tivadar27's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 588 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 24 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 588 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zamfield wrote:

Then it states

Quote:
"These special statistics can be adjusted only by penalties, circumstance bonuses, and conditional bonuses."

But as far as I can tell, extra damage dice is not actually a bonus or penalty. While you might roll different dice based on attack type or weapon, a bonus or penalty is always just a single fixed number.

It doesn't label the abilities as bonuses or penalties, it says that these *statistics* can only be modified by bonuses and penalties...

I think you're reading this wrong here. You're right, they're not bonuses or penalties, they are statistics, and the only thing that's allowed to modify them (additional damage dice would modify them) would be circumstance bonuses, penalties, and conditional bonuses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So you'd figure that something you were burning either a feat or a racial feat to access would be a better option as a weapon than some of the standard ones... Turns out that that's not true for the Elven Curve Blade. For some reason, this got changed from 1d10 damage to 1d8. And that's a *big* jump when you consider the following:
1. It's not deadly anymore, so comparing it to the rapier, you lose use of one hand, get +1 damage (1d6 to 1d8) and lose deadly. That doesn't sound like a very good trade to me.
2. Even worse, Rogue's Finesse Striker only works with one-handed weapons, so it's strictly worse for Rogues.
3. It actually doesn't do more damage than the best martial one-handed weapons, such as the longsword or warhammer (both of which have other relevant properties.
4. It... operates weirdly with rogue abilities/proficiencies. I've described this elsewhere, so not going to go into more details here.

Personally, I'm not against this not getting Dexterity to Damage, as encouraging 2-statted rogue builds is a good thing, but in order to make it even close to viable, it needs to be doing 1d10 damage, and probably *also* be deadly. Taking up an extra hand in PF2e is a *big* deal.


See also here:
Black Dragon Gaming discussion on this


6 people marked this as a favorite.
modus0 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
This sort of change might seem like an extra thing to learn, but it can also be seen as about 100 things you don't have to learn.
How does removing part of the spell entry, in favor of yet another keyword, equate to not having to learn 100 things?

Simply put, it doesn't, but it makes for a good tagline if Jason wants to sell this change. It's insultingly and obviously false, in my opinion.

Someone mentioned that "it's not Paizo's job to make us happy, it's their job to sell the game." I don't disagree with this, but they also seem fine ignoring feedback on here and need to get the feedback from somewhere, and the data they're collecting in the surveys and what they're inferring from it is impressively ignorant from an analytics standpoint. Just a couple of examples from Jason's Paizo Friday talk about data collected on part 1:

1. "We wanted to see how much money you had left over to know if you had enough money to buy everything you wanted." This implying a level of causality of that there's no guarantee of. For example, my first playthrough I wound up with very little gold left because I took the time to purchase individual items, the second time, it was so annoying, particuarly without "packs", that I didn't bother, had a ton of silver left over, and didn't have things like a bedroll, a lantern, pitons...

2. "We'll look at character creation time in part 2 to determine the learning curve" I ran through part 2, and there's no question in there asking if you've even *played* part 1. If time goes down, overall, then you can probably infer that that's due to learning curve (there couldn't be anything else in theory), but building a level 4 is going to take additional time (my time went up), and they have no way of knowing if those who played part 2 already had experience creating a character, or even if those in part 1 did.

Sorry, but this is just extremely ignorant. I'm *not* an analytics expert, but I know that these are some big holes that at least Jason seems to think they'll be able to infer data from...

I'm done ranting. What I've seen out of Paizo so far with how this has been conducted has been horrible. A company I used to have a lot of respect for, generally speaking, I'm finding myself more and more pushed away from.


Ahh sorry, yeah, I missed the additional "+2" there. I'd imagine that equation should suffice, so fair enough.

Also, is there any reasonable reason they didn't just have ACs start at 8... That would solve basically all the problems here. Adjust attack rolls of enemies down by 2 and everything's fixed.


ChibiNyan wrote:
GM Paladin wrote:
Rawler wrote:

Echoing the request for exact monster building rules.

I need to figure out what a Cleric of Rovagug’s magic touch attack roll is by like, tonight.

What do you need it to be? Make it that.

Make a Cleric of equal level to the difficulty you want for this enemy. Give the cleric 20 Wisdom or 18 DEX (depending on if it's melee touch attack or spell roll). Calculate the Cleric's modifier, then add +2.

If it's high enough level to where Dueling Gloves are affordable, include that bonus too.

This won't actually work. Monster and PCs don't play by the same set of stats.


Nightwhisper wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In PF2, I couldn't even say for sure whether these are intended or not simply because it requires a design philosophy that I'm not familiar with, or even understand.
It seems to me that this is the crux of your issue, not that the monsters don't follow PC-like rules. That you don't know the rules the monsters are built by.

As a note, this is *not* the crux of my issue, though in fairness, I wasn't the original poster. My issue revolves around the fact that building a monster like you would a PC of the same level as the players and throwing it against them simply doesn't work from a combat perspective. Defenses across the board are generally too high when you do that, and to-hit is way too low.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Lots of good feedback folks, thanks. This sort of change might seem like an extra thing to learn, but it can also be seen as about 100 things you don't have to learn.

No, no it can't, it's one more implied rule that's not explicitly stated. It can't be seen as that.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I dont think I ever suggested shirking down single letters or abbreviations. I appreciate the thoughts here folks, but that does not work for us.

EDIT: Removing more aggressive tone, but suffice to say I think Paizo's ignoring their customer base/valuable feedback and exhibiting a large amount of confirmation bias in these decisions. Your tone comes across as "father knows best", at least to me, and really rubs me the wrong way.


