Gearing Up!

So with FF AC gone normal AC and touch AC are pretty much the same as KAC and EAC in Starfinder, both depending on your armor. I don't like it in SF and won't like it here. For me the armor class system in PF1 would be perfect if there was a smaller number of AC bonus types.

Captain Morgan wrote:

. Wearing multiple sets of magic glasses is pretty easy for a DM to veto.

And my point is: so long as there are limits on how many items of the same type can be worn: there are slots. Everyone saying there aren't any slots have either not thought it through, are more than happy to let silly situations occur like 50 eyepieces at once or are being disingenuous and simply trying to shut down people who are voicing genuine concerns.

What are the concerns?

Okay, we have way fewer slots now and just about everything is slotless without a markup in price. Sounds better than PF1’s system to me.

But if the game leans that way and a lot of players will just play as is. And if that results in a grating experience for them, there are plenty of other games for them to play. I've seen people high five all around when they got what they personally wanted. And then those same people are gnashing teeth and saying how unfair it is when the market says "meh" and their game losses support.

Ehh... no, if I understand you correctly.

Asgetrion wrote:

Why not abstract the whole thing and get rid of it, just like PF2 has already got rid of flat-footed AC? It would be a breeze to fold it into your "regular" AC and make everyone's life easier, since AC is an abstracted concept anyway.

It's an interesting idea! We could do something like giving a +X circumstance bonus to attacks that are supposed to be more accurate in this way and eliminate TAC entirely. It would mean constraining our armor design options, so we'd have to either work on more ways to make those relevant or cut the number of different armors down quite a bit.

I was really hoping that there would only be "Light" and "Heavy" armours anyway so that's not a bad idea! It just simplifies things without really taking anything away.

A "Attack: Touch" that is codified to have the +x from whatever built into it and can be specified in the description for the attack. So Chill Touch would specify that it was a Attack: Touch +x or something like that.

We'd only have to worry about two kinds of armour and only one armour class.

SM

At least the "adding your levels to your AC" is a vast improvement, for me.

It was always absurd why in the SRD engine only your offenses(BAB) benefited from training(Leveling up), but your defenses(AC) did not.

No mention of ASF but wizards still can't wear armor?

No mention of ASF but wizards still can't wear armor?

According to the Friday podcast ASF is not a thing for the playtest, at least.

Malk_Content wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

You also had no mechanical reason to wear more than two rings. Well you do now!

Congrats, no Christmas tree. It's just on their hands now and they can wear even more it they want. This is somehow better?

Doesn't matter if you had a reason to do it. A player could have previously wore 5 jeweled rings and tried to claim extra damage. You would have had to make a ruling then as you did now. Nothing has changed in that regard. Like your many numerous examples in the bulk thread, these are problems that either already existed or are probably dealt with.

The Christmas Tree problem was about it being optimal to get at least something in every slot. Every branch was gilded. With things less restricted slot wise you are more free to wear what you want, with a more permissive resource to allow players to pick and choose what they like and make trade offs between ongoing benefits and active powers. While also avoiding all the arbitrary problems detailed upthread slots give that made less sense than wearing 10 rings. That is how it is better.

If I had to take a guess at Bucklers is that they will give you only one of the benefits of a light shield, either the AC or optional DR.

Or you know you could, Not feel the need to get an item in every slot? What nonsense am I saying, that's not optimal! You were always free to wear what you wanted, I don't understand why you weren't unless you did it for the numbers but the community doesn't just keep going for the same numbers again and again right?

This community that doesn't go for the numbers is now expected to play nice with unlimited items but also a restricted usage system that will encourage people to pick what they want over what they need/biggest number?

Yeah I can't see any issues coming with this community! And how the heck is slots more confusing than unlimited items until the GM says no?

It's not unlimited items though. It is constrained by Resonance and your actual access to items. And I feel like it's a very strange assumption to think that OPTIMIZERS are going to be spending their entire pool of resonance on a stupid number of the same item. If the community is going to go with the optimal solution, then the only way your scenario occurs is if the best items are all rings at the point that you can actually afford to have yourself fully kitted out. Or all boots, or all glasses, or whatever.

That seems exceedingly unlikely. I mean, it is technically possible I guess, but even assume Paizo assigned item power by throwing darts at a board, statistically I'd expect item power to be more evenly distributed.

All this concern about Resonance maybe resulting in silly looking equipment combos seems really weird to me, given that equipment combos actually do look silly now. And honestly, I don't think optimizers are the culprit for this. Even if you are making sub-optimal choices for magic items, are you basing those decisions off of how fashionable they would look? Because otherwise, the flavorful items are going to be just as silly. Item combos are just goofy as heck. If you want your character to dress like you envisioned them, you are either not getting many items at all or investing in a Hat of Disguise.

I don't even think optimizers were ever particularly focused on filling every slot. Their focus is on finding as many bonuses they can stack on what they deem the relevant numbers. I guess that could result in every slot getting filled eventually, but I think for most of their career that probably means focusing on the big 6. The goofiest of which is the headband.

Ecidon wrote:

True it's replacing the "numerical arms race" in Pathfinder with a "numerical arms treadmill"

It's fascinating to watch the evolution of PF to 4e and already seeing the complaints about PF2e that we saw lobbied at 4e which directly led t4e to evolve into 5e.

4e's biggest problem is that it exposed the math too much which made how everything was balanced glaringly obvious and ultimately unsatisfying. Unfortunately PF2e's math is even more exposed than 4e's was.

I seriously, seriously doubt this has much bearing on reality.

1, only a select few people here on the boards see anything of 'evolution of PF to 4e', and it seems rather ridiculous to most of us. (From what I've seen from reactions so far.

