Clockwork Librarian

AndIMustMask's page

Organized Play Member. 2,855 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,855 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

as of 2e we're [before any of that stuff happened], are we not? DD takes place before the very first AP from 1e if memory serves.

also the lore is now very different in practice, as all Great and Powerful Wizard npcs (runelords etc) arent exactly all that great or powerful mechanically (so they can't really back that lore up imo)

and with the maths they are currently...


Starfox wrote:

Fighting classes have traditionally differed on how they get their combat bonuses.

* Fighters get theirs by weapon type
* Rangers get their by type of enemy
* Paladins/cavaliers get their a few times per day
* Barbarians get a limited number of rounds and lose some control during this time (they used to loosed defenses too, but FP2 basically removed that)

It seems that PF2 avoids this paradigm. Fighters still work the same, but all the other classes have changed. I quite liked the PF1 way of doing things, and I suspect most of us do. I could accept a new "Defender" class that works as the current paladin, and would have liked an unaligned "cavalier" variant of the smite/challenge paladin in PF2. As it is now, I feel too many PF1 concepts have disappeared to maintain continuity of story. Just as a PF2 arcane sorcerer is unlike a PF1 sorcerer, a PF2 paladin has no continuity to the PF1 paladin.

it's certainly going to make porting past adventures over more than a little jarring/outright impossible (like [is a powerful spellcaster]), that's for sure.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

general feat at level 1 for everyone, to allow SOME means of player customization outside of the preset class roles (be it branching out or further specializing) from the get-go, rather than waiting till level 4.
save players several weeks/months of real life time to actually get whatever unorthodox or unique aspects of their character established.


happy changes: alchemist and paladin getting mostly un-kneecapped by the rules after 1.6, by divorcing entirely from resonance/focus and addressing their lack of identity and reaction bottleneck, respectively. while i may gripe that smite evil comes far too late, it is still a MASSIVE improvement over previous, and i appreciate that. now here's hoping they do something about sorcerer...

spells being noted and receiving a second pass to help bring them up from "literally worse than just attacking (damage)" and "waste of an action much of the time (saves)" into something more useful and generally usable.
and in the same vein, i really hope their notes on them tuning the monster math down a bit goes well.

i do realize i'm not the best at being completely positive about things, as most of my positives here and previously are "this is great or could be great buuuuuuut...". i want and hope that the system will continue to meaningfully improve and be worth buying and playing on it's release.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
pathfinder eberron, good s~%*
OOhh was there one updated for it or do you just pull from the 3.5 books?

sadly i just convert most everything over, sorry if i got your hopes up there


1 person marked this as a favorite.

pathfinder eberron, good s+~&


14 people marked this as a favorite.

one of the better d20-based ttrpgs my group has played, with a deep level of flexibility and granularity to build exactly the character you envision while keeping them mechanically viable (many systems have the problem that flavorful or unorthodox characters are mechanically weak).

you want to play a human fighter who just graduated from fighter college, greatsword in hand? you can do that.

you want to play a merfolk inquisitor with a shotgun who cooks and eats everything he kills (and some things he doesn't)? then godspeed to you, fishman!

it lets you bring wild and fantastical ideas to the table and enjoy them in a fantasy world, and do so with your friends without feeling like you're not contributing to the physical or narrative challenges presented.

which is my biggest issue with 2E--they seem to have largely sucked all the customization and fantasy from the game mechanically, between tight numbers, taking so long for any level of deviation from cookie-cutters, and an overall lowered ceiling in things you can do or attempt. everything just seems less heroic and more grindy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

exactly the kind of unexpected oversights i don't want to see enter the game during/after it's un-playtested release phase, when everything's set in stone...


