Fighter Class Preview

The description of the Fighter given here feels rather lackluster. I think that is because I am a PF1 aficionado while this description is aimed at another target audience. People who are familiar with what a Fighter is but not with the PF1 Fighter, ie the 5ed crowd

This got me thinking that with PF2 Paizo tries to capture those who are dissatisfied with 5ed while keeping those who enjoy PF1 in its 3.5ness. This will be harder IMO than in the times of 4ed when those 2 demographics were basically one and the same

Unrelated note. I wonder how a Ranger will be different from a Fighter now that the latter's feats are greatly based on combat styles

- finicky penalties
- still focused on Feats (do they even scale with level or retain usefulness through 20 levels)
- single focus on a weapon group

Hard pass...

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

At 19th level though, what's more impressive: casting a spell to gate in the heavenly host or being good at using all weapons...? To me, it sounds painfully dreadful and boring considering how often any one particular fighter uses a multitude of weapons to begin with. Pick a ranged, one slash, one pierce, one bludgeon - done.

*yawn*

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

At 19th level though, what's more impressive: casting a spell to gate in the heavenly host or being good at using all weapons...? To me, it sounds painfully dreadful and boring considering how often any one particular fighter uses a multitude of weapons to begin with. Pick a ranged, one slash, one pierce, one bludgeon - done.

*yawn*

You're assuming that casters will be able to gate in heavenly hosts at level 19. Which is something that isn't certain at this point.

Diffan wrote:

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

At 19th level though, what's more impressive: casting a spell to gate in the heavenly host or being good at using all weapons...? To me, it sounds painfully dreadful and boring considering how often any one particular fighter uses a multitude of weapons to begin with. Pick a ranged, one slash, one pierce, one bludgeon - done.

*yawn*

You're assuming that casters will be able to gate in heavenly hosts at level 19. Which is something that isn't certain at this point.

Yes I'm assuming, but honestly from what I've seen so far I have strong reservations that I'm not far off the mark. But even if gate isn't a spell, I doubt we're going to see balanced ninth level spells compared to what the fighter gets at 19th level.

Gorbacz wrote:

Diffan wrote:

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

At 19th level though, what's more impressive: casting a spell to gate in the heavenly host or being good at using all weapons...? To me, it sounds painfully dreadful and boring considering how often any one particular fighter uses a multitude of weapons to begin with. Pick a ranged, one slash, one pierce, one bludgeon - done.

*yawn*

You're assuming that casters will be able to gate in heavenly hosts at level 19. Which is something that isn't certain at this point.

Yes I'm assuming, but honestly from what I've seen so far I have strong reservations that I'm not far off the mark. But even if gate isn't a spell, I doubt we're going to see balanced ninth level spells compared to what the fighter gets at 19th level.

No amount of feelings, anticipations and assumptions are equal to facts. Let's wait for those before jumping to conclusions.

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

At 19th level though, what's more impressive: casting a spell to gate in the heavenly host or being good at using all weapons...? To me, it sounds painfully dreadful and boring considering how often any one particular fighter uses a multitude of weapons to begin with. Pick a ranged, one slash, one pierce, one bludgeon - done.

*yawn*

Well, considering that IIRC someone who got a high Proficiency in Athletics might be able to jump 30 feet or more in the air, someone who got Legendary Proficiency in a weapon type might be able to bat aside a fireball or other projectile spell the wizard is shooting at them.

So don't think "Just very good", think superhumanly good

Diffan wrote:

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

"At 19th level, you become a legend with all simple and martial weapons!"

I'd have to see how weapons are sorted, but I'm not sure this feels good. When you are Legendary at every weapon, nothing seems special (Incredibles? =P )

At 19th level though, what's more impressive: casting a spell to gate in the heavenly host or being good at using all weapons...? To me, it sounds painfully dreadful and boring considering how often any one particular fighter uses a multitude of weapons to begin with. Pick a ranged, one slash, one pierce, one bludgeon - done.

*yawn*

Well, considering that IIRC someone who got a high Proficiency in Athletics might be able to jump 30 feet or more in the air, someone who got Legendary Proficiency in a weapon type might be able to bat aside a fireball or other projectile spell the wizard is shooting at them.

