| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it's nice that Summon Monster X is now one spell, but the sorcerer STILL has to learn it multiple times UNLESS he wants to devote one of his 2 slots of spontaneous heightening to it. This applies to all the spells he learns such that, eventually, you will be forced to learn certain spells repeatedly if you want to be able to cast more than 3 spells at different levels in one day.
This is especially unattractive when you consider how few spells the sorcerer learns per spell level: 4, 1 of which is dictated by the bloodline.
|
The official reasons for sorcerers not being able to spontaneously heighten were "analysis paralysis" and unlimited spontaneous heightening being OP.
I don't buy either reason..
I buy into this.
In organized play with a bunch of semi-strangers, there's that guy playing the sorcerer.
And everyone's been taking their turns pretty expediently, now it's his turn, and he hasn't been spending the time thinking about what he'd do when it wasn't his turn - he was too busy on his phone, or getting a beer.
Now that it's his turn, he hmms and hmms for minutes trying to decide if he should empower this, or maximize that. Maybe he even takes out his phone's calculator app for a couple minutes.
I suspect a lot of changes were to codify a character before it begins play at the table to reduce the amount of things you could decide upon after you sit down and then your turn comes up. This makes everyone's organized play experience better when the person who has a hard time deciding has a lot less they can do when their turn comes up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The official reasons for sorcerers not being able to spontaneously heighten were "analysis paralysis" and unlimited spontaneous heightening being OP.
I don't buy either reason..
I buy into this.
In organized play with a bunch of semi-strangers, there's that guy playing the sorcerer.
And everyone's been taking their turns pretty expediently, now it's his turn, and he hasn't been spending the time thinking about what he'd do when it wasn't his turn - he was too busy on his phone, or getting a beer.
Now that it's his turn, he hmms and hmms for minutes trying to decide if he should empower this, or maximize that. Maybe he even takes out his phone's calculator app for a couple minutes.
I suspect a lot of changes were to codify a character before it begins play at the table to reduce the amount of things you could decide upon after you sit down and then your turn comes up. This makes everyone's organized play experience better when the person who has a hard time deciding has a lot less they can do when their turn comes up.
Conversely, I play with a GM who banned all prepared caster classes from his new game because he was fed up with a few players in his previous game taking upward of 30 minutes to pick their spells at the start of a new day.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The official reasons for sorcerers not being able to spontaneously heighten were "analysis paralysis" and unlimited spontaneous heightening being OP.
I don't buy either reason..
I buy into this.
In organized play with a bunch of semi-strangers, there's that guy playing the sorcerer.
And everyone's been taking their turns pretty expediently, now it's his turn, and he hasn't been spending the time thinking about what he'd do when it wasn't his turn - he was too busy on his phone, or getting a beer.
Now that it's his turn, he hmms and hmms for minutes trying to decide if he should empower this, or maximize that. Maybe he even takes out his phone's calculator app for a couple minutes.
I suspect a lot of changes were to codify a character before it begins play at the table to reduce the amount of things you could decide upon after you sit down and then your turn comes up. This makes everyone's organized play experience better when the person who has a hard time deciding has a lot less they can do when their turn comes up.
You get egg timers for those games and people stop dicking around on their phones pretty quick
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And everyone's been taking their turns pretty expediently, now it's his turn, and he hasn't been spending the time thinking about what he'd do when it wasn't his turn - he was too busy on his phone, or getting a beer.
Now that it's his turn, he hmms and hmms for minutes trying to decide if he should empower this, or maximize that. Maybe he even takes out his phone's calculator app for a couple minutes.
So he'd waste time on his turn no matter what? I'm not seeing this as a great argument. If it's not figuring out what spell, he's asking what happened when he wasn't paying attention, looking though his known spells, looking up what they do, ect...
Someone not engaged until their turn isn't affected by this rule as they'd waste time anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.
Don't care so much about this.
2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.
Disagree
3. Proficiencies in skills & saves are silly.
Disagree
4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.
Go watch the GEN CON Q&A, they explain why it is this way.
5. You can't do traditional multiclassing at all, ever.
I won't miss it. Too many exploits in older multiclass systems.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
#3 is a deal breaker, honestly. This skill system makes zero sense. Stats being equal, why again would a 7th level sorcerer who may have never touched a flute in his life be statistically superior when using it to a level 1 Bard who has trained with it his pre-adventuring life? I don’t know how the devs got comfortable with “just add level to every skill”, but it greatly sacrifices realism for system and for what? It isn’t even really that much simpler than what we already have...
