Beefriedrice 2's page

4 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e?
It is good at what it seems to want to be: a number crunching, min/max friendly game, with extensive variety in how it can be played. There are ways to play it that I enjoy, I rarely find other players who want from it what I want from it.

Simple answer: not really

2. Did you once like pathfinder 1e but now find it troublesome? (feel free to give details.)

I love pathfinder with just the core book. It's the slow accumulation of optimal choices that make it dull.

3. Do you like 4th or 5th edition D&D? (Also sounds loaded but again no judgments)
Both are great at what they want to be. 4th isn't really for me, but its better than people give it credit for. 5th edition is a game I like.

4. Which are you looking for class balance, smoother high level play, more options, or even all of those things? (Small edit: these weren't meant to be mutually excursive, I just want the gist of what you're looking for, feel free to add additional thoughts/desires as well.)

Less class balance, and more game balance. A game where the rewards for making the optimal choices in character creation aren't strongly felt, thereby enabling more options (if the optimal choices aren't game breaking, the sub-optimal choices are acceptable to take).
Sub-optimal choices being acceptable means more character variety, and more variety in game play. There is nothing worse than one-trick pony characters who solve every problem with their hammer because the other tools just aren't worth even considering. It's boring no matter what side of the table you're on.

5. How do you feel about making the game more accessible in general?
Easier to understand rules means more players, more players means more success for paizo, more success for paizo means more products. Win-Win.

6. Are you willing to give up on accessibility if you can still gain all of the benefits listed in question 4?
I think accessibility leads to what I want from the game.

7. Would you be willing to play an alternative rules system then what we have been presented? (A different version of pathfinder 2nd edition if you will).
Checking out systems is always fun. Even if that system doesn't stick around.

8. And if you said yes to the above question what would you like to see in that theoretical game?
A game where min/maxing is not essential to gameplay, it can be rewarded, but not so much that you have "must take" powers/classes/spells/etc. Where complexity always has a purpose and isn't there for its own sake. Anything where creativity and agency matters more than stats is a good start.

Asuet wrote:
Technically you add only proficiency modifiers for armor. Not for unarmored. If unarmored defense was a thing to be taken into account for every class then they would have added that bracket on the character sheet.

The mage armor spell explicitly uses unarmored proficiency.

Basically Wizards and Sorcerers should just throw on some magical armor because its gonna be superior to not wearing any.

If you really really want to damage some gear acid does come with bonus denting possibilities:

From the Trait glossary:
Acid: Effects with this trait deal acid damage. An item with
Hardness 5 or lower takes 1 extra Dent from acid damage.
Creatures with this trait have a magical connection to acid.

As far as I can tell there is no reason for Wizards (and Sorcerers) to not just wear armor. Even if they correct the oversight of not being trained in not wearing armor, you might as well still wear something heavier, hide armor at character creation is as good as having Mage Armor (just with a check penalty, but you save a spell slot).

At higher levels you could spend a higher level spell slot on Mage Armor (and get a nice Saving throw bonus admittedly) or you could spend more money on heavy armor and take a movement penalty, which seems fine since it doesn't look like wizards will want to move much anyway (at least not if they want to use metamagic, or summon things).

I saw no reference anywhere to arcane spell failure chance, and a minus 2 penalty to +5 armor before adding runes seems worth it to save your top level spell slots.