Here is the thing:
Regardless of how you think I come off, if you think I am biased or not... In the end I was right.
I was right on every count.
Selection bias at it's finest. You have cherry picked half a dozen times that you believe you predicted something (questionable) and claim to have a perfect track record.
You have neglected to recollect the many times that your predictions have run aground or have simply not met with anything close to majority consensus.
But go ahead and favorite your OP so that you can revisit it in 3 years to see how you did. I predict this is much ado about nothing.
It seems like they aren’t finished yet. There are several top level links, header links, and breadcrumbs that I would expect them to put back to maintain parity with contemporary web design aesthetics. I hope it happens before the play test launch.
Honestly PFS should really get 0% consideration when it comes to game design in my opinion.
Considering that PFS employees are Paizo employees, it's safe to assume it does not get 0 consideration. What really matters is how much does PFS play contribute to Paizo's bottomline.
That is Wultram’s point, PFS gets far more consideration in the core game than it should. PFS should use the levers at its disposal (its own FAQ, approved play list, campaign structure, guide to play, and its scenarios) to adapt the core game for its purposes instead of influencing development of the rules. Putting PFS’s needs into the core rules just forces the majority of the player base to adjust based on someone else’s house rules.
The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus.
Over the course of the game as a whole that is objectively untrue.
In fact I would say the problem with multiclassing is that it's too easy to make characters that don't keep up with the single classed characters. Especially past level 10.
This is partly because many people in this thread are falling for the “squeaky wheel” fallacy. Multiclass characters have a way of peaking on a particular level or range of 2-3 levels. However both before and after that range they are dismal. No one ever notices the “broken” crappy build from level 3-8 or from 12-20 they just see “OMG MARGINALLY ABOVE THE CURVE FOR WHAT I THINK LEVEL 9-11 SHOULD BE!!”
You also don’t ever hear about the multi class builds that stay inside the power curve of the table they play at because the player knows where the edge is for their group. Or the builds that lag behind for all 20 levels.
959 wants to “fix” a few rogue levels of a few interesting combinations by taking a hacksaw to the thing that 9/10 pathfinder players say is the thing they like best about the system; customizability.
If all feats are 80-100% optimal in conditions that are universal, why would anyone take feats that are narrow?
I would say 2/5-4/5 is the appropriate range for "this always helps" and "3/5-5/5" is the appropriate range for "this helps sometimes."
80-100% congruent with the baseline. Ie, if a (typical, general, everyday) feat should give "10 awesomes" under practically all circumstances then I expect most feats to deliver somewhere between 7-11 awesomes most of the time.
Situational feats should deliver more awesomes during their useful times. So, if you have a "be awesome underwater" feat, I would expect it to give 12-14 awesomes when you are underwater.
From the way they were talking it sounds to me like their solution might conceptually resemble Variant Multiclassing from Unchained more than it does conventional multiclassing in PF1. So, you pick a primary Class and then a secondary Class that you only get some of the stuff from, but you can't just keep picking bits from different ones.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, or restrictive to concept stuff. Indeed, if done properly, it might make something like Eldritch
Scoundrel just what a standard Rogue/Wizard multiclass looks like. Which would be cool. Or Magus a standard Fighter/Wizard. Or Bloodrager a Barbarian/Sorcerer.
I'm on board with that if done properly.
Im not on board. I might not be able to see the way forward here. Help me out. VMC which is very restricted like it was in 4E, basically, whatever your first class is your class, and you can add a single piece of one other class to diversify a little. A hybrid system, but not really a multi-class. Or you pick a single class and then you can cherry pick the class feats of other classes until you dont resemble your beginning class at all. That's all I can see and I want to be in the middle of all that.
I would be ok with a VMC that looked like the Eldritch Heritage feat chain, and less OK with one that worked like Unchained VMC.
Though, I would really prefer the current multiclass system PLUS a robust set of feat chains like Eldritch Heritage.
The CRB feats need to be all 4-5 stars for general conditions.
What are general conditions?