Pramxnim wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

Yeah, I've argued that PF (both 1e and 2e) work much better as 3d6 systems. This is along those same lines. With 3d6, however, I'd change crit ranges to +/-5 rather than +/-10, and similarly, I'd have advantage/disadvantage (fortune/misfortune) be roll an extra d6 and take the higher/lower of the 4.

EDIT: note that while you might *call* this 2e, it's pretty far from 2e, and is probably *actually* a whole different game :).

Haha yeah, these are more things I want to playtest and see how it goes, rather than what I envision 2E to be like. 2E will end up as whatever the Paizo devs decide, but in writing out these rules, there's a chance something in there gets noticed by a dev.

I also want to write out the rules to see how they look like on paper as well as get feedback. I considered 3d6 before, but the max number being 18 threw me off a bit haha.

Yep, that's why the crit ranges get smaller :). Essentially DC 11 (average) requires a 16 for crit success or a 6 for crit failure. The one issue with all of this is that it amplifies being better than average, because if your bonus is +2 above what it should be, then suddenly you're critting on a 14 or better...

I'd also consider only having crits do 150% damage rather than 200... but this is just throwing ideas out there...

Honestly, DeadManWalking has a good post on what's wrong with PF2, and someone point out (I think correctly) that the crit ranges are essentially part of it. The problem is with ranges as wide as they are, a fighter who's got a 60% chance to hit on their first attack (pretty low really...) is going to crit 10% of the time (pretty high!). As soon as you move away from that problems arise. If you want your warpriest cleric to hit >50% of the time on their first attack, suddenly the Fighter is critting 20% of the time...


Pramxnim wrote:

1. Use 2d10 for rolls:

The crit mechanics in PF2 make crits important, and crit rates are too high when using a 1d20. By using 2d10 for rolls, the crit rates are much more controlled and the average case occurs more often, making rolls more reliable in general. This fixes problems with critfishing, or PCs and monsters spamming their 3rd attacks in hopes of getting a crit, seeing as each attack has at least 5% chance of critting under the old system.

Yeah, I've argued that PF (both 1e and 2e) work much better as 3d6 systems. This is along those same lines. With 3d6, however, I'd change crit ranges to +/-5 rather than +/-10, and similarly, I'd have advantage/disadvantage (fortune/misfortune) be roll an extra d6 and take the higher/lower of the 4.

EDIT: note that while you might *call* this 2e, it's pretty far from 2e, and is probably *actually* a whole different game :).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What Mathmuse said about mental fatigue... I think a big problem with PF2 is that it *was* written by RPG experts, and it feels like it wasn't double-checked against the layman. I know Mark, and he's absolutely brilliant, but the way he understands things is not the way the average person does.

All this aside, a simplified line such as
Graded Damage Save: 0x, 1/2x, 1x, 2x
would be fine in my book. It should be pretty obvious to ayone reading it what this means (assuming they're familiar with the 4 degrees of success), and you could state earlier what this meant just to make sure that was also included.

Note, I'm not tied to the word "Graded", but let's not add any additional keywords here, pretty please?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've considered this, and the fact is if these were the final rules, I simply wouldn't play... There are better systems out there without as many built-in flaws as are present currently in PF2e. Honestly, I'd probably try doing AD&D5e with some of the 2e concepts (3 action system, critical thresholds...).

Right now, my biggest issue with the system which likely requires heavy reworking:
1. Proficiency under/misused: Proficiency for all but skills is boring, it has no effect outside of a minor bonus. This would likely be solved via #2 below.
2. Class-gated combat styles/spell metamagic: likely solved by abstracting these out and making them available via feats gated by proficiency (see also proficiency problems in #3).
3. Access to proficiency class-gated: Likely fixed by adding general feats that increase weapon/spell proficiency by one step, to a maximum bound by character level.
4. AC inflation/second attack success rates *far* too low: Your first attack should have a >50% chance to hit if you're fighting using your focussed fighting style. It doesn't now. Likely fixed by adjusting Armor bonuses to AC and having monsters come in line with this.

Maybe after *all* of these changes, or something suitably similar to open up character design and make combats more than a festival of whiffs, and make criticals *actually* happen on more than just a 20 when you're fighting a challenging boss, maybe then I'd play the game. I'll even say I probably would, as the underlying combat mechanics are *very good*, but yeah, the rest of the system is a step backwards. 5e got this right, 2e didn't...

NOTE: I'm continuing to playtest largely due to product loyalty at this point/wanting to provide good feedback. I honestly hope Paizo fixes these issues, but they don't seem to have presented a good direction in their initial release, so I find it unlikely they'll be able to remedy this in any final version, particularly with the timeline they've set for themselves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
My first two PF2 games have had 3 PC deaths between them.
Didn't your PCs save themselves with their hero points? I've had multiple PCs down, but they were always able to "escape" by spending a hero point.

One of my big issues is that Hero Points now seem to be required to prevent death... I've done 2 playthroughs of doomsday dawn part 1, and 1 playthrough of part 2. The first part 1, we had one character death (forgot about hero points). The second, 2 players were saved due to hero points, though in part 2, we ended up being okay.

Hero points are nice to have, but if they're required to avoid character deaths, then I think there's a flaw in the underlying system.


Mats Öhrman wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

A Bard should be able to charm people, heal people, and create illusions.

A Bard should not be able to sling fireballs or turn into a dinosaur.