2, there's lots of things that people didn't like about 4e, but 'exposed math' is hardly a commonly discussed issue. And 5e has probably even more glaringly obvious math, yet people love it.

I'd much rather have a game that's easier for players to understand regarding the repercussions of their choices, than a game where people accidentally stumble into garbage builds while thinking they're making something useful, which is what PF1 is. Time will tell in that regard. I expect it to be much easier to understand than PF1, but probably substantially harder than 5e.

I hope all magic items including weapons and armors will resize to fit the wearer

I hope all magic items including weapons and armors will resize to fit the wearer

Hmmm, that would seem consistent with eliminating small damage dice. Given how modular armor seems to be, I imagine resizing won't have a big cost at least.

Out of this blog the Interact action is the most jarring thing I see. Especially the shifting of the grip part. Yes I understand that some things should be codified, and that characters with two handed weapons were prevalent in PF1, but this is just needlessly punitive (and I mentioned before that two-handed weapon style seems to be the loser in PF2, this just confirmed it), not to mention unfun.

After all the revision of the action system, so characters could finally move and attack more than once, you invented a ton of tax-actions so it becomes unfeasible to do so. I mean, shifting grip -an action, power attack -an action, using a shield -an action.

Full attack is not the devil, and you still have to deal damage to finish the opponents.
IMO, shifting the grip should be free (there never was serious abuse there, some optimization yes, but some things will always be optimal, and dervish dance builds for casters were still more prevalent), and shield should spend an action ONCE, and spend it again to drop it down to use the hand, not every round (I'm fine with reaction being used for DR, very interesting design space).

On other things, magic armor granting saves is ok by me, but one thing with tighter math of PF2 means, is that every +1 is much more important than in PF2 and so catching them all becomes even more a priority.

To re-iterate, fiddling with your equipment during combat does not make combat more interesting. All those actions should just be a part of other actions. Re-balance them as such. You should be able to draw weapons (and other things!) as a part of the move, you should be able to draw ammunition as part of the attack, and you should be able to switch a grip as part of wielding the weapon.

We'll see how it goes in the actual playtest, depending on how it's worded in the actual rules. But based on the blog, one of my players has already expressed concern about the Interact action specifically bogging the game down in fiddly BS and making Quick Draw into a tier 1 feat tax on par with 4E's math fixing plus-to-hit feats.

Our concerns would be alleviated substantially if for the Interact action specifically (or any of its subactions like draw a weapon, etc), you got to use it once per turn as a free action. Every use of Interact after the first can still cost an action, but making the first one free seems way more reasonable to us.

We'll see how it goes in the actual playtest, depending on how it's worded in the actual rules. But based on the blog, one of my players has already expressed concern about the Interact action specifically bogging the game down in fiddly BS and making Quick Draw into a tier 1 feat tax on par with 4E's math fixing plus-to-hit feats.

Our concerns would be alleviated substantially if for the Interact action specifically (or any of its subactions like draw a weapon, etc), you got to use it once per turn as a free action. Every use of Interact after the first can still cost an action, but making the first one free seems way more reasonable to us.

That seems reasonable, but not for all examples...for instance if drawing arrows is Interaction, it's still unnecessarily punitive.

The action tax on shields needs to go. Sword and board paladins needs to be a viable option instead of devolving into juggling actions in order for core functions. I came to play an action game, not a resource management Sim.

In addition, I want characterful shields, not disposable ones that get thrown away because they break.

The best in category armor is valid and should remain so because the differences are technological differences. If you can afford full plate, you don't buy banded and trying to make them an even trade off is like making bronze weapons equivalent to iron.

To make it less confusing than before where you could have a shield simultaneously enchanted as both a weapon and an armor in the same weapon, we have separated out the shield spikes (for piercing) or boss (for bludgeoning) as weapons that you deal with separately. This incidentally allows you to do a lot more with your shield and to switch out your really nice boss or spikes into a new shield if you find one that's awesome.

Wait. You pluck the spikes or pry the boss off of your shield and plug it into a new one? That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

1, only a select few people here on the boards see anything of 'evolution of PF to 4e', and it seems rather ridiculous to most of us. (From what I've seen from reactions so far.

4e removed BAB and skill points and added in +1/2 level to everything. They also added in leveled items (level didn't actually mean anything in terms of what you could use but was instead simply an indicator for the DM to determine what items to hand out to the players). This elicited complaints about people feeling like they were on a treadmill, which directly led to 5e removing the +1/2 level to everything and instead condensed it down to a bonus that maxed out at +7.

PF2e has removed BAB and skill points (at least as they worked in PF1e) for a +level bonus with us being told we'll have leveled items (they won't have any meaning in the game other than to act as an indicator for the GM as to when to hand them out). Sure enough, in the post I quoted, we see one person making the same complaint about the treadmill.

But sure. There are no similarities at all. It is completely made up and no complaints have been made about PF2e that were made about 4e.

2, there's lots of things that people didn't like about 4e, but 'exposed math' is hardly a commonly discussed issue.

Although the complaints at the surface level never mentioned exposed maths, when you examine the complaints and look at 3.5e with a critical eye you see that 3.5e had much of the same issues (at least as they were commonly played in Living Greyhawk) but were able to obfusticated so that the math and balance points weren't so glaringly obvious.

And 5e has probably even more glaringly obvious math, yet people love it.

I would love to see a study that checked how much overlap there is between Pathfinder players and 5e players. My gut feel (based on my experiences) is that there's very little overlap (and that any PF players who did try out 5e either stuck with 5e and abandoned PF or returned to PF and abandoned 5e).

