Jester David |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pulling from a 4th Edition idea here.
In that game, you used the higher of your Strength and Constitution for your Fortitude defence, the higher of your Dexterity and Intelligence for Reflex, and the higher of your Wisdom and Charisma for Will.
Not a fan of the static defences (attacks vs Fort opposed to a Fortitude save) but the idea of multiple Ability Scores being used for a Saving Throw's bonus is neat.
Currently, there's a lot of characters whose primary ability score aren't tied to a save. Anyone with Charisma (bards, sorcerers) or Intelligence (wizards) or Strength (barbarians). At best, their second highest ability score might be tied to a save (like bards who likely have a high Dex, and barbarians who generally have a high Con), but not always.
The poor wizard and sorcerers suffers the most as they're proficient in Will saves but have no reason to give Wisdom a high number, and might opt for Dexterity but don't have good Dex saves.
Should Pathfinder 2 take a page from 4e and allow different ability scores to work in a saving throw?
Fuzzypaws |
I liked how saves were done in 4E. This might at least be a good route for the Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes feat path. They could be phrased as:
[Save Feat]
* If untrained in [Save], you become trained.
* You can use the higher of [ability1] or ability2] for [Save].
* You get one Fortune reroll per day on [Save] saves if you have Expert Proficiency in [Save], two per day if you have Master Proficiency, and three per day if you have Legend Proficiency.
Now these feats actually become useful. They shore up a weak save if you don't get it from your class, they use that luck mechanic they talked about to make the save better in a scaling way if you DO get it, and they allow you to use the better of 2 ability scores like 4E.
(EDIT: Before anyone asks, the reason why I didn't just unilaterally say "increase Proficiency by one step" is because they have already said increases like that are class abilities, such as Evasion for the rogue. But even in the context of that being restricted to a class ability, I think granting baseline trained is fine for a feat.)
CraziFuzzy |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I kind of lean toward the simplification that 5e did, by simply specifying saves by ability score only (no more Reflex, Fortitude, or Will). That could be combined with the PF2e proficiency system to grant grant the -2, 0, +1, +2, +3 and level to the actual save roll. Makes the save system work like all the other systems in the game, and enables a bit more varied effect designs with 6 save options instead of 3.
ReyVagabond |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't remember what they said about saves on the play tests.
But you can always go with 5e idea where every stat has a save. you want to break free from some vines, you use str save, you want to resist a poison you use con save, you want to dodge a fireball you use dex save, you want know if something is an illusion you use int save, you don’t want to be afraid by a spell you use will save, you don’t want to dominated by a spell use char save.
You can even give a spell two saves, and a player can pick witch one they want to use, something like the Entangle spell.
Both ideas work for me, normal pathfinder 1 saves feels less rewarding and more punishing than double stats save or every stat saves. Well with all stat save every classes will be punished by different stuff.
Lyoto Machida |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of like the current system of saving throws. I think it's a key aspect of balancing that certain classes should have a crappy save or two.
I don't want a wizard using his intelligence to make reflex and fort saves, I don't want a fighter using his constitution to make will saves, I don't want a rogue using dexterity to make a fort save.
The weaknesses of classes to certain types of attacks is a feature not a bug. Why pull things from 4E when it's the least liked systems in all of D&D?
CraziFuzzy |
With the save per ability method, combined with pf2e's proficiency model, classes would still have strong and weak saves, based on whether it was granted the proficiency or not. Feats could still be used to bolster this some (similar to Iron Will in PF, or Resilient in 5e).
So the class based balancing would still very much be present.
Unicore |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also rather see additional skills added to the game to cover things that used to be saves, and for saves to be skill checks. The idea that perception is what overcomes illusions instead of a will save has been my favorite reveal of the new system. There are some fort saves and will saves that don't currently fit easily into a skill check, but I'd rather "resolve" and "fortitude" become skills and then those checks fall under those skills and the idea of saving throws could be phased out of the game entirely in favor of reactionary skill checks.
KingOfAnything |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more interested in using skills instead of saving throws. Falling back on saves when nothing makes sense.
Seems easier now everything is done the same.
Skills-as-saves seems like something that would be very evocative when dealing with haunts. Instead of a Will save to resist the effects, a character could roll a skill check to successfully navigate the psychic impression and mollify the spiritual disturbance.
I'm thinking of a scene from season 3 of The Magicians where the heroes had to negotiate with a ghost/haunt.