A spell list has been created to satisfy those constraints, and it’s called the occult spell list.

I simply dislike the Cthulhu Mythos mix-in with the bard stuff. I prefer my bards to be happy-go-lucky, not weighted down by insane secrets man were not meant to know.

This is my main issue with the class. It's actually not so much the list, it's more the theoretic origins and naming of it, and that it's tied *only* to the "aberrant" bloodline right now. Also, the migration of Bard away from being a skill master and decent fighter is pretty upsetting as well. Bards are now just pure casters, and have no real combat abilities. They are on par with/slightly worse than sorcerers and wizards, and significantly worse than clerics...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThatGuySteve wrote:

I don't think bumping d4s up to d6s is the fix we need as then there is pressure to bump up d6 weapons to d8s, d8s to d10s, etc. That will maintain the difference in damage and small weapons will still be weak.

Making potency add a flat rate of 1d6 (or 1d8 for 2 handed) per plus would do more to balance out weapons and make unusual weapons more attractive at higher levels.

I kind of like this idea. You can still have things that add an additional die of weapon damage (Power Attack), but it'd equal magic weapons out a bit and mean you're not always looking for the one with the highest die.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Damanta wrote:
Clumsy is the next big issue. This basically means that any heavy armor user will be easier to trip than any other class, because there is no reason for anyone not wearing heavy armor to not put one of the 4 stat boosts at level 5/10/15/20 into dex. (The other 3 stat boosts will go to con (fort + hp), wisdom (will + perception) and class stat or charisma if class stat is dex or wis already.)
It's easy to come up with cases where this isn't true, though. Like if I have a cleric of a deity that has a good sacred weapon (e.g. Shelyn) and I want to both fight and heal, I want to invest in Wisdom (to cast), Charisma (to heal), Strength (to hit), which leaves me with 1 more stat boost and since I'm a d8 class I would prefer to put those into constition so choosing heavy armor lets me boost those four stats. I can just take lightning reflexes with a general feat to shore up my reflex saves and stop at 14 dex so I can wear splint mail.

Honestly, yeah, if you want to do all these things I agree. I wanted to play a Cleric who could both heal a lot and fight, and that was easy by tanking Wisdom (more heals from Charisma > ~4 extra health per heal from Wisdom). Yeah, it meant that SP was harder to come by (spent a feat to get +3 from Advanced Domain for Weapon Surge), but still, it was, overall, pretty effective, and I managed a starting Strength of 16, Dexterity of 14.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At the *very* least, the character design space for weapons with lower damage dice is greatly reduced. Mark makes a good point about Deadly Simplicity (similar to what makes Crossbows so good...). The fact is in PF1e, a damage die only reduced your damage output by a flat 1. Now it reduces it by 1 per magical +1 bonus, and that's a much bigger hit, particularly when flat adds to damage are even harder to find in 2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:

How did we ever survive DnD 1e and 2e where monsters didn't totally follow a ruleset?

We evolved into playing 3e, Pathfinder, and 5e, where they do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

As MathMuse has pointed out in his analysis (which I generally agree with), they have, in my opinion, failed in this respect.

PF1E Core had more character diversity than does 2e.

Do you mind giving me some examples of where 1e core has more character diversity than 2e? Thinking about all of the 'trap' feats in 1e core has me thinking. Was there really much diversity or was there only the illusion of diversity. I'm pretty sure every single 2h melee character I've played has been built pretty much the same. Same with every single archer build. The only differences were some class features. Like my archer paladin just used smite as a swift action rather than my archer ranger who had favoured enemies. Other than that they had the same feats and the same items and equipment. They weren't really a whole more diverse.

I'll also add to this, since the question was posed to me: A rogue or bard who wields a 2-handed weapon and isn't gimped. Ranger archers using bows. Basically any caster that wants to specialize in combat (they start at -2 to hit vs a fighter, and it only gets worse). Heck, you could even argue that a Mystic Theurge build is worse/suboptimal in PF2 given that any caster is giving up over 50% of their class feats to do it (Sorcerers give up all but 1 feat).

Sure, 2e doesn't prevent you from playing these, but they're strictly worse than other options, and especially given the extremely tight math, even small differences end up being multiplied.

To me, there are two big causes to these builds being gimped:
1. As I/others mentioned, gating combat style feats to classes.
2. Locking an 18 starting stat behind class choice.
In other words, your class has far too much influence it *exactly* what you're potentially good at. I won't even get into Signature Skills, as I hope/think those will *actually* be changing.

Yes, PF1 had its feat traps, but it had a lot of diversity of builds as well. Also, I think if we look close enough, you'll find that for many character builds, PF2 also has feat traps... For example, Bludgeoner Rogue Feat is one of them (Yes, you can sneak attack with it, but no Dexterity to Damage, no *other* rogue abilities, and you don't increase your proficiency with it unless it's simple).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me simply say that I favor the return of old multiclassing. The new system feels like a feat tax (the Dedication Feat does very little), and takes away a good chunk of your feats (for Sorcerers, getting a 1st level feat in another class uses 33% of their total class feats, anything higher uses 50%, for other casters, it's still 25% and 37%).

A couple caveats:
1. I think they should do multiclassing in chunks. Namely, something along the lines of "when you get an ability boost, you can choose to change classes". This will prevent shallow dips.
2. I'm okay with having *some* abilities primary-class locked. Multiclassing into a spellcaster could give you one less spell per level, rogue might not give you finesse striker...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed, I think, given the way magic weapons work, the lowest damage die should have been d6 in this game. The fact is that while they tried to distinguish weapons by their traits, the *biggest* advantage to any weapon is a big damage die, to the point where all of the other stats (outside of finesse vs non-finesse) largely don't matter.

