I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).
They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.
Several issues there. You are then gating that particular fighting style behind particular classes, who then arbitrarily can't use features if they use something in the other hand. What if my Rogue wants to keep a free hand?
If a free hander isn't that different from a shield user, then they are less interesting. Having their own distinct niche is more fun than just patching an AC bonus onto a class. Especially when things like Parry or gishing are being replicated within the basic action economy.
If a free hander has the same AC of a shield user, but has a free hand, then they are now better than the shield user by virtue of having a free hand to draw items and interact. This will be especially prominent since it costs less to draw an item now.
So, I'm gonna have to actually break down a lot more of the old system for you, but short answers:
1) Duelisty stuff just happened to be done better by rogues, swash's, and daring champions because they had the best damage.2) rogue's were good with one handed weapons, because they could spend an action on improved feint and still get in two attacks, if they had greater feint they got sneak attack on both, without taking the penalites on TWF. With haste you could do this twice and still make two attacks with sneak attack at your full bonues.
3) shields were still better, if built for it. It was a boring build, but there is a large factor by which your AC can improve with a shield, it is the best defensive option.
|
My biggest overall gripe with PF2 is that some of the mechanics being implemented to balance the game are anti-verisimilitude, which is the biggest selling point of a TTRPG.
It makes zero sense that it takes 1/3rd of your turn to go from holding a greatsword in one hand to holding it in two hands.
The same goes for "readying a shield".
Yes, I have crunched the numbers on shield use in another thread and determined that the action tax makes shield use more balanced, but it doesn't FEEL good.
I get what they are trying to do with shields. They don't want them to just be a passive AC buff on your character sheet that takes up a hand slot. They want your shield to be something that you actively use and gives you a cool benefit and makes you feel good about having a shield. They also want this benefit to come at a cost so not everyone wants to use it.
There are certain instances where balance is important, but I'd almost rather have shields and two handed weapons be OP than tax your actions.
These mechanics are ultimately going to cause characters to make RP decisions that make no sense it the game world.
Valeros - "Amir, take point."
Amir - "Nah, if I open that door, I won't be able to attack anything waiting on the other side."
Valeros - "What do you mean."
Amir's Player - "It is going to take me an action to open the door, and another action to grip my weapon. Since we just made a ton of noise in this room killing these goblins, I'm sure every monster in the next room is waiting for us to open that door. I want to be able to attack whatever is waiting for us on the other side, so Valeros should open the door."
Valeros' Player - "Yeah, Valeros is using a shield right now, so I would have to spend all 3 of my actions to open the door. I'd have to sheathe my sword, open the door, then draw my sword. And even then I won't have an action to ready my shield against the monsters in the next room."
Kyra's Player - "Don't look at me, I'm using a shield too."
*Party looks at...
In Pathfinder 1e, when you get to a door:
Move action: Sheathe a weaponStandard (Used as move): Open door.
So unless you have Quick Draw you’re out of luck.
In fact that’s why Fighters and Barbarians are known for “Kicking in the Door”.
That works in either edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).
They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.
Several issues there. You are then gating that particular fighting style behind particular classes, who then arbitrarily can't use features if they use something in the other hand. What if my Rogue wants to keep a free hand?
If a free hander isn't that different from a shield user, then they are less interesting. Having their own distinct niche is more fun than just patching an AC bonus onto a class. Especially when things like Parry or gishing are being replicated within the basic action economy.
If a free hander has the same AC of a shield user, but has a free hand, then they are now better than the shield user by virtue of having a free hand to draw items and interact. This will be especially prominent since it costs less to draw an item now.
So, I'm gonna have to actually break down a lot more of the old system for you, but short answers:
1) Duelisty stuff just happened to be done better by rogues, swash's, and daring champions because they had the best damage.2) rogue's were good with one handed weapons, because they could spend an action on improved feint and still get in two attacks, if they had greater feint they got sneak attack on both, without taking the penalites on TWF. With haste you could do this twice and still make two attacks with sneak attack at your full bonues.
3) shields were still better, if built for it. It was a boring build, but there is a large factor by which your AC can improve with a shield, it is the best defensive option.