So don't think "Just very good", think superhumanly good

I'm going to hold out hope that it'll be good. Currently, however, they're making decisions that I either really dislike and/or don't make any sense what so ever. But yes, continue to hope

Mmh, I'm probably hoping in vain, but I dream of the day a Fighter can do some Dynasty Warriors stuff XD

Mmh, I'm probably hoping in vain, but I dream of the day a Fighter can do some Dynasty Warriors stuff XD

They already could. It's called Cleave and Whirlwind Attack. They were just bad feats with steep requirements and low circumstantial application.

Even so, several people oppose the "Wuxia Fighter" class, so it's unlikely to take place.

The Eternal Keeper wrote:

Mmh, I'm probably hoping in vain, but I dream of the day a Fighter can do some Dynasty Warriors stuff XD

They already could. It's called Cleave and Whirlwind Attack. They were just bad feats with steep requirements and low circumstantial application.

Even so, several people oppose the "Wuxia Fighter" class, so it's unlikely to take place.

I wouldn't be surprised to see "Dynasty Warriors"-like moves unlocked with legendary weapon proficiency.

They already could. It's called Cleave and Whirlwind Attack.

It's actually called "full attack against a troop subtype" but hey, some people won't be happy until they get their Celestial Triple Jade Dragon Omnislash Neko Neko Initiation manoeuvrer or some other weaboo anime stuff. :)

Did someone just say “weeaboo?”

Did someone just say “weeaboo?”

No, I said "weaboo". One "e" less. It makes all the difference, like between "desert" and "dessert". Duh!

Saved by a typo! :P

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

They already could. It's called Cleave and Whirlwind Attack.

It's actually called "full attack against a troop subtype" but hey, some people won't be happy until they get their Celestial Triple Jade Dragon Omnislash Neko Neko Initiation manoeuvrer or some other weaboo anime stuff. :)

Thunderclap Strike, Ox Stance, Full Iron Door defence... And then you get into the mid-level abilities like the Salmon Leap of Cuchulain and the high level ones from Mok'bara.

Mmh, I'm probably hoping in vain, but I dream of the day a Fighter can do some Dynasty Warriors stuff XD

Most likely never to happen because - as it's been stated a millions times - Fighters can't have nice things.

Simply look at the class "Features"

Attacks of Opportunity - Cool! (but at a penalty)...Why?!? Why are Fighters being penalized at doing exactly what they're designed to do??

Feats make up the bulk of their workload. Gee...didn't ANYONE realize why this was a problem in 3.5/PF? Looking at the feats themselves....I'm finding it lack luster. It's still more exception-based design that honestly I find that design model outdated.

You can raise your shield to block a shot....as an action. Ok so I can draw a weapon and attack a foe in an action but it takes the same thing to move my arm 6" up? That just doesn't make any sense!

If you want a great summation as to why the 3.5 Fighter (and classes relying specifically on Feats) are bad then please read this great analysis.

https://theendhavenproject.blogspot.com/2017/09/an-analysis-of-dungeons-and -dragons-30.html

Feats make up the bulk of their workload.

I think you will find that this is the case with every class now. "Fighter Feats" are feats that fighters can take, but non-fighters can not... think of them as the equivalent of "Rage powers" or "Rogue talents" except for fighters and not barbarians or rogues.

The big issue with that analysis is that Class Feats are not the same thing in PF2 that Feats are in PF1. They are unique to the Class in question. So think of them as Fighter Talents, or Fighter Discoveries, or whatever, but be aware that nobody else can get them (well, some might be on more than one Class's list, but they certainly aren't universally available).

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ah, well.

Diffan wrote:

Feats make up the bulk of their workload.

I think you will find that this is the case with every class now. "Fighter Feats" are feats that fighters can take, but non-fighters can not... think of them as the equivalent of "Rage powers" or "Rogue talents" except for fighters and not barbarians or rogues.

Which would be fine if they held their value through most levels. Again we dont know what they completely look like but how does Sudden Charge maintain its worth at 9th or 13th or 17th level? In 4th Edition many feats scaled with level or were replaced later on with retraining. In 5th edition Feats are a group of abilities that maintain their overall usefulness at all levels of play.

So am I going to benef from grabbing Sudden Charge at 4th or 8th level vs. 1st?

The Eternal Keeper wrote:

Mmh, I'm probably hoping in vain, but I dream of the day a Fighter can do some Dynasty Warriors stuff XD

Most likely never to happen because - as it's been stated a millions times - Fighters can't have nice things.

Simply look at the class "Features"

Attacks of Opportunity - Cool! (but at a penalty)...Why?!? Why are Fighters being penalized at doing exactly what they're designed to do??