There are a few stand-out weapons because of this (excluding exotic):
Rapier: Biggest Damage die for a finesse weapon
Longsword, Warhammer and Battleaxe: Biggest Damage die for a 1H weapon
Greatsword, Maul: Only d12 weapons
Crossbow with Ranger or Abadar Deadly Simplicity Cleric: Biggest Damage Dice for single action reload ranged weapon.

Note that the exotic racial weapons are also pretty different:
Halfing Sling staff: another d10 single action reload weapon, really good.
Dwarven Waraxe: d12 in 2H, d8 in 1H, *amazing*
Elven Curve Blade: A d8 finesse weapon... but can't be used with finesse striker, so essentially pretty bad.

I like the notion of damage dice increasing with magic weapon bonus, but it also creates a pretty big gap in weapon efficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

The minimum amount of "Monster using PC rules" I think is allowed before things get silly is the amount 5E used.

Monsters get skills, abilities and health without much explanation, but their modifiers on all of them follow the regular math. Attack rolls are prof + STR mod, all skills use their correct Ability Score + possible proficiency and exceptions are very rare and always pointed out in the block. (This monster has additional +X because Y). Finally, they also have saving throws that correspond to player saving throws.

All of this without limiting their design much if at all. If anything, they were a bit conservative with abilities and should have given them more/cooler powers, thankfully the PF2 Bestiary is full of cool abilities. It's just the arbitrary numbers where they dropped the ball.

Yes, this can lead to monsters of different power being the same "Level", specially if one is a Giant with super strength or something, but at it's a small price.

So yeah, this is the way to do it... I totally agree. I don't need an explanation for *why* they're Expert Proficiency with their Bite Attack, but if I know their HD, their Prof, and their Strength/Dexterity, that should agree with their attack bonus... Probably similar for "armor bonus", which you'd have flexibility on given natural armor, and Dexterity.

The problem this runs into is that monsters aren't designed to be statted like players. Consider a CR1 enemies with an AC of 17. You basically won't find any in the Bestiary, while it's pretty trivial to make a PC with those stats even minus a shield. Or, in the other direction, consider how many CR1 enemies have greater than +5 to hit (indicating at least expert proficiency and maximum stat bonus), it's pretty much all of them...

Basically, Paizo didn't design a system capable of supporting PvP-type combats, largely due to armor bonuses being extremely high. For me, this is a pretty big failure of the system that limits design.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
catman123456 wrote:

Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.

From pg.3 of the playtest doc.

As MathMuse has pointed out in his analysis (which I generally agree with), they have, in my opinion, failed in this respect.

PF1E Core had more character diversity than does 2e. Archetypes are pretty big feat taxes for getting your character to simply be able to do something else, such as Power Attack, for example, and they *significantly* weaken your character in many cases relative to a character who simply takes all feats from their main class. In addition, there are things that they fundamentally don't give access to. For example, Expert Weapon Rank can be seen as the approximate equal of Weapon Focus in PF1. In PF2, you have to multiclass into fighter, and then wait until 12 level to get this ability which you could simply take as early as level 2 in PF12.

Speaking to Simplification, the addition of keywords, while helpful with Rigor, require additional lookups when trying to figure out what an ability does. In PF1e, you had some of this in conditions. However, keywords can now affect your ability simply to *use* something (Open/Press), and they are included in an area that's not the main body of text for the ability itself. Yes, it saves word count, but it also hurts readability overall. There are many other examples such as this that make these rules fundamentally harder to understand than PF1e. I will say, however, that they do acheive some Simplification simply through Rigor, or preventing rules from being *misread* if you do actually understand everything associated with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ultimatecalibur wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Has Heavy Armor ever been worth it? I rarely see people go above Medium.
Not since 3rd edition started heavily penalizing everyone for wearing armor. Prior to that everyone tried to get the best armor they could equip.

Yes, in 1e, there are plenty of situations where you prefer heavy armor to light or medium. The same is true of 5e (where Heavy Armor Proficiency is highly valued).

The obvious example in 1e is any character with a Dexterity capped at +1 to +3 (so 12-16). Heavy armor will give you a +1 AC advantage over medium armor, and while it does penalize skills additionally, it doesn't slow your movement any more than does medium.

Do you play pathfinder in large groups? Have you never seen someone wearing Heavy Armor at the table? Did you always assume they were wrong?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
I think that Pathfinder 2nd Edition is an attempt to open up the market for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game by reducing the obstacles to entry, such as unimportant minutae in the rules, lengthy character creation, and endless bookkeeping and min-maxed actions during game sessions. For example, the old action system of move, standard, and swift/immediate actions was replaced by three actions and a reaction. Character creation was converted to ABC: Ancestry, Background, and Class, except that it ended up as A, B, C, and five more steps for details not covered in A, B, and C...

So this was my understanding as well... until I read the Playtest Rulebook. They do well in some of these areas (min-maxed actions for example), but pretty clearly have designed a system with *more* bookkeeping than PF1 (Resonance, Spell Points, Multi Use Abilities, Hero Points, Various Levels of Conditions...). You mention resonance as a way to get rid of complex body slots, yet items now have both resonance, slots, and *rarity* to boot...

I'm curious as to Paizo's response as well, because the system I'm seeing is both more complex than PF1, and offers less freedom of expression with characters, though, in fairness, is more strategically interesting at a combat level (the 3 action system really shines).