Anytime that you don't care about what terrain you are on, and times that you don't need magic to survive. Including death from falling, drowning, suffocating, freezing, or frying
Man, so much stormwind breaking in here it stinks!
See, thats what gets me though. 959 seems like s/he is a Stormwinder, but then literally everything s/he describes about how s/he actually plays the game is super gamist. Like, all they care about is the mechanics of the class, they aren't interested in rolepaying at all. They just want to metagame converse about characters at the table and play their pieces on the board like a chess match.
And I think that is why they don't like multiclassing, because it disrupts their preset notions of what the different chess pieces can do. "What? Bishops can't jump in an L shape, only knights can do that!"
It is a very niche and specific position for a person to take. I've never really seen anyone else who had this exact position.
I'm not even hiding anything - I'd be happy to divulge my abilities in-character. But passing around character sheets sounds like metagaming for the sake of metagaming.
It's a game. It's not reality. There are aspects of the game that can only be communicated OOC because there is no IC analogy. You aren't killing the game by telling someone OOC that you are 2 Rogue / 3 Monk, or that you have an 18 STR. You really aren't, but to each his/her own.
What I find really odd, is that for someone who is so bent up about nerfing multiclassing because it’s “roll-playing,” you seem to have a very gamist approach to RPGs.
Wait you rule of thumb is 1gp is close to $100. I've no idea how you get that.
The numbers in no way add up. 10ft of Chain does not cost $3000, it costs less the $50. Or a days worth of trail rations does not cost $50. What on earth caused you to pick such a high conversion rate as a rule of thumb? 1 GP = $10-20 might be reasonable.
It really depends on exactly which items you're looking at. You can pick specific prices to justify a higher or lower conversion rule of thumb, since the pricing tends to be all over the map. For instance, a bar of soap is 1 CP ($1), a hammock is 1 SP ($10), and a one night stay in a typical inn is 5 sp ($50).
All of which point to 1GP being not $100 to me. Soap at 50c sounds more reasonable, as does a night at somewhere pretty low end being closer to $25. If you use $100 most starting weapons cost over a grand.
Have you been shopping lately? Or stayed at a motel?
I would definitely appreciate some guidelines to help new GMs understand to help their players select relevant abilities.
Honestly, the guideline should be, “in the CRB? GTG!” Feats like the aquatic combatant above are good (if not even great) feats for the Skulls and Shakles players guide. But they don’t belong within a 10 foot pole of the CRB. The CRB feats need to be all 4-5 stars for general conditions.
I keep hearing "this aint a preview of PF2 its a preview of the playtest" Which is fine. Though it would be nice to get something of interest about the playtest itself. Instead of saying vague things about the classes, how about some discussion on how you are designing them?
I’d like this too, but I’m not sure the meta stuff has the same broad appeal.
I'm not sure what we are getting has broad appeal...
There's no reason a given flair should be dramatically weaker than another.
You misunderstand me. You're right, there is no such reason. However, there is also no reason that all flairs must be equally powerful.
I just object to proclaiming that your interpretation is the only true way to play the game.
Yes, but you can have somewhat balanced options with a variety of flavor and make most people happy. Or, you can produce unbalanced options with a variety of flavor and some people will still be happy.
I understand that you fall into the later category. That's fine. But advocating for most the rest of the community isn't "one true wayism" it's just advocating for balance.
Unless you are saying that your prefer poorly balanced options. Which is true of at least a vocal minority on the boards... but then we get back into trap territory, thus the topic of this thread.
I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.
just like PF2 should have been
Someone stealing your PF1 books?
Kender
I think I threw up a little in my mouth... :P
You know, that’s not the kind of thing I’m typically unsure about. I am fairly confident that I *know* at any given point in time whether I have, in fact, thrown up in my mouth or not. :-)
And, sorry to say, I think it's a bit ridiculous that you ask for this evidence and then dismiss it with "I can fix the problem, so there is no problem." It works for your games, I'm sure, but you play the game...
