The fact that there there is no magic in the real world (that was a sad statement) makes comparing mage/wizard status to a real-world profession completely subjective.
I could just as easily argue that being a wizard is more like being an illustrator: requires a lot of intelligence and training (both to make successful work as well as navigating the freelance business world), but very few are "powerful" enough to be rich and famous.
Or, if you prefer, a wizard is like a physicist, who while probably making a good living don't exactly populate the powerful elite of the world.
You can go on and on. No real world frame of reference means no concrete real-world analogy.
Bill Dunn wrote:
they all do).
I think it makes fine sense if you aren't at all proficient with a heavy armor to not add your level, buuuUUUUUuuuut I do also wish we still add level -X for untrained proficiencies. I'm considering just giving all characters the feat that does that for free.
Well "why" it's needed is because without it, attack accuracy would increase every level while defenses would not, but I don't think that's exactly what the question is.
What would be the point of created a supposedly "universal" proficiency system and leave one of the three most important numbers on the character sheet out of it?
As for the flavor, I've always been of the "Reason to fit rule, not rule to fit reason" school of thought. Armor proficiency is how accustomed a character is to moving around with a certain degree of weight, leveraging an armor type's strongest spots, and so on.
I completely agree, though, that having separate levels of proficiency for each armor type is kind of weird, and does lead to some unfortunate growth situations that other threads have discussed, such as when a human bard gets medium armor prof at 1st level, wears it for a year, and suddenly is better at wearing light armor than medium despite never using it once.
In 1e every class started at a different baseline and, from there, get to move in a direction they wanted (i.e. an alchemist taking medium armor).
In 2e, every starts at a different baseline and, as far as armor is concerned, get continually corralled back to that baseline.
These are two very different things. I love 2e's proficiency in all areas EXCEPT this one. It's an illusion of choice.
The proficiency scaling only bother me in regard to armor, nothing else.
While my reading of the rules is still fresh compared to 1e, I will admit, it doesn't seem like a big deal to allow all one's armor proficiencies to scale at the same rate. They still have to invest feats to even get those armors, and there are enough other incentives to have high Dex that they would be giving something else up to choose this route.
Alternatively, creating a feat that allows all your cross-class proficiency to scale up would also work for me, although maybe with some other slight tack-on.
I like durable wands, I'm not really a fan of the overcharge mechanic.
I would weirdly prefer for wands to be strictly single-use per day with no overcharge than with. It feels like an option that is so unattractive it will be ignored or forgotten by my group until someone doesn't remember they already used it and I have to remind them/make them destroy their wand.
Like, say, in 1e, when technically you could choose to cast defensively OR provoke an AoO when casting in melee. The former was such a better option, the latter virtually didnt exist except when someone forgot to say "I cast this spell defensively" and I had to choose between either saying "Are you sure you don't want to cast defensively?" and saying "Okay you provoke an attack *roll*"
Is it really worth having a choice if that choice is worthwhile in 1 case every 2 years of play and any other time is just a trap players get caught in when they dont remember a rule.
Unsure where exactly this question belongs, but: I purchased the core rulebook, and am keen to to prepare a campaign. As soon as the 2e prd was put on Archives of Nethys, I started pouring over the monster entries to get ideas.
I found that, for reasons not listed there, many monsters do not have any attacks listed, even if they should. The Barbazu, for instance, lists that is has Attack of Opportunity, but no damage or attack modifier is listed.
Is there a reason for this in the Bestiary that is not listed on the site?
She looks taller somehow? Also, her breastplate isn't a full-on "breast" plate and I very much like that. This has to be my favorite of the new designs.
I think her head is a little smaller compared to the rest of her body height than in the original, which is what makes characters look big or small in a vacuum
It will never be mandatory if it is used for an entirely different goal and playstyle than longarms.
Proficiency with shields is listed in the playtest as its own thing; separate from weapons and armor. Now that they've been added to the game, some core classes should be proficient with shields at 1st level also, but which?