EDIT: I note you went on to say that Simplification became subservient to Balance and Rigor, and Choice was lost in this process... Perhaps we *do* agree here, generally speaking. Still, having concrete design goals and sticking to a priority of them... seems important.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:

I think take 10 does not play well with the current design intent. It would work fine if proficiencies gave a bigger numerical bonus, but as it stands now the result of take 10 of an untrained and legendary character would be too close to each other.

a) That's a problem with proficiencies in general, not with the take 10 mechanic. There's very little gap between the ranks, and that's being complained about in other threads.

b) There's actually a relatively simple way to fix that, one I suggested elsewhere: Trained: 8+normal bonuses, Expert: 10+Normal Bonuses, Master: 12+Normal Bonuses, Legendary: 14+Normal Bonuses.


Gorbacz wrote:
Lyee wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

In PF1 your Fighter was still crippling bad at Stealth, while the Slayer/Rogue next to him was at double digits bonus to the skill. So, no change from 3.5. You couldn't make a competent stealthy Fighter without some weird dumpster-dived combos of archetypes, feats, items and skills.

Which brings us the main issue of 3.5/PF skill system - it punished people for the lack of system mastery. A new player would come in, see that she can put points in Stealth as a Fighter, and few months later should would realize how pointless that was.

Er, what?

I mean, maybe if they're dumping dex and wearing heavy armor. But in my current game, my Arcanist is doing great at stealth. She's just a human with decent dex, no acp, ranks in it, and a +2 from some item.

Sure, a goblin with max dex, all the magic items, and skill focus, could be something like 15 points higher, but the average enemy perception in PF1 isn't based around this hyper-goblin, and a solid middling stealth is enough for her to feel useful.

I feel like at the same levels of investment in PF2, the goblin would feel average, and the arcanist might as well not try.

You're comparing a class who doesn't wear armor and has Dex as the second-most important stat to a Fighter. Fine.

At the same level of investment in PF2, both the Fighter and the Arcanist would have a decent chance.

Let's say that your investment in PF1 equals to Expert in Stealth in PF2. Level 10, your Arcanist has 10 (level) + 3 (Dex) + 2 (Item) + 1 (Expert). That's +16 Stealth.

Perception of CR 10 monsters in PF2:

Fire Giant +18
Clay Golem +18
Ghost Mage +17
Rakshasha +17

You can perfectly try, in fact your chances are pretty much the same as with PF1 CR10 monsters. The difference now is that your Fighter buddy can sneak alongside of you with a chance, unlike it was the case in PF1.

And the Goblin Rogue is just better at that than either of you are, but "better", not "so far ahead that you don't compare".

Yeah, no, you're making a lot of assumptions about "Fighter" in PF1. I've played plenty of Duelist or Archer fighters, and for one or two, I did decide to invest in stealth. A single trait (one making stealth a class skill) makes you as good as a rogue, minus the moving at full speed part.

Also, no, your chances aren't the same. Enemies perceptions are ludicrously high (something they've already said is actually an error). So... where are you getting this info from? EDIT: For example, a Fire Giant is +14 stealth, Clay Golem +0 in PF1.


I played a Sorcerer with Fighter Multiclass at level 4 (used a Dwarven Waraxe). I think the cost to re-grip makes sense. There were lots of times I took a single swing, let go of my weapon with one hand (free action) then cast a spell. Sometimes I also did spend the action to re-grip. Either way, I don't think the economy/usage changes with a two-hand weapon (dwarven war axe, bastard sword).


This is a neat idea, but I think breaks their desire for "bounded" accuracy. Either way, though, signature skills definitely don't work as they're written... Still, they've said they're going to address this, I just hope they do it soon!

I think you point to two separate issues though:
1. Signature skills are rigid
2. Signature skills don't really do anything "cool".

I'd obviously like the first to be fixed. If they do so in a way that fixes the second as well, then all the power to them. I've heard a lot of people thought Signature skills would just be skills that were essentially one "level" ahead of where they were. If you were level 3 and an expert, you'd be considered Masterl


3d6 system FTW!!! Seriously though... we should be using 3d6 if you want bounded accuracy... Why aren't we doing this thing? (bows down to sacred d20 cow)


Unicore wrote:

I do think that PF2 might be a very different game tactically than PF1 and some PF1 strategy ideas are going to get parties killed pretty quickly. For example, moving twice to get in melee range with a higher level foe seems like an atrocious idea in PF2. It was a bad idea in PF1 at levels higher than 6 or 7 but it is a bad idea in PF2 from the beginning.

It also seems like melee stuff and the sorcerer is an even more terrible idea in PF2 than in PF1, as moving once or twice to make a melee attack is terrible idea, but it is an even worse idea if your AC is not anywhere near 15 or 16.

Relearning how to establish battlefield control and stop enemies from getting multiple attacks seems like something that parties are going to need to figure out.

Once they do, I wonder if some of these "killer" combats are going to get a lot easier.

I actually disagree with a lot of your suggested tactical differences here. Moving twice in PF1 was a *much* worse strategy than moving twice in PF2 (and then attacking once). Honestly, that first attack is the one that counts, even for enemies, who also suffer iterative attack penalties. Yes, there's a chance the second one hits, but due to bounded accuracy, assuming you have a good AC, that chance is pretty low.

I think PF2 makes the Greatsword Single Big Attack build *much* more viable than it was in PF1. Things like Power Attack and the like mean that you can do this fairly easily. Yes, you still might go for a second attack, but the third attack? Nah, I'd *much* rather be doing something else.