I'd much rather have a game that's easier for players to understand regarding the repercussions of their choices, than a game where people accidentally stumble into garbage builds while thinking they're making something useful, which is what PF1 is. Time will tell in that regard. I expect it to be much easier to understand than PF1, but probably substantially harder than 5e.

One of the key problems identified with 4e (as stated by the designers of 5e) was that 4e was too well balanced. I'm not going to go looking for the quote (I don't even know if it's survived the WotC website purgings. Most of the Monte Cook articles certainly didn't survive). But 5e aimed at making the balance fuzzier in order to address this criticism. You might think you want a perfectly balanced game, but past experience tells me that such a game will not appeal to the majority of PF players. And we've seen a vocal number on these forums voice this sentiment in their own ways. So we'll have to wait and see what the playtest looks like and what the feedback actually says.

4E's problem wasn't that it was TOO balanced, it is they made things balanced by having everyone work the same way. The balance came from blandness. The Cleric operates in the same way as the Fighter as does the Wizard. You can have fantastic asymetric balance. Now how much PF2E does that we don't know, but so far it seems to be doing a pretty good job.

^From various random posts I have seen on these boards, I know that at least a few people seem to be okay with both D&D 5th Edition and Pathfinder 1st Edition.

4E's problem wasn't that it was TOO balanced, it is they made things balanced by having everyone work the same way. The balance came from blandness. The Cleric operates in the same way as the Fighter as does the Wizard. You can have fantastic asymetric balance. Now how much PF2E does that we don't know, but so far it seems to be doing a pretty good job.

As a person who played a fair bit of 4E before switching over to Pathfinder for the last few years, yeah, that's what I was feeling. Every ability I had seemed to be almost the exact same with a slight change and a different name.

Honestly, after getting into Pathfinder, I never wanted to go back to 4E. Yet, Pathfinder also had its flaws, and 2E thus far is exciting me as it seems to be in some healthier area than the over simplified/overly repetitive 4E and the at times overly complicated, messy Pathfinder.

Hopefully people are able to enjoy it as its own thing and it can carve out an enjoyable niche for those of us who get into it.

^From various random posts I have seen on these boards, I know that at least a few people seem to be okay with both D&D 5th Edition and Pathfinder 1st Edition.

Oh I have no doubt there are people who play both. If only because I could say "the sky is never pink with purple polkadots" and within the hour I'd have three people telling me I'm wrong and how the sky is always pink with red polkadots where they live. I do wonder how many people fall into that part of the Vene diagram of gamers though.

4E's problem wasn't that it was TOO balanced

Don't aruge with me. Argue with the devs who worked on 5e.

Malk_Content wrote:

4E's problem wasn't that it was TOO balanced

Don't aruge with me. Argue with the devs who worked on 5e.

Can you PM them to come here and comment on how even the most superfluous similarities means PF2E will be like 4E? I'll argue with them then.

The action tax on shields needs to go. Sword and board paladins needs to be a viable option instead of devolving into juggling actions in order for core functions. I came to play an action game, not a resource management Sim.

Almost all of PF is some sort of resource management. Also the maths has been done with what we know so far, even with the action tax a sword and board fighter will beat out a heavy weapon fighter 1v1. So in order to remove the "tax" they'll have to weaken the shield, possibly making it less viable as an outcome.

I think it would be great if the quality of armor and weapons at a certain level included the possibility to add a positive trait or remove a negative one.

For example, when the legendary weapon smith creates a new spear, he can add deadly as a weapon trait or the legendary armorer can remove the noisy trait from the chain shirt.

Of course it shouldn't be possible to add any trait to any weapon, so that's a bit harder to define since a list is needed about what can be added to a specific weapon(group/category). Reach daggers don't make sense after all.

Also, when armor gets damaged it could gain negative traits like noisy until it is repaired. Similar for weapons, but I haven't seen any negative traits there. But the loss of a trait would be a possibility, as a reach weapon could probably lose its reach when the handle breaks...

Asgetrion wrote:

Why not abstract the whole thing and get rid of it, just like PF2 has already got rid of flat-footed AC? It would be a breeze to fold it into your "regular" AC and make everyone's life easier, since AC is an abstracted concept anyway.

It's an interesting idea! We could do something like giving a +X circumstance bonus to attacks that are supposed to be more accurate in this way and eliminate TAC entirely. It would mean constraining our armor design options, so we'd have to either work on more ways to make those relevant or cut the number of different armors down quite a bit.

Maybe both?

Or we want to introduce Maximillian full plate armor as something different that give increased protection against weapons and proceed of that route?

deuxhero wrote:

No mention of ASF but wizards still can't wear armor?

According to the Friday podcast ASF is not a thing for the playtest, at least.

ASF?

I don't care if your specific group of players use it extensively because you learned it in a MOORPG or other gaming group. Explain it for the other people. There is people from all over the world that read and write in it and not all of them share your experiences.

Arcane spell failure

The action tax on shields needs to go. Sword and board paladins needs to be a viable option instead of devolving into juggling actions in order for core functions. I came to play an action game, not a resource management Sim.

In addition, I want characterful shields, not disposable ones that get thrown away because they break.

The best in category armor is valid and should remain so because the differences are technological differences. If you can afford full plate, you don't buy banded and trying to make them an even trade off is like making bronze weapons equivalent to iron.

Actually well maintained bronze weapon where better than iron (non steel, iron) ones. And higher quality steel is better than low quality, as the Romans showed to the Celts.

Note that "characterful shields" seem to be available. Magic shields will be available, what we will not get is shield with further enhancements to the armor class beside the basic value.

Arcane spell failure

Thanks, I have been in this forum for years and don't recall seeing that acronym. It appear 415 times in the rule forum, not a big number. Probably it is often used in other sections of the forum.