It's easy to see why this change was made. At low levels of PF1 the maximum range of Skill bonuses between characters is pretty low. As you get to higher levels, characters get more and more specialized, or rather, they simply STOP being able to even attempt skill checks that are challenging for their character level. By effectively capping Skill ranks at +5, PF2 ensures that higher level characters can still try to participate in roleplaying and exploration challenges, even if they're not highly trained or don't have a high attribute modifier.
As, for the system itself, let me quote a passage from page 142:
"Anyone can use a skill’s untrained uses unless some circumstance, condition, or effect bars them from doing so. You can use trained uses only if you’re at least trained in that skill and no circumstance, condition, or effect bars you from that use. Sometimes using a skill in a specific situation might require you to have a higher proficiency rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath weapon might be something beyond the scope of the barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained all the way up to legendary."
So basically, your GM can definitely say "Your sorcerer doesn't know how to play a flute, you can't make the Perform action." If they were Trained in Performance, and had a history of playing the flute, then he probably won't say no. If your Sorcerer is an Expert in Perform and has a history of playing musical instruments, then the GM could (for example) let you Perform with a flute, but perhaps with a -2 or higher penalty since it's not an instrument you're that familiar with. If you have Legendary Performance, your character is probably musically and theatrically talented that they could pick up any instrument and use it with ease with maybe a minute's practice and tuning.
You can apply this to less tool-based skills as well. A GM can absolutely say that the Fortress of Shadowed Steel is filled with watchful guards and magical sensors, and anybody with less than Expert Stealth is going to get detected right away. No rolling for the Sneak action, you just don't have the training to infiltrate such a place properly.
Is the "add half level to all skill checks, regardless of proficiency" mechanic flawed? Sure. But at least the book clearly indicates that, yeah, if it wouldn't make sense for a player to use a skill that way, the GM can prohibit or limit that skill use. It's not a perfect solution but, arguably, it's better than having increasingly large skill gaps between party members.
In PF1, especially at higher levels, almost all Skill challenges are open to everyone but only those who heavily invest in those skill are actually doing anything. There's no way to make a tense sneaking session for everyone, because if the Fighter sees it as a challenge, the Rogue probably can't fail it, and if the Rogue is struggling, the Fighter can't possibly succeed. There's no way at higher levels to let both highly skilled and less skilled people participate in such a challenge.
In PF2, if a Skill challenge is accessible to all PCs, everyone can attempt it and the skilled folk have a definite edge that does, indeed, get better over time. In that situation, everybody has a chance of success and failure because the range of modifiers is pretty bounded, for lack of a better term. If a Skill Challenge requires a Training level, then it turns into a cool 'spotlight' moment for that one PC, where the Bard gets to describe his awesome lute solo or the Rogue narrates his cool stealth moves as he makes his way to the secret passage to let the rest of the party into the fortress.
#3 is a deal breaker, honestly. This skill system makes zero sense. Stats being equal, why again would a 7th level sorcerer who may have never touched a flute in his life be statistically superior when using it to a level 1 Bard who has trained with it his pre-adventuring life? I don’t know how the devs got comfortable with “just add level to every skill”, but it greatly sacrifices realism for system and for what? It isn’t even really that much simpler than what we already have...It's easy to see why this change was made. At low levels of PF1 the maximum range of Skill bonuses between characters is pretty low. As you get to higher levels, characters get more and more specialized, or rather, they simply STOP being able to even attempt skill checks that are challenging for their character level. By effectively capping Skill ranks at +5, PF2 ensures that higher level characters can still try to participate in roleplaying and exploration challenges, even if they're not highly trained or don't have a high attribute modifier.
As, for the system itself, let me quote a passage from page 142:
"Anyone can use a skill’s untrained uses unless some circumstance, condition, or effect bars them from doing so. You can use trained uses only if you’re at least trained in that skill and no circumstance, condition, or effect bars you from that use. Sometimes using a skill in a specific situation might require you to have a higher proficiency rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath weapon might be something beyond the scope of the barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained all the...
Wow you really summed up pretty well my thoughts on it. Probably better then I could have. I will probably be referencing this post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.
A lot of people have mentioned that, without any form of multiclassing, you cannot have a TWF Rogue(at least one that's meaningfully better than a 1 weapon Rogue). This is silly, and an example of a seeming design oversight but it highlights a bigger issue.
No one else has responded to this particular claim, so I figure I will.