NOTE: I had a Dwarven Sorcerer I was playing at level 4 (Magical Striker, Dwarven War Axe), and one round starting adjacent to an enemy, my moves were: regrip weapon in two hands, cast true strike, swing once. I could have swung 3 times, but this strategy seemed moer viable. Sure enough, one of the d20 rolls was a 16 and I ended up critting and rolling 6d12 damage (I had previously cast Magic Weapon). No way I was doing that with three regular swings, or even two swings two-handed without true strike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Bartram wrote:


A maximally skilled and geared (for his level) fighter that walks up and swings at an equal level opponent should hit about 75% of the time. Not a with a flanking buddy, not because the bard is singing, not because the wizard cast haste on him or slow on the opponent. Just using that characters pure skill. Otherwise it just doesn't _feel_ fun. The math can be adjusted to make any hit rate _work_ what is more important is to make the character's _feel_ competent to play.

I really think that the new action economy makes numbers like this very difficult to use. 75% on your first attack means 50% on your second and still a 25% on your third attack. (assuming the fighter is not using agile weapons or other feats to get lower penalties) I don't think first level characters need to have a 50% chance of hitting 2 times or more. I especially don't know how you balance the idea that every level 1 enemy will probably hit at least once a round and often hit 2 or 3 times. Parties that don't really optimize tactics that minimize # of enemy attacks and maximize their own are going to be in a lot of trouble.

I think something close, albeit a bit less, than this might make sense for a fighter, say 65%/40%/15%, because fighters are supposed to be the class that's all about hitting anyway. For non-fighters optimized for combat, I'm guessing something closer to 55%/30%/5% makes more sense. Note, even with agile, these numbers mean the second attack is still only critting on a natural 20 even for the fighter. Spells and circumstances should be able to up these numbers, but we also shouldn't be baselining on fighter and assuming that's the "only" way to be good in combat.

Also, I'm assuming this is against some average enemy AC. Against an armor specialist, dropping these numbers by 10-15% make sense. I'd honestly prefer to err on the side of hitting overly often rather than missing overly often...


Are you reading something different than I am. This is literally copied and pasted:
CRITICAL HIT DAMAGE
When you double the damage on a critical success with a
Strike, or with any other action or activity that multiplies
damage, use the following rules to determine which values
you multiply.
• Roll double the usual number of damage dice for your
weapon or unarmed attack.
• Add double your ability modifier to damage, if one applies.
• Add double any circumstance and conditional bonuses and
penalties to damage.
• Don’t double extra damage that occurs only on a critical hit,
such as the damage from the deadly weapon trait.

Notice that you double the usual number of damage dice (for your weapon? does that include sneak attack?), yes. You *don't* double all modifiers. You double circumstance and conditional bonuses. Please, if you're going to disagree that these rules contradict each other further, quote what you're reading from...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Same here, I still get them confused. I'd actually suggest 3 types of bonuses:
* situational: For flanking/advantageous situations.
* competence: For core competence, such as a barbarian's bonus for rage, or point blank shot for fighter.
* magic: From spells.

Why 3? Right now a raging barbarian doesn't benefit from an enlarge spell or bard's spell, because they're both "conditional" bonuses. It makes sense you don't want rage to overlap with other circumstantial bonuses, but these should be fundamentally different types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh, now I want to play a Goblin Druid with Barkskin and Produce Flame :-/. Thanks *so* much :-P.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
A few people liked it (and I thought it was a good idea at the time), but all in all, early playtesters strongly disliked this, it slowed things down a lot

May I ask what was the thing slowing down combat? Minimum damage per swing seems like a rather easy box to fill on a character sheet for a weapon/spell/ability.

It doesn't sound like it would slow combat down anymore than the actual roll. If you made it a static number, it wouldn't even require calculation.

Mark Seifter wrote:
characters without anti-glancing blow abilities (usually casters who got ambushed) suffered high attrition.

That seems like something that should happen.

Sad to see that early playtester dislike potentially shelved a really interesting concept. I hope that the test sample size was at least relatively high to merit removal.

It was all the little hits; they came in with great frequency and caused a subtraction from HP each time, even if the person with the glancing blow was quick to say how much it dealt. There was also a much higher mental load per round on the shield guy to remember how many glancing blows he had blocked than in remembering whether he used a reaction. Like I could do it quickly, but I'm also probably the mathiest guy on the design team of the game, and Linda could do it quickly, but she has a math degree from MIT (not that it's the same math really, but still). With most groups, all the little subtractions were a death by a thousand paper cuts to the game's flow, unfortunately. I did like that one other than it being a major play flow problem. It's why I added back some abilities like it to the fighter, but stronger versions and as higher level abilities and only for that one character. They seem to have worked out pretty well so far (great for forceful weapons!).

Honestly, this is one solution to the problem (failure having an effect), but there are other viable ones. Right now, I think Fighters maintain a *reasonable* chance to hit/crit on their first strike. They also start with Expert proficiency and gain Master at level 3. Most classes don't even have the *option* of going to master. The best a battle cleric can hope for is expert at level 14 (where a fighter is legendary, +2 better, not even considering their initial strength/dexterity boost which a cleric cannot take).

As we know, a +2 difference in attacks is a big bonus, and this gap makes it hard to increase the odds for other classes without making things too easy for fighters... Improvement could be made along these lines to help give other classes an option to bring them in line with fighters (or, at least, if you want to be combat-focused, not have them lag that far behind fighter).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:

I am beginning to wonder whether "hit on a miss" -- yes, a controversial topic! -- should be more of a thing.