Feats make up the bulk of their workload. Gee...didn't ANYONE realize why this was a problem in 3.5/PF? Looking at the feats themselves....I'm finding it lack luster. It's still more exception-based design that honestly I find that design model outdated.

You can raise your shield to block a shot....as an action. Ok so I can draw a weapon and attack a foe in an action but it takes the same thing to move my arm 6" up? That just doesn't make any sense!

If you want a great summation as to why the 3.5 Fighter (and classes relying specifically on Feats) are bad then please read this great analysis.

https://theendhavenproject.blogspot.com/2017/09/an-analysis-of-dungeons-and -dragons-30.html

The number of repetitions of a statement has never made it true. Repeating it a million times before the rules have even been released does not seem likely to make it true either.

how does Sudden Charge maintain its worth at 9th or 13th or 17th level?

How does "you can move twice and then attack for the cost of two actions" ever go out of style? Other people have to spend 3 actions to do that. It's not like characters have to stop moving at high levels.

But "feats scale automatically" is a thing that has been confirmed to happen in appropriate circumstances.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Diffan wrote:

Feats make up the bulk of their workload.

I think you will find that this is the case with every class now. "Fighter Feats" are feats that fighters can take, but non-fighters can not... think of them as the equivalent of "Rage powers" or "Rogue talents" except for fighters and not barbarians or rogues.

Which would be fine if they held their value through most levels. Again we dont know what they completely look like but how does Sudden Charge maintain its worth at 9th or 13th or 17th level? In 4th Edition many feats scaled with level or were replaced later on with retraining. In 5th edition Feats are a group of abilities that maintain their overall usefulness at all levels of play.

So am I going to benef from grabbing Sudden Charge at 4th or 8th level vs. 1st?

Considering Sudden Charge lets you charge in exchange for conserving actions, its use in helping Fighters with action economy is pretty nice, and since Full Attacks aren't necessarily the norm anymore (and if they are, it's very inoptimal due to the >10< system), Sudden Charge can see use through all levels of gameplay.

Ok, well that was a big issue I had with most feats in PF/3.5, that they lost their significance later on in the game.

Even still, I'm a pretty big skeptic of attack penalties and them being thrust into AoO for what appears to be no real reason (mechanically or narratively) is really grating to my nerves. I was hoping to do away with ticky tacky +2/-2 modifiers this time around.

Ok, well that was a big issue I had with most feats in PF/3.5, that they lost their significance later on in the game.

Even still, I'm a pretty big skeptic of attack penalties and them being thrust into AoO for what appears to be no real reason (mechanically or narratively) is really grating to my nerves. I was hoping to do away with ticky tacky +2/-2 modifiers this time around.

Mechanically: if the AoO is just as bad as the best attack, there's no reason to try moving away.

Diffan wrote:

Ok, well that was a big issue I had with most feats in PF/3.5, that they lost their significance later on in the game.

Even still, I'm a pretty big skeptic of attack penalties and them being thrust into AoO for what appears to be no real reason (mechanically or narratively) is really grating to my nerves. I was hoping to do away with ticky tacky +2/-2 modifiers this time around.

Mechanically: if the AoO is just as bad as the best attack, there's no reason to try moving away.

Except that it's worse than the best attack, so moving away isn't all that of an issue. There's less risk in provoking and thus, greater reason to move into the squishes.

Narratively: it's… an opportunistic attack? It seems pretty reasonable for that to not be as quite as accurate as a planned, executed attack.

Why? Did muscle memory somehow stop, thus penalizing this next strike? Did the target move so unexpectedly that the attack would somehow have a greater chance of missing?

Or, a more likely scenario, giving Fighters attacks is somehow bad and they can't decipher a more reasonable balance point but to pour on penalties - its really their Wheel house after all

Except that it's worse than the best attack, so moving away isn't all that of an issue. There's less risk in provoking and thus, greater reason to move into the squishes.

Nah. Moving doesn't save you. If the Fighter can get to you in two actions worth of movement (three with Sudden Charge) they can still attack you at their full bonus (and unless you spend three actions, in which case you gave up your turn to give the fighter a -2 to hit you, you probably can't move far enough away that they can't get to you...there are a few exceptions but they're rare and have their own downsides). So you just traded being attacked at -5 (or maybe -5 and -10) for being attacked at -2. That's a bad trade.

Why? Did muscle memory somehow stop, thus penalizing this next strike? Did the target move so unexpectedly that the attack would somehow have a greater chance of missing?