I think it should just be these four (listed in the order of necessity), and as I continue to playtest with shields, these classes will be proficient with them for now:
Soldier: Soldier is the one class with access to all equipment by itself; even Power Armor proficiency can be gained with the right fighting style. It stands to reason then that soldiers should also get proficiency with shields.
Solarian: As the OG melee-focus class, solarians should also get shield proficiency. An argument could be made that they don't need them; that solar armor stacked with a shield might be too good, but feat taxing them for their best option would not sit right with a lot of solarian players/fans, I think. The premiere melee class is going to reach for shields as soon as they are available: put them within reach.
And now for the more subjective choices...
Envoy: Comparing backwards to Pathfinder, the Envoy is like a non-magical intersection between a paladin and a bard: getting into scraps and inspiring allies or distracting enemies more than dealing the highest damage, and what will help them do both better? A shield. Giving them free shield proficiency would make their role as mid-fight healer and inspiring leader easier to do since they would last longer doing it.
Mechanic: For the class most likely to tinker with volatile, explosive tech, carrying around a blast shield seems natural. It goes along with the idea of a class that emphasises being a smart, resourceful engineer over being an offensive powerhouse. It also serves a little bit of a buff to those mechanics that decide to go with a drone (and lack the offensive power gained from long arm proficiency).
The Vanguard definitely seems really beefy. One question, how much use didn't they get out of their EP? How many EP did they gain over the course of the fight? It seems like slow can be really bad for a Vanguard as their lack of mobility is a huge limiting factor along with their lower damage. My biggest fear with the Vanguard is that while they're basically immortal (hyperbole) it seems like it would be very boring playing a class that can't be hurt, but also can't really do much offensively due to movement issues. They'd probably be more enjoyable to me if the were more the Juggernaut and less the Blob. But I understand it can be hard to balance a class like that.
As for EP, as I mentioned, I never really had to use it, as she never took enough damage to want to use mitigate. She probably gained about 2 or 3 total, though only the first one mattered.
One could argue that a slow spell would be a much bigger problem for an operative or soldier, who benefits from full actions a lot more than a vanguard does. It could get boring for a player if they get slowed a lot, but it that's true of any cc ability, and there are many.
For my first bit of playtesting, I set my party of 5 PCs against a a biohacker, vanguard, and witchwarper bounty hunter crew, building the enemies as PCs of the same level (11th).
The purpose of this was to show off the new classes and to see how powerful the new classes are and how strong the combos are.
I'll summarize here what I will also submit in my survey (after I've had a chance to test out a few more of the new classes' abilities; one combat is not enough).
Soldier (eldritch assailant*/blitz)
Solarian (solar weapon, photon focused)
Mechanic (exocortex, not optimized for combat)
Techomancer (all spells, has not fired a gun in 4 levels)
Kasatha vanguard (able to wield a shield, polarity gauntlets, and smoke grenade at once)
Genetics Biohacker (with injector pistol and smoke grenade)
Blasty Witchwarper (only carrying grenades)
A Synopsis of Events:
After a brief chase (which served mainly to position PCs on the battlefield based on their speed) the fight broke out in an alley that was conveniently 25ft wide and 60ft deep. The operative engaged the vanguard right away.
The first thing the latter did was drop a smoke grenade right at her feet; with blindsight (heat), and her environmental protections on, she could see him (and the solarian when he closed in) clear as day. By chance, everyone in the smoke made saves against breathing smoke on their first round, after which they could protect themselves from it so concealment was the only issue.
The witchwarper was able to keep anyone from escaping effectively by using Infinite World to lower the battlefield where the vanguard was and make everything difficult terrain (which allies of the Biohacker ignored, thanks Limbering Restorative!). The technomancer was able to significantly reduce the threat of the vanguard with a slow spell, but he still was virtually impossible to harm due to both his very high AC[i] and the concealment. Mitigate was not even necessary during this encounter.
Through a creative combination of supernova, quick teleportation, and wall-walking magic items, the PCs were able to minimize (but not completely eliminate) the obstacle of the smoke. While they tried to deal with this problem, the witchwarper was able to pepper the backline with fireb- excuse me, with explosive blasts, while the biohacker was able to weaken the operative with counteragents to keep herself safe. She was able to hit reliably enough to be a problem, but not well enough to be a deciding factor (she failed, blessedly, to make the bloodied players vulnerable to the witchwarper's spells).