In Pathfinder 2.0 you don’t need feats to TWF. Thar be a lot of people on these boards who think you need double slice to TWF, but that isn’t true. My guess is that these people went off looking for the feat that would let them TWF, saw that only fighters and rangers got it, and were understandably upset.
What these people missed is that the reason characters have to TWF is not in their class feats, but in the chapter on equipment. Specifically, ‘agile’ weapons tend to be worse than their less agile counterparts, but in return get an accuracy buff on the iterative attacks. Specifically addressing the claim that a rogue using one weapon is as good as one using two, this is demonstrably false. A rogue using nought but a rapier does 1d6 base damage, and has the disarm and deadly weapon traits available to them. A rogue using a rapier and a shortsword has all the same benefits, but also gains +1 to hit with their second attack, and +2 to hit with their third attack.
Though, as far as choice in sidearm goes, I actually prefer the dagger to the shortsword. Slightly less damage on those iterative attacks, but another weapon property to play with, and a ranged option to boot.
TL;DR
TWF rogues are stronker than their one-weapon counterparts, and my playtest character uses a rapier and a dagger.
We should all strive to make a conscious effort not to jump to conclusions about the new system, because many of the old system’s problems have been solved in a manner most elegant but also a manner hidden out of immediate sight in the properties of weapons and the descriptions of skills. We all need to play about with the new game before we declare what it can or can’t do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me a system that tries to satisfy the envy...
You took the words right out of my mouth. This new system seems to pander to people who are poor sports.
Why exactly are we looking to bring more players like that to our respective tables or encouraging them to remain ?
I really hope that is not the intent of the developers even though they are probably trying to collect all the scraps discarded from the d&d 5e groups.
Or maybe it's just laziness...manage the difference in level by raising all the statistics of +1 it's like going back to the stone age and looks a lot like a video game. It's how to spit in an eye to all the fellow developers(of other games like d&d 3.5/pathfinder) who have engineered to avoid such archaic and linear system using a more innovative one.#3 is a deal breaker, honestly. This skill system makes zero sense. Stats being equal, why again would a 7th level sorcerer who may have never touched a flute in his life be statistically superior when using it to a level 1 Bard who has trained with it his pre-adventuring life? I don’t know how the devs got comfortable with “just add level to every skill”, but it greatly sacrifices realism for system and for what? It isn’t even really that much simpler than what we already have...It's easy to see why this change was made. At low levels of PF1 the maximum range of Skill bonuses between characters is pretty low. As you get to higher levels, characters get more and more specialized, or rather, they simply STOP being able to even attempt skill checks that are challenging for their character level. By effectively capping Skill ranks at +5, PF2 ensures that higher level characters can still try to participate in roleplaying and exploration challenges, even if they're not highly trained or don't have a high attribute modifier.
As, for the system itself, let me quote a passage from page 142:
"Anyone can use a skill’s untrained uses unless some circumstance, condition, or effect bars them from doing so. You can use trained uses only if you’re at least trained in that skill and no circumstance, condition, or effect bars you from that use. Sometimes using a skill in a specific situation might require you to have a higher proficiency rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath weapon might be something beyond the scope of the barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained all the...
This is even worse. Not only is the system to tell you how your character should be but it is also left in the hands of the GM that the only thing that should not touch is the player's character.
However, there is already a tabel that says what can or can not be done by a trained or untrained character and is rather poor. This was the only excuse that could save this system but turned out to be a failure.
|
On the topic of Resonance, I like the concept, but the execution could use some work.
If I were to change it it would look something like this:
Bombs = 0 resonance to make or use (I won't go into why, because that could get me in trouble)
Potions & Scrolls = 1 resonance per spell level to create, but no resonance to use (this prevents the potion creator from just cranking them out all day, but allows them to be used when needed as the Resonance was paid up front)
Wands = 1 resonance per spell level to create and one resonance to use (Limits how many can be created in a day, but you only created a spell matrix, and you are using your own energy to power the spell)
Magic Items = 1 resonance per spell level to create (multiple spells require their own resonance use during creation) & 1 resonance invested at the beginning of the day and the item is considered to be in constant use. If the item is inert, and only has a specific function (ex: Ring of the Ram) refer to the wand above for resonance costs.
Armor = 1 resonance per spell level to create (multiple spells require their own resonance use during creation) & 1 resonance invested at the beginning of the day and the item is considered to be in constant use for base and constant abilities (ex: Ghost Touch). Special spell-like abilities require use of 1 resonance to activate (ex: Ethereal).