Yes? I mean, they moved directly away from the Fighter giving him a limited time window to attack them in. That's harder than if they're relatively stationary.

And his trained reflexes are why he gets to do this at all. Remember that most people don't even get Attacks of Opportunity in PF2.

Or, a more likely scenario, giving Fighters attacks is somehow bad and they can't decipher a more reasonable balance point but to pour on penalties - its really their Wheel house after all

In a system where absolutely nobody in the whole game gets two attacks at no penalties, giving out such attacks is indeed bad, yes.

Diffan wrote:

Except that it's worse than the best attack, so moving away isn't all that of an issue. There's less risk in provoking and thus, greater reason to move into the squishes.

Nah. Moving doesn't save you. If the Fighter can get to you in two actions worth of movement (three with Sudden Charge) they can still attack you at their full bonus (and unless you spend three actions, in which case you gave up your turn to give the fighter a -2 to hit you, you probably can't move far enough away that they can't get to you...there are a few exceptions but they're rare and have their own downsides). So you just traded being attacked at -5 (or maybe -5 and -10) for being attacked at -2. That's a bad trade.

*sigh* regardless of being attacked, you're looking at taking a -5, -10, or a -2 penalty. ALL of that is bad. Like I said, one of the things I'd LOVE to see is the complete removal of finicky, unnecessary penalties all over the play. You've very eloquently pointed these out. Why penalize any attack at all?? That's my point.

Diffan wrote:

Why? Did muscle memory somehow stop, thus penalizing this next strike? Did the target move so unexpectedly that the attack would somehow have a greater chance of missing?

Yes? I mean, they moved directly away from the Fighter giving him a limited time window to attack them in. That's harder than if they're relatively stationary.

And his trained reflexes are why he gets to do this at all. Remember that most people don't even get Attacks of Opportunity in PF2.

Yet another issue I have with the system (AoO's being super-special....with penalties). I just don't like the design or the reasons behind it.

Diffan wrote:

Or, a more likely scenario, giving Fighters attacks is somehow bad and they can't decipher a more reasonable balance point but to pour on penalties - its really their Wheel house after all

In a system where absolutely nobody in the whole game gets two attacks at no penalties, giving out such attacks is indeed bad, yes.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here....a game where NO ONE gets attacks at no penalties. That right there is my issue. It bogs down the game when I roll at d20, add the attack modifier, add in a bonus (maybe from a spell or flanking) then subtract a penalty....sheesh why are they intentionally making things difficult and contrived? There's a reason why 1st Edition is called Mathfinder.

These are very strong reasons why I'm having a hard time figuring out what this game offers vs. playing 5th Edition. A game where the Fighter isn't penalized for full-filling their role or has to mini-game their actions. Where the action of attacking is easier and less time consuming. And that's what PF2e is going up against. I just want to make it a good game and these are things that don't do that (all in my opinion of course).

Like I said, one of the things I'd LOVE to see is the complete removal of finicky, unnecessary penalties all over the play. You've very eloquently pointed these out. Why penalize any attack at all?? That's my point.

Game balance for one - I'd rather 3 attacks at a penalty than just get a single attack.

And i'd rather have a game full of modifiers, little pluses and minuses than a static one where nothing changes.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here....a game where NO ONE gets attacks at no penalties. That right there is my issue. It bogs down the game when I roll at d20, add the attack modifier, add in a bonus (maybe from a spell or flanking) then subtract a penalty....sheesh why are they intentionally making things difficult and contrived? There's a reason why 1st Edition is called Mathfinder.

I speak for myself here, and I am sure others mirror my sentiment.

The attack penalties make sense to me, in a fight it is difficult enough to land 1 solid blow, never mind two or three.

Something to bear in mind is that fighters will gain an ability to deal damage, even on a miss. That means that this -2 makes you 10% less likely to fully hit or crit, but you are still probably very likely to actually still do damage

There's a reason why 1st Edition is called Mathfinder.

But back during your 4E days you seemed to be a fan of stacking various fidditly numbers and watching how tingly wingly microsystems interact.

*sigh* regardless of being attacked, you're looking at taking a -5, -10, or a -2 penalty. ALL of that is bad.

I was talking from the perspective of the one fleeing the Fighter.

Like I said, one of the things I'd LOVE to see is the complete removal of finicky, unnecessary penalties all over the play. You've very eloquently pointed these out. Why penalize any attack at all?? That's my point.