Jester David |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of like the current system of saving throws. I think it's a key aspect of balancing that certain classes should have a crappy save or two.
The catch is, some classes have a *great* save, like the rogue or monk who have good Relfex saves and typically have a high Dex or the Cleric who has solid Wisdom saves
But then you have the wizard and sorcerer who are good Will saves but have no reason to ever make Wisdom remotely high, so their Will save is never very good. And likely have a passable Con and Dex but still don't have a particularly strong Fort or Reflex save.
Then there's saves like Fortitude, where no one has Con as their highest stat.
I don't want a wizard using his intelligence to make reflex and fort saves, I don't want a fighter using his constitution to make will saves, I don't want a rogue using dexterity to make a fort save.
It's not the wizard using their Int for Reflex *and* Fort. It's Int for Reflex, Str or Con for Fort, and Wis or Cha for Will
The weaknesses of classes to certain types of attacks is a feature not a bug. Why pull things from 4E when it's the least liked systems in all of D&D?
1) Just because 4e is the least liked doesn't mean 100% of its ideas are bad.
2) Weaknesses will still exist. The wizard is still unlikely to have a high Str or Con. The fighter is unlikely to have a high Wisdom or Charisma and will still suck at Will saves.CraziFuzzy |
Skills for saves could of course easily be a thing - but it would still make sense to define 'class specific' ability score check proficiencies, to keep with the old flavor of the strong and weak saves. What check is required to resist an effect is defined in the effect, so they could very easily write an illusion spell to say that you can detect it with either a Perception DC-xx, or a Intelligence DC-yy.
thorin001 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I kind of lean toward the simplification that 5e did, by simply specifying saves by ability score only (no more Reflex, Fortitude, or Will). That could be combined with the PF2e proficiency system to grant grant the -2, 0, +1, +2, +3 and level to the actual save roll. Makes the save system work like all the other systems in the game, and enables a bit more varied effect designs with 6 save options instead of 3.
5th ed only thinks they got away from Fort/Ref/Will saves. Con, Dex, and Wis saves are still far, far more common than Str, Int and Cha saves.
MusicAddict |
Honestly, I'm in the camp that this shouldn't be the case for a few reasons. Saves are going to be more tightly balanced, we might see classes with varying degrees of proficiency in a save, such as classes that start untrained and eventually end up at master at level 14, compared to the Rogue that reaches legendary, or the fighter who reaches expert without additional investment.
They've revealed information so far that has helped redistribute the balancing of stat power. Intelligence now only effects a base amount of proficiencies, constitution is a smaller percent or all characters hp, charisma has some value as a stat to increase your magic item usuage, dex to hit is available from the start without investment, perception is a core highly important skill that's still modified by wisdom.
As is, every stat has value, but not so much value that a character must absolutely invest unless it's related to the core function of their class. By adding the ability to pick and choose a preferred stat for a save, wisdom, dexterity, and constitution lose out on a lot of their value, since many of their benefits are, as far as we currently know, not as valuable as strength, intelligence or charisma. (When you have 10 hp a level, why have extra con when you can push strength? Wear heavy armor, ignore dex and go for intelligence instead, and is a +2 to perception really worth 2 potions or magic item powers a day? Go charisma).
David knott 242 |
If they have already provided 4e-like options for saves, I would be fine with it. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to try to add it in after the playtest, though, because of all the ripple effects that it would create with no time for adequate playtesting of all of its ramifications.
mach1.9pants |
CraziFuzzy wrote:Honestly, I kind of lean toward the simplification that 5e did, by simply specifying saves by ability score only (no more Reflex, Fortitude, or Will). That could be combined with the PF2e proficiency system to grant grant the -2, 0, +1, +2, +3 and level to the actual save roll. Makes the save system work like all the other systems in the game, and enables a bit more varied effect designs with 6 save options instead of 3.5th ed only thinks they got away from Fort/Ref/Will saves. Con, Dex, and Wis saves are still far, far more common than Str, Int and Cha saves.
Yeah those other saves very rarely come up. I'm not sure but if the difference between what is a good save for your class and a bad save is closer than PF1 going 4e style won't be necessary I think. If there is still a huge gap then sure
Fuzzypaws |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing they could do: keep the same three saves, but remove Con/Dex/Wis as the assumed ability scores. If they make it so you can use a skill with several different abilities depending on the task (Perception + Wis to notice things passively, Perception + Int to search actively), they could do the same thing with saves.