(i'll note for posterity that i'm not in the "paladins are meant for falling" camp, i've just been subject to too many of those personally and wish for there to be as little room as possible for such draconian interpretations to exist.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Ki Rush has verbal casting, so you have to make noise as you move to gain concealment?
I mean I think I'm fine with annoying everybody else with "whoosh", "nyoom", or "hyperdrive, engage"

im going to have a phone soundboard with link's rolling shouts from zelda, personally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MER-c wrote:
I think people are mistaking freedom with a lack of accountability, people are free to make their choices as far as the Paladin is concerned, but once they have made their choices they also have to accept the consequence of them. Simply put, you cannot have freedom without accountability.

you certainly can! you just need to be rich and/or well-connected.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ArenCordial wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

so wait, the wizard is supposed to be the flexible one, and the sorcerer the rigid?

i could have sworn it was supposed to be the other way around, between the wizard needing to choose strict school limits, pre-prepare their spells for the day, and requiring a lengthy process to change that, while the sorcerer can cast what they need as they need it (previously balanced by narrower list and more per day).

i still need to look over the sorcerer changes, but boy, having the other arcane class have equal spells/day, free heightening as they please, a much wider spell base and a fast swapping process, i'm not particularly seeing much incentive to actually choose a sorcerer over a wizard (to say nothing of however it compares to druids/clerics/bards now). it doesn't even seem like a competition.

This has more or less always been the case with the sorcerer regardless of edition. The Sorcerer has always been a test bed for new ideas handicapped from overcaution. Honestly at this point they may as well wrap the arcane sorcerer back into the Wizard and bring back the Mage class. Just have bloodlines be alternatives to Schools. Everything can go Arcanist style casting because unless Paizo sits down and does major work on the Sorcerer. Right now the Sorcerer has to compare against 4 primary spellcasters and its doesn't stack up well against any them.

i really dig the idea of a personal "build-a-caster" class like they're setting the sorcerer up to be this edition--it's just so lackluster in comparison (probably to avoid the possibility of it outshining the base class).

the simplest way would be like with the paladin change: sorc casting types compare to their other spell list peers by simply taking on a different approach/niche with a similar toolkit (though with druid and bard being spontaneous casters as well, there's a bit more difficulty there since theres more direct points of comparison). things like more heightening, more metamagic-ing, things to show their deeper connection with that type of magic in lieu of their peer's tertiary abilities like performances or channelling energy, etc. etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I would disagree that liberators can't try to talk someone out of making certain choices. They cannot 1) force someone to act a certain way or 2) threaten someone for not acting a certain way.

That does not seem to preclude attempting to reasonably convince someone not to act a certain way; trying to talk someone out of something is not "forcing" anything.

by being a paladin and telling a necromancer to stop messing with the dead, you are inherently threatening him with punishment or death should he continue, because it is literally your job to do so.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

so wait, the wizard is supposed to be the flexible one, and the sorcerer the rigid?

i could have sworn it was supposed to be the other way around, between the wizard needing to choose strict school limits, pre-prepare their spells for the day, and requiring a lengthy process to change that, while the sorcerer can cast what they need as they need it (previously balanced by narrower list and more per day).

i still need to look over the sorcerer changes, but boy, having the other arcane class have equal spells/day, free heightening as they please, a much wider spell base and a fast swapping process, i'm not particularly seeing much incentive to actually choose a sorcerer over a wizard (to say nothing of however it compares to druids/clerics/bards now). it doesn't even seem like a competition.

EDIT: having read the changes now, i stick by my initial statement RE: sorcerers: still pretty much entirely worse than it's peers in almost every field. great job.

that said: digging the alchemist changes pending further investigation, and VERY hopeful about the paladin changes--i can definitely see the flavor you want for the three paths, and LG/defender paladins are the most iconic/"real" paladins of the bunch with smite evil and whatnot, the others also look pretty solid in their approaches.

i also appreciate that you took steps to mitigate the reaction bottleneck on paladins as well (though not till 1/3-1/2 through their career... but thats a systemic problem of the edition, not just for that class specifically)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Apparently Hit Points and DPR are what is most valued by players, not AC and To hit.

to-hit DIRECTLY IMPACTS DPR, and can in fact be more valuable than more damage, especially when increasing in level and enemy defenses skyrocket even further (your DPR is 0 if you can't hit the enemy).