As a guess, I think that Arcane spell failure will be linked to the level of armor proficiency. So bards with light armor proficiency will have no trouble casting spells in light armor, while wizards will have problems.

Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

And 5e has probably even more glaringly obvious math, yet people love it.

I would love to see a study that checked how much overlap there is between Pathfinder players and 5e players. My gut feel (based on my experiences) is that there's very little overlap (and that any PF players who did try out 5e either stuck with 5e and abandoned PF or returned to PF and abandoned 5e).

I tried the 5e and liked the system, but the Society scenarios are made to be played in 2 hours and to shallow for my tastes, so I have stopped playing it.

4e removed BAB and skill points and added in +1/2 level to everything. They also added in leveled items (level didn't actually mean anything in terms of what you could use but was instead simply an indicator for the DM to determine what items to hand out to the players). This elicited complaints about people feeling like they were on a treadmill, which directly led to 5e removing the +1/2 level to everything and instead condensed it down to a bonus that maxed out at +7.

Another difference between 4e and 5e was that they reversed the interaction between level and proficiency.

In 4e, you got +level/2 to everything, and a further fixed bonus to reflect proficiency/training. But in 5e, the level-based thing is your proficiency bonus, and that only applies to things in which you are proficient.

So a stereotypical 4e fighter going from 1st to 20th level will likely go from +0 to +10 on their Arcana checks. The 20th level fighter in 5e will instead stay at +0 - though DCs don't increase as much, so they can still have some chance of recognizing various magic effects.

Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

1, only a select few people here on the boards see anything of 'evolution of PF to 4e', and it seems rather ridiculous to most of us. (From what I've seen from reactions so far.

4e removed BAB and skill points and added in +1/2 level to everything. They also added in leveled items (level didn't actually mean anything in terms of what you could use but was instead simply an indicator for the DM to determine what items to hand out to the players). This elicited complaints about people feeling like they were on a treadmill, which directly led to 5e removing the +1/2 level to everything and instead condensed it down to a bonus that maxed out at +7.

PF2e has removed BAB and skill points (at least as they worked in PF1e) for a +level bonus with us being told we'll have leveled items (they won't have any meaning in the game other than to act as an indicator for the GM as to when to hand them out). Sure enough, in the post I quoted, we see one person making the same complaint about the treadmill.

why do you feel that a +level bonus to everything is identical to a +1/2 level bonus to everything, but a (roughly) 1/3 level bonus to everything (like 5e) is not?

All of those have much more in common with each other than spending skill points to gain skill ranks. The difference is 5e aims for bounded accuracy, and more interaction between lvl 1 threats and lvl 20 threats, while PF does the opposite.

Wait. You pluck the spikes or pry the boss off of your shield and plug it into a new one? That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

Considering that, historically, a "spiked shield" was usually a "shield with a spike on the shield boss" and the shield boss (also including the grip) was riveted to the layered wood of the shield (to make it easier to replace the wood portion as it became damaged), no.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

1, only a select few people here on the boards see anything of 'evolution of PF to 4e', and it seems rather ridiculous to most of us. (From what I've seen from reactions so far.

4e removed BAB and skill points and added in +1/2 level to everything. They also added in leveled items (level didn't actually mean anything in terms of what you could use but was instead simply an indicator for the DM to determine what items to hand out to the players). This elicited complaints about people feeling like they were on a treadmill, which directly led to 5e removing the +1/2 level to everything and instead condensed it down to a bonus that maxed out at +7.

PF2e has removed BAB and skill points (at least as they worked in PF1e) for a +level bonus with us being told we'll have leveled items (they won't have any meaning in the game other than to act as an indicator for the GM as to when to hand them out). Sure enough, in the post I quoted, we see one person making the same complaint about the treadmill.

why do you feel that a +level bonus to everything is identical to a +1/2 level bonus to everything, but a (roughly) 1/3 level bonus to everything (like 5e) is not?

All of those have much more in common with each other than spending skill points to gain skill ranks. The difference is 5e aims for bounded accuracy, and more interaction between lvl 1 threats and lvl 20 threats, while PF does the opposite.

Because in 5e is not to everything, is only on proficiency. Is not on all Saves, only on the 2 you are good, to make an example. Basically, in 4e/PF2 the level scaling raises the floor, while in 5e raises the ceiling. This creates a different sense of progression, where DC doesn't ramp up as much, instead reliability on action with bonuses does.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^From various random posts I have seen on these boards, I know that at least a few people seem to be okay with both D&D 5th Edition and Pathfinder 1st Edition.

Oh I have no doubt there are people who play both. If only because I could say "the sky is never pink with purple polkadots" and within the hour I'd have three people telling me I'm wrong and how the sky is always pink with red polkadots where they live. I do wonder how many people fall into that part of the Vene diagram of gamers though.

Malk_Content wrote:

4E's problem wasn't that it was TOO balanced

Don't aruge with me. Argue with the devs who worked on 5e.

@John Lynch: Is is possible your gaming experience *might* not be representative of everyone else's everywhere? Just because no one you know doesn't play both 5e and Pathfinder doesn't mean it's not done. And just because you and a few other people (as you say) keep comparing Pathfinder 2E to 4E because that's the negative comparison to make when there's something you don't like doesn't make it true.

As for flat bonuses being an issue, well, while 5e doesn't scale nonproficient with level, the actual ranges of proficient vs nonproficient look identical, with Pathfinder 2e adding granularity between them a bit more, but they still range from 0 to 5 (-2 to +3). Also, after a preliminary look at people who have complained about 4E, I've found no one who made reference to flat scaling of levels, so please provide a reference that this was an *actual* issue with 4E.

