Amalie Grisae's page

13 posts. Alias of Joshua Dooley.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The arguments about LG paladins and free tier alignment paladins always comes down to an argument of state. I normally do not weigh in heavily and just browse the forums unless something really just sticks me, (though at this rate I may post something specific to deal with something thats bene bothering me unrelated to this) but this connundrum and the heat of the argument surrounding it is baffling. I actually sit mostly middle of the road in this debate, as I am a fan of divine champions of faith and battle, not just clerics, for all dieties, but the term Paladin I reserve for purely LG diety champions, both due to its actual history with Charlemagne (specifically the built mythos around him and his Paladins) and the history the class has built through the systems.
I actually agree to an extent with the application of LG in the playtest, more as a limiting factor to see how people respond to a measure of alignment limitation left in the system. However, creating an archetypal champion for most alignments is not particularly difficult, just requires a building block based on the dieties common to the alignment with adjustments for anathema. This means abilities need little replication, as each alignment provides a different benefit, such as most good alignments providing protection and healing, neutral alignments providing defensive and field control buffing, and evils providing debuffing and inhibition methods (summoning undead and dread auras to control the battlefield) as a single axis example.
The problem has always boiled down to what people ascribe to the titulature or if the mechanical structure is their piece of antiquity. Shutting down others, claiming purely that one side is correct can become both short-sighted and selfish instead of debating. While I am an adovocate for an procedurally generated, alignment built divine champion of dieties, with each having its own titulature, so that Paladins can claim their place in the system while not pushing others out. Many may disagree with my method, but I ask everyone to keep it civil and not resort to claiming that others should just deal with it, and hopefully we can find a common compromise...

Remember, they have done studies on this kind of thing... 60% of the time, it works every time!

Luceon wrote:
Ikusias wrote:

Honestly at this point i don't see the use of the ranger class anymore, it's only a bastardized fighter with a single trick based on studying the target and forgoing one attack each round...

Also what's the idiocy of short range penalties on bows?!
between these issues and the stripping of casting from the ranger I've lost already 2 playtesters before even starting...
Yes, this is a good point. I am actually an archer, I hunt Elk in the Cascades in WA state with a bow. The closer that elk is the better.

I practiced archery and went bow hunting with my grandfather for a few years, so you are quite correct, but the distinction is about movement and quick rate firing, but not slow steady accuracy. Remember, these are roughly 2 second draws with a classic recurve bow of oak or yew. Anachronistic issues occur as a result, as most modern bows are both compound structure (pulley based) and composite material to allow for a nitch guide (The divot where you nock the bow) instead of the wave firing around a single arch pulled recurve, and these heavily impact the distinctions here. To clarify though, I am only noting there are severe differences, but not sure why they chose accuracy as the penalty and not damage or fire rate.

(Okay, third try, this website keeps refreshing the page mid type and I am gonna have to use note pad just to post if this keeps up)

The issue at hand, that seems to be plaguing the system for situations like this is the mistaken implementation of the traits system. In theory the system is highly utilizable for creating unique weapon attributes to distinguish weapon qualities, and while I would have implemented it differently myself, it is still a highly useful tool... except its being used for the wrong reason: Balance.
To clarify, the Volley trait itself is actually accurate in terminology, as it refers to the fact that you have to arc high for a shot (or Volley it) to hit a target accurately at distance. This hinders the effectiveness of it at short range, as arrows actually sway wildly in the air (Watch slow motion videos if you want to see how you can miss an apple at 5 feet straight on) due to the way an arrow draws around the bow. This leads to a simple archery conundrum for short range mobile shooting, which two of the following three do you need: Accuracy, Rate of Fire, or Power? The implementation is bad here, as they chose the easiest to gain of the three as the weakness of the trait, accuracy, as accuracy and rate of fire and accuracy and power as pairs are far easier than fire rate and power combined. The trait should have offered the players two options, take a two action shot for full strength or single shots with no strength bonus applied, not accuracy penalty. Thus feats could gain more rate of fire and/or power applied to each shot for shorter periods.
Bows are not the only piece of equipment this rings true for but I do not intend to go too far off topic. As for why crossbows do not get deadly, in reality it comes form the issues of bolt tumble, lack of weight, and penetration at range (At less than 30 feet they should have deadly due to power penetration at that range).