I'd say AC takes a backseat in the endgame as most enemies tend to have powerful magics or completely devastating abilities or rider effects that require huge saves (with the penalty more often than not being death, effectively).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

not sure i'm with everything you're saying, but a solid post nonetheless.

especially dig the expanded ancetry feat amount at start and allowance for half-races of everything right out of the box--makes for so many interesting character designs without waiting till level 12! (some may go "oh but the powergamers will just pick the strongest--" they'll always exist and y'all need to just make peace with that).

stamina i could take or leave--it makes repeated encounters less of a meatgrinder (good!), while requiring (along with the weapon damage scaling removal) a massive rework of all existing monsters, as well as complicating healing (bad!)

while i agree that accuracy and crits need a major overhaul (as they're largely just "player punishment" at present), i'm not sure complicating it even further by adding more things to track for the effect gradient is the way to go.


I'm asking mostly out of idle curiosity, as someone reminded me that quivering palm now has a verbal component for fist of the north star meme goodness, but it requiring an enemy to critically fail on a fortitude save (see: basically never, between jacked up saves and crit fail conditions) completely ruined it's effect text, making it functionally just a stunning fist that actually stuns at an extremely late level (since base stunning fist only flatfoots/stupefy's people now).

I cannot download the various playtest update pdfs and whatnot at present, so i'm having to work entirely from web-based info sources (such as pf2playtest.opengamingnetwork and similar) which may be out of date, so please correct me if i'm way behind here!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i think that some means of guaranteeing enemy attention does seem to be in order--especially for people like the paladin, who (as of pre-1.6) has basically 0 active abilities and appear to be designed as a "tank" via covering their allies.

currently this basically doesn't work, as their punishments to enemies that ignore them is nonexistent (-5% accuracy and 1 melee attack/turn against a single enemy), and their other means of trying to dissuade enemies from attacking allies in the first place are mutually exclusive and completely worthless against multiple enemies--but this is all secondary.

if paizo plans to follow through with allowing a "tank" niche, they need to very seriously consider how to fit that into the game on both the enemy and player side, since without some means of guaranteeing enemy attention (such as by forced "aggro", intense penalties/debuffs for attacking targets other than the "tank", or other means--the idea of making yourself the biggest target and/or protecting your allies from harm needs to actually be backed up by the mechanics), the entire role goes out the window from the get-go. and unless the player can act on their turn (especially with their class' core gimmick) and know they're having some impact on the fight as their class, it gets boring fast (and raises questions like "if all this is good for is AoOing and positioning to try and get those, why am I not just playing a fighter?"). especially if you're trying to groom an entire class for that role.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Mats Öhrman wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

So maybe like turn a lot of utility spells into rituals using the skill tree's maybe?

Have rituals been touched at all in the playtest? Any groups found them useful in the scenarios, any surveys asked about them? Any discussions on the forum? Any playtesting at all?

Otherwise, if they are looking for something that can be cut to make room for stuff that are actually used...

(Not really fair to compare, but rituals in our 4E campaign were unused and a dead weight until my GM cut casting time *severely* and we got to a level where monetary costs were negligible.)

All rituals in the Playtest Rulebook take a day to cast, except for the one that takes three days, so they don't fit into the playtest adventures. Really, no downtime activities are being tested in Doomsday Dawn.
There should probably be shorter rituals that take hours instead of days. The idea that rituals are only downtime actions limits their possibility. And the fact that nothing about downtime was tested at all means there was no data about them at all.

i actually wouldn't mind some of the longer duration buffs to be good couple-hour ritual candidates, especially for some of the lower leveled ones like mage armor. it'd really take a bit of stress off deciding those precious three (or so) spells per level for the day.


late to the party here, but personally i take the 4e approach: inflate their hp and give them multiple initiatives, effectively treating them as multiple characters/monsters sharing the same space and build.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

agreed there--some internal consistency should be enforced on both, to the same level.

if your spell can meteor-strike an entire city to ash, i can to cleave a mountain with my sword, etc. etc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Can I give a "hear hear" for the idea of Barbarians having a "transmute wall to door" high level feat? :D

or we could bring back sunder and actually make use of the hardness/dents system for something other than shields or emergency force spheres...