The biohacker was the first to die, lacking any real defensive of mobility skills. The witchwarper was hard to pin down, as she could keep flash teleporting away (with 13 Resolve points, she could afford to) through the incredibly complex battlefield she created. Someone would reach her, hit her once, and she would escape and cast another spell. Eventually, though, she was clear of the smoke, and the soldier and technomancer were able to take her down with a couple attacks.
The vanguard never died.
With level-appropriate armor, personal upgrades, and a shield, she still had well over 200 health by round 7. She did not need to use mitigate or align her shield during the fight. Because the solarian and technomancer with both a hit away fro being down (and, frankly, because they were all getting tired) they decided to flee with one last dimension door spell rather than risk someone going down with the vanguard.
Post Combat Impressions:
-Biohacker is on equal footing with the existing classes, but [i]their support/defense is much worse than their offense. Each attack applies decent damage as well as multiple conditions while support options on apply helpful conditions. In practice, the best thing for her to do was try to hit every enemy at least once, which might be the whole combat.
-It's also worth noting that the addition of sheilds gives a vicarious buff to small arms as well as race with extra hands, like kasatha, as it's a worthwhile trade to have lower damage, but higher AC. Both of those are things I like.
I'm in the "infinite worlds is good as is" camp, but I would like the opportunity to invest in it more, specifically gaining the ability to alter it's shape, making it more useful.
Should this be added, and how "expensive" should it be? Should it be automatic, or require investing a talent in? If so, at what level?
I, and, if I may be so bold as to suggest the Paizo designers as well, are less concerned with specific build viability and more with broad strokes. They don't want new players opening a book and thinking something they want to play is bad because they haven't mastered the rules yet (and don't, for example, realize that having a higher attack and saving throw bonus than everyone else is more valuable than a few points of extra damage in the long run).
I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, the amount of differences in 1e made playing small character less appealing to many, both because they are easily percieved as weaker ("I'm slower and do less damage? No way!"), or because altering the numbers for changing size is daunting (I have a player that has historically been super polymorph-averse for this reason, she arguably hates even beneficial polymorphing more than confusion)
On the other hand... I've been running SF, which has no hard difference beyond reach, not even carrying capacity (though occasionally an item will say Large creatures can use it easier). I don't like it. I understand that they did this to allow for more options when it comes to player races and who can be what class effectively, but I like some crunch to my flavor, dangit!
Don't think of it as "getting elfier". Think of it as "remaining consistently elfy".
In PF1 (and SF), race makes a significant difference at low levels by virtue of the fact that, usually, you have more stuff written on your character sheet from your race than you do from your class (assuming you didn't choose human). As you level, race makes less and less of a difference until the elf fighter and the dwarf fighter are the same in all but flavor. Eventually, my bonuses rolls and my list of feats is so high, being an elf no longer factors in meaningfully.
PF2 gives you a baseline of difference, and makes sure that baseline of difference is maintained. The the elf figher maintains their ratio of "elfy" to "fightery" while the dwarf fighter maintains his ratio of "dwarfy" to "fightery". I like this, because I don't want my character's ancestry to become a fluff note down the line; it should stay a meaningful choice.
Is it meaningful enough at 1st level? Maybe, maybe not. I think it's enough, but I would not say no to have, say, 2 feats at 1st level instead, or its equivalent.
Doesn't feel like an exploit to me. Seems like a perfectly applicable use of the spell.
Really? Getting an object that costs 800,000c* for a 3rd level spell slot when a 6th level spell slot gets you an item worth 380,000c doesn't feel a little... imbalanced?\
(*the cost of 2,000ft of smart cable)
Yes, its very clear that you can buy longer pieces, but consider:
1. A 2,000ft piece of smart cable is worth almost 200x more than any other item you can make with a 3rd level spell via this ability.
Feels like an exploit to be able to ignore pricing/quantity in favor of the bulk limit.