Hey, I know some people hate things about the system immediately like 'I hate how I have to rest for 8 hours to cast spells why can't my MP recover every second like in <video game>' and they think THAT it is a problem with the system.
Also, I rarely softball things at my players. I've killed multiple characters, both magical and martial. My game isn't a perfect 1:1 balanced CR appropriate encounter, it's usually a wild rollercoaster of tuckers kobolds and invisible, flying, exploding elementals with sudden teleporting giants and ethereal wall jaunting ghosts.
I'm also not saying I have the perfect solution to each tables problems, as I admitted in the previous post, but I am aware that the problem is more complex than a handwave and uttering the meme 'caster vs martial'. I am interested in the solution(s) not just complaining about them online and then getting upset if specific suggestions are offered in place of just moping around a subject and blaming some weird abstract system problem as opposed to what can be done at the table.
I think you are missing two important things. (1) The people in here are talking about ways this could potentially be addressed in a new version of the game. We are all (mostly) competent GMs that have taken measures to address these issues at our own tables. What we are saying is, “hey, this is something I’ve noticed I consistently needed to fix game after game. Maybe you guys could just look at fixing it in the core rules?” Telling us that there is a way to fix it at the table doesn’t mean that there is no problem, but quite the reverse, it means that there indeed is a problem. The fact that some people are so accustomed to fixing it by default is a very telling sign of just how deeply rooted the issue is.
(2) New players and GMs are running into this issue on accident (ie, not intentionally setting out to overshadow other players/encounters) and it has a negative impact on the community. Some people don’t even realize it and make accusations which typically involve hurtful phrases like, “min-maxer,” “powergamer,” and “munchkin.” When I first started playing 10 years ago I had these names tossed at me even though I (literally) had no idea what I was doing. I almost stopped playing because it made me feel unwelcome. BadWrongFun is a serious problem facing newcomers to the community, and hedging off issues of game balance in the core rules is the most direct way to help alleviate that problem; rather than leaving it to each table to figure out for themselves.
EDIT: lots of spelling and grammar. Apple autocorrect has lost its damn mind this week.
Full disclosure: my guy was a vivisectionist beastmorph alchemist and the game was the Iron Gods AP - run as written. So my guy could fly, see invisible, etc, with a high AC. But he basically acted as a martial in combat as he rarely ever did anything but charge in combat.
Wut? shaking my damn head
Well, thanks for making that point for us. The MOST OP martial you ever played was actually a caster?
The martials as the casters' weapon is a great way to put it.
Who wants to sit uselessly in the sheath until another player facilitates your character to engage the game? Who wants to be a drain on party resources rather than provide resources as an equivalent partner?
Idk, what we've seen so far sure seems like they are just locking more things behind class walls, and increasing feat taxes.
Don't worry though, now the feat tax tyou won't even be able to ever take because what you want is locked behind someone else's class tax!
From what I understand in PF2, no feats will have prerequisites of other feats unless those two feats directly build upon each other, and many feats will automatically improve as you level (Power Attack, for example, eventually gains twice the effect with no additional investment).
And "class feats" being exclusive to classes is exactly the same thing as "only rogues get rogue talents, only barbarians get rage powers, etc." It's just that Rogue talents have been renamed "Rogue Feats".
The power of presentation matters a lot. This thread wouldn't be happening if they just called them talents. There would also be a clear divide between "feats" which can be picked up by anyone or a general list of classes, versus talents being 100% "only this class".
I disagree that it is simply a matter of presentation. If they had “fighter stunts” and one of them was “give up an action to make your opponent flat footed if you also hit them” then that would give me pause as well. It may be that calling everything a feat helped to bring a little scrutiny to this issue, but the underlying concern is there regardless of what it is called.
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.
Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
I mean that’s kinda like seeing just one or two more genera I Rogue talents and saying they should be available to everybody and then extrapolating a pigeon-holed character concept to class emphasis. All classes could very well get similar feats, it’s just these were examples of how the Barbarian gets rid of fear and fighters give it.