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


On the other hand, there are real people who can hold their breath for more than 20 minutes...and so being able to do so for half an hour (or even an hour) seems a reasonable Master level Skill Feat. That's as good as Water Breathing for most purposes, and has the added functionality of allowing you to ignore things like gas attacks. It's not 'I can breathe underwater'...but it's got similar (probably greater) functionality.
Not if it's being based on an extension of reality. World record breath holders are stationary, not moving around, and certainly not fighting.
That's WHY the disparity exists, if casters get to say 'it's magic' and shatter reality, unless non-casters have some way to be at least superhuman, they can never keep up. Angel Summoner/ BMX Bandit. For high level play, Herakles, or Achilles is a model that at least makes sense, as in playing the same game.

agreed there


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
I'm really hoping those "major changes" for the Paladin don't include non-Lawful Good Paladins.

or some active means of prventing people from harming their allies, if paizo is trying to shift them into the "tank" role.


so... shadowrun-modern? i can kinda dig that. or are we talking magitek?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
I'm not sure I could even tell you what the rituals do without looking it up, let alone how to use them. It hasn't been a topic of conversation at our table at all.

well, yeah. they're tucked away in the book, and nothing's really mentioned them playtest-wise to really spark much interest.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mats Öhrman wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

So maybe like turn a lot of utility spells into rituals using the skill tree's maybe?

Have rituals been touched at all in the playtest? Any groups found them useful in the scenarios, any surveys asked about them? Any discussions on the forum? Any playtesting at all?

Otherwise, if they are looking for something that can be cut to make room for stuff that are actually used...

in the case of animal companions we were shown "lack of survey data about it must mean it's fine right" (since i expect many people have been avoiding pet classes due to their overall extreme action clunk, hard-to-find rules entry, and terrible scaling), so unless they really implement rituals into something that everyone tests so that people can properly complain to their main source of accepted feedback, it'll probably be completely unchanged.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mats Öhrman wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The problem of limited spell slots and nerfed utility spells is that it makes it very hard to justify a 1st level slot on something like Unseen Servant. Not when you could prep a Burning Hands in that slot. Those spells are not equivalent in any way.

It’s weird seeing the design team understand that you can’t just use a single resource pool for combat and utility by separating out skill feats and general feats, but then completely miss it in combat spells vs utility spells and the utility spells are all but useless in exploration mode.

Indeed; the survey could have done with some questions about the balance between attack/control/buff/utility and encounter/exploration/downtime when it comes to magic.

i mean, if they want 2E to be a 4E-style tabletop tactics game with minis, that's perfectly fine with me--it'd jsut be nice if they'd openly advertise it as such and not beat around the bush.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The problem of limited spell slots and nerfed utility spells is that it makes it very hard to justify a 1st level slot on something like Unseen Servant. Not when you could prep a Burning Hands in that slot. Those spells are not equivalent in any way.

It’s weird seeing the design team understand that you can’t just use a single resource pool for combat and utility by separating out skill feats and general feats, but then completely miss it in combat spells vs utility spells and the utility spells are all but useless in exploration mode.

especially for unseen servant itself--the devs were very unkind to our invisible friend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
I like the choice of uestions for magic items survey. They were spot-on for the most part. Spells I would have liked more about spell durations and utility.

agreed there


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

I spent the last six years running a campaign with characters that reached level 20.

The main problem with high level spellcasting lies mostly with martials rather than the spells themselves. Martials get little to no narrative power beyond just stabbing or shooting things.

While the feat system helps, martials still get hosed. Most of them don't get any abilities that help them outside of combat. All characters get the same number of feats and class features as they level up, but spellcasters get spells ontop of that while martials (except the rogue) get nothing in return except for the proficiencies they got at 1st level.

The survey doesn't even consider any this and has way too many leading questions.

preaching to the choir there man (contains a nested post as well), i've been talking about martials needing some Thing of their own (that MUST NOT be a feat tax or other cost, as that defeats the entire purpose) on top of class abilities/feats to push them into the same ballpark as casters since shortly after the playtest started.

EDIT: it occurs to me how thunder-stealing that came across, which isnt the intention! it's just great to see someone else on the same wavelength.


Partizanski wrote:

Personally, I enjoy the big buckets of dice way more than high level characters doing 1d4+25 damage.

Sure its a little slower to actually add up, but it is way more fun as a martial character to get to actually do the handful of dice that has been only a casters domain for years.

As others have said, if you don't like it, just house rule that additional damage dice from magic weapons do average damage.