Weapons = 1 resonance per spell level to create (multiple spells require their own resonance use during creation) & Special spell-like abilities require use of 1 resonance to activate (ex: Disrupting) for an entire combat. Constant abilities are always functioning without resonance expenditure (ex: Ghost Touch).
Staves = creation and use like weapons above, but charges are used to power the spell-like abilities (unless resonance is specifically called for).
My thinking is this would limit characters from becoming magic item factories, make single-use items more palatable to the player base complaining about the mechanic, and still accomplish some of the original goals of the mechanic (such as limiting CLW spam).
I understand limiting certain body slots (I have never been able to wear two pair of boots at the same time and two pair of gloves makes fine manipulation a pointless endeavor) but Rings and Amulets should not be limited in the same way.
Oh I definitely agree resonance needs to be tweeked. I'm going to make a list of specifics eventually.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, on topic. From just reading the rules without playtesting, I'm not super jazzed about:
- evolve gardually into Full Half-Orc shtick
- are we still doing grid and minis/pawns? Yep, we are *sigh*
- Alchemists seem off the baseline
- resonance is a good concept but I'm not sure if I like the execution
- LG ONLY PALADINZ
The rest rocks my boat, we'll see how it all works in two weeks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I think alchemists need a bit of work still.
I think my actual favorite part of the changes is the new 4 degrees hit crit system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I'm not going to try to convince you because I can't put it as well as that post did. If that didn't show you where the other side was coming from I don't know what will, and that's fine. If we outnumber it will be our way if you guys do it will be your way I can live with it because I can house rule it the way I want anyways but house ruleing may not be for everyone so I guess we will see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#3 is a deal breaker, honestly. This skill system makes zero sense. Stats being equal, why again would a 7th level sorcerer who may have never touched a flute in his life be statistically superior when using it to a level 1 Bard who has trained with it his pre-adventuring life? I don’t know how the devs got comfortable with “just add level to every skill”, but it greatly sacrifices realism for system and for what? It isn’t even really that much simpler than what we already have...It's easy to see why this change was made. At low levels of PF1 the maximum range of Skill bonuses between characters is pretty low. As you get to higher levels, characters get more and more specialized, or rather, they simply STOP being able to even attempt skill checks that are challenging for their character level. By effectively capping Skill ranks at +5, PF2 ensures that higher level characters can still try to participate in roleplaying and exploration challenges, even if they're not highly trained or don't have a high attribute modifier.
As, for the system itself, let me quote a passage from page 142:
"Anyone can use a skill’s untrained uses unless some circumstance, condition, or effect bars them from doing so. You can use trained uses only if you’re at least trained in that skill and no circumstance, condition, or effect bars you from that use. Sometimes using a skill in a specific situation might require you to have a higher proficiency rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath weapon might be something beyond the scope of the barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained all the...
Great post. You expressed that much better than I have managed.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe it's just laziness...manage the difference in level by raising all the statistics of +1 it's like going back to the stone age and looks a lot like a video game. It's how to spit in an eye to all the fellow developers(of other games like d&d 3.5/pathfinder) who have engineered to avoid such archaic and linear system using a more innovative one.I think this passage isn't hyperbolic enough. Maybe add something about kicked puppies, shattered dreams or stolen wives?
I can confirm I was indeed kicked by 2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.
A lot of people have mentioned that, without any form of multiclassing, you cannot have a TWF Rogue(at least one that's meaningfully better than a 1 weapon Rogue). This is silly, and an example of a seeming design oversight but it highlights a bigger issue.No one else has responded to this particular claim, so I figure I will.
In Pathfinder 2.0 you don’t need feats to TWF. Thar be a lot of people on these boards who think you need double slice to TWF, but that isn’t true. My guess is that these people went off looking for the feat that would let them TWF, saw that only fighters and rangers got it, and were understandably upset.
What these people missed is that the reason characters have to TWF is not in their class feats, but in the chapter on equipment. Specifically, ‘agile’ weapons tend to be worse than their less agile counterparts, but in return get an accuracy buff on the iterative attacks. Specifically addressing the claim that a rogue using one weapon is as good as one using two, this is demonstrably false. A rogue using nought but a rapier does 1d6 base damage, and has the disarm and deadly weapon traits available to them. A rogue using a rapier and a shortsword has all the same benefits, but also gains +1 to hit with their second attack, and +2 to hit with their third attack.
Though, as far as choice in sidearm goes, I actually prefer the dagger to the shortsword. Slightly less damage on those iterative attacks, but another weapon property to play with, and a ranged option to boot.
TL;DR
TWF rogues are stronker than their one-weapon counterparts, and my playtest character uses a rapier and a dagger.