I would agree if I had just seen the first two on an alphabetical list; but the ones I have seen are the ones that are being teased in blog posts. I have to assume that the teasers are at least somewhat indicative of the final vision.
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.
Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
I try to avoid saying "just wait for more info", because I'm looking at the stuff I like and forming opinions based on that- generally it would be unfair of me to say other people should hold on.
But, in this case, I would hold on. The reason is that we haven't seen any general feats yet. We do know a couple of things, though, and I think they're promising.
- Other classes can get at least some stuff from at least Fighter. General feats seem like a pretty likely candidate there.
- We do know that you can trade a general feat for a skill feat. Skill feats seem pretty legit so far- a "no tattling" effect for Intimidate, and a useful animal pet (animal companion?) or healing for Nature. General feats are going to be no worse than that (otherwise everybody would just grab more skill feats all the time).
True enough, if there is a general rule that we don't know about yet that essentially says, "You can take any class feat 2 levels delayed." Then I would be thrilled to death.
I think OP and BigDTbone were thrown off by these class features being called feats, and this had expectations for them based on the way feats work in PF 1E.
Not really, I’m thrown off by the fact that the ones we have seen seem general rather than class specific. It gives the impression that the design aesthetic will aim the pidgeonhole character concepts toward particular classes. I find that annoying, and headed in a different direction than I would like. I would much prefer greater fluidity across class boundaries than less.
I'm fine with class feats that largely only modify class features - barbarian feats modify rage, druid feats modify wild shape, rogue feats modify sneak attack, etc.
I strongly agree with this, but would even push against it a little more. There shouldn't be class feats at all. Anyone should be able to take any feat. If I get access to sneak attack from some alternate pathway that comes out in a book 6 years from now, I want to be able to take that sneak attack feat. You may not gain any benefit from a particular feat, but they shouldn't be locked up.
Now, if we want to reduce prereqs for feats for certain classes, I'm all for it.
I question why DMs give out 50 charge wands like they are candy. I'm not even talking from a balance but a story side.
Mage makes a wand, goes to sell it. Buyer will want to test it out espically if they don't detect magic or spellcraft it. So it's now 49 charges. Possible repeat until someone buys it or the wizard says no more testing. And if the buyer is a traveler, then said wand is probably going to see some use before their death or the sell of the wand.
This doesn't sound too extreme does it?
They made with 50 charges by default. Also in business repeat customers are you better than new customers because you dont have to convince repeat customers to trust you, so it makes sense to not burn a charge. Additionally with your customers being adventures they are likely powerful enough to kill you, and they could be willing to do it.
On top of all this if trying to cheat people was a common thing in a game world then magic to trick people into paying for an item that didnt work as advertised would also be a common thing. So those people without spellcraft or detect magic are screwed anyway.
Cursed items already have a higher DC to recognize than normal items. It wouldn't be hard to do if someone wanted to do so intentionally. It's just not in the game rules because the rules assume that the merchants aren't trying to trick PC's.
In addition, going back to my statement about trying to trick dangerous customers, most people aren't buying wands above 2nd level, and the cheaper ones are worth risking your like over.
The 4th level wands are really pricey. You could make the argument that they're worth the risk, yet, I've never seen one purchased due to the prices.
That kinda leads us back to the dangerous adventuring group issue because if they can afford a 4th level wand they've done some things dangerous enough to get that much coin, you don't want them to come for you.
As an interesting aside, this is a good point. People complain about the use of CLW wands because it is cheesy for a high level group to use 1st level spells for primary healing. But it is entirely a price concern.
I too have noticed that picking up higher level wands (or higher CL wands) is pretty rare in my games. Perhaps the elegant solution people are looking for is to simply rebalance the price of wands.
EDIT:
Perhaps instead of SLxCLx750 it was (SL+CL)x750 for the price of a wand?
To be somewhat fair about the whole "Summon vs Martial" Idea that's going around in the topic right now;
I see Summons/Minions banned fairly often for a variety of reasons. I keep looking at groups for a silly idea involving summons but I keep running into: Summoner banned, Summoning banned.