For clarity sake I want to note, I am talking from a real world physics standpoint, and actually I am not quite sure under what constraints, outside of balance the developers chose the traits they did in many cases.

While I don't completely agree or disagree with the post I quoted it was never intentional. My phone fell on the ground so disregard that wierd quote post.

Sorry quoting on my phone is not working. So I'll just note that, I can only work under the assumption of what we have and I'm in full support of waiting until the play test before we hashed out significant details. using Pathfinder 1 logic pro Pathfinder to is rather erroneous in something I don't really support, however, It is the only baseline I have to work with, however, well I tend to lurk these forums, until someone noted it I did not realize that the third level road only had one v6. Insulin last follow-up post speculated that it might be more Slayer like rather than just completely half the dice it arbitrarily.

As for the note of investment and strength or Dex without having to invest in skill or abilities, that more has to do with the disparity of armor being quote-unquote free defensive making decks unnecessary or at least minimally impactful defensively. However we don't know the mechanics of armor and the benefits of wearing light armor. So we don't know how that'll actually impact AC and avoidance. Even noting it purely in vacuum state that just means there needs to be a balancing point for damage equipment wise 4 week or characters like there is armor for Less dexterous characters to make up the difference.

I didn't catch that so, that's definitely factors in in that case. Though I imagine it probably scales more like a Slayer as that seems to be where they've drawn quite a bit of inspiration. So more like 76 and multi classes would get 5 D6. Though regardless the question is a question of other abilities and how much they intend for classes to work in a vacuum AKA without class Feats spent. This to me is a little more important than just throughput and strength dumping versus Dex to damage concerns. But that's neither here nor there I'm just rambling.

It almost invariably has to Simply due to the implications of multi-class ruling. It's been directly stated that maximize multiclassing afterwards will grant you up to eight levels of spells if you were to multi-class into a Caster from a non caster. Regardless of the mechanics that create that scenario that means the reverse is also true and a huge selection of sneak attack could be gone it in reverse.
Otherwise the implication is reaching 8 d 6 sneak attack to acquit the balance. When averaged out, assuming the players using daggers 4D for damage to minimize damage. That's 6d4 + 10d6 base vs 12d6 + 6str for a two-handed fighter barring other Feats that give damage. So from 16 up to 84 vs 18 up to 78. Which means they do as much damage with a dagger as a fighter does with a two-handed sword. And that's why understanding other mitigating factors is essential.

Honestly, as an aside, it's difficult to Dane whether Dex to damage would even be necessary. I make this comment simply because of the ease with which sneak attack can be employed. The caveat stands in what restrictions apply to sneak attack and the rate at which damage grows. If only a select few creatures are immune, and it grows at the Pathfinder one pacing the necessity of Dexter damage is minimal. As each day of sneak attack is worth roughly three points of damage so it first level they're automatically gaming 3 points of damage on any sneak hit.

This skills viciously if it's too easy to get and becomes a nuisance and unreliable if it's not. Considering sneak attack multipliers on a critical hit now from what I've garnered, correct me if I'm wrong on this as it is been some time since I read that. It is actually a huge boost to damage.

No I completely understand, I was only pointing out that that's why I didn't support that specific alternative to Dex to damage. Particularly Dex to damage in a vacuum isn't overpowered it's simply the fact that it makes strength almost worthless. I personally find it fine but that's from the perspective of a person who plays and a high level free vmc Mythic campaign. And tend to run highly deadly high-powered campaigns, but that also comes from the fact that I have my own game system designed and dexterity is separated from agility in the 10 stat array. I focused specifically in my system on giving every stat roughly strengths power level. That sadly is not an option for this system.