To encourage actually doing things in combat other than standing around making as many attacks as possible. Without those penalties you're, in practice, right back to standing around making full attacks whenever possible. With them, there is a built in incentive to do things other than simply attack as much as possible. That makes combat notably more dynamic and entertaining.

Yet another issue I have with the system (AoO's being super-special....with penalties). I just don't like the design or the reasons behind it.

I've got a few mixed feelings on this one myself, but it apparently seems to work well in play (for example, people are more likely to risk AoO if not everyone has them, making them actually more useful if you do), and I'm willing to give it a shot.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here....a game where NO ONE gets attacks at no penalties. That right there is my issue. It bogs down the game when I roll at d20, add the attack modifier, add in a bonus (maybe from a spell or flanking) then subtract a penalty....sheesh why are they intentionally making things difficult and contrived? There's a reason why 1st Edition is called Mathfinder.

They've actually done a lot to eliminate most of these kinds of things.

In PF2 it looks like you have a calculated attack which then only has the following modifiers:

-Any Spells that give bonuses (and these may well not stack with each other)
-The multi-attack penalties (or those from AoO).
-Penalties from spells and conditions

And that's it. Flanking still matters, but it's now an AC penalty and thus GM facing for PCs, not something they need to keep track of necessarily.

That's vastly simpler in total than PF1 and solves this problem in most ways.

These are very strong reasons why I'm having a hard time figuring out what this game offers vs. playing 5th Edition. A game where the Fighter isn't penalized for full-filling their role or has to mini-game their actions. Where the action of attacking is easier and less time consuming. And that's what PF2e is going up against. I just want to make it a good game and these are things that don't do that (all in my opinion of course).

If 5E sounds more like your game, then by all means go play 5E. That's not intended as dismissive, I'm just seriously suggesting you play a game you like.

PF2 is very intentionally a more complicated game than 5E, at least in usage if not in basic concept (they're attempting to simplify basic conceptual stuff, but not eliminate the depth of complexity found in PF1). And is so for several reasons, including that complexity allows more options (and lots of options is the heart of Pathfinder), and that many current fans prefer a bit of complexity. They want to enable people to enjoy plumbing the system for cool combinations of things and the like, as well as allow more different kinds of character than D&D5E does.

If that's not the style of game you enjoy, you legitimately should probably play something else.

Diffan wrote:

Like I said, one of the things I'd LOVE to see is the complete removal of finicky, unnecessary penalties all over the play. You've very eloquently pointed these out. Why penalize any attack at all?? That's my point.

Game balance for one - I'd rather 3 attacks at a penalty than just get a single attack.

I'd like 3 attacks at no penalty, honestly. Other systems do that and balance isnt wonky. Maybe you dont get it at first level but over time. Yeah...

You not liking it does not make it unnecessary.

Like I said, my own personal opinion and all. I don't feel it adds anything of value to the game.

And i'd rather have a game full of modifiers, little pluses and minuses than a static one where nothing changes.

See, I'd rather combat and game play run more smoothly where its a bit more fast paced where people arent forced to color code their d20's to specific attack modifiers that change from round to round.

dragonhunterq wrote:

Diffan wrote:

Like I said, one of the things I'd LOVE to see is the complete removal of finicky, unnecessary penalties all over the play. You've very eloquently pointed these out. Why penalize any attack at all?? That's my point.

Game balance for one - I'd rather 3 attacks at a penalty than just get a single attack.

I'd like 3 attacks at no penalty, honestly. Other systems do that and balance isnt wonky. Maybe you dont get it at first level but over time. Yeah...

I still think it may be very likely that Master Proficiency in a weapon group reduces the iterative penalty by 5 (so two attacks at full bonus and third attack at -5), and Legend Proficiency removes it entirely. Just a gut feeling.

Diffan wrote:

There's a reason why 1st Edition is called Mathfinder.

But back during your 4E days you seemed to be a fan of stacking various fidditly numbers and watching how tingly wingly microsystems interact.

I did? Hm, must not really remember being a fan of that. Most of our 4E games end up being pretty steady with attacks and not a huge amount of stacking. You add Combat Advantage (like from flanking) but mostly flat until you level up. And usually stacking takes place on all attacks so you still simply add for all your rolls vs. Multipe variables.

That being said, I prefer less finicky numbers overall especially after being introduced to the concept. When what you know is mostly 3e/3.5 and then PF/4E simplicity seems to be a thing of beauty.

Diffan wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Diffan wrote:

Like I said, one of the things I'd LOVE to see is the complete removal of finicky, unnecessary penalties all over the play. You've very eloquently pointed these out. Why penalize any attack at all?? That's my point.