Which is a fairly strong indicator that there is something broken there.
CLW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 20 HP total
CMW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 40 HP total
CSW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 60 HP total
CCW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 80 HP total
C5W -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 100 HP total
HEAL -> CL x 10 no ceiling. + status removals as printed
This method also makes abilities like channel energy MUCH more relevant.
Currently there is a point at which characters will not waste healing wands to cure the last 1-4 hit points as it being not cost effective even with wands.
First option system would be that there is a effective healing of spells based on characters percent hit points.
Another way to change the effective cost point break is to reduce the effective healing received from healing.
For example if you are more than 50% injured all healing from items would be fully effective, but if you are less than 50% injured all healing from items is less effective by half.
low level with 20 hit points max would receive 1d8+1 healing for each use until they exceed there 10 hit total, after that it would be half per healing. They might get luckily and go from 9hps to 18pt on one charge or unlucky 9hp to 11hp. (The effective healing drops from 5.5 per charge to 2.25 per charge.)
A high level with 100 Hit points would have a halfway point of 50hp.
using a wand of clw would take about 10 charges to get to 55hp. it would take 20 charges to heal fully.
A second option system would be that there is a max hp limit to the cure spell level.
CLW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 10 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 20hp, zero healing over that.
CmW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 20 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 40hp, zero healing over that.
CSW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 30 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 60hp, zero healing over that.
CCW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 40 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 80hp, zero healing over that.
Heal would heal 100% rate no limit.
(Another option instead of spell level the effective rates are tied to caster level CL x 10hp for 100% rate, CL x 20hp for 50% rate. a clw wand is CL 1, potion CMW is CL3 ...)
Wait, that is pretty brilliant.
Cure slight (orison) -> restore character to 0 hp.
Cure light -> full hp restoration up to 10 hp.
Cure mod -> full hp restoration up to 25 hp.
Cure serious -> full hp restoration up to 40 hp.
Cure critical -> full hp restoration up to 75 hp.
Cure 5th level -> full hp restoration up to 125.
Heal -> As printed now.
Adjust those numbers as appropriate. I just spit balled them.
Newsflash: the non-combat challenges in Adventure Paths aren't difficult for any party, except one who skipped the requisite skills.
The game isn't focused on that part, and it never has, and it never will be.
Six editions have tried to make it- 2nd Ed added proficiencies, 3rd ed added skills, 3.5 upgraded skills, PF added skill challenges and chase rules and skill unlocks, and fifth ed combined skills into a small number to make them all really useful and standardized the rolls.
None of that changed the fact that the game is fundamentally a combat game, and that if you are writing for publication (i.e. not designing the out of combat challenges specifically to the skill sets your player's have) then there is no way to make it challenging but not allow versatile characters to be able to overcome it, or leaving parties who forgot to train a given skill simply completely incapable.
If casters were following the rules, there is virtually no chance they actually have the right spell memorized for every situation, and many times those spell solutions are much less useful than people make them out to be- charm can spoof you a diplomacy check if you're lucky, sure, and find traps can find you some traps for a handful of minutes, but it doesn't let you disarm them.
Most likely, the out of combat challenges in the AP just aren't that difficult. This is like the PFS scenarios where every character gets to roll on the check and the party blows past the DC by 15 or 20 nearly every time- it's not actually meant to be that challenging, just to build the story.
Oh, now it makes sense why you are afraid of trimming casters. You aren’t playing 2/3rds of the game.
Ah yes, now it makes sense why you want to gimp casters, you think that 2-3rds of the game should be focused on things that this framework has not been able to simulate in any meaningful sense across 6 editions and 30+ years.
No, it does, and it does well. When it isn’t trivialized by casters. Ranks in climb or cast spider climb? Ranks in stealth or cast invisibility?
You ever notice how APs don’t actually give you enough XP to level? And how they skip an entire character level between books? It’s because they are a shell, and the entire rest of the game is there for a group of characters to tell their story, collaboratively.
Basically it’s not a war game. It’s a role playing game.