.
.
- Fort + Str: Resist physical effects like forced movement, come up with a surge of strength to break out of a slow or petrify effect, etc.
- Fort + Con: Resist biological and life force effects like poison and death effects, etc.
- Ref + Dex: Dodge area effects, react instinctively to catch a ledge as you fall, etc.
- Ref + Int: Dodge single target ranged effects, avoid traps and hazards, etc.
- Will + Wis: Perceive illusions, resist spiritual effects and "general supernatural nonsense" like curses, etc.
- Will + Cha: Resist effects that impinge on your will or self-determination like charms and compulsions, etc.
KahnyaGnorc |
I like that, for example in Path of War, the standard Warder can use Int modifier for Reflex and Initiative, since, as a heavy armor using tank, their physical quickness isn't high (Dex typically not that high, wearing Full Plate and Shield), so they use their mental quickness, instead.
I definitely think the score/save combo should make sense. Int to Fort doesn't . . . are you gonna debate that poison out of your system?
Deadmanwalking |
OK, so forum ate my post.
Second try:
I've always preferred SAGA edition's Defense to D20/PF's standard saves.
References have been made to things targeting 'Reflex Defense' in PF2 (which is Reflex Save Bonus +10), and that's presumably also an option for the other two saves as well. You still roll saves vs. spells, though.
John Lynch 106 |
1) Just because 4e is the least liked doesn't mean 100% of its ideas are bad.
The problem is you bring in too many of it's features and the new game will feel like a revision of 4th ed. Currently we have:
* At-will spells that scale.* Cantrips potentially no longer need preparing but are just known, even for prepared casters.
* BAB has been removed from the game.
* All classes follow the same universal level-based bonus to Saves, Attack Rolls, Skills (and potentially AC and magic attacks)
* Races have been incredibly stripped down to a minimal differentiation with racial powers/feats being the only significant difference.
* Passive skills are in the game.
* Ritual magic is in the new game.
* Significantly increased HP at level 1 is now in the game.
* Magic items have a universal limit on how often their "daily" powers can be used.
* Skill Powers are going to be in the game (under the name of skill feats).
* Basic melee attack is being replaced by specific, mutually exclusive attack powers (I believe Power Attack is one example).
* Cure X Wounds have been replacing by a minor action healing power to allow healing and hitting in the same turn.
* Skills are being reduced even further than they were in PF1e with very 4th edish names (Dungeoneering vs Knowledge (dungeoneering).
* The bonus for untrained skills autoscale with level.
You might say "but this is only one idea from 4th ed and you can't dismiss something just because it's from 4th ed." Problem is it is one idea of many that appear to be getting incorporated from 4th ed. This idea, while it does have merits, may be one 4th ed element too many for the fanbase.
That said, I do dislike the implementation 4th ed did. Int to Reflex doesn't make sense IMO. It should be DEX/WIS to Reflex (you're spotting the attack and ducking away before it hits you), INT/CHA for Will and STR/CON for Fort. But I do think this is going to be one 4th ed idea too many for most people.
Browman wrote:lets avoid going down the 4th ed road of any stat can be used for anything.No.
Yes. I don't want someone using their dashing good looks (Charisma) to distract people into making them more easily attacked.
Deadmanwalking |
* Cantrips potentially no longer need preparing but are just known, even for prepared casters.
Huh? We have zero indications of this. I mean, it could be true since it hasn't been specifically and explicitly contradicted, but there's also literally no evidence for it.
* All classes follow the same universal level-based bonus to Saves, Attack Rolls, Skills (and potentially AC and magic attacks)
Not quite. Proficiency makes quite a bit of difference on all those, and varies by Class. Indeed, the difference between Proficiencies is a total of 5 points, as much as that between mid and high BAB in PF1, and only one less than between high and low Saves.
So...it looks a little more similar to D&D4E here, but only if examined in the most superficial manner.
* Races have been incredibly stripped down to a minimal differentiation with racial powers/feats being the only significant difference.
Given that you get several Ancestry Feats and may even do so at 1st level, this seems a trifle premature. Ancestry may actually be quite a bit more relevant rather than less.
* Magic items have a universal limit on how often their "daily" powers can be used.