Game balance for one - I'd rather 3 attacks at a penalty than just get a single attack.

I'd like 3 attacks at no penalty, honestly. Other systems do that and balance isnt wonky. Maybe you dont get it at first level but over time. Yeah...

I still think it may be very likely that Master Proficiency in a weapon group reduces the iterative penalty by 5 (so two attacks at full bonus and third attack at -5), and Legend Proficiency removes it entirely. Just a gut feeling.

I could get behind that method. Fingers crossed

Diffan wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Diffan wrote:

Like I said, one of the things I'd LOVE to see is the complete removal of finicky, unnecessary penalties all over the play. You've very eloquently pointed these out. Why penalize any attack at all?? That's my point.

Game balance for one - I'd rather 3 attacks at a penalty than just get a single attack.

I'd like 3 attacks at no penalty, honestly. Other systems do that and balance isnt wonky. Maybe you dont get it at first level but over time. Yeah...

I still think it may be very likely that Master Proficiency in a weapon group reduces the iterative penalty by 5 (so two attacks at full bonus and third attack at -5), and Legend Proficiency removes it entirely. Just a gut feeling.

I hope not. "Here's BIGGER NUMBERS!" is something that high level martials need to get away from as their carrot on a stick. Being more dependent on using all three actions to attack doesn't make gameplay more interesting.

Game balance for one - I'd rather 3 attacks at a penalty than just get a single attack.

Some people on these boards don't regard Game Balance as a convincing argument. Just thought I'd warn you.

I hope not. "Here's BIGGER NUMBERS!" is something that high level martials need to get away from as their carrot on a stick. Being more dependent on using all three actions to attack doesn't make gameplay more interesting.

Is it bigger numbers if it's just an unchanged modifier? Instead of +12/7/+2 it's just simply +12 for 3 attacks? Sounds legendary to me...

Arachnofiend wrote:

I hope not. "Here's BIGGER NUMBERS!" is something that high level martials need to get away from as their carrot on a stick. Being more dependent on using all three actions to attack doesn't make gameplay more interesting.

Is it bigger numbers if it's just an unchanged modifier? Instead of +12/7/+2 it's just simply +12 for 3 attacks? Sounds legendary to me...

Except because of the >10< rule that also explodes damage way beyond what can be reasonably balanced against. Unless hp a values for enemies need to be tripled to compensate, but then you needy blow out spell damage and sneak attack and that’s an endless spiral.

Diffan wrote:

*sigh* regardless of being attacked, you're looking at taking a -5, -10, or a -2 penalty. ALL of that is bad.

I was talking from the perspective of the one fleeing the Fighter.

I get that. Still most likely the Fighter is going close to first if not first than the opposition due to class features (which is kinda cool). So they're going to suffer that disadvantage right off the bat. From there, they can stand there and trade blows or move and suffer an attack at -2.

To encourage actually doing things in combat other than standing around making as many attacks as possible. Without those penalties you're, in practice, right back to standing around making full attacks whenever possible. With them, there is a built in incentive to do things other than simply attack as much as possible. That makes combat notably more dynamic and entertaining.

Which is great, in theory. In practice, how often do people in PF1 do that despite the massive penalties when Full-Attacking? Not only that, but doing other things is always going to be situational. The best condition a PC can impose is death and the best chance at doing that is attacking. I do understand getting other stuff to do, but why not tie that into attacks rather than in spite of them?

Diffan wrote:

Yet another issue I have with the system (AoO's being super-special....with penalties). I just don't like the design or the reasons behind it.

I've got a few mixed feelings on this one myself, but it apparently seems to work well in play (for example, people are more likely to risk AoO if not everyone has them, making them actually more useful if you do), and I'm willing to give it a shot.

As am I, but if only certain Classes / monsters have them, it's going to be really easy to pick out later on and then exploit that knowledge.

Diffan wrote:

I think you've hit the nail on the head here....a game where NO ONE gets attacks at no penalties. That right there is my issue. It bogs down the game when I roll at d20, add the attack modifier, add in a bonus (maybe from a spell or flanking) then subtract a penalty....sheesh why are they intentionally making things difficult and contrived? There's a reason why 1st Edition is called Mathfinder.

They've actually done a lot to eliminate most of these kinds of things.