I don't know who else on these boards is into board games, but the #1 game on Board Game Geek right now is Gloomhaven. It is an RPG campaign in a box of sorts, and the unit of play is a mission that usually consists of 3 to 5 combat encounters. In that game, you can impose status effects on enemies, even when you miss -- effects such as persistent damage, disadvantage, being stunned etc.

Well anyway, it makes you feel like you didn't waste your turn because you had some impact on the battlefield, even when you miss. It seems like, with the 4 degrees of success, that this can be explored more in PF2 without overly breaking verisimilitude.

EDIT: I see that DMW's experience has been that this has more been a problem when it comes to skills. Still, maybe this could make combat more interesting? And perhaps be a good way to make skills more meaningful?

Even something like the fighter ability to do minimum damage on a miss by default feels like a good idea, I'd agree. Having no effect >50% of the time on your first attack is bad...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We know from PF1 that a +1 to hit is worth about the same as a +2 to damage. Given critical ranges in PF2, it’s safe to say that a +1 to hit is worth more than a +2 to damage. Enlarge gives you a +2 to damage, but also sluggish 1, which is -1 to hit, AC, and reflex saves. The reach is nice, but this spell actually hurts more than it helps.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've run these numbers as well. I mainly did it for attack rolls, because in my plays, it was pretty obvious that people were missing >50% of the time on their first attacks. Sure, maybe the PF1 situation of hitting on your first attack with a 4 or higher wasn't ideal, but only hitting on a 14 or higher in PF2 is actually worse... No one really likes a "flurry of whiffs".

I haven't analyzed *all* of the higher level monsters, but the math for PCs mean the bonus to AC is, on average 3 or so points higher than the bonus to hit, even in an ideal situation. Yeah, there are ways to get that number improved, but you're getting a maximum of +1-2 from competence, and +1-2 from circumstance. This means that even *after* this, it's still only a 50/50 proposition, and that's not even including considering you might have *penalties* to these attacks.

It's a bad and rather unfun situation. It doesn't come up with some monsters that have lower ACs, but when it *does* come up, the battles are just obnoxious. We have higher HP for a reason. USE IT!


@FuzzyPaws: Please read the rules on page 308. They indicate 3 types of flat bonuses you double, and precision damage is not among those types (such as from backstabber). So you're wrong for one set of the rules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quijenoth wrote:

I understand your frustration but I also know how frustrating it is to GM these superhuman social characters.

The original post seems not to be asking for "I want to make my character break the traditional bounds for a skill" but rather "I want to make a bard who's good at Perception". The poster is right, classes confine character concepts *way* too much in 2e, and that really hurts character diversity.

Yes, some things should be tied to class, and some classes should be naturally better at some things (Perception) than others, but it should be possible to make a character, for example, a master of perception, or an expert in a class of weapons, without requiring them to take levels of a particular class.


I raised this before but there's been no response. There are two sets of critical rules, on page 293 (Doubling and Halving) and page 308 (Critical Hit Damage). They say different things. The first indicates you double *all* dice and bonuses, the second indicates *specific* dice and bonuses (and whether those dice include things like sneak attack is unclear).

Please simplify this. I'd prefer the first set of rules, because the second seems needlessly complicated, but either way, there should be *one* set of rules...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Also, enemies explicitly don't run off the same system as players now, as seen with +6 to attack of the lv0 Goblin Warrior. (+5 is the best I can manage even for a 1st level PC Fighter)
They run reasonably close from what I recall, but I definitely think the numbers on the level 0s and 1s need to be looked at again.

Per Mark Seifter's statement here very low level monsters have decreased damage and increased attack bonuses to keep them useful as minions for longer. This rapidly evens out for the most part, with monsters settling into around optimized Fighter attack bonuses and very mediocre PC-level AC scores (there's a bit of a math problem where they sometimes wind up a bit ahead of a Fighter in to-hit, a full 3 points at 7th level, but Mark said that's being looked at).

Speaking of which Mark's also noted that monster skills are all higher than intended at many levels, and will likely be adjusted. Whether that adjustment is sufficient is a matter of some debate, but it's something people should definitely be aware of.

This isn't true, he indicated *damage* equaled out. I did a small analysis in another thread, but monster's to-hit bonus is consistently 2 above what an optimized fighter would have (their AC 2 below) because AC is effectively "broken" and consistently higher than to-hit for PCs.

In addition, why are we comparing "always hit" to 50/50? I, and many others, were merely suggesting balancing towards the first attack hitting 60-70% of the time, which would give a 20-30% chance of critical, and make later attacks more likely to miss rather than hit for all... If the baseline for an optimized character is "you only crit on a 20" or worse, then I don't really understand what the point of the improved critical system is...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Also, enemies explicitly don't run off the same system as players now, as seen with +6 to attack of the lv0 Goblin Warrior. (+5 is the best I can manage even for a 1st level PC Fighter)
They run reasonably close from what I recall, but I definitely think the numbers on the level 0s and 1s need to be looked at again.

Per Mark Seifter's statement here very low level monsters have decreased damage and increased attack bonuses to keep them useful as minions for longer. This rapidly evens out for the most part, with monsters settling into around optimized Fighter attack bonuses and very mediocre PC-level AC scores (there's a bit of a math problem where they sometimes wind up a bit ahead of a Fighter in to-hit, a full 3 points at 7th level, but Mark said that's being looked at).