Newsflash: the non-combat challenges in Adventure Paths aren't difficult for any party, except one who skipped the requisite skills.
The game isn't focused on that part, and it never has, and it never will be.
Six editions have tried to make it- 2nd Ed added proficiencies, 3rd ed added skills, 3.5 upgraded skills, PF added skill challenges and chase rules and skill unlocks, and fifth ed combined skills into a small number to make them all really useful and standardized the rolls.
None of that changed the fact that the game is fundamentally a combat game, and that if you are writing for publication (i.e. not designing the out of combat challenges specifically to the skill sets your player's have) then there is no way to make it challenging but not allow versatile characters to be able to overcome it, or leaving parties who forgot to train a given skill simply completely incapable.
If casters were following the rules, there is virtually no chance they actually have the right spell memorized for every situation, and many times those spell solutions are much less useful than people make them out to be- charm can spoof you a diplomacy check if you're lucky, sure, and find traps can find you some traps for a handful of minutes, but it doesn't let you disarm them.
Most likely, the out of combat challenges in the AP just aren't that difficult. This is like the PFS scenarios where every character gets to roll on the check and the party blows past the DC by 15 or 20 nearly every time- it's not actually meant to be that challenging, just to build the story.
Oh, now it makes sense why you are afraid of trimming casters. You aren’t playing 2/3rds of the game.
Real talk: has anyone played a PF game where you stopped playing because the wizard ruined when they cast spells? This is always a theory/forum/mental gymnastics problem but I've never played a game where a caster ruined the day for materials.
Yes, and from both sides of the screen. I’ve had players choose options for their wizard which completely outclassed me as a martial character and made combat a foregone conclusion where I was a mere spectator. And I’ve had players in games that I have run completely trivialize campaigns for the party. And I have played casters which completely ROFL-stomped encounters that actually made me feel bad after. None of those wound up in a complete game shut down; mostly because we are all adults and can talk about that sort of thing. But in each instance it did include significant overhauls of at least one PC to fix the problem.
And keep all spells at the same level, no matter in which list it appears. If Haste is 4th level in the Wizard list, it should be 4th level in whatever sub-list in appears.(if there are any 3/4 casters, or 1/2 casters.)
Strong agree. And then you can make spell progression stackable like BAB.
Mild disagree. There is a lot of value in giving spells at lower spell levels [but comparable level] for lighter casting classes.
Ranger and Paladin benefit a great deal from this [and bards/inquisitors etc somewhat] and I would be remiss to see it go away.
Now, if you got rid of it but built in a class feature/ class feat that allowed a lighter caster to take a handful of spells at a lower level spell level [insert restrictive verbiage I don't feel like brewing right now] than full casters then we could easily put them all on the same lists.
I don't think they would count a domain list or sorcerer bloodline or whatever as a "spell list." So they could certainly make every given spell always the same level on every primary list in which it appears, and then have it appear at different levels on these little individual class feature sublists.
On this note, sorcerers need to get their bloodline bonus spells earlier rather than later. They should be able to cast their bloodline spells as though they were one level lower. It doesn't make sense to have the sorcerer wait an extra level to get a spell for free that they are supposed to have some kind of blood affinity for. Give the arcane bloodline (for example) dispel magic at 4 instead of 6, and let them cast it from their 2nd level slots. Sorcerers should get their iconic bloodline spells [b]early[/i] instead of late.
And keep all spells at the same level, no matter in which list it appears. If Haste is 4th level in the Wizard list, it should be 4th level in whatever sub-list in appears.(if there are any 3/4 casters, or 1/2 casters.)
Strong agree. And then you can make spell progression stackable like BAB.
Yes, true. Spells are already way more versatile, way more plentiful, and way more powerful than feats. And you get two free ones at every level. And you can buy more of them with gold pieces. And you don't have to learn them in chains. Oh, and casters will get ~14 feats over 20 levels.
Fighters only get feats. And of the ~22 feats they get over 20 levels of gameplay the get doozies like, "if you are being flanked and miss then you can try to hit the other guy." Vs like, you know, wish.
