BluLion's page

I wonder how well magus will work unarmed, or with a monk dedication. I just made a character from Worlds Without Number which was essentially this to an extent, and I wonder how well I will be able to transfer her over in PF2e

I'm kinda curious about spell hearts. I know runes already handle physical attacks and ac/saves, so I wonder if it is just a new method, or if it affects something else. Maybe it boosts magic attack rolls?

Claxon wrote:

This is precisely why I quit PF2.

As somebody who DM'd a couple of PF2e sessions (I was running Plaguestone via Roll20) you've summed up a couple of the reasons I didn't jive with the system. I'm most used to DMing for low to mid-level 3.x characters (3 to 10) and playing stuff like Red Hand of Doom (usually with heavily edited encounters to deal with very skewed parties) or a pure sandbox game where I'd build out encounters as we went and only really plan a session or two ahead if I even planned that far. PF2e while looking similar at a glance just didn't feel right and I think a lot of your statements - as well as those of others - have shown just why things felt so strange.

Coming from 3.x and players who had a boring job where they'd pass time by building new characters while folding boxes I'd rather my players start a bit broken and let me gradually bring the challenge level up over a few sessions as we dial into how the party at the table solves problems.

I'm a very permissive DM who wants to let players play anything, as long as it doesn't break the game completely, and PF2e just feels like my players are in straight jackets. For example, I'll never get to see a Troll Paladin who uses a ring of sustenance to keep his instincts in check in this system. I certainly won't get the joy of running an adversarial evil party who don't coordinate well most of the time and who'd let another party member perish just for a chance to steal their magic boots, it just isn't something PF2e seems to want to support.

I think for all the fun that can be had with PF2e the tight math just makes it too difficult to get wierd with it and that's a shame.

I'll be frank, the fact that pf1 punishes you for building for flexibility instead of hyper-specializing your one routine, and the huge disparity between optimized builds and standard ones (lets not even get to the unoptimized ones) is more of a straight jacket than how pf2e handles it.

There is so many times where I wanted to try something gimicky or unique in pf1, or even a 'bad touch' frostbite magus centered around debuffs, only to realize that that doing so would be shooting myself in the foot. I then go for what I thought was 'optimal', only to get blindsided by a unchained monk able to solo encounters because he was running a meta build. And even if he wasn't able to quite solo the encounter, there was a wizard who would just 'save or suck' everything with standard god-wizard paired with sacred geometry. Even the magus in the party, who went for the standard scimmy shocking grasp build, was overshadowed because he didn't go for all of the parts of said build, namely magical lineage and that accuracy arcana.

I'll admit, I'm hesitant about the weapon accuracy on non-martials, and I think warpriest should've gotten more to compensate, but after seeing a bladed scarf fighter in action, and playing a champion with a sorcerer dedication, I feel like I have real flexibility in what characters can do in pf2e.

I think the way spell slots are handled was quite creative. I might've gone with 5 or even 6, but I think unless magus get a higher focus point total, or regain them at a higher rate, I think the spell slots is the best way to handle magus.

I'll be honest, after seeing the chart posted on another thread, I'm concerned about spell-strike accuracy regarding spell attacks. Do you have anything in mind about this?

I have yet to read through the whole thing, but I wasn't expecting this. This screams 13th age, which is a pretty cool thing.

I'll be completely honest, I looked at the rangers feats, and then the fighter's, and I don't really see anything wrong with the ranger, aside from maybe the hunt target action economy. But even then, a lot of classes have something like that, whether it be rage, stances, trying to make skill checks for panache depending on the swashbuckler style, and certain methods of getting flatfooted for rogue. Plus I'm usually in the mindset that once you get just enough combat feats, or the right ones you want, getting anymore just feels redundant, so I grab utility stuff. The fighter feats, being almost entirely combat related, feels a bit much to me, though many are quite nice. Then again, I guess that's why I hardly ever run fighter equivalents anymore in tabletop rpgs.

Oh I'm sure the mathematics and logic of it works, I will never deny that. Its the perception of it that's a problem. Its the same case with the lottery/gambling, it doesn't matter that you didn't lose money on the bet, you will feel bad that you didn't won.

The boss losing 1/3 of its action might be good, but the caster will feel bad that their spell failed. Also, I think people forget that PF1 had many "Save for half" and "Save (partial)", and there is no difference in that aspect. The real differences being how often the target succeeds, how easy it is to increase the DC, and the entire system being standardized. Effects on a critical failure are mostly new (before only attack spells had that due to spell crits).

The inability to get better DC and the innately higher saves, is what causes the problem. Let caster increase their DC by 1 or 2 points and the entire feeling will probably change. (debuffing is not the same).

If there's feats and items that increase dcs, then those would end up as autopicks for the most part, which would limit meaningful customization. I think debuffing saves is healthier tbh. It encourages teamplay.

I think Finesse striker works great for a "switch hitter" type of solider, where you can focus mainly on Dex and be able to shoot really well with a ranged weapon, and then swing accurately with a melee operative weapon, maybe investing some points in strength to boost your melee damage. I don't know if you can still hold ranged weapons with them, but polarity gauntlets, while a dice behind some 2 handed weapons at some levels, can catch up on the second swing due to the polarized effect. There's also the quick draw feat that can help.

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

I thought the general gist of that particular can of worms wasn't so much never altering the dice but rather "every enemy ever from the slimes to the pit fiends are played with the precise purpose to kill the pcs" to which yeah, the system generally isn't meant for everything to be supreme tactical hiveminds that go straight for throat cuts the second a pc gets downed.

And that's a form of fudging - it's just that is what everyone expects from the game. In the real world a pack of dogs doesn't stop attacking the downed 'target' because they stop moving - and intelligent animals (Humans) will obviously co-ordinate to best effect.

I even agree that it's a *brutal hardcore* mode of play - but it does expose the truth behind play - that the GM is expected to play a *game* and not a brutal deathmarch - and in *many* cases that also means they are making sub-optimal choices for the NPC enemies to not overwhelm the players.

That's fudging - it's just want everyone accepts as part of the game - if you accept that the GM is going to make calls for the game to keep the 'fun/excitement/fairness' and that it's still a game and not a simulation - then you can't (in good faith) get righteous because they change the outcome of something.

The game even encourages this - with secret rolls. If 'fudging' was such a sin against the game - all rolls would be encouraged to be open and in front of the players (many groups *DO THIS* because they are so against fudging). You can't however - have secret rolls and encouraged adjudication without accepting that the GM can modify the results and you wouldn't know.

In the real world a pack of dogs doesn't stop attacking the downed 'target' because they stop moving...if that target was alone and no one is threatening the pack. Would the pack continue attacking said prey if a bear starts charging towards them? Or what if the target is backed up by allies who go in rescue the downed target?

The only time I