Gearing Up!

Friday, May 4, 2018

In Monday's blog, we talked about weapons and all the plentiful options you have when you're picking those. So let's stay in the Equipment chapter for the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook and take a look at armor, other gear, and everything else having to do with items!

Don Your Armor!

Armor's job is to protect you from your enemies' attacks. Your character can have proficiency in light armor, medium armor, or heavy armor (or, in some cases, none of the above). Most classes are only trained in their armor at first, though some martial classes gain better proficiency at higher levels. In Pathfinder First Edition, many types of armor were effectively obsolete because you could just buy a better type, but for Pathfinder Second Edition, we've made a few new adjustments to make each type a little different.

A suit of armor has many of the same statistics as in Pathfinder First Edition, but now each one also gives a bonus to your TAC (Touch Armor Class). For instance, studded leather gives a +2 item bonus to AC and +0 to TAC, whereas a chain shirt gives a +2 item bonus to AC and +1 to TAC, but it is heavier and noisier. That last bit comes from the noisy trait, one of a small number of traits some armors have to reflect their construction and effect on the wearer. Armor also has a Dexterity modifier cap (which limits how much of your Dexterity modifier can apply to your AC); a check penalty that applies to most of your Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based skill checks; a penalty to your Speed; and a Bulk value. You'll balance these variables to pick the armor that's best for you.

As you adventure, you'll find or craft magic armor. Weapons and suits of armor alike can be enhanced with magical potency runes. For weapons, a potency rune gives an item bonus on attack rolls and increases the number of damage dice you roll on attacks with the weapon. For armor, the potency rune increases the armor's item bonuses to your AC and TAC and gives you a bonus to your saving throws! For instance, studded leather with a +3 armor potency rune (a.k.a. +3 studded leather) would give you +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves. You can also upgrade the potency later, etching a +4 armor potency rune onto that armor to increase its bonus. You can even upgrade the potency of specific armor (and weapons) so you can hold on to your celestial armor at higher levels. If you don't wear armor, not to worry! Your bracers of armor give you a bonus to AC, TAC, and your saves without requiring you to clad yourself in a clunky metal box. They might not protect you quite as well, but maybe that trade-off is worth it to your wizard or monk!

Illustrations by Wayne Reynolds

Shield Yourself!

You've probably seen mention of shields in previous blogs, announcements, and broadcast play sessions. To gain the benefits of a shield, you have to spend an action to raise it, which then gives you a bonus to AC and TAC (+1 for a light shield or +2 for a heavy shield) for 1 round. Your character has proficiency in shields just like she does with armor, and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

Shields don't have potency runes. Instead, you might pick up a shield made of a durable material like adamantine or craft a magic shield that catches arrows, reflects a spell back at its caster, or bites your enemies!

Fill Your Backpack!

The Equipment chapter also includes all sorts of other gear you might want on adventures, from rope to tents to musical instruments to religious symbols. Many of these items are required to perform certain tasks, like thieves' tools. The new system of item quality makes it pretty straightforward to figure out how tools work. For example, you need thieves' tools to pick a lock or disable many traps. Normal thieves' tools let you do this normally, expert-quality tools give you a +1 item bonus on your check, and master-quality tools give you a +2 item bonus on your check. Now what if you get stuck without your tools and need to improvise? Well, if you can scrabble something together, you've created a poor-quality set of tools, which gives you a -2 item penalty (much like the penalty for having an proficiency rank of untrained in a task). The same thing might happen if you had to turn vines into improvised rope or use an empty chest as a drum for an improvised musical instrument!

Take a Load Off!

Not everything you can purchase is adventuring gear. Cinco de Cuatro wouldn't be complete without some luxuries like a bottle of fine wine or renting an extravagant suite! You might even rent an animal to ride about town. Of course, an extravagant lifestyle can have a high cost, and the chapter includes costs of living per week, month, or year so you can accurately budget your lifestyle decisions.

Switch It Up!

One of the squidgy parts of Pathfinder First Edition we wanted to clear up with the redesign is how holding, wielding, and stowing items work, particularly switching how many hands you're using for an item. Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed, or detaching a shield from your arm all require the Interact action. We've codified the rules for many of the basic things you do with items so the other rules interface with them cleanly. That [[A]] code you see there indicates this is an action, and will be a lovely icon in the final rulebook!

[[A]] Interact

Manipulate

You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or do some similar action. You may have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.

The equipment chapter also covers the full rules on item quality and on Bulk, plus a section on how items and Bulk work for creatures of different sizes.

Now you have a basic rundown of the gear in this book. We'll dive deep into magic items at a later date. Looking at what you see here, what sort of useful, peculiar, or silly things do you think your character will spend their silver pieces on?

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
601 to 650 of 660 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Joana wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The priority for shields is damage reduction over armor class. Everything we've seen with regards to shields has involved playtesters swearing up and down that they feel extremely effective with them.

Flip it around though.

Just how effective are they going to be in the hands of bandits, soldiers, humanoid enemies that can use shields?

With the maybe increase of HP and shields being "This" effective, two or three enemies with shields might cause a slog of a fight to happen. And far earlier than usual.

Heck, if Skeletons keep their damage resistance and are good enough to use shields, that looks to be one long fight depending on the party.

While I can't imagine why a skeleton would get shield proficiency, it seems like determining what works well in play and what turns fights into slogs is precisely what the playtest is designed for.

It is also an incredibly easy problem to solve as a GM. Just... Stop having the bad guys use the shield action. Having a huge AC bonus or DR can turn any fight into a slog. At least this one is easy to turn off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The priority for shields is damage reduction over armor class. Everything we've seen with regards to shields has involved playtesters swearing up and down that they feel extremely effective with them.

Flip it around though.

Just how effective are they going to be in the hands of bandits, soldiers, humanoid enemies that can use shields?

With the maybe increase of HP and shields being "This" effective, two or three enemies with shields might cause a slog of a fight to happen. And far earlier than usual.

Heck, if Skeletons keep their damage resistance and are good enough to use shields, that looks to be one long fight depending on the party.

While I can't imagine why a skeleton would get shield proficiency, it seems like determining what works well in play and what turns fights into slogs is precisely what the playtest is designed for.

Skeleton Champion. Or any more advanced Skeleton that you can still drop in early. Say a Skeleton with class levels.