But the real rub is junk like people have been talking about up thread. Bladed dash is a slap in the face to martial characters.
Making wizards wait until 3rd level to grab 1st level spells actually sounds better and better every time I think about it. They still get at-will cantrips, (unsure if this is the case in PF2, but for PF1 this would make an interesting house rule) and their school power. Then they would have to rely on crossbows and acid splash. But pushing fly back to 7th level, and invisibility back to 5th level, and dimension door back to 9th? Yeah man, sign me up.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Say for example imagine Acid Splash/Ray of Frost dealt 1d6+level damage, or Light had a single target save vs one round of blindness [limit 5Hit Dice] function in addition to its 'magical torch' function. Etc.
I would be completely on board with bumping the power of at-will cantrips like this in conjunction with pushing back access to the entire rest of the spell list 2 levels. That game would be SOOOOOO much better. I can't believe this hasn't been a thing before.
Love how every thread on this just eventually gets around to "guy, we have to nerf casters- if there's any reason for anyone to ever roll one, they are too powerful."
Yes, let's add all casters to the pile of things made unfun and needed to unusuability in the new edition- that's a great idea!
Sits down at PF2 table, "well, what did you bring guys?"
All 6 responses, "fighter using two handed sword; only usable build."
Reductionist nonsense.
If you take the time to read and appreciate the conversation here you would see that it is much closer to, "given that casters are awesome and will likely continue to be, how can we help out the fighter? We need to help them to the point that they have options and narrative power commensurate with a caster of the time level. We may need to talk about toning down casters a bit to really achieve parity."
I believe the idea in PF2 is that feats only have other feats as prequisites if the second feat builds off the first feat somehow (like combat styles in PF1, say) and thus wouldn't make sense without the prereq.
If that’s the case then those feat trees need to grow on their own. Thing/improved thing/greater thing/special thing trick should all be one feat that unlocks as you level.
Aye, it's probably not something EVERY martial should get, but it should be available and relatively easy.
Say: Whirlwind Bladed Dash requires the Bladed Dash Feat and Whirlwind Attack Feat (neither of which has prerequisites besides Weapon Proficiency (Trained or Expert, not sure atm). MAYBE Whirlwind Attack requires Cleave at most (and cleave certainly has no prerequisites except Weapon Proficiency Trained)
EDIT: thinking it over Whirlwind Attack should just disappear and Cleave can scale with Weapon Proficiency. +1 at trained, + 2 more at Expert +4 more at Master to Unlimited at Legendary.
I think we should get away from prereqs outside of BAB for martial characters. Wizards get far more than 25 spells throughout the game, and they don’t have to take levitate before they can learn fly. If a fighter is only going to get ~25 feats for 20 levels of gameplay, let them stand on their own. Gate them behind level prereqs or bab prereqs if you must, but let’s get away from the design paradigm of, “you must do this before you can do that.”
I'm not certain that this is relevant, but, I noticed in the GC podcast that the 1st level wizard only ever used cantrips.(at least I don't remember anything but 'Light' and 'Acid Splash'). I wonder if that means that Spell casters only get cantrips at 1st, and then 1st at 2nd, and new level every even level, with 10th level spells at 20th. Just a thought.
The same thought had occurred to me as well, maybe they just get “1st level” spells (read: canttips in PF1) and they move up to “2nd level” spells (read: 1st level PF1 spells) at 3rd level. This would effectively delay spell progression by two levels. I think that would be a large positive influence for the game.
Do you imagine your character running around with a HP gauge over their head like in a CRPG? That's clearly and plainly visible to them? Do other people see it too?
When someone casts death watch that is literally exactly what they see.
In a sense, though, the C/MD is a false dichotomy. A party works together, and the cool tricks that magic can do will augment the things a martial character can do.
These guys are a party too. C/MD still sucks, and definitely isn’t false.
Why should it be thought of as a big secret? What stops it from being commonly known? If the character can roll to know a troll's vulnerabilities why can't they roll to know CLW wands are the cheapest alternative? IMO that's a DC 10 [or lower] check.