So a if you have a +4 greatsword, instead of 5d12, do 1d12+26

previously you had to get into vital strike, weapon size, and/or monk shenanigans to really do the whole "fistful of dice" thing, yeah. or that one archery feat that totals all your damage in one go before applying enemy DR

pjrogers wrote:
Emn1ty wrote:
Tridus wrote:


I'm pretty sure part of the intention of 2e is to make PFS work at higher level play.
I really hope this isn't the case. Balancing games around "professional" play is always a road to self destruction. If they want PFS to work at higher levels of play, then develop a set of PFS houserules. Don't let PFS which affects maybe 1% of players dictate how the other 99% of players should be playing the game.
And PF2e in its current form is not necessary to "make PFS work at higher level play." A revision of PF1e that addresses the "power bloat" of all classes, archetypes, feats, etc. released without sufficient forethought would do the job.

as well as completely redoing their encounter design from the ground up, as paizo official's designs got so predictable that PFS 'meta' builds started showing up, leading to the wrongful kneecapping of crane wing (rather than master of many styles, the true perpetrator), among other things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:

Ugh! Even the surveys have impenetrable, dense, hard to comprehend language like the rules do.

I've read this question 3 times and still don't know what it actually means "21. The examples above use "Casting," but the text could instead use the verb-form action name. Which do you most prefer?"

is there a survey glossary which contains "verb-form action name" listed?

there were a few questions in the presentation survey that made me do a triple-take to try and understand what they were trying to ask as well, yeah.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Quote:
In the coming months, the playtest will draw to a close, and there will be no additional public updates to the rules while we focus on making changes to the game.

and there it is, my worst fears realized.

so we'll just have to hope and pray that whatever alterations they make post 1.6 aren't completely nonfunctional or over-/undertuned-and-requiring-another-book-purchase to correct, because by the time we see it to test things it'll already be set in stone.

If the changes keep going until the surveys close, and keep their current update schedule, we should get to like 1.9.

That being said, at some point they have to stop giving us updates and make the final product. That isn't an unreasonable thing to do, it's just how it works.

I suppose I'm just mistrustful towards any "closed doors" devving from paizo at this point, since the last edition went seven entire years with three core classes being garbage pretty much from top to bottom. EDIT: for this edition i'm especially worried about the alchemist and paladin, but as those were specifically mentioned, i will remain hopeful for the time being on that topic. not so sure on things like druid requiring wasted stats for wildshape that don't actually apply to wildshape at all (they just determine the pool, since shapes have fixed bonuses).

I dread the thought of some odd contradiction added without outside testing suddenly completely breaking a class and then being met with "nope it's already in print nothing that can be done--can we interest you in a $30+ purchase that has a character tax to skirt around that?" again (hey there shadow strike feat tax, for when we broke the rogue entirely by altering the concealment rules for light levels).

that kind of neglectful marketing is exactly the kind of thing i want to be wrong in predicting


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
In the coming months, the playtest will draw to a close, and there will be no additional public updates to the rules while we focus on making changes to the game.

and there it is, my worst fears realized.

so we'll just have to hope and pray that whatever alterations they make post 1.6 aren't completely nonfunctional or over-/undertuned-and-requiring-another-book-purchase to correct, because by the time we see it to test things it'll already be set in stone.


i'd say that "power of spells" and "chance that a spell will succeed" are the same thing, as most of the more powerful or debilitating spells directly hinge on their success rates.

EDIT: filled out survey, though Im not sure it accepted it (no verification screen or anything).


7 people marked this as a favorite.

monsters getting more deadly, players getting weaker (and there's just so few things the players can DO or BE now...), people starting to fail at previously basic everyday tasks with alarming regularity, previously ubiquitous magics and constructs being suddenly lost to the ages in the span of a years rather than millenia...

we really do look like we're going from morrowind to skyrim.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

my general understanding:
"does it mess with PFS in any way"
yes = uncommon
no = common (until someone uses it to mess with PFS, since encounter design is rather hit or miss for paizo official)


after thinking on it a bit, a few things that might help make multiclassing or customization a bit easier:

-engage with it earlier: you don't really get to start customizing your character or try to realize even the most basic design of the character you sat down to play until levels ~2-4 (which is a significant real-life time investment, especially if your group is bi-weekly or monthly, or just plain unproductive), when you get your first general feat and have enough class feats around to consider swapping one. I've gone on about this at length previously, so i'll avoid elaborating further here.