In PF2 it looks like you have a calculated attack which then only has the following modifiers:

-Any Spells that give bonuses (and these may well not stack with each other)
-The multi-attack penalties (or those from AoO).
-Penalties from spells and conditions

And that's it. Flanking still matters, but it's now an AC penalty and thus GM facing for PCs, not something they need to keep track of necessarily.

That's vastly simpler in total than PF1 and solves this problem in most ways.

Yes it's simpler but there has to be a better way of tracking condition penalties besides minuses and pluses. I'm not sure what they are but that's still some book keeping that isn't exactly necessary (IMO).

Diffan wrote:

These are very strong reasons why I'm having a hard time figuring out what this game offers vs. playing 5th Edition. A game where the Fighter isn't penalized for full-filling their role or has to mini-game their actions. Where the action of attacking is easier and less time consuming. And that's what PF2e is going up against. I just want to make it a good game and these are things that don't do that (all in my opinion of course).

If 5E sounds more like your game, then by all means go play 5E. That's not intended as dismissive, I'm just seriously suggesting you play a game you like.

Thing is, I play many games and I'm not beholden to one singular RPG. I still play 3.5, Pathfinder, 4th Edition, 5th Edition, a smattering of Star Wars, and I'd love to get into Warhammer 40K RPG. And not only that but I do the gambit several times a year, mixing it up monthly or even weekly. It gives a good clarity of game design both on what works (for us, anyways) and what's not that great.

PF2 is very intentionally a more complicated game than 5E, at least in usage if not in basic concept (they're attempting to simplify basic conceptual stuff, but not eliminate the depth of complexity found in PF1). And is so for several reasons, including that complexity allows more options (and lots of options is the heart of Pathfinder), and that many current fans prefer a bit of complexity. They want to enable people to enjoy plumbing the system for cool combinations of things and the like, as well as allow more different kinds of character than D&D5E does.

And I think that's pretty great. More options and complex options is definitely the niche that PF caters to. The question I have is, why does that have to be mired in Exception-based design and/or overly penalizing mechanics? By exception-based, I'm referring to being able to do something but being so penalized that doing said thing has little room for success that it's best not worth attempting OR simply putting stuff behind firewalls (such as feats). Look at Spring Attack in PF1. It takes 2 other feats (crappy ones too) that simply allows you to move-attack-move (incurring all AoO's). In 5e (sorry, I go to this because a lot of it is so open) you simply move-attack-move again without the need for 3 specific feats, stat requirements, etc. That's what I'm talking about.

If that's not the style of game you enjoy, you legitimately should probably play something else.

Well I enjoy all sorts, I just want to give input on ways that I feel PF2 would actually benefit from.

Removing penalties would make the game really boring. Any time it’s a good idea to hit once, it’s a good idea to hit three times. Different values for each attack mean different alternatives become good deals at different points.

If PF1 let you give up your last attack in an iterative to do something interesting (like, I don’t know, drink a potion without provoking?), that would have seen a lot of use. But, the way things worked, you had to give up all but one attack (goodbye Haste bonus attack!) to take just a move action. There were no good trades to make.

Removing penalties would make the game really boring. Any time it’s a good idea to hit once, it’s a good idea to hit three times. Different values for each attack mean different alternatives become good deals at different points.

If PF1 let you give up your last attack in an iterative to do something interesting (like, I don’t know, drink a potion without provoking?), that would have seen a lot of use. But, the way things worked, you had to give up all but one attack (goodbye Haste bonus attack!) to take just a move action. There were no good trades to make.

In RAE we often found most martials turns consisted of two primary attacks (including haste) and a combination of other actions, either to move and initiate a single act ability, or casting a spell in the case of gishes. Sometimes both.

I'm also not a fan of the apparent design space of the fighter. The abilities all seem kinda like they're still trying to keep the good options obvious, but they want the obvious best options to be different.

I'm very disappointed in the lack of design in power attack, the math doesn't hold up for its action cost.

Ooooh, Revised Action Economy! I’ve been reading that as Rules As Experienced in all your posts.

Ooooh, Revised Action Economy! I’ve been reading that as Rules As Experienced in all your posts.

That probably clarifies so much.

QuidEst wrote:

Ooooh, Revised Action Economy! I’ve been reading that as Rules As Experienced in all your posts.

That probably clarifies so much.

It at least explains moving and getting two attacks thanks to Haste.

I get that. Still most likely the Fighter is going close to first if not first than the opposition due to class features (which is kinda cool). So they're going to suffer that disadvantage right off the bat. From there, they can stand there and trade blows or move and suffer an attack at -2.