I admit this is only tangentially related to the actual topic but you are right about the playtest being for this reason. We do have to remember though. Each new weapon, gear, or tool we get to use as adventurers is nice to see. But the GM also gets those same tools to use against us.

Shields might be very effective now and the weapons might be changed for the better, but I don't see any of the blogs or streams or anything talking about how it feels to face those same things.

Playtest should help with that.

Captain Morgan wrote:
It is also an incredibly easy problem to solve as a GM. Just... Stop having the bad guys use the shield action. Having a huge AC bonus or DR can turn any fight into a slog. At least this one is easy to turn off.

We'd be back to the "What should and shouldn't a monster/enemy do" discussions.

Personally I wouldn't seeing weapons, mainly axes, designed around breaking shields faster. Some sort of [Shieldbreaker] tag to them. Extra damage or remove some DR when dealing damage, unsure how they could do it but seems workable. Could even do it with spells maybe(Shatter for example)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Upon reflection though, I am starting to feel a little more concerned about the two handed grip change action. One of my least favorite things to ask a player who wants to pull out an item is "what about the stuff you are already holding?" I don't love the idea of this becoming the case for two handed weapons across the board. Hopefully it's at least a free action to release your grip with one hand just like dropping an item is. Or maybe it will only require a grip change if you are switching your damage dice on something like the bastard sword.

We're not sure exactly how it will work, but Jason did say that releasing your grip on your weapon would be included as part of the action to open a door. It may be that releasing your grip is always a free action, or that it is always a free action as part of another action.


Smite Makes Right wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Magic shields still themselves still exist and have properties independent of spikes. The spikes are removable so they can be swapped onto a better magic shield should you find one. Sinking resources into spiking a mundane shield only to find a better shield without spikes is a bummer.

We also have no frame of reference for how hard it will be to damage special shields. We know they aren't dented unless 4he damage surpasses the hardness. The hardness of wood has gone from 5 to 9. If adamantine gets a similar boost someone will have to hit for more than 30 before it gets dented.

Also, in the same thread you have invoked realism for looking at how armor technology works but called to ignore it for how shield damage and shield spikes are treated.

No, not actually. A boss, a device used to deflect blows that transitioned to a decorative component, is not going to add any substance to a bash.

Historically, I don't think that shield spikes were an actual thing. That said, the above argument holds less water for spikes, but then things get weird if you are talking about multiple spikes, particularly given that typically destroying or deconstructing a magic item undoes the enchantment.

If by shield damage, you are referring to damage to the shield, the damage and disposable shields would be more realistic, but would add more complication and overhead than benefit it would provide for the average user. Shield users would need to travel with multiple shields, possibly an NPC to haul them, and tracking a second set of HP that will potentially be rendered pointless by the mending cantrip.

Scottish Targe at least came in spiked variants, usually but not always a 9-10 inch spike on the boss, looks nasty as hell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Smite Makes Right wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Magic shields still themselves still exist and have properties independent of spikes. The spikes are removable so they can be swapped onto a better magic shield should you find one. Sinking resources into spiking a mundane shield only to find a better shield without spikes is a bummer.

We also have no frame of reference for how hard it will be to damage special shields. We know they aren't dented unless 4he damage surpasses the hardness. The hardness of wood has gone from 5 to 9. If adamantine gets a similar boost someone will have to hit for more than 30 before it gets dented.

Also, in the same thread you have invoked realism for looking at how armor technology works but called to ignore it for how shield damage and shield spikes are treated.

No, not actually. A boss, a device used to deflect blows that transitioned to a decorative component, is not going to add any substance to a bash.

Historically, I don't think that shield spikes were an actual thing. That said, the above argument holds less water for spikes, but then things get weird if you are talking about multiple spikes, particularly given that typically destroying or deconstructing a magic item undoes the enchantment.

If by shield damage, you are referring to damage to the shield, the damage and disposable shields would be more realistic, but would add more complication and overhead than benefit it would provide for the average user. Shield users would need to travel with multiple shields, possibly an NPC to haul them, and tracking a second set of HP that will potentially be rendered pointless by the mending cantrip.

Scottish Targe at least came in spiked variants, usually but not always a 9-10 inch spike on the boss, looks nasty as hell.

To expand on the Targe, some had center bosses of brass, and a few of these could accept a long steel spike, which screwed into a small "puddle" of lead that was fixed to the wood, under the boss. When not in use, the spike could be unscrewed and placed in a sheath on the back of the targe. This is a good real life example of both shield spikes AND removable ones.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

Re the +2 to Reflex feat, I'm expecting it does something else as well that they didn't mention in the fighter blog, especially since they weren't giving us as much information about each element previewed with those earlier blogs. So maybe taking that feat grants the fighter Evasion on top of the +2 reaction, or maybe it lets you reflect an effect on a successful save.

But yeah, if it's only +2 to Reflex, it's embarrassingly bad compared to other high level abilities, even the Fighter's own "Iron Heart Surge."

Even if the shield cannot be enchanted to increase AC bonus, it should still be possible to get a +5 to AC with a legendary shield. Then add having legendary skill with shields to add another +3, you could be looking at +8 to the save. That sounds very good for a level 14 feat. If you started with a 50% chance of passing the save, you now have a 90% of making the save, and 40% chance of a critical success, which would mean no damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, one thing that is missing in this article - and that I think it's vital when you're talking about gear - are encumbrance rules. I think you could have an abstract system were each item had an "encumbrance cost", and your encumbrance capacity would be determined by your strength. That way you would have an easy way to track how much stuff you're carrying without adding their weight


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:


We'd be back to the "What should and shouldn't a monster/enemy do" discussions.

Personally I wouldn't seeing weapons, mainly axes, designed around breaking shields faster. Some sort of...

Honestly, I don't think this particular point is even a discussion. The answer to that question is "whatever makes the combat the most fun." If you have enemies turtling and slowing the game down to where it stops being fun, then have those enemies get cocky, or impatient, or desperate and start going all out on offense.

There are significantly worse arrows in a GM's quiver than this. The GM can fudge numbers behind the screen. They can add any ability in the game on a whim-- they aren't constrained by PC rules. I can't really buy this as a significant way to bog down encounters given how many other things a GM can do on that front.

I like your Shieldbreaker tag idea though. Seems like a legit weapon trait.


Oniguma wrote:
Ok, one thing that is missing in this article - and that I think it's vital when you're talking about gear - are encumbrance rules. I think you could have an abstract system were each item had an "encumbrance cost", and your encumbrance capacity would be determined by your strength. That way you would have an easy way to track how much stuff you're carrying without adding their weight

They didn't really go into it, but this has been hashed out pretty heavily. It's similar to the Bulk system from Starfinder, where items are either X bulk, or Light Bulk (10 = 1 bulk). In SF you can carry a number of bulk equal to half your Str score rounded down without being encumbered, or up to your Str score while encumbered. They've said they'll have size modifiers though, which is a definite plus.


Captain Morgan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


We'd be back to the "What should and shouldn't a monster/enemy do" discussions.

Personally I wouldn't seeing weapons, mainly axes, designed around breaking shields faster. Some sort of...

Honestly, I don't think this particular point is even a discussion. The answer to that question is "whatever makes the combat the most fun." If you have enemies turtling and slowing the game down to where it stops being fun, then have those enemies get cocky, or impatient, or desperate and start going all out on offense.

There are significantly worse arrows in a GM's quiver than this. The GM can fudge numbers behind the screen. They can add any ability in the game on a whim-- they aren't constrained by PC rules. I can't really buy this as a significant way to bog down encounters given how many other things a GM can do on that front.

I like your Shieldbreaker tag idea though. Seems like a legit weapon trait.

Depends on he group, the DM, and the game. I mean there's been topics about "Hey should enemies Power Attack?" so the idea of "Should Shield be used" is something I can see coming depending on how the play rest goes.

Also there is a level of fudging you can do before the players start calling you on it.

Thanks for the complement about the shield breaker idea. Been playing a video game that has each family of weapons actually have an effect besides damage. I'm not saying it should be a thing or on every weapon but maybe some examples or alternate rules written up after playtest


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems staff-wielding wizards are now dead. Using your staff and casting a spell now takes a LOT of actions:

Interact (to use the staff in one hand)
Cast the spell (1-3 components)
Interact (to once again use the staff in two hands)

Previously,, changing how you use a weapon was a free action, which made this a usable tactic. No longer. No major disaster, but still a change in which concepts work.


Hmm are we sure thats how its gonna work? maybe that is something we can work on when the play test starts up.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:
It seems staff-wielding wizards are now dead. Using your staff and casting a spell now takes a LOT of actions:

Per one of the Twitch streams, the standard Staff is now a one handed weapon that does extra damage if wielded two-handed. Probably partially for precisely this reason.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Starfox wrote:
It seems staff-wielding wizards are now dead. Using your staff and casting a spell now takes a LOT of actions:
Per one of the Twitch streams, the standard Staff is now a one handed weapon that does extra damage if wielded two-handed. Probably partially for precisely this reason.

I <3 you!

Your always their for my confusion dead!


MerlinCross wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


We'd be back to the "What should and shouldn't a monster/enemy do" discussions.

Personally I wouldn't seeing weapons, mainly axes, designed around breaking shields faster. Some sort of...

Honestly, I don't think this particular point is even a discussion. The answer to that question is "whatever makes the combat the most fun." If you have enemies turtling and slowing the game down to where it stops being fun, then have those enemies get cocky, or impatient, or desperate and start going all out on offense.

There are significantly worse arrows in a GM's quiver than this. The GM can fudge numbers behind the screen. They can add any ability in the game on a whim-- they aren't constrained by PC rules. I can't really buy this as a significant way to bog down encounters given how many other things a GM can do on that front.

I like your Shieldbreaker tag idea though. Seems like a legit weapon trait.

Depends on he group, the DM, and the game. I mean there's been topics about "Hey should enemies Power Attack?" so the idea of "Should Shield be used" is something I can see coming depending on how the play rest goes.

Also there is a level of fudging you can do before the players start calling you on it.

Thanks for the complement about the shield breaker idea. Been playing a video game that has each family of weapons actually have an effect besides damage. I'm not saying it should be a thing or on every weapon but maybe some examples or alternate rules written up after playtest

There are also more alternatives from games and story

you could try to disarm a shield (which is admittedly hard if the shield is strapped right) using an axe as hook

wounding the shield arm after creating an opening

and flails are somewhat famous for just lashing around a shield


Seisho wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


We'd be back to the "What should and shouldn't a monster/enemy do" discussions.

Personally I wouldn't seeing weapons, mainly axes, designed around breaking shields faster. Some sort of...

Honestly, I don't think this particular point is even a discussion. The answer to that question is "whatever makes the combat the most fun." If you have enemies turtling and slowing the game down to where it stops being fun, then have those enemies get cocky, or impatient, or desperate and start going all out on offense.

There are significantly worse arrows in a GM's quiver than this. The GM can fudge numbers behind the screen. They can add any ability in the game on a whim-- they aren't constrained by PC rules. I can't really buy this as a significant way to bog down encounters given how many other things a GM can do on that front.

I like your Shieldbreaker tag idea though. Seems like a legit weapon trait.

Depends on he group, the DM, and the game. I mean there's been topics about "Hey should enemies Power Attack?" so the idea of "Should Shield be used" is something I can see coming depending on how the play rest goes.

Also there is a level of fudging you can do before the players start calling you on it.

Thanks for the complement about the shield breaker idea. Been playing a video game that has each family of weapons actually have an effect besides damage. I'm not saying it should be a thing or on every weapon but maybe some examples or alternate rules written up after playtest

There are also more alternatives from games and story

you could try to disarm a shield (which is admittedly hard if the shield is strapped right) using an axe as hook

wounding the shield arm after creating an opening

and flails are somewhat famous for just lashing around a shield

Would the old hook the shield down with an ax be a feint or disarm you think? maybe something else entirely. would be cool if that mechanic was build into hooked axes!

Liberty's Edge

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Starfox wrote:
It seems staff-wielding wizards are now dead. Using your staff and casting a spell now takes a LOT of actions:
Per one of the Twitch streams, the standard Staff is now a one handed weapon that does extra damage if wielded two-handed. Probably partially for precisely this reason.

I <3 you!

Your always their for my confusion dead!

Thanks! I'm glad I can be of assistance. :)


Seisho wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


We'd be back to the "What should and shouldn't a monster/enemy do" discussions.

Personally I wouldn't seeing weapons, mainly axes, designed around breaking shields faster. Some sort of...

Honestly, I don't think this particular point is even a discussion. The answer to that question is "whatever makes the combat the most fun." If you have enemies turtling and slowing the game down to where it stops being fun, then have those enemies get cocky, or impatient, or desperate and start going all out on offense.

There are significantly worse arrows in a GM's quiver than this. The GM can fudge numbers behind the screen. They can add any ability in the game on a whim-- they aren't constrained by PC rules. I can't really buy this as a significant way to bog down encounters given how many other things a GM can do on that front.

I like your Shieldbreaker tag idea though. Seems like a legit weapon trait.

Depends on he group, the DM, and the game. I mean there's been topics about "Hey should enemies Power Attack?" so the idea of "Should Shield be used" is something I can see coming depending on how the play rest goes.

Also there is a level of fudging you can do before the players start calling you on it.

Thanks for the complement about the shield breaker idea. Been playing a video game that has each family of weapons actually have an effect besides damage. I'm not saying it should be a thing or on every weapon but maybe some examples or alternate rules written up after playtest

There are also more alternatives from games and story

you could try to disarm a shield (which is admittedly hard if the shield is strapped right) using an axe as hook

wounding the shield arm after creating an opening

and flails are somewhat famous for just lashing around a shield

What's funny is the game I took the idea from has Flails too.

But yeah I didn't think my idea was the only idea they could do but it was the first that came to mind and maybe easiest to add in. And again that's maybe. Flails work too.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:


Depends on he group, the DM, and the game. I mean there's been topics about "Hey should enemies Power Attack?" so the idea of "Should Shield be used" is something I can see coming depending on how the play rest goes.

Also there is a level of fudging you can do before the players start calling you on it.

PF1 Power Attack is actually a weird example. If enemies are having trouble hitting (which they probably will if the PCs are at all optimized) they really shouldn't be power attacking. Also, at higher levels calculating power attack on the fly from a statblock is more trouble than a DM might want to bother with. Shields feel a lot easier to control for.

Quote:
Thanks for the complement about the shield breaker idea. Been playing a video game that has each family of weapons actually have an effect besides damage. I'm not saying it should be a thing or on every weapon but maybe some examples or alternate rules written up after playtest.

It seems like exactly the sort of "useful in specific circumstances but not universally great" balance point that weapon traits are trying to hit. Good good idea.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Would the old hook the shield down with an ax be a feint or disarm you think? maybe something else...

Well a Feint inflicts the Flat-Footed condition (IIRC), which is -2 AC... perfectly negating the bonus of a Heavy Shield. Seems like a good fit to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Upon reflection though, I am starting to feel a little more concerned about the two handed grip change action. One of my least favorite things to ask a player who wants to pull out an item is "what about the stuff you are already holding?" I don't love the idea of this becoming the case for two handed weapons across the board. Hopefully it's at least a free action to release your grip with one hand just like dropping an item is. Or maybe it will only require a grip change if you are switching your damage dice on something like the bastard sword.

One of the developers chimed in that is only an action to add a hand to the weapon, and not one to take a hand off. This still means it take one action to re-grip the weapon. Still better than it taking three actions open a door for a two-handed fight.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Depends on he group, the DM, and the game. I mean there's been topics about "Hey should enemies Power Attack?" so the idea of "Should Shield be used" is something I can see coming depending on how the play rest goes.

Also there is a level of fudging you can do before the players start calling you on it.

PF1 Power Attack is actually a weird example. If enemies are having trouble hitting (which they probably will if the PCs are at all optimized) they really shouldn't be power attacking. Also, at higher levels calculating power attack on the fly from a statblock is more trouble than a DM might want to bother with. Shields feel a lot easier to control for.

That is true only in a very restricted range of "chances of hitting" or if the other static bonuses are way higher than that from power attack.

To make it clearer, if you hit only on a 20, power attacking or not don't make any difference in your chance of hitting, but a large difference in your damage.
If you hit with 19-20 and power attacking make you hit only on a 20 and the extra damage for power attacking is less than the average damage from the weapon dice+other bonuses it is not worth to power attack.
If normally you hit with a 15 and deal 1d6+4 and power attacking mean that you will hit with a 17, but deal 1d6+10 or 1d6+13, losing 1/3 of your hits but dealing approximately x2 the damage on each hit make it worthwhile. Especially for creatures without iterative attacks, power attack is almost always convenient.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


Depends on he group, the DM, and the game. I mean there's been topics about "Hey should enemies Power Attack?" so the idea of "Should Shield be used" is something I can see coming depending on how the play rest goes.

Also there is a level of fudging you can do before the players start calling you on it.

PF1 Power Attack is actually a weird example. If enemies are having trouble hitting (which they probably will if the PCs are at all optimized) they really shouldn't be power attacking. Also, at higher levels calculating power attack on the fly from a statblock is more trouble than a DM might want to bother with. Shields feel a lot easier to control for.

That is true only in a very restricted range of "chances of hitting" or if the other static bonuses are way higher than that from power attack.

To make it clearer, if you hit only on a 20, power attacking or not don't make any difference in your chance of hitting, but a large difference in your damage.
If you hit with 19-20 and power attacking make you hit only on a 20 and the extra damage for power attacking is less than the average damage from the weapon dice+other bonuses it is not worth to power attack.
If normally you hit with a 15 and deal 1d6+4 and power attacking mean that you will hit with a 17, but deal 1d6+10 or 1d6+13, losing 1/3 of your hits but dealing approximately x2 the damage on each hit make it worthwhile. Especially for creatures without iterative attacks, power attack is almost always convenient.

Yeah, but A) not all enemies are smart enough to realize this, which is why I like it when Power Attack is specifically mentioned in the enemy's tactics.

And B) using power attack is still extra work for the DM, because for some reason stat blocks list power attack but don't have it on by default. A DM might not bother just because it slows the game down.

PF2 power attack won't have that issue. It's easy to calculate and having it take an extra action actually speeds the game up if the DM decides to use it.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with B) and your conclusion, but if a NPC has bothered learning to use power attack and he/it is not intelligent enough to see when is better to use it or not, it is highly probable that he/its will always use it . Or, at least, I think they will do that.
Someone that relies on the power of his attack will have more trouble fighting defensively than making an all out attack even if he is cornered.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

I agree with B) and your conclusion, but if a NPC has bothered learning to use power attack and he/it is not intelligent enough to see when is better to use it or not, it is highly probable that he/its will always use it . Or, at least, I think they will do that.

Someone that relies on the power of his attack will have more trouble fighting defensively than making an all out attack even if he is cornered.

I can dig it. I just wish power attack was clicked to on in most statblocks already.

Edit: Though I will note this analysis is only really true for a certain subset of weapons. Light weapons and secondary natural attacks change the math, as do rider effects like sneak attack or poison. If power attack was at least universal across weapons it would be easier.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Again. Shield users straight up beat two handers [...]

Just to note that that was in a one-on-one fight simulation, which generally isn't what actually happens/matters in Pathfinder. A two-handed fighter is going to have their own advantages and abilities to bring into play during a game, so it's not that one is necessarily better than the other, but rather that both are effective and capable in their own ways. A battleaxe and shield fighter might be really troublesome for an opponent because he's exceptionally hard to drop and can help defend his allies (which helps negate the current edition's "Well fine, I'll just ignore the high AC guy then" workaround), while a greataxe fighter is going to be troublesome because he's smashing enemies with big blows that deal significant amounts of damage and sweep through crowds of weaker enemies with deadly efficiency. If you're an enemy fighting a group of adventurers that contains either of these types of fighters, they're going to be equally dangerous in their own distinct ways, which I think is pretty cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Again. Shield users straight up beat two handers [...]
Just to note that that was in a one-on-one fight simulation, which generally isn't what actually happens/matters in Pathfinder. A two-handed fighter is going to have their own advantages and abilities to bring into play during a game, so it's not that one is necessarily better than the other, but rather that both are effective and capable in their own ways. A battleaxe and shield fighter might be really troublesome for an opponent because he's exceptionally hard to drop and can help defend his allies (which helps negate the current edition's "Well fine, I'll just ignore the high AC guy then" workaround), while a greataxe fighter is going to be troublesome because he's smashing enemies with big blows that deal significant amounts of damage and sweep through crowds of weaker enemies with deadly efficiency. If you're an enemy fighting a group of adventurers that contains either of these types of fighters, they're going to be equally dangerous in their own distinct ways, which I think is pretty cool.

Indeed, I've noted in other threads that shield users winning one on one vs a two hander is not a super relevant metric per se.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Again. Shield users straight up beat two handers [...]
Just to note that that was in a one-on-one fight simulation, which generally isn't what actually happens/matters in Pathfinder. A two-handed fighter is going to have their own advantages and abilities to bring into play during a game, so it's not that one is necessarily better than the other, but rather that both are effective and capable in their own ways. A battleaxe and shield fighter might be really troublesome for an opponent because he's exceptionally hard to drop and can help defend his allies (which helps negate the current edition's "Well fine, I'll just ignore the high AC guy then" workaround), while a greataxe fighter is going to be troublesome because he's smashing enemies with big blows that deal significant amounts of damage and sweep through crowds of weaker enemies with deadly efficiency. If you're an enemy fighting a group of adventurers that contains either of these types of fighters, they're going to be equally dangerous in their own distinct ways, which I think is pretty cool.
Indeed, I've noted in other threads that shield users winning one on one vs a two hander is not a super relevant metric per se.

True, but don't seem the metric that a lot of people use in the forum. "My (insert class/combat style here) can't do X and Y." "You are a ..., it is not your specialty." "My ... can't do X and Y. I wanna!" seem more common.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

We can probably do some better comparisons now that we have seen some monster stats (although obviously still not perfect.) At the time though comparing sword and board directly with two handers was kinda the best we had for looking at any hard maths.


Hi!

I'm new here, but I decided I wanna know more about PF 2nd edition, and possibly playtest it. I was loving all the previews, but this one about armor made me cringe. I read a lot of this thread but no one was mentioning some of the things I'd like, so I'll just leave some things here and you devs can do whatever you want.

1) I'd like to have both leather/studded leather and actual padded gambesons in the game. Studded leather isn't really armor, but some players like it. Just give us actual armor too. Make it equivalent, whatever. Just at least mention it.

2) You... don't really have proficiency in wearing armor. Using shields, totally! Wearing armor... nope. It takes just some hours of familiarity to jog, swim or do cartwheels in full plate. Weapons and shields, it takes you your whole life to get to a very good level, if you ever do.

3) The noisy trait is awesome. That's exactly one of the main drawbacks of metallic armor - they sound like someone is rattling tin cans in some kind of improptu concert. Great stuff!

4) Dexterity modifier cap... well, remember a full plate armor's weight, or a half plate's, is very well distributed over the body of the wearer. Don't make them stupidly cumbersome, it doesn't make sense. If you do want to give a cap to the dexterity of someone who wears a mail hauberk though... I guess I could live with that.

5) Check penalties. Perhaps small check penalties to dex, for the encumbrance of some heavy armors (not plate, not really), and to con, for the fact that they tire you out... sure. But why strength too? Seriously?

6) A movement penalty too? Aren't you folks going a little overboard with armor penalties? Do they actually give any benefit at this point?

7) If you can, rework all the penalties. Please. Do something like this: make them tiresome to wear, imposing a fatigue level for each Constitution save the player doesn't pass. Have them save after, say, 3 rounds of combat, and after half a hour of exploration, for instance. The proficiency bonus might be applied to the save, if anything. Also, have helmets give some extra bonus (or have armors without helmets give some kind of penalty), but penalize visual/aural perception and ranged attacks. Implement the noisy trait, of course. And finally have mail and plate and similarly expensive armor cost really a lot - that was the main drawback of those kinds of armor. They weren't all that cumbersome, or heavy, or all the penalties you're making up to try and keep them balanced - they costed a lot. The cost itself will keep every single player from buying one, together with the fatigue penalties (marching in full plate is never advised), the vision and hearing penalties, the noise, and also: someone must perform maintenance on them. And of course, donning and doffing them takes many minutes.

8) One more thing: can shields actually be bucklers/shields instead of light shields/heavy shields?

Thanks for everything. I'll go back to reading your previews.

Ros-

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
Hi!

Hi! I'm not a developer or anything, but I think you're gonna be slightly disappointed with some stuff and I'll try to explain why.

Roswynn wrote:
1) I'd like to have both leather/studded leather and actual padded gambesons in the game. Studded leather isn't really armor, but some players like it. Just give us actual armor too. Make it equivalent, whatever. Just at least mention it.

This seems very likely to happen, though whether they'll be equivalent or not is another question entirely. I certainly hope so, though, for reasons of game balance between different concepts.

Roswynn wrote:
2) You... don't really have proficiency in wearing armor. Using shields, totally! Wearing armor... nope. It takes just some hours of familiarity to jog, swim or do cartwheels in full plate. Weapons and shields, it takes you your whole life to get to a very good level, if you ever do.

You seem primarily concerned with realism here, which a perfectly reasonable thing to be interested in. But the thing is that Pathfinder isn't actually very realistic, and realism clearly comes in at a distant fourth after game balance, thematic coolness, and ease of use, as far as the people designing the rules are concerned. Heavier armor is somewhat better (or at least requires less investment in Dex to be good) and thus requires increased character resources to utilize.

Roswynn wrote:
4) Dexterity modifier cap... well, remember a full plate armor's weight, or a half plate's, is very well distributed over the body of the wearer. Don't make them stupidly cumbersome, it doesn't make sense. If you do want to give a cap to the dexterity of someone who wears a mail hauberk though... I guess I could live with that.

Again, this is a realism thing. If it were mechanically true in the game, all PCs would wind up wearing Full Plate (since they'll all be able to afford it eventually). And that's pretty accurate in regards to what happened in real life after full plate was created (ie: every warrior rich enough to afford it had some). But thematically? A lot of character concepts should not be wearing full plate. And having one 'best armor' is not a good game mechanic at all from a balance perspective.

Therefore, they have to do things to make full plate worse than it is in reality in order to make there be actual tradeoffs between it and wearing, say, leather or mail or hide armor. The Dex Mod thing is one of them.

Roswynn wrote:
5) Check penalties. Perhaps small check penalties to dex, for the encumbrance of some heavy armors (not plate, not really), and to con, for the fact that they tire you out... sure. But why strength too? Seriously?

Well, it's penalties to Athletics, really. Some penalties to swimming, climbing, and jumping while carrying heavy weights seem reasonable to me...entirely aside from the aforementioned balance factors.

Roswynn wrote:
6) A movement penalty too? Aren't you folks going a little overboard with armor penalties? Do they actually give any benefit at this point?

As noted above, you need balance points between the different armors if you want different characters to wind up actually wearing a wide variety of armor types, this is just another one of theose balancing factors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Hi!

Hi! I'm not a developer or anything, but I think you're gonna be slightly disappointed with some stuff and I'll try to explain why.

Roswynn wrote:
1) I'd like to have both leather/studded leather and actual padded gambesons in the game. Studded leather isn't really armor, but some players like it. Just give us actual armor too. Make it equivalent, whatever. Just at least mention it.

This seems very likely to happen, though whether they'll be equivalent or not is another question entirely. I certainly hope so, though, for reasons of game balance between different concepts.

Roswynn wrote:
2) You... don't really have proficiency in wearing armor. Using shields, totally! Wearing armor... nope. It takes just some hours of familiarity to jog, swim or do cartwheels in full plate. Weapons and shields, it takes you your whole life to get to a very good level, if you ever do.

You seem primarily concerned with realism here, which a perfectly reasonable thing to be interested in. But the thing is that Pathfinder isn't actually very realistic, and realism clearly comes in at a distant fourth after game balance, thematic coolness, and ease of use, as far as the people designing the rules are concerned. Heavier armor is somewhat better (or at least requires less investment in Dex to be good) and thus requires increased character resources to utilize.

Roswynn wrote:
4) Dexterity modifier cap... well, remember a full plate armor's weight, or a half plate's, is very well distributed over the body of the wearer. Don't make them stupidly cumbersome, it doesn't make sense. If you do want to give a cap to the dexterity of someone who wears a mail hauberk though... I guess I could live with that.
Again, this is a realism thing. If it were mechanically true in the game, all PCs would wind up wearing Full Plate (since they'll all be able to afford it eventually). And that's pretty accurate in regards to what happened in real life after full plate was...

There is also an element of legacy to consider. There might be a way to better simulate the drawbacks of wearing armor and still have it remain fun and balanced, but I think you're basically re-inventing the wheel at that point.

Which is fine! Sometimes the wheel needs to be re-invented. But a lot of these mechanics have been in place for a very long time and people wouldn't recognize the game without them. And Paizo wants to avoid that as they ease people into a brand new version of their well established rules system. There are various things which could potentially be done better in a vacuum but will be left alone because the legacy factor is real.

Lantern Lodge

Shield Yourself! wrote:
and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

Does this means that if a character is very proficient in using a shield, but is bad with armor, would actually be worse off when using a shield?

How would this affect character ideals that don't wear/use armor, only shields?
Like a Spartan that uses only Shield and spear?

Or a Viking-type that may use a shield, but may not focus too much on armor?


Secane wrote:
Shield Yourself! wrote:
and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

Does this means that if a character is very proficient in using a shield, but is bad with armor, would actually be worse off when using a shield?

How would this affect character ideals that don't wear/use armor, only shields?
Like a Spartan that uses only Shield and spear?

Or a Viking-type that may use a shield, but may not focus too much on armor?

I recall Mark Seifter saying that characters who wear armor and carry shields would by default be at least as proficient with their armor as with their shields, so the Viking should have no problem.

But I would think that you can ignore your armor proficiency rank if you are not wearing any armor at all. My only misgiving here is the mention in the Monk blog of unarmed defense proficiency, which could potentially create the problem of having a lower unarmed defense proficiency somehow hold back the effects of any shield proficiency that you pick up from a non-class source.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

IIRC the monk is the only class that starts with expert at unarmored, but I don't think anything has implied anyone starts untrained in unarmored.

Theoretically, I guess you could get your shield proficiency up above that, but I don't think there's a way to do that in the playtest.


Just wanted to thank you, Deadmanwalking and Captain Morgan, for your replies, and sorry for being late in doing that - I had practically forgotten this.

I agree realism is by far not the foremost concern of PF, while balance, flavor and a lack of excessive complexity all sound like extremely reasonable and worthy goals to pursue.

Also true that having everyone eventually invest in full plate would suck quite a bit for the variety we're all probably expecting from a game like PF.

The legacy factor would normally be the least of my interests, but I recognize by using familiar and expected tropes the game is much easier to understand, memorize, run and play, so that's important too.

I think the first thing I'm used to look at in a game is always how it adheres to what little hoplology I know, automatically - but I was interested in PF2 mainly as a more deliciously crunchy, more tactically deep and customizable counterpoint to 5e, and according to what the devs are revealing in the blogs and their replies to some of our doubts, I think I'll be right at home ;)

Thanks again!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Roswynn wrote:

Just wanted to thank you, Deadmanwalking and Captain Morgan, for your replies, and sorry for being late in doing that - I had practically forgotten this.

I agree realism is by far not the foremost concern of PF, while balance, flavor and a lack of excessive complexity all sound like extremely reasonable and worthy goals to pursue.

Also true that having everyone eventually invest in full plate would suck quite a bit for the variety we're all probably expecting from a game like PF.

The legacy factor would normally be the least of my interests, but I recognize by using familiar and expected tropes the game is much easier to understand, memorize, run and play, so that's important too.

I think the first thing I'm used to look at in a game is always how it adheres to what little hoplology I know, automatically - but I was interested in PF2 mainly as a more deliciously crunchy, more tactically deep and customizable counterpoint to 5e, and according to what the devs are revealing in the blogs and their replies to some of our doubts, I think I'll be right at home ;)

Thanks again!

You actually hit the nail on the head with it being a 5e alternative. I don't think Paizo will outright say this, but they seem to be positioning themselves as a game that is more customizable, crunchy, and high powered than 5e while still being recognizable to people who have only played 5e. I think this is a very valid reason to keep various sacred cows in the game, including the basics of how armor works.

5e has been incredibly successful at drawing new players into the hobby. That means A) there are useful lessons to be taken in how to make a game more accessible and B) people are likely going to discover pathfinder after having at least tried 5e. So legacy stuff has new player impacts, not just keeping old grognards happy.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. Just like PF1 targeted those dissatisfied with 4ed, it is pretty obvious from the comments of posters who play 5ed that PF2 scratches several itches that currently create frustration in 5ed players


Captain Morgan wrote:

You actually hit the nail on the head with it being a 5e alternative. I don't think Paizo will outright say this, but they seem to be positioning themselves as a game that is more customizable, crunchy, and high powered than 5e while still being recognizable to people who have only played 5e. I think this is a very valid reason to keep various sacred cows in the game, including the basics of how armor works.

5e has been incredibly successful at drawing new players into the hobby. That means A) there are useful lessons to be taken in how to make a game more accessible and B) people are likely going to discover pathfinder after having at least tried 5e. So legacy stuff has new player impacts, not just keeping old grognards happy.

Well, it's clear to anyone Paizo is countering WotC's move =) It's 5e, but for expert players! But still very accessible! It comes with a full setting all made of cool and win! With even better art than 5e! And your fighter can become so powerful they'll cut mountains with their sword! And you can decide every aspect of their class development! ALL ABOARD THE HYPE TRAIN, CHOO CHOO!! XD

And they're only doing what's tactically and economically the right move, they've lost quite a bit of players to WotC in the last 5 years, so it *is* time to act, no doubt.

There are certainly valuable lessons to learn from 5e's success. I would say that the open questionnaires, feedback and playtests preceding its release were one very valuable lesson in particular. What happened was, essentially, instead of shutting themselves in a closet and playtesting the rules they had come up with till they needed to shower, the devs at WotC actively asked the players what they wanted, and the players had very strong opinions (the players ALWAYS have very strong opinions). So the devs started from those, showed their results, asked for playtests, got back to the drawing board and so on and so forth until they were certain the game they were developing was both a good intro to roleplaying AND attractive to their customers. They're still doing it! Unearthed Arcana - they publish new experimental elements every month and ask for feedback before implementing them.

I think Paizo could've followed that example more closely. But if they didn't, there must be reasons. Like trying to distance themselves from what WotC does and not making it too obvious that this is a direct counter. Bluffing a bit, if you will. Legerdemain (which seems a very trendy word for people who don't like thievery for disabling traps XD ).

Anyways, yeah, legacy counts for a lot. You change enough stuff, it's no longer PF - and it's no longer d20, and no longer recognizable or attractive to the huge crowds who now are playing 5e, or the smaller but still substantial crowds who are playing PF1.

Just look at 7th Sea 2nd edition. They changed *everything* and now the old players who just wanted some streamlining don't give a flying f%%& about it - and they're not even attracting many new players as for that.

If you really wanna put out something different, do it on the 1st edition of whatever you're writing. After that? Too late, buddy ;)


The Raven Black wrote:
Agreed. Just like PF1 targeted those dissatisfied with 4ed, it is pretty obvious from the comments of posters who play 5ed that PF2 scratches several itches that currently create frustration in 5ed players

You couldn't be more right. I'm here *expressedly* because I like and am comfortable running D&D and class/level systems but currently find 5e a little bland, rigid, lacking tactical depth... it does a lot of things wonderfully, but it's worth trying PF 2nd ed, even though I never liked the complexity of 3.5... because I hope of course that this edition will be simpler - and yet maintain more crunch than 5e!

And the devs, even though they're not following the feedback process used by WotC (sure, there's a playtest, but they might have started with asking direct questions...) - the devs seem to really know what they're doing. Fighters with combos? Raising shields? 3 actions every round? Crits on 10+ over DC? What deviltry is this? Sign me up! XD

If they play their cards right, in about a year or two it's gonna be WotC that will need a counter-strike... ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like 5th edition D&D mostly just needs to adopt a slightly more agressive policy regarding the publication of usable character options... "Crunch". I think the framework for intense customization is already there... man are those books pricey though (for their page-count & content).

Thus far its similarities to 5e D&D are amongst my favored changed in PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:

I feel like 5th edition D&D mostly just needs to adopt a slightly more agressive policy regarding the publication of usable character options... "Crunch". I think the framework for intense customization is already there... man are those books pricey though (for their page-count & content).

Thus far its similarities to 5e D&D are amongst my favored changed in PF2.

Honestly, there simply aren't enough decision points when building a 5e character (at least with the current classes). Other than at character creation you usually get one major decision at 3rd level when you pick your archetype, then a handful (usually 5) of ASIs that can be spent on increasing your ability scores or buying feats. You need to spend a reasonable number of those ASIs on ability scores, so a couple of feats are really the only bits of wiggle room. Then if you're a caster you get to pick spells, if not you get an extra ASI or two. Even if you print a bunch of character focused options you still have extremely limited chances to actually use them, especially if you consider that most campaigns never get into higher level play (so the 5-7 ASIs really looks more like 3-5 of them, most of which are spoken for by bumping your primary attribute).

One of the main reasons I'm interested in PF2 is the fact that it seems like it will have a LOT more decision points, which makes the character building mini game more fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rooneg wrote:
You need to spend a reasonable number of those ASIs on ability scores,

This is actually not so, you can get by on a 14 in your prime ability score for your entire career in 5th Ed, due to BA.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
rooneg wrote:
You need to spend a reasonable number of those ASIs on ability scores,
This is actually not so, you can get by on a 14 in your prime ability score for your entire career in 5th Ed, due to BA.

Sure, if you're okay with missing 15% more of the time. I've played a lot of 5e over the past few years, and I've literally never seen anyone sit on a 14 in their primary ability score for any length of time.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
rooneg wrote:
You need to spend a reasonable number of those ASIs on ability scores,
This is actually not so, you can get by on a 14 in your prime ability score for your entire career in 5th Ed, due to BA.

Would you want to though? BA makes the dice already feel super swingy. I'd really prefer to reduce my chance of failure at a thing as best I can. While you can't min-max in as many ways in 5e, that creates a psychological incentive to grab whatever you can to improve as quick as possible. Whiffing on attacks or having your spell do nothing is rarely fun.

Meanwhile, in PF1, I can take min-maxing to a further extreme, but I don't necessarily feel that much pressure to. I may indeed decide to leave a key stat at 16 because there will be numerous other opportunities to make up for that difference later, and at a certain point I can hit the auto success threshold anyway.

Hopefully, PF2 will give us the best of both worlds. You won't be able to min-max as hard, but getting your stats to "max" will be trivially easy and inexpensive so you can then focus on other fun choices. And the 4 tiers of success means an enemy passing their save doesn't necessarily mean I wasted my spell and turn, for example.


rooneg wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
rooneg wrote:
You need to spend a reasonable number of those ASIs on ability scores,
This is actually not so, you can get by on a 14 in your prime ability score for your entire career in 5th Ed, due to BA.
Sure, if you're okay with missing 15% more of the time. I've played a lot of 5e over the past few years, and I've literally never seen anyone sit on a 14 in their primary ability score for any length of time.

Ah, that old chestnut, ooh, every +1 is 5%, wah-wah, maybe people do not sit on it, they usually raise until at least 18, but you can still function more than adequately with a 14, and in a campaign with + X magic items, well, that's just gravy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
rooneg wrote:
You need to spend a reasonable number of those ASIs on ability scores,
This is actually not so, you can get by on a 14 in your prime ability score for your entire career in 5th Ed, due to BA.
Would you want to though? BA makes the dice already feel super swingy. I'd really prefer to reduce my chance of failure at a thing as best I can. While you can't min-max in as many ways in 5e, that creates a psychological incentive to grab whatever you can to improve as quick as possible. Whiffing on attacks or having your spell do nothing is rarely fun.

The phycological incentive seems to be something that people that have't really grasped the maths of 5th Ed possess, and luckily the whiffing deal isn't an issue, as most monsters have pitifully low AC in 5th Ed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Chest Rockwell wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Chest Rockwell wrote:
rooneg wrote:
You need to spend a reasonable number of those ASIs on ability scores,
This is actually not so, you can get by on a 14 in your prime ability score for your entire career in 5th Ed, due to BA.
Would you want to though? BA makes the dice already feel super swingy. I'd really prefer to reduce my chance of failure at a thing as best I can. While you can't min-max in as many ways in 5e, that creates a psychological incentive to grab whatever you can to improve as quick as possible. Whiffing on attacks or having your spell do nothing is rarely fun.
The phycological incentive seems to be something that people that have't really grasped the maths of 5th Ed possess, and luckily the whiffing deal isn't an issue, as most monsters have pitifully low AC in 5th Ed.

I don't really think 5e math discourages you from wanting to have higher bonuses. Even if the bar for enemy defenses is much lower, your proficiency bonus only goes so high. A level 20 character with 14 in their key stat still misses a Challenge 2 bandit captiann on anything less than a 7 on the dice, for example. (AC 15)

Even if AC scales slowly too, you still don't want to actually fail at stuff. But improving your odds at success comes with a VERY stiff opportunity cost, because 5e feats are awesome.

One of the best things about PF2 is that raising ability scores, out of combat skills, and combat oriented class feats won't compete with each other so you can have some of it all.


Okay, let me clarify: 14 is low. No one wants a 14 in their attack stat. You can still hit quite consistently, sure, even more if you have a magic weapon, but honestly? At least a 16. Even more if possible. It's just natural optimization.

That said, it's absolutely true, you can't customize your characters well enough, there's too few decision points. Okay, race, then background, then class, spells if you're a caster, a lousy archetype that doesn't impact your class nearly enough at mostly 3rd level, and then you can choose a feat like every 4 levels instead of the ASI.

I must say though that *you can* choose all feats instead of bumps to ability scores. It's totally, absolutely doable, because indeed, the enemies have sucky ACs. You too have a sucky AC. Everyone has a sucky AC. It's really not hard to hit in 5e. You mostly roll damage every round. Also most feats still give you bonuses to abilities - so what are you gonna pick, really? And anyways they always make you either directly stronger or more versatile, or more focused in your area of expertise - they're actually good, useful feats, so really, no brainer.

The feats are interesting and a move in the right direction, BUT they're too few, you can only choose 5 or 6 throughout your whole career, 1 more if you decide you want a "variant human" (i.e. human as race but instead of +1 to every ability +1 to only 2, but 1 feat at level 1). And of course when you play a human you *always* want to play a variant human, because frankly the bog-standard version is as flavorless as seabiscuit. You try to squeeze every single drop of customization. And all the other races must wait until 4th or 5th level before they even *see* a feat!

So these are *some* of the reason I'm really loving PF2 from what I'm seeing. Still quite simple, but goshdangit, at least some more feats, and something more to do in a fight for a melee combatant than "I attack" (rolls d20, hits, rolls damage, yay).

What else?... Yeah, nothing, just wanted to tell it how it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I never understood the decision to givew the player either a feat OR a stat increase, tbh - thats just bogus

601 to 650 of 660 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Gearing Up! All Messageboards