Interesting that AC and TAC are now a thing. I know they always were, but I did heavily suspect that PF2 would copy STF in regards to armor giving 2 stats.

As for this line however "so you can accurately budget your lifestyle decisions" I haven't rolled my eyes at anything previewed so far, but this did it. I play to escape, to run for miles through out amazing landscapes. I'm not interested in planning another life that isn't real, so I have zero interest in paying an accurate amount of living in quarters etc. I know this is relevant for less combat focused campaigns or politically inclined ones, but it just felt bad to read it in a preview.

Excited to see how magical upgrades work.

After all the revision of the action system, so characters could finally move and attack more than once, you invented a ton of tax-actions so it becomes unfeasible to do so. I mean, shifting grip -an action, power attack -an action, using a shield -an action.

I swear, tax is becoming more and more of a meaningless buzz word on this forum. Shifting grip becoming an action is a tax. Power Attack and Shield are not. They are new options which have more powerful benefits compared to PF1. The price of using them has been adjusted accordingly. We have already seen math demonstrating these are more powerful options than taking a -10 attack. We have seen that sword and board vs two handers have actually flipped places in fighting each, for example. Suggesting that shields shouldn't take an action means they need to either nerf shields. As is, the new status quo means that the shield user can win fights the two-hander can't, but the two-hander can end fights sooner and hopefully keep their allies from getting attacked.

Also, the new shield and power attack mechanics are much more tactical. In PF1 there was very little decision making involved. The defensive bonuses of shields just happened. Power Attack was actually something you COULD call a feat tax, because it was so good it felt required for most builds to get it. And once you had it, PA was either "always on," or made you work with fiddly numbers on the fly to adjust. (Not a huge deal for a Rogue PC who can write their PA values out ahead of time, but not fun for a GM who know needs to factor it into every 3rd stat block.)

I think there are probably other examples you could use that would qualify as an action tax-- I recall thinking it was weird that jumping up on a log required a second move action from moving up to it in the Glass Cannon playtest, for example. But you picked two things which very much aren't that. Honestly, a lot of the action taxes I've noticed are being inherited from PF1. Opening doors for example. At least with 3 actions opening a door doesn't break the turn flow as much. Otherwise, I imagine I'll just house rule things I don't think should take a full action in my own games, same as I do now.

Our concerns would be alleviated substantially if for the Interact action specifically (or any of its subactions like draw a weapon, etc), you got to use it once per turn as a free action. Every use of Interact after the first can still cost an action, but making the first one free seems way more reasonable to us.

I could dig that. It's one of those things I think 5e got right. I would certainly prefer that option as a player for myself. OTOH, I can see why Paizo would be hesitant to put that in. Actions being a universal currency is a bit of a selling point for them; making exceptions to that rule may not help keep it intuitive.

That seems reasonable, but not for all examples...for instance if drawing arrows is Interaction, it's still unnecessarily punitive.

Actually, with the lack of ranged weapons so far, I'm starting to wonder if drawing and knocking an arrow will be an action. It certainly seems like it would require more attention to do that than shift your grip on a sword. Archery was pretty OP in PF1 compared both to melee and other ranged options, and the big reason was because of how many arrows you could put in the air in a turn. That might also help ranged spell attacks/cantrips to feel more competitive with archery and keep casters casting cantrips over firing bows or crossbows. The most specific archery thing I can name is Double Shot from the Fighter preview. That could easily let you fire knock two arrows as part of the same interact action, and fire both as part of the same attack action. (As opposed to Rapid Shot letting you fire the arrows quicker one after another.)

That would be a pretty big nerf to archers, but maybe not a bad one? It certainly raises a lot of interesting balance points. Ranged combat trades their move actions for load actions and relative safety from melee. Melee would pull ahead on any round they didn't have to move though. Maybe ranged attacks will focus more on hitting harder/more accurately with single shots? Perhaps assuming taking aim will be an action instead of loading, and you only need to do it once per target?

I think the idea might be worth playing around with. I could also see why Paizo would be keeping it close to their chest if so-- a change this big could set the boards on fire.

Actually, with the lack of ranged weapons so far, I'm starting to wonder if drawing and knocking an arrow will be an action. It certainly seems like it would require more attention to do that than shift your grip on a sword. Archery was pretty OP in PF1 compared both to melee and other ranged options, and the big reason was because of how many arrows you could put in the air in a turn. That might also help ranged spell attacks/cantrips to feel more competitive with archery and keep casters casting cantrips over firing bows or crossbows. The most specific archery thing I can name is Double Shot from the Fighter preview. That could easily let you fire knock two arrows as part of the same interact action, and fire both as part of the same attack action. (As opposed to Rapid Shot letting you fire the arrows quicker one after another.)

That would be a pretty big nerf to archers, but maybe not a bad one? It certainly raises a lot of interesting balance points. Ranged combat trades their move actions for load actions and relative safety from melee. Melee would pull ahead on any round they didn't have to move though. Maybe ranged attacks will focus more on hitting harder/more accurately with single shots? Perhaps assuming taking aim will be an action instead of loading, and you only need to do it once per target?

A couple comments on this: I think archery is fixed naturally by the 3 action system. Right now, any character could move and make two melee attacks on their turn, where an archer could fire 3 arrows. That's a difference of 1 attack at a -10, which almost certainly balances out, and might actually be worse for the archer. When enemies start further away, archers will have and advantage... but they should.

From there, they just need to make sure they balance the archery feats to not give much more than the melee feats, which was a big issue with PF1E (I'm looking at you Rapid+Many, then Clustered....). With Sudden Strike being a thing, I could see them giving Archers either Rapid or Manyshot, but probably not both. 4 weaker attacks per round as compared to 2 or so more powerful ones seems like it would balance out.