Yup. Which makes being in melee with a Fighter a bad scene, which seems like a good thing both mechanically and thematically.

Which is great, in theory. In practice, how often do people in PF1 do that despite the massive penalties when Full-Attacking?

What massive penalties? You get -5 on your second attack at 6th, but no worse than that until 11th, and by 11th you often hit even with your -10. The penalties also mean quite a bit more in PF2 given the way the new crit system works.

Not only that, but doing other things is always going to be situational. The best condition a PC can impose is death and the best chance at doing that is attacking. I do understand getting other stuff to do, but why not tie that into attacks rather than in spite of them?

Sure, doing other stuff can be situational, but if doing damage is always better than it (which it tended to be in PF1) then that stuff never gets done even when the situation comes up.

As am I, but if only certain Classes / monsters have them, it's going to be really easy to pick out later on and then exploit that knowledge.

Not necessarily. Especially with humanoid enemies who all might or might not be Fighters (or the equivalent).

Yes it's simpler but there has to be a better way of tracking condition penalties besides minuses and pluses. I'm not sure what they are but that's still some book keeping that isn't exactly necessary (IMO).

Personally, I don't think conditions that don't apply penalties are gonna be very meaningful, so I'm all for them doing so.

Thing is, I play many games and I'm not beholden to one singular RPG. I still play 3.5, Pathfinder, 4th Edition, 5th Edition, a smattering of Star Wars, and I'd love to get into Warhammer 40K RPG. And not only that but I do the gambit several times a year, mixing it up monthly or even weekly. It gives a good clarity of game design both on what works (for us, anyways) and what's not that great.

Awesome. I do the same (well, with different specific games). But I do avoid games that have stuff I'm not a big fan of, which is sorta where I was going with that if you really don't like PF2.

And I think that's pretty great. More options and complex options is definitely the niche that PF caters to. The question I have is, why does that have to be mired in Exception-based design and/or overly penalizing mechanics? By exception-based, I'm referring to being able to do something but being so penalized that doing said thing has little room for success that it's best not worth attempting OR simply putting stuff behind firewalls (such as feats). Look at Spring Attack in PF1. It takes 2 other feats (crappy ones too) that simply allows you to move-attack-move (incurring all AoO's). In 5e (sorry, I go to this because a lot of it is so open) you simply move-attack-move again without the need for 3 specific feats, stat requirements, etc. That's what I'm talking about.

Uh...you can move/attack/move for free from 1st level in PF2 as well. Indeed, the fact that your subsequent attacks suffer penalties encourages this quite a bit.

And they definitely seem to be moving away from gating basic stuff behind Feats. There's a wealth of evidence for that. Reactions are a bit of an exception, but I'm not sure one exception in this area is inherently a bad thing.

Well I enjoy all sorts, I just want to give input on ways that I feel PF2 would actually benefit from.

Personally, I think it's really premature to be giving any advice at all on PF2. We have no idea what the rules are actually like in many important ways. Now, once the playtest starts and we have a look at said rules? Then we can start offering advice (especially after actually playing the game a bit).

I'm very disappointed in the lack of design in power attack, the math doesn't hold up for its action cost.

I'd really like to see some in-depth Power Attack analysis. Variables such as whether it is worth trading your second or third attacks, with different weapon types, against foes with different ACs. I suspect there is a gradient of benefit that we can find.

Like, with big weapons, Power Attack is worth giving up your -5 attack against higher AC foes. But with a lighter weapon, it might only be worth giving up your -10.

I wrote in "ABP" on my skald's character sheet. That stands for "Always Be Power Attacking". I'm okay if PF2 Power Attack is not the best choice in all cases, as long as using it feels good in a significant number.

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm very disappointed in the lack of design in power attack, the math doesn't hold up for its action cost.

I'd really like to see some in-depth Power Attack analysis. Variables such as whether it is worth trading your second or third attacks, with different weapon types, against foes with different ACs. I suspect there is a gradient of benefit that we can find.

Like, with big weapons, Power Attack is worth giving up your -5 attack against higher AC foes. But with a lighter weapon, it might only be worth giving up your -10.

I wrote in "ABP" on my skald's character sheet. That stands for "Always Be Power Attacking". I'm okay if PF2 Power Attack is not the best choice in all cases, as long as using it feels good in a significant number.

Wish it wasn't compared to PF1 power attack, which was an overcentralizing option. No feat should be auto-pick and use every single turn from lv1 to 20.