So what you are saying is that to make a free hand work, you need a very specific build. How is that better for player choice than making free handing have a niche out of the box? Especially because giving everything a niche out of the box fits with how they are handling weapon traits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you are saying is that to make a free hand work, you need a very specific build. How is that better...I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).
They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.
Several issues there. You are then gating that particular fighting style behind particular classes, who then arbitrarily can't use features if they use something in the other hand. What if my Rogue wants to keep a free hand?
If a free hander isn't that different from a shield user, then they are less interesting. Having their own distinct niche is more fun than just patching an AC bonus onto a class. Especially when things like Parry or gishing are being replicated within the basic action economy.
If a free hander has the same AC of a shield user, but has a free hand, then they are now better than the shield user by virtue of having a free hand to draw items and interact. This will be especially prominent since it costs less to draw an item now.
So, I'm gonna have to actually break down a lot more of the old system for you, but short answers:
1) Duelisty stuff just happened to be done better by rogues, swash's, and daring champions because they had the best damage.2) rogue's were good with one handed weapons, because they could spend an action on improved feint and still get in two attacks, if they had greater feint they got sneak attack on both, without taking the penalites on TWF. With haste you could do this twice and still make two attacks with sneak attack at your full bonues.
3) shields were still better, if built for it. It was a boring build, but there is a large factor by which your AC can improve with a shield, it is the best defensive option.
Yeah, you have to build for it, some classes are designed around the paradigm of bringing weaker combat styles up to par. Brawler was another one. Shifter.... existed.
Point is, it was still a viable option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you have to build for it, some classes are designed around the paradigm of bringing weaker combat styles up to par. Brawler was another one. Shifter.... existed.
Point is, it was still a viable option.
Sure, it might be viable. But wouldn't it be better if it didn't take intense system mastery or very limited class selection to make a fighting style viable? The War Priest could make crappy weapons viable. But most of us are still happy PF2 weapons will be more competitive with each other out of the box.
Sure, it might be viable. But wouldn't it be better if it didn't take intense system mastery or very limited class selection to make a fighting style viable? The War Priest could make crappy weapons viable. But most of us are still happy PF2 weapons will be more competitive with each other out of the box.Yeah, you have to build for it, some classes are designed around the paradigm of bringing weaker combat styles up to par. Brawler was another one. Shifter.... existed.
Point is, it was still a viable option.
My fear is that it won't be, based on some of what we're seeing.
My fear is that it won't be, based on some of what we're seeing.Sure, it might be viable. But wouldn't it be better if it didn't take intense system mastery or very limited class selection to make a fighting style viable? The War Priest could make crappy weapons viable. But most of us are still happy PF2 weapons will be more competitive with each other out of the box.Yeah, you have to build for it, some classes are designed around the paradigm of bringing weaker combat styles up to par. Brawler was another one. Shifter.... existed.
Point is, it was still a viable option.
Well, I don't see why you feel that way. We don't know specifics, but we know that any given weapon will have areas it excels in. And we know the 4 different melee styles will have areas they excel in.
The balance could wind up being off between them, but so far the only style that we have seen nerfed is Two-Handed Weapons, and only in very specific circumstances. We have nothing on two-weapon fighting, know shields are hella good at keeping you alive, know two-handed will still hit the hardest per attack, and free handers will have more flexibility for casting/item using/environmental manipulation/grappling. There's no reason to think any of this is inherently badly balanced yet.
It is also possible that you just won't LIKE some or all of these options, especially if you are used to using the more fun Unchained Action Economy over the default PF1 setting. But everyone who has actually gotten to use a shield so far swears up and down they are super fun, for example.
I'm all for bringing up the viability of all basic melee styles, but would rather that they base 1-handed style around something that isnt punishment of twohanded style.
You know what this feels like? Jason Bulmahn reportedly hated spiked chain-trip builds which were the most powerful/popular builds in 3.5 so spiked chain got nerfed into oblivion, while also breaking improved trip into two feats. And now the style that was easiest to be competitive in, the two handing, is getting a nerf compared to other fighting styles that are getting a boost in PF2.
I understand there's a need for balance, but spending an action for changing grips does not make game fun.