A couple comments on this: I think archery is fixed naturally by the 3 action system. Right now, any character could move and make two melee attacks on their turn, where an archer could fire 3 arrows. That's a difference of 1 attack at a -10, which almost certainly balances out, and might actually be worse for the archer. When enemies start further away, archers will have and advantage... but they should.

From there, they just need to make sure they balance the archery feats to not give much more than the melee feats, which was a big issue with PF1E (I'm looking at you Rapid+Many, then Clustered....). With Sudden Strike being a thing, I could see them giving...

Maybe, yeah. Archery has other issues too, though. Being able to attack safely from out of melee range is pretty dope. (Though being able to move more may mitigate that.) Also, if AoOs are no longer the norm, I'm not sure what prevents an archer from firing in close quarters over pulling up a back up weapon. You've also got to balance it against Two Weapon Fighting if archery's main shtick is lots of weaker attacks, and if they want to make crossbows viable as a dedicated option, or thrown weapons, those need to be balanced against it as well.

I'm not saying it is likely the case, but I think going the other way could be neat. I am pretty sure I heard long bows have Deadly-- Maybe instead of Deadly Aim adding more damage it boosts your accuracy and makes it more likely you crit. Sniping has never been super viable in Pathfinder, and I could dig it if ranged combatants became more about picking their shot than acting as machine guns. An arrow to the head should be one of the most efficient ways to start a surprise round.

Of course, that divide could also be the difference between a martial crossbow and a longbow, rather than ranged vs melee.

Regardless of which direction they go, I hope archery doesn't require so many feats that you can't effectively switch hit or be anything other than an archer.

This blogposts packs a lot in, but ends up being somewhat unclear and incomplete, in that it seems to suggest rules interactions with rules I'm not sure I've seen elsewhere. This is probably my lack of other media, as posters in this thread mention dev comments in other places/media. [EDIT - just found the Paizo Chat with Logan Bonner thread. ]

* I agree that shields missing out on potency runes feels completely arbitrary, but is obviously not a mechanic/design decision made in a vacuum. Just give it some lore that makes sense, possibly tied to resonance - "... armor encapsulates the wearer, but shields, held or even strapped to the wearer do not and thus do not have the requisite energy to be imbued....reasons...Golarion....Pharasma's undershorts etc etc etc"

* The whole rune thing feels too specific and yes, videogamey, though I haven't played any of the games mentioned in this thread, but I have played others that use similar systems. I'm fine with the system per se, I just think that specifically calling the enhancer as a potency rune is fine as a placeholder but is too generic, and could easily be culturally out of place in many places. Ribbons. Paintjobs. Dips/baths/drenches. Smoke/smudgings. Lineages/legacies/heritages/clanweapons. Pretty easy to reskin, but then, why not just go back to enhancement, with a slightly changed mechanical system...?

* I have no problem with the save bonus of armor enhancement, and arguments surrounding lost former must-haves are wind in the sails of a boat I never embarked upon as it sails away from me. Seems like a good idea.

* Not sure where the slots/no slots angle came in, nor why having no slots might mean I can't where three belts. On my forehead. My 1e DnD druid's pet lion wore an ear-ring of protection +1 and in the 3PP adventure Throne of Evil a chief villain wore hose of speed - that's right, medieval undergarments. Of speed. Ah, the eighties. So creative, with their...ideas.

* TAC. Looks like EAC. And KAC. And although there is no longer AC/T/FF it still seems a little bulgy. Then again, I like a little complexity, so a little note about what attacks/feats/spells etc work great and ignore armor is fine by me. Bah. TAC will do fine.

* Bulk. Ok, fair enough - worked in Starfinder. Simpler to me than encumbrance. Stodgy name though.

Overall, it feels like Logan is coming from a place that is deeper and further into the rules, and has a little trouble getting the objectivity just right to present things clearly in what is essentially advertorial to the eager consumers - us. Which takes nothing away from the system, really just an aside.

It was a post of Steve Geddes a little ways back that made me realise this isn't the text of the Playtest, and these aren't the rules - they are a presentation to whet the appetite. So I read, and think, and be calm, because I don't have a horse in a race that isn't going to run until August. Of course the horses we can see are all grist for our mill, but perhaps unprocessed is better?

Thanks for the constant attempts to inspire and encourage us to play the game you have spent many months with your colleauges and friends designing Logan. So far I'm still liking the general direction, don't find it a huge change to the dying system, really like some of the dynamic action and combat changes, and actively dislike some of the newer fiddly bits (resonance, specificity of "runes", there was something else, but I can't remember it, and although it is late and I should be asleep, if it was really so distasteful a terse grump like me should remember it...hmm, the continued existence of dwarves, halflings and gnomes? No, they aren't new...hmmm never mind..."Golarion-infused"? No, Erik Mona told me that it was only a dusting. Oh well. Two "bad things" ain't very bad. And it is a Playtest. Subject to reporting and surveys. And change.).

Keep up the interesting work.

I swear, tax is becoming more and more of a meaningless buzz word on this forum. Shifting grip becoming an action is a tax. Power Attack and Shield are not. They are new options which have more powerful benefits compared to PF1. The price of using them has been adjusted accordingly. We have already seen math demonstrating these are more powerful options than taking a -10 attack. We have seen that sword and board vs two handers have actually flipped places in fighting each, for example. Suggesting that shields shouldn't take an action means they need to either nerf shields. As is, the new status quo means that the shield user can win fights the two-hander can't, but the two-hander can end fights sooner and hopefully keep their allies from getting attacked.