We should all strive to make a conscious effort not to jump to conclusions about the new system, because many of the old system’s problems have been solved in a manner most elegant but also a manner hidden out of immediate sight in the properties of weapons and the descriptions of skills. We all need...
A guy using a single shortsword, or two shortswords, or a shortsword and a dagger, or any combination of Agile weapons sees absolutely no difference whatsoever.
So yes, a Rogue using one weapon is as good as a Rogue using two in most cases. If you want to make someone who uses two of the same weapon (two rapiers, two shortswords, two daggers, etc) you're basically just wasting money in the off hand.
On the first attack, rapiers average more damage because of their bonus damage on Ceuta. On the second attack, shortswords do more average damage because of their bonus to hit.
The optimal strategy for doing damage is to use a rapier for the first attack, and then a shortsword for the second and third attacks. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear from my first post. I tried to cut the fat out of this one.
Myself, I enjoy using a dagger in my off-hand because I can throw it. You can’t throw a rapier. Or, at least, not effectively. And if you single wield a dagger you will not do as much damage as someone with a rapier. So I find it useful to use a rapier for the first attack, and and then a dagger for the iteratives. I might switch to a shortsword when magic weapons become a thing for the character, and there’s a difference between 1d4 and 1d6 base damage. I don’t know yet.
On the first attack, rapiers average more damage because of their bonus damage on Ceuta.
*on criticals.
Friggin’ autocorrect.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...#3 is a deal breaker, honestly. This skill system makes zero sense. Stats being equal, why again would a 7th level sorcerer who may have never touched a flute in his life be statistically superior when using it to a level 1 Bard who has trained with it his pre-adventuring life? I don’t know how the devs got comfortable with “just add level to every skill”, but it greatly sacrifices realism for system and for what? It isn’t even really that much simpler than what we already have...It's easy to see why this change was made. At low levels of PF1 the maximum range of Skill bonuses between characters is pretty low. As you get to higher levels, characters get more and more specialized, or rather, they simply STOP being able to even attempt skill checks that are challenging for their character level. By effectively capping Skill ranks at +5, PF2 ensures that higher level characters can still try to participate in roleplaying and exploration challenges, even if they're not highly trained or don't have a high attribute modifier.
As, for the system itself, let me quote a passage from page 142:
"Anyone can use a skill’s untrained uses unless some circumstance, condition, or effect bars them from doing so. You can use trained uses only if you’re at least trained in that skill and no circumstance, condition, or effect bars you from that use. Sometimes using a skill in a specific situation might require you to have a higher proficiency rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath weapon might be something beyond the scope of the barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a task requires a particular proficiency
In a bit of a hurry but I wanted to respond to this before other things put it out of mind.
I appreciate what you are saying, I do not agree but I get it. Thing is the skills are divided between subsets that require (at least) training to succeed at and those that require none.
The problems run much deeper than the perform skill but let's stay looking at it.
The Perform skill is fairly clear that you don't need training to perform a short piece. It lists common examples
Act or perform comedy
Dance
Play an instrument
Orate or sing
In fact all PCs can sing, dance do stand up, really well either from the start or after a while without ever spending resources. The same goes for all non gated skill subsets, for no narrative reason and with zero resource spent you get good at things you have never tried let alone studied or practiced.
So a GM could decide to gate a skill that the rules don't but it in the case of perform it would seem odd to move it from the non trained to trained.
An example of a what I don't like might be: You can play that Orcish nose flute you had never heard off and despite never having played a note of music in your life, you play better than the low level orc who has studied it all her life, well enough in fact to appease the Orc leader and avoid a more costly resolution (but not well enough to make money!)
Even if you swap nose flute for a something like Irish Sean-nos singing, it is still a nonsense - even in a world with dragons and elves!!!
All this to ensure that a character with no narrative reason to be good at something can always be able to contribute.
It is also not just being better than trained professionals/athletes etc. despite never having tried. (cf the early rounds of TV shows like American Idol)
It also has the impact that while the DC for e.g. climbing a specific wall remains static there is a need for escalating DCs so that walls designed to keep even mid level parties out will need to be much more intimidating. Given that walls share the same world as characters of all levels this makes designing a consistent world hard.
Also has knock on effects. For instance it means that to allow jumping to work the leap action guarantees any PC to be able to perform broad jumps at close or in some cases better than the world record.
Something that recognises the resource spent at getting good at something hard rather than just giving all the children winners medals regardless is certainly on my wish list.
If you fail to prepare and all that....