of a roll. We've taken rolling out of character creation and leveling (fixed stats/HP), why is it being introduced to really the only other permanent thing affecting a character, wealth?

EDIT: Granted, it's not clear what the variance is. A 10% discount probably isn't a big deal, but if you could potentially pay 50% of the normal price... then it very much feels like the system we had before, which was broken.


Relevant rules text:

<snip>
Bardic Performance: A First World minstrel gains the following types of bardic performance.

Echoes of the First World (Su): A First World minstrel infuses himself or a single willing ally within 30 feet with the strange magic of the First World, granting the target one of the special abilities from the fey creature template (see Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 116) other than change shape for 1 round. For every 3 levels beyond 1st the First World minstrel has, he can target one additional ally or add an additional special ability to one of his targets. This is a polymorph effect that relies on audible components.
</snip>

A few of us are unsure as to how this ability exactly works and feel the wording is unclear. Particularly the "for one round" portion. Basically, can this performance be maintained for a benefit, or does the 1 round limit shut it down and require you to start a new performance to gain the benefits again?

EDIT: Sorry! Source: Legacy of the First World pg. 11


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad the legacy of my gobbo cleric with a wisdom of 10 lives on! Watch out, he's coming!

As for backgrounds, sorta what I expected, and generally speaking, sounds good. I like that they all give Skill Feats, though I would have liked to know a bit more about those in general (like, do all the Skill Feats granted by background supercede proficiency requirements for those skills?).

The only other thing I will say is that Street Urchin getting Intelligence rather than Charisma (begging, seeming innocent) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me...

1 to 50 of 344 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>