Also, the new shield and power attack mechanics are much more tactical. In PF1 there was very little decision making involved. The defensive bonuses of shields just happened. Power Attack was actually something you COULD call a feat tax, because it was so good it felt required for most builds to get it. And once you had it, PA was either "always on," or made you work with fiddly numbers on the fly to adjust. (Not a huge deal for a Rogue PC who can write their PA values out ahead of time, but not fun for a GM who know needs to factor it into every 3rd stat block.)

I think there are probably other examples you could use that would qualify as an action tax-- I recall thinking it was weird that jumping up on a log required a second move action from moving up to it in the Glass Cannon playtest, for example. But you picked two things which very much aren't that. Honestly, a lot of the action taxes I've noticed are being inherited from PF1. Opening doors for example. At least with 3 actions opening a door doesn't break the turn flow as much. Otherwise, I imagine I'll just house rule things I don't think should take a full action in my own games, same as I do now.

I don't disagree with you. I used the word tax on those two things, because as I say in the other part of the post, full attack is not the devil. I think that fights should be ended sooner rather than later, and more-tactical-combat-of-not-using-all-your-attacks just seems to prolong the fight. Also I find full-attacking fun.

Shifting grip as an action should still die in a fire.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I swear, tax is becoming more and more of a meaningless buzz word on this forum. Shifting grip becoming an action is a tax. Power Attack and Shield are not. They are new options which have more powerful benefits compared to PF1. The price of using them has been adjusted accordingly. We have already seen math demonstrating these are more powerful options than taking a -10 attack. We have seen that sword and board vs two handers have actually flipped places in fighting each, for example. Suggesting that shields shouldn't take an action means they need to either nerf shields. As is, the new status quo means that the shield user can win fights the two-hander can't, but the two-hander can end fights sooner and hopefully keep their allies from getting attacked.

Also, the new shield and power attack mechanics are much more tactical. In PF1 there was very little decision making involved. The defensive bonuses of shields just happened. Power Attack was actually something you COULD call a feat tax, because it was so good it felt required for most builds to get it. And once you had it, PA was either "always on," or made you work with fiddly numbers on the fly to adjust. (Not a huge deal for a Rogue PC who can write their PA values out ahead of time, but not fun for a GM who know needs to factor it into every 3rd stat block.)

I think there are probably other examples you could use that would qualify as an action tax-- I recall thinking it was weird that jumping up on a log required a second move action from moving up to it in the Glass Cannon playtest, for example. But you picked two things which very much aren't that. Honestly, a lot of the action taxes I've noticed are being inherited from PF1. Opening doors for example. At least with 3 actions opening a door doesn't break the turn flow as much. Otherwise, I imagine I'll just house rule things I don't think should take a full action in my own games, same as I do now.

I don't disagree with you. I used the word tax on those two...

You can still full attack, at the same penalties you could in PF1. That option hasn't gone away, nor has it actually been discouraged in any way. Heck, you can do it from level 1. The only losses full attack has had are:

1) 4th attack high levels.
2) The five foot step now costs you one attack.

We don't know how how TWF will work with it yet, and I imagine natural attacks combined with normal weapons in will be less of a thing. But otherwise, we have just seen new options added that you can choose to do instead of a full attack. And really, the two losses you've had are are incredibly minor trade offs for being able to do 2 attacks and a move for the entire lifespan of the character.

If you don't want to exercise those new options, just keep full attacking to your heart's content. I guarantee there will be contexts where that third attack is a good way to spend your last action.

Shields are a different story. Those have indisputably changed. We disagree on whether that change is a good thing or a bad thing, but I won't try and tell you it's business as usual. However, because the benefits of using the shield have improved, it isn't a tax. It's a higher investment, higher return option.

If I’ve read things correctly (and safe bet that I haven’t), weapon Quality determines + to Attack and how strong of a Potency Rune you can put into the weapon, which grants + to Attack (and doesn’t stack) and extra dice of damage.

Potency Runes follow the old formula of +1 to +5, whereas weapon Quality goes off the new Proficiency system, so -2 to +3.

So a +4 Potency Rune surpasses that of the Legendary Quality weapon.

*scratches head*

I have a knee jerk reaction that this will cause more confusion than it will be worth, but again I might have missed something.

ChaiGuy wrote:

Rysky wrote:

I want my sorcereress to look like Lulu.

*shrugs*

Yeah, real sorceress' carry around plushies! :P

...mine does... >_>

Poppets!

Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually in reality there are plenty of things that will do nothing if they hit your protective garment but can be dangerous or deadly if they touch your flesh (contact poison, contaminants, burning liquids, etc.).

Exactly, and touching someone's flesh whose in plate, is a lot harder than if they're naked.

Touch attacks do not need to touch flesh to work, or at least it is not called out as such in the core rules.

Weather Report wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Actually in reality there are plenty of things that will do nothing if they hit your protective garment but can be dangerous or deadly if they touch your flesh (contact poison, contaminants, burning liquids, etc.).

Exactly, and touching someone's flesh whose in plate, is a lot harder than if they're naked.

Touch attacks do not need to touch flesh to work, or at least it is not called out as such in the core rules.

In First Edition, true. But that might be changing in Second Edition.

Honestly, I disagree about the hate runes are having.
First, and this is speculation of mine, runes *aren't* the only thing on magical weapons/armor. I think classical, "inherent" enchantments are still there, although I risk missing my shot if I take a guess.
Second, runes are cool. We've always tried to fit them somewhere, and usually it doesn't quite fit right after some 30+ splatbooks or such. Now, runes are written stuff; written stuff speaks of permanence, and runes seem to be exactly the sort of thing that one would use in weapons and armor. Being used by video-games is a recent thing (I don't remember Final Fantasy IX having a rune system...) and I cannot blame both from reaching the same conclusion about where runes fit into the game, which is a pretty obvious solution.
Now, the Magic Item blog post isn't up. This may be explained later. But I just loved the rune stuff! ^^

So, what do you think the tooth on a string is for?