Well, leaving aside how common knowledge can often be wrong, that's sort of falling in line with.. how many hit points does the troll have?
Do you let the players know that? If you do, well, then you're running a very meta-ish game, and they prolly would know how efficient it is. If not, no.
it's parsing rilly fine information too -- it's only bestest outside of battle. In battle, you would prolly use the highest wand/potion you could get, as it would cost a lot less than a 5000 gp raise dead. So would the myths, stories, and legends around the wand be able to discern that subtle distinction?
10 DC, btw, is silly. That means that anybody can make the check (knowledge only requires training for DCs above 10), and anybody can pass it by taking ten as long as they don't have an int penalty. It's for rudimentary knowledge. like... trolls are monsters and scary rudimentary, and maybe that they live under bridges and eat goats. The DC to know specific monster weaknesses is 10+CR for comparison.
While I can imagine heroes returning to the tavern and regaling the patrons with tales of the hideous monster that could only be harmed by fire, I doubt they boasted for hours on end how their little cure stick from Magic Mart™ healed them all up after the fight, like as if they had the troll's own regeneration.
Okie...now I'm imagining the Magic Mart shopkeep as being that Comic Book Shop Guy from the Simpsons. "Actually, the Wand of Cure Light wounds is the best value per gold piece, I'll have you know. You would be foolish to buy anything else. Best. Wand. Ever."
Wait wait wait wait. “Trolls are scary monsters that eat goats and live under bridges,” is a DC 5 check in this reality where they don’t even exist. In a realm where they are real that information isn’t even a check. People just know it. Like they no how to eat, drink, screw, and that trolls are scary.
Wands of CLW just happen to have the best WBL vs average heal dice ratio, as shown in any spreadsheet the player runs.
Is there something that prevents a CHARACTER from figuring out that same healing ratio? Even if they don't have the exact mathematical percentages, I'm sure they can/will figure out the wand of CLW is the cheapest option: it's not something you need to be a scienticion to figure out.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
- Alchemical healing will be non-magical in nature and as such not require resonance to activate.
This isn't true as per the podcast. The alchemist made "potions" and those required the drinker to spend resonance.
As I understand, the alchemist is exempt from the resonance cost.
This.
These are rules that govern the world the characters live in. In our world we have figured out non-linear pharmacokinetics. I think they are capable of figuring out d8+3 without having access to the CRB.
Math counts for predicting damage outcomes, not the enjoyment players derive from playing.
That's why things are playtested instead of simulated with formulas.
Most players enjoy it when the game behaves as predicted (within a tolerance.) That is why formulas are an important part of game design.
Additionally, we have had 18 years to playtest the hell out of the system. We are pretty good at understanding how changes to rules will impact the game prima facie at this point. Formula or no.
Yeah, but combat is about more than how much damage you're dealing in a turn.
There's also a narrative component.
Players care how they deal their damage as much as how much is dealt
DM:
Farius the magnificent spins on his right heel to face the new threat before him. The glint from his lonsword is somewhat dimmed by the stain of blood dripping from its hardened edge. Farius takes an extra moment to study his opponent as he approaches, as he thinks the extra moment of pause will allow him to land a more powerful attack. He levels his blade with his hands both grasping the hilt near his right breast and forcefully thrusts it into the creatures body. A squeal, almost deafening, is heard erupting from the foe as sinue, muscle, cartilidge, and bone are unnaturally separated.
Player:
4 damage
DM:
Ok, well actually it looks mostly unharmed, and has 53 HP remaining.
If the story and math don’t mesh then it is terrible.
Math counts for predicting damage outcomes, not the enjoyment players derive from playing.
That's why things are playtested instead of simulated with formulas.
Most players enjoy it when the game behaves as predicted (within a tolerance.) That is why formulas are an important part of game design.
Additionally, we have had 18 years to playtest the hell out of the system. We are pretty good at understanding how changes to rules will impact the game prima facie at this point. Formula or no.