-grant a general feat at level 1: your character shouldn't hinge 100% on being human if you want to step out of the base class' cookie-cutter layout earlier than level 4 (it gives humans the options to break out or specialize even further as well).

-add level 1 dedication feats for archetypes/multiclasses: let people start customizing their character to fit their idea from the get-go, otherwise the "engage with it earlier"problem rears it's head again.

-adding more class feats for each level bracket: this is largely a consequence of the system--as more books get released, more class feats will get added to each one's list, (presumably) allowing for more diverse builds and making dedication feats more enticing by extension. this could also be greatly improved by the next one:

-beefing up existing class feats: boring, lackluster--call it what you want, many of the existing class feats just grant tiny numerical bonuses or aim to grant basic competence in a playstyle (such as archery), rather than being something to make you truly excel in the field you're investing in (and excited to choose!). the fighter, for example, has basically stayed at the PF1E baseline it had previously (though now with half the feats over their career)--it just dragged every other class down to make itself seem better by comparison (such as hogging most of the TWF or archery feats). the fighter isn't an exemplar of fighting, able to execute feats of martial skill beyond the ken of his peers and really make people want to be like him/play a fighter, he's just used his law degree to make anyone else using the weapon without fighter credentials illegal (and is crowned the "best" by default).

-a retraining clause (noting extreme in-character development) to allow a complete rebuild of a character following taking a dedication feat series: for example, say a rogue found religion and changed their ways would be a rogue until they could afford the cleric or paladin dedication, and then (with GM go-ahead) rebuild his character as a cleric or paladin with the rogue dedication. sort of "flip" your character's levels and dedication, if that makes sense? im sure people may allow this already as a houserule, but actually print a note about it in the book, so people with stickler DMs have at least some leg to stand on (and noting to others that having that sort of dramatic character arc is both supported by story and mechanically goes a long way).


MerlinCross wrote:

Really "Mass Minions" should have either printed rules to help organize them like Troop, or a side info block talking about ways as a GM to deal run with it.

Also, I saw something about using Skeletons to trigger traps. Well I mean that's nice and good an all but depending on the trap, simply triggering it doesn't disable it so hope you have good Disable Device once it's found.

even DD part one has one of those, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

personally i expected multiclassing with the current system to be more like 4e's (i mean we've got the level-striped sets of 'powers' to choose from), where it just wholesale trades out some class feats from the base class for some class feats from the multiclass/archetype (say, losing the animal companion ranger abilities but gaining some paladin mount ones instead), and perhaps swapping a core class feature for one from the other source.

by making hybrids/VMCs/archetypes more modular like that, you could just print one set and have multiple classes access that (the class simply listing what class feats/ability they trade when archetyping/multiclassing), and really double down on 2E's whole "build your own class" angle.

EDIT: which, thinking on it, is already the case really--just on a one-for-one basis rather than a package deal upfront. i just feels sort of... clunky? lackluster? presently.


Normal Pathetic Caster wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I have never known Paizo to perform a blatant money grab before and I'm not sure where the certainty that is what is going on here comes from.

But I agree with most of your other points.

I mean they did sell a hardcover book of playtest rules that was obsoleted in less than a week.

i mean they pretty readily pointed out from day one as being purely commemorative, and definitely not the final/"real" rulebook to be released at the end of the playtest.

though i've posted at length about their overall design being rather hungry for dosh in a sort of half-negligent way, i'm pretty sure that wasn't their intent with the playtest rulebook sales.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

could be helpful to give them more accurate playtest data


7 people marked this as a favorite.

my personal dislike is how late you get to actually interact with it, since if you want to play some odd variant of say, ranger, or a combo-class with multiclassing (something that pathfinder as a brand prided itself on allowing), you're not actually playing anything different than the generic base class (and therefore the unique character you thought up and sat down to play) until level 2-4 which can be a hefty real-life time investment.

i've discussed the topic at length before, so i'll avoid just dumping a repeat here on the topic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KyleS wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:


Don't worry. The game itself does a really good job reminding everyody that it is not really Pathfinder. I'm sure nobody forgets that, despite the misleadinding Pathfinder 2 title

You're completely right. You're so completely correct that you've helped me decide that I shouldn't buy a Chevrolet Cobalt because it really isn't a Chevrolet since Chevrolet is obviously only the Corvette...