Oh, hey! A rune conversation.
My thoughts are that they're more flavorful than generic enchantments. This statement of my opinion is neither endorsement, nor criticism. Defined flavor is easier to describe and standardize across multiple tables, but the less generic you are, the more thematically restrictive you become.
I like the runes. They're really, really cool.
I also like persistent aura bindings, animistic enhancement, blessings of the gods, curses of the dead, demonic object possession, and alchemically infused mephit blood.
Eh, whatever. The Magic Item blog post isn't up. This may be explained later.

You can still full attack, at the same penalties you could in PF1. That option hasn't gone away, nor has it actually been discouraged in any way. Heck, you can do it from level 1. The only losses full attack has had are:

1) 4th attack high levels.
2) The five foot step now costs you one attack.

We don't know how how TWF will work with it yet, and I imagine natural attacks combined with normal weapons in will be less of a thing. But otherwise, we have just seen new options added that you can choose to do instead of a full attack. And really, the two losses you've had are are incredibly minor trade offs for being able to do 2 attacks and a move for the entire lifespan of the character.

If you don't want to exercise those new options, just keep full attacking to your heart's content. I guarantee there will be contexts where that third attack is a good way to spend your last action.

Shields are a different story. Those have indisputably changed. We disagree on whether that change is a good thing or a bad thing, but I won't try and tell you it's business as usual. However, because the benefits of using the shield have improved, it isn't a tax. It's a higher investment, higher return option.

What does exactly 5-ft step do now that everyone doesn't have AoOs? And that's two additional taxes right there, IMO. AoO now takes an action (if you have it), and 5ft step takes an action.

The problem for me probably stems from the fact that a lot of things you did for basically free in PF1, cost an action in PF2, and so the streamlined action economy that should make the game flow better now feels more punitive rather than less.

And I disagree with the premise that everything has to be a choice action-wise. I didn't like swashbuckler because it felt like a class playing against itself because of action constipation. And now the whole game feels like the swashbuckler.

On shields I'm not sold but I'm more than willing to try them out. I still think that even with tighter math the benefit of AC is not that big to warrant an action (as far as I can tell it's always +1 or +2, presuming you have armor)...but if you say that swordboarders now win over twohanders, I'm guessing the math IS that tight (do we know how much that win is due AC or is it due to reaction DR?). Which is one of the reason I'm not really sold on the benefit of it being tighter. In PF1 I could fiddle with bonuses and not break the game, here I'm not so sure it will be possible.

I mean I'm totally willing to be surprised in play, but these are problems I'm seeing now on paper, with limited knowledge we have. Some are preference problems, but I still think that too many things costing an action is unnecessarily punitive and doesn't make combat more fun.

What does exactly 5-ft step do now that everyone doesn't have AoOs? And that's two additional taxes right there, IMO. AoO now takes an action (if you have it), and 5ft step takes an action.

Actually, that's a good point, but it supports what I'm saying. You don't really need the 5 foot step now so that's not really meaningful loss.

Also, to clarify, AoOs don't take an action, they use your reaction.

The problem for me probably stems from the fact that a lot of things you did for basically free in PF1, cost an action in PF2, and so the streamlined action economy that should make the game flow better now feels more punitive rather than less.

You gain a lot in that trade though. I've been using the Unchained Action Economy, and it's a huge boon for martials. And that's with a game that wasn't built around the system and involves me making a lot of rulings.

Also, the only thing which seems to actually cost more is the grip change so far. Yeah, shields take an action, but they provide more. Drawing a weapon sounds a little harder unless we still have Quickdraw. But for most martials you can still move>draw>strike just like you could before. And then every turn after that you get the flexibility.

And I disagree with the premise that everything has to be a choice action-wise. I didn't like swashbuckler because it felt like a class playing against itself because of action constipation. And now the whole game feels like the swashbuckler.

I guess if you just want the game to be simpler, that's a valid opinion. It isn't one many of us agree with, but it is valid. It seems like you CAN still in a straightforward manner though. Having choices doesn't mean you have to change anything.

On shields I'm not sold but I'm more than willing to try them out. I still think that even with tighter math the benefit of AC is not that big to warrant an action (as far as I can tell it's always +1 or +2, presuming you have armor)...but if you say that swordboarders now win over twohanders, I'm guessing the math IS that tight (do we know how much that win is due AC or is it due to reaction DR?). Which is one of the reason I'm not really sold on the benefit of it being tighter. In PF1 I could fiddle with bonuses and not break the game, here I'm not so sure it will be possible

I think the goal is that you don't really need to fiddle with bonuses anymore. And I think not breaking the game may be a result of some things already being broken.

What does exactly 5-ft step do now that everyone doesn't have AoOs? And that's two additional taxes right there, IMO. AoO now takes an action (if you have it), and 5ft step takes an action.

AoO always to something action-like since you usually only had one of them. It's called reaction now and is not one of the three regular actions per round.

The problem for me probably stems from the fact that a lot of things you did for basically free in PF1, cost an action in PF2, and so the streamlined action economy that should make the game flow better now feels more punitive rather than less.

We don't know everything yet. We will when the playtest document is published. Then we test it and tell how we find it. If there are good reasons to change things (e.g. make the game more fun), they probably listen to our suggestions.

I probably share the opinion that more things shouldn't be an action, but at least it is the same for everyone. If you spend an action to 5-foot-step, your opponent needs to do the same to follow.