That was true of non-consumable magic items in PF1, and not true of consumables in D&D4E, while it's true of consumables as well in PF2. So...I'm really not seeing this as any closer to 4E than it is to PF1.
* Skill Powers are going to be in the game (under the name of skill feats).
It's very unlikely these will be that similar. I also don't remember Skill Powers from D&D4E. Were they in a later supplement?
In any case they were hardly a core part of the system every character got every other level like they look to be in PF2.
* Basic melee attack is being replaced by specific, mutually exclusive attack powers (I believe Power Attack is one example).
Uh...by that logic Vital Strike and spring Attack were both at-will powers and stealing from 4E. Which is pretty shaky logic. The mere fact that Feats provide bonuses when taking certain actions at-will does not make them similar to 4E. that has a lot more to do with other aspects of how they work.
* Cure X Wounds have been replacing by a minor action healing power to allow healing and hitting in the same turn.
This is actually a super misleading statement. Almost all spells have been slid into the new action framework in such a way that you can use them and attack. It's not just healing by any means. And that's not at all similar to most spell equivalents in D&D4E.
..
.
In short, examining this as someone who knows something about 4E but was never enamored with it, only half (7/14) of your 'similarities' seem to hold up under such examination.
Now, some do definitely hold up (reduced skills, untrained skills increasing with level, no more BAB, etc.)...but it's not nearly as many as you're implying or a lot of people seem to be panicking over.
John Lynch 106 |
Huh? We have zero indications of this. I mean, it could be true since it hasn't been specifically and explicitly contradicted, but there's also literally no evidence for it.
Hence the use of the word "potentially". But in your rush to contradict me, you missed my point. Which is: The more rules you have in Pathfinder 2e that were also in 4th ed, the greater the risk you have of people who dislike 4th ed being turned off from PF2e.
Which exact rules are being brought over isn't as important as how many of them are being brought over. Every individual idea on it's own merit could be a positive addition to the game. But the cumulative effect of all the rules may be the problem and not the individual rules.
We won't know the state of the rules until August. But wanting specific rules brought over from 4th ed before then is likely going to be met with opposition from those who are worried already about how much 4th ed is going to be in the game. Saying "but this idea on it's own has merit" is not understanding the concerns of those opposing it.
If you actually want me to respond to the rest of your post, feel free to start it up in a new thread.
John Lynch 106 |
I thought you said you weren't going to reply to any more of my posts? I thought we had a mutual agreement.
Pretty sure I said I wouldn't reply to any more of your posts in that particular thread. Our responses to each other's posts weren't being constructive in any way at all so I felt that ceasing the back and forth was best for all involved.
I'd prefer to actually engage with people in the community in a constructive manner. It's up to you whether or not you wish to reciprocate. Feel free to ignore any of my posts that you don't wish to respond to.
Weather Report |
Weather Report wrote:If they are keeping the Fort/Ref/Will triad, I hope you can choose one of two ability modifiers for each, otherwise, cut to the chase and call them Con, Dex, and Wis.Do you mean something like:
FORT = STR + CON
REF = INT + DEX
WIL = WIS + CHA
Not +, a choice of either (Str or Con for Fort, etc); one of the things I really dig about 4th Ed.
For PF1/3rd Ed games, I use it, and all characters get +1/2 Hit Dice to Saving Throws, and a +2 bonus to one or more saves, depending on class (fighter +2 Fort, Wizard +2 Will, etc).
Weather Report |
That's an interesting idea. What is your experience in practice?
Great, less absurd disparity and forgone conclusions, not, oh, my Fort save is +11, but my Will save is +3.
I have houseruled PF1/3rd Ed to base most things off +1/2 Hit Dice (spell save DCs = 10 + 1/2 Hit Dice + spell casting modifier).
Weather Report |
Thanks for sharing
No problem, hope it might have been insightful and useful, I might start a thread with my houserules (cures!) to tame the beast that is PF1/3rd Ed.
My only problem with PF1 is they did not go far enough to staunch the inherent problems with 3rd Ed (4th Ed, for me, is an example of curing the headache by cutting off the head).
There can be a middle-ground.
Malk_Content |
Vidmaster7 wrote:Of course now I feel like this is some straighr 5e territory now.Who cares! A good idea is a good idea after all!
Either you are being sarcastic or just completely hypocritical in your posistion, seeing how you think some good ideas aren't a good idea to include if they come from a system you dislike.