Speaking of which Mark's also noted that monster skills are all higher than intended at many levels, and will likely be adjusted. Whether that adjustment is sufficient is a matter of some debate, but it's something people should definitely be aware of.

This isn't true, he indicated *damage* equaled out. I did a small analysis in another thread, but monster's to-hit bonus is consistently 2 above what an optimized fighter would have (their AC 2 below) because AC is effectively "broken" and consistently higher than to-hit for PCs.

In addition, why are we comparing "always hit" to 50/50? I, and many others, were merely suggesting balancing towards the first attack hitting 60-70% of the time, which would give a 20-30% chance of critical, and make later attacks more likely to miss rather than hit for all... If the baseline for an optimized character is "you only crit on a 20" or worse, then I don't really understand what the point of the improved critical system is...


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Per Mark Seifter's statement here very low level monsters have decreased damage and increased attack bonuses to keep them useful as minions for longer. This rapidly evens out for the most part, with monsters settling into around optimized Fighter attack bonuses and very mediocre PC-level AC scores (there's a bit of a math problem where they sometimes wind up a bit ahead of a Fighter in to-hit, a full 3 points at 7th level, but Mark said that's being looked at).

Speaking of which Mark's also noted that monster skills are all higher than intended at many levels, and will likely be adjusted. Whether that adjustment is sufficient is a matter of some debate, but it's something people should definitely be aware of.

This isn't true, he indicated *damage* equaled out. I did a small analysis in another thread, but monster's to-hit bonus is consistently 2 above what an optimized fighter would have (their AC 2 below) because AC is effectively "broken" and consistently higher than to-hit for PCs.

In addition, why are we comparing "always hit" to 50/50? I, and many others, were merely suggesting balancing towards the first attack hitting 60-70% of the time, which would give a 20-30% chance of critical, and make later attacks more likely to miss rather than hit for all... If the baseline for an optimized character is "you only crit on a 20" or worse, then I don't really understand what the point of the improved critical system is...


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Also, enemies explicitly don't run off the same system as players now, as seen with +6 to attack of the lv0 Goblin Warrior. (+5 is the best I can manage even for a 1st level PC Fighter)
They run reasonably close from what I recall, but I definitely think the numbers on the level 0s and 1s need to be looked at again.

Per Mark Seifter's statement here very low level monsters have decreased damage and increased attack bonuses to keep them useful as minions for longer. This rapidly evens out for the most part, with monsters settling into around optimized Fighter attack bonuses and very mediocre PC-level AC scores (there's a bit of a math problem where they sometimes wind up a bit ahead of a Fighter in to-hit, a full 3 points at 7th level, but Mark said that's being looked at).

Speaking of which Mark's also noted that monster skills are all higher than intended at many levels, and will likely be adjusted. Whether that adjustment is sufficient is a matter of some debate, but it's something people should definitely be aware of.

This isn't true. I did a small analysis in another thread, but monster's to-hit bonus is consistently 2 above what an optimized fighter would have (their AC 2 below) because AC is effectively "broken" and consistently higher than to-hit for PCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Judging by Mark Seifter's Friday Twitch talk, it sounds as if they're aware of this issue and are going to make changes. I'm going to suggest we hold off on further comments on this until we see what those chnages are.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
TiwazBlackhand wrote:

You know, Spanish is a really difficult language.

Gato? Why don't you just call it a cat? It's much easier.

What's my point? Tags/traits are good, and in the long run they will make the game easier. Your problem is you are comparing your native tongue to a new language you've just started learning.

Once you get past your initial "I don't know what this means, but I know the AD&D 2e rules by heart" confusion, once you PLAY the game for a while, and USE the new systems so that you know and remember them, it will make it a lot faster, and easier to learn NEW content once it starts rolling out.

This is entirely false and trivializes the actual issue. The problem isn't that in one language, gato means a furry feline, and in another cat means a furry feline. The problem is in one dictionary, when you look at the definition of cat, it says "a furry feline with a tail and claws". In the other, that definition says "see: feline, see: mammal" and then you look up mammal and it says "has fur" and then feline and it says "has claws and tail".

This has nothing to do with language, it has everything to do with the number of references you have to go through to get to an actual definition, and that's an entirely different issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Excaliburproxy wrote:

It seems to me that monsters in general are calibrated to be hit-able by an optimized fighter about 65%-55% of the time and hit-able to other optimized classes about 50%-35% of the time. Have other people noticed this? Has anyone done the spreadsheet work yet?

To me, this is a pretty sorry state of affairs. Missing on your first and best attack feels bad. Moreover, having all attacks having a high fail rate makes the game less tactically interesting as that level of uncertainty limits the amount you can plan ahead. It also makes the game really swingy in general.

I would much prefer it if all attacks were generally more accurate and monsters and players just had more health.

Yeah, I'd actually commented on this a while back to one of the developers. I think it's a problem across the board. Honestly, that first attack for a relatively optimized build (fighter or nonfighter) should probably have a well-over 50% chance to hit, probably between 60-70%. Criticals would happen more often, yes, but criticals are accounted for and more reasonable under 2e (there's no 3x thing going on...). Note that this gets worse if you try to make an NPC by PC standards (using PC stats and feats).

I figured this was something they'd try to fix in this edition, as it was a problem at lower levels in 1e that you eventually "grew out of" thanks to AC not increasing but BAB going up. Sadly, they didn't... it's a pretty gross oversight in my opinion and makes playing a *lot* less fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I've got 99 problems with 2e, but hero points aren't one of them...

1 to 50 of 588 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>