Though if you do want an alternative to Dex to damage that isn't bleeding effects, or replacement of strength, stacking armor penetration for increased chance to critically hit, or my favorite which is a stacking buff to your damage for each successive hit up to your dexterity modifier in damage. Which also incentivizes utilizing potential iterative. Though by far my favorite would simply be providing a resource such as an expenditure of resonance to temporarily gain a bonus to damage equivalent to your dexterity modifier.

Make no mistake I fully agree with you in finding an alternative that would be useful and I love your feedback I love discussing these kinds of things with people. So forgive me if I come off even remotely snarky as that's not my intention I'm simply talks to texting at work.

Except you forgot that sneak attack is much easier to achieve in pf2 so there is the extra d6s associated with that flat bonus to consider in this pattern. Also most finesse weapons have less issue with iteratives.

Moreover both these equations ignore Feats associated with damage output. Which honestly impact the speculation as well. But you remember the comparison has to do with a range of damage with the Rogue doing 21 minimum and 51 maximum. Where is the fighter in this equation does 12 minimum 54 maximum. So the Rogues flat damage is significantly higher and thus are more likely to stay on the higher end of the Curve.

When it comes to optimization and damaged floors that's going to look significantly more appealing.

Apologies if any of this comes off weird or makes no sense as I'm talk to texting on my phone.

I apologize I was referring to the damage curve. As they gain sneak attack every other level beginning with the first the bonus to damage would only be plus one, which is a boost if they choose to have positive strengths and is a bonus they're in. However it starts out low and scales into the largest static bonus that Pathfinder to is going to give at plus 10 on top of a strength modifier and incentivizes them to maximize both strength and dexterity. As a result, it would have to be a Precision or static bonus not multipliable on a critical hit to not overwhelm the damage output of other classes.

The reason I suggested bleed is just to create a dynamic in which the character benefits from their High dexterity but does not need to dump strength for upfront damage impact. Creating statistical Dynamics is more beneficial. Another option would be orind effect for striking twice that benefits from your dexterity modifier to imply cutting twice and aggravating a wound.

Bardarok wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

Maybe a conditional Dex to damage so that it doesn't replace Str all together, something like:

Deadly Finesse: When you score a critical hit with a finesse weapon you add twice your dexterity modifier to damage.

That might be too swingy I am just looking for a way to address all concerns.

I was a big fan of "when you use dex-to-hit and str-for-damage, you get [some additional benefit]" style of effects in PF1. I see no reason we can't do the same in PF2, just with a larger potential class of benefits since the game's math no longer is appropriate things like "+level" to damage.

Spheres of Might had add half your BAB to damage when using Dex to hit and Str to damage as an effect. Maybe just making the rogue base ability +1 damage per sneak attack dies would be enough for them. It would prevent dipping at least.

They weren't planning on giving Dex to damage to anyone else so I would assume that Dex fighters/monks/rangers have other options and wouldn't need the damage boost they think the rogue needs.

It's an interesting concept, but the scaling on damage for sneak attack doesn't curve on the scale particularly well. Otherwise I would support in earlier suggestion very similar to that that for every sneak attack. You could do you do an extra damage. Dex to damage would make more sense at that point as a mechanical effect, instead of dealing extra damage on hit as dexterity modifier, applying it as a bleed effect would be more mechanically interesting and still allow strength to damage to play aroll.

Mind you this is coming from a person who enjoys dexterity to damage as an Unchained Rogue. I have very little issue with dexterity to damage, but I prefer to be of more mechanical effect rather than a flat modifier to damage. Or be locked behind a measure of gating

The conditional dex to damage is slightly too high a swing, so simply adding dexterity mod to damage as precision damage, and thus unable to multiply on a crit, in addition to strength would make more sense. By removing the critical benefit of it it allows for some moderate damage increase without crowding out strength. This however is a stopgap to the issue.