Elves and Gnomes can choose an ancestry feat that gives them a cantrip as an "innate spell", which "heightened to a spell level equal to half your level
Let's say I'm playing an elf fighter with this feat and I take acid splash. At 6th level, I decide to take Wizard Dedication, and get a spellbook with 4 "regular" spell cantrips.
At this point my innate acid splash is heightened to 3rd level. Because I can cast this spell at 3rd level, are my other cantrips also heightened to 3rd level?
I know that, when this was introduced in SF, the effect of this (along with how that game handles ability scores and every class is MAD) was that race made a LARGE difference at 1st level, but that difference gradually faded over time so that by mid levels, the choices you made mattered more than where you came from (a good idea, imo).
In PF2 the goal seems to be making ancestry matter throughout your career: a gnome fighter will always feel quite different from a human one.
Speaking of which, is anyone ever going to NOT take the fuzzy animal friend feat for gnomes?
It definitely takes longer to make a character right now, but doesnt it always for your first time? It really is a different ruleset. Having to right in nukbers for ever variable (as some amount of orof is added to EVERY skill and atttribute) does add timr though, as does huntimg through the spell section for all powers.
Organization of the rules is my major critique.
Its a psychological fact that humans are more likely to react to things they dislike than to things they do. People that dislike are more likely to post and complain that people who like posting and praising. Its just the way we have evolved.
Also, Paizo has made it very clear that they are more concerned with ACTUAL PLAY feedback and NOT theorycraft when it comes to input on their design. You will notice very few of the loud naysayers seem to be citing actual gameplay anecdotes and instead talk about how things "seem" or "sounds".
Matthew Downie wrote:
I would like to hear the OP's perspective on this one, because the "bloated numbers" make a SIGNIFICANT difference in the lattermost case.
We need to be sure we're all on the same page about what we're arguing before we can honestly disagree.
I still dont agree that the statement is false. If I put in $20 to pay a $30 dining bill and my friend puts in $10, it can be said, factually, that my contribution was more sigificant even we still hit the target of $30.
Likewise, even if it only "matters" that we hit a DC of 30 with a skill check, if the dice adds 10.5 and my character adds +20, it is factual that my character contributed more than the d20.
Is... isnt everything in this pretend game dependant on what we percieve the numbers as meaning? We arent just doing math for fun.
Bards have been historically, in various editions of the game, percieved as being weak and passive when, mathematically, they are reaponsible for the most damage in the party (turning near misses into hit, and adding +X damage to every hit including their own).
Perception doesnt just matter, its where the game actually is for most. Otherwise, why describe a sneak attack as being a sneaky? Doesnt just the damage matter?
"Bloated" may not necessarily decrease the influence if the d20 roll, but they do decrease its significance compared to character ability.
If the average result of 1d20 is 10.5 and my modifier is +4, the roll is mostly luck. If my modifier is +15, more of my result comes from my character's skill. Its less about luck, ewpecialy when it comes to many skill checks that dont scale dcs, like trying to jump or perform for a crowd.
I think that matters.
You could never multiclass at 1st level in pathfinder before... but you could play as a magus, warpriest, swashbuckler, hunter, shaman, skald, investigator... see where I'm going?
I much prefer legendary being expressed through skill use as opposed to skill numbers. For one, it keeps DCs from being impossible for some and auto-success for others (something SF struggles with) when you have the margin of difference being so smaller. Being able to say I have +30 in acrobatics is kind of cool, but being able to say my character can fall 1000ft and walk away (Cat Fall feat)? That's more legendary.
My only concern about resonance is if it remains as restrictive at mid-high levels as it is at low levels.
A 1st level guy really doesnt need more than 1 or 2, after they pick up their first wamd or potion. Will a 10th level character have so many important items that they will need 10-14? Or will that pool feel so large that the party will exhaust other reasources (spells, hp) by then? Only playtests will tell.
A lot of good points made in this thread. The vagueness of how trick attacks function bothered me, although a lot more with Intimidate than with Stealth.
Stealth working when you're "observed" is easier to hand-wave (the enemy has their back turned to you at that moment, etc.) than Intimidate working against a creature that is immune to fear/mind-affecting effects.