I'm all for bringing up the viability of all basic melee styles, but would rather that they base 1-handed style around something that isnt punishment of twohanded style. .
Yeah, I can dig that. Of course, then you've got to actually come up with something that fits logically and brings the other styles up. Which seems to be pretty hard, since Paizo kept making you jump through class hoops to do it.
It's kind of like the "don't nerf the casters, just buff the martials" argument. I personally agree with it, which is why I love Path of War. But I also recognize that it is a challenging task, especially if a large chunk of your players actively don't want you to make anime fighting wizards or whatever insults people are throwing around for it these days. Which is why PF2 looks to be meeting somewhere in the middle.
I understand there's a need for balance, but spending an action for changing grips does not make game fun.
I think this stems from the times when people was juggling revolvers here and there.
I think the action should be renamed "readying weapon" or "guard" or whatever, and include passing from not having your weapon ready to fight, to having it. So a one handed weapon that is sheathed, will be drawn and you put yourself in a guarding position and now you can fight normally. If you are "wielding" a 2h weapon, but not ready for combat, you enter in guard mode too. If you have your 2 handed sword sheathed, you can draw it, grip it with two hands, and enter guard mode, still with 1 single action.
Why is the door thing even an argument when you can easily shift your grip, wait a turn, then open the door and shift it back to have an action left over to attack? If the fight doesn't start until we open the door anyway then why bother trying to do it all at once?
Why is the door thing even an argument when you can easily shift your grip, wait a turn, then open the door and shift it back to have an action left over to attack? If the fight doesn't start until we open the door anyway then why bother trying to do it all at once?
Honestly, and for no other reason, because it complicates the game in an arbitrary way.
Why is the door thing even an argument when you can easily shift your grip, wait a turn, then open the door and shift it back to have an action left over to attack? If the fight doesn't start until we open the door anyway then why bother trying to do it all at once?Honestly, and for no other reason, because it complicates the game in an arbitrary way.
I mean, even assuming that removing a hand from your weapon does take an action, PF2 is no more ridiculous than PF1 on the door front. In PF1 it took your entire turn to move to a door and open it, and if you were already next to the door you could only open it and attack once. In PF2 you would move up, shift your grip, and open the door, and if you were already next to the door there's no reason you'd not have a hand free to start with since you've already been standing by it for a turn, in which case you open it and shift your grip back then make an attack. If you can shift grip down a step for no action (2H to 1H) then PF2 is actually superior to PF1 on the door argument.
I won't say that the concept of shifting grip taking an action makes much sense, as I'm pretty certain it's more of a game balance decision than a realism decision (ie grip shifting on magus causing headaches and the hands of effort faq). Whether it's one I agree with or not would depend on so many factors that I can't really judge it at the moment. If grip shifting actions answers the wonky interactions that led to the "hands of effort" clarification then I could probably live with it, personally.
Why is the door thing even an argument when you can easily shift your grip, wait a turn, then open the door and shift it back to have an action left over to attack? If the fight doesn't start until we open the door anyway then why bother trying to do it all at once?Honestly, and for no other reason, because it complicates the game in an arbitrary way.I mean, even assuming that removing a hand from your weapon does take an action, PF2 is no more ridiculous than PF1 on the door front. In PF1 it took your entire turn to move to a door and open it, and if you were already next to the door you could only open it and attack once. In PF2 you would move up, shift your grip, and open the door, and if you were already next to the door there's no reason you'd not have a hand free to start with since you've already been standing by it for a turn, in which case you open it and shift your grip back then make an attack. If you can shift grip down a step for no action (2H to 1H) then PF2 is actually superior to PF1 on the door argument.
I won't say that the concept of shifting grip taking an action makes much sense, as I'm pretty certain it's more of a game balance decision than a realism decision (ie grip shifting on magus causing headaches and the hands of effort faq). Whether it's one I agree with or not would depend on so many factors that I can't really judge it at the moment. If grip shifting actions answers the wonky interactions that led to the "hands of effort" clarification then I could probably live with it, personally.
See I'm on the opposite corner here, I'd rather see less dumb abilities that require arbitrary rulings that punish players for no reason other than "we wanted to nerf these couple abilities that we wrote."
New edition, new chance to get it right the first time.