I'm kinda shocked that this post wasn't taken down as it has absolutely nothing to do with the original post, and also comes off a very passive aggressive way at trying to insult the developers and what they're wanting to do. And to question why some people are trying to claim that Paizo is attempting to "censor their criticism".

i think a more fair comparison would be being reminded that you're trading a beat-up volkswagen for a horse-and-buggy advertised as a car.

i mean, it's technically also a wheeled vehicle, and it'll get you there, but certainly not any faster or more comfortably. and i mean hey, you can see them building some sort of chassis around the horse, so there's promise there for later, even if you can see them getting tangled in the rigging right now.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

(late to the party here) @OP:
shouldn't the system be informed by and build off what came before? especially with a playerbase that's become accustomed to the level of individual/horizontal customization in the first edition (which was the whole selling point of the system, and basically what the company advertised as), shouldn't 2E seek to improve upon the good or well-received ideas there before?

And with the official adventures set in the PF1E world, and stated as supposed to be able to tell the roughly same stories (the runelords are in some dire straits atm, hoo boy), people are going to compare the two, just as people are going to compare it with DnD 5E, because both are recent and popular and a great many people enjoy them. 2E doesn't (and shouldn't) exist in a vacuum, and that can't really be ignored.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

short answer: no

long answer: noooooooooooooooo--
as (at least currently) the game's numeric balance is set in such a way that it assumes a certain level of player wealth/equipment when confronting a given threat (be it DCs or attacks/defenses/saves), based on your level. there are solutions or workarounds to this, but with the core gameplay loop being [face challenges] -> [acquire loot] -> [power up] -> [face greater challenge], and circled by [story], there's a lot of work involved in trying to fix that if any of those core steps is messed with. so walking around with a character who hasn't had access to the [power up] step in the loop is not going to contribute as expected for a given challenge.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

there's the old faq/errata questions thread, and mankind's oldest method: prayer


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Umm, no, not really in my experience. When *a fighter* has approximately a 50% chance (maybe 60%) to hit an enemy on a first attack in something they're specialized in, you're looking at a random person picking up a bow having around a 30-40% chance or less, while only criticalling on a 20. Not to mention, if it's a non-magical bow at higher levels, it's pretty much worthless... Despite "level to everything" the numbers are so tight in PF2 that you *need* that +4 to hit bonus or else you're going to be pretty ineffective.

50% chance if you are fighting a monster of equal level.

PF2e is fairly clearly built on the assumption that the majority of your encounters will be against multiple creatures lower level than you - in which case you are hitting much more reliably - or single creatures of your level - in which case action economy is in your favor enough that a 50% miss chance is fine.

Keep in mind that Doomsday Door is an overspecced, intentionally brutal module that shouldn't be representative of what typical challenges in an Adventure Path will be.

EDIT: It's also fairly unfair to assume that the person who is building their character as an archer won't have a magical bow.

i dunno, assuming any level of wealth/gear is nebulous at best--particularly when someone gets the words "low magic" into their heads (not realizing the entire system is built off that assumption).


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Gallyck wrote:
The new system is bad and the timeline of 1 year is nonsense when its really 8 months unless they extend the release. I cant get my group get characters down because the system is so watered down.

try starting at level 4:

-your ancestry has some small pool of unique abilities now
-you get a small selection of class abilities and means to make your character/build less cookiecutter
-you get your first general feat to start branching out (or specializing)
-you can actually interact with the archetype/multiclass system at all
-your skills are now stat+4 (see: 1 rank+3 class bonus from PF1)
-enemies now have room to downscale, so you can now actually fight things at the new "intended" monster CR of APL-2 rather than APL+0 so the game isn't quite such a meatgrinder it comes off as from players/GMs previous experiences in balancing

it's like you're really playing a level 1 PF1 character/adventure now!

1 to 50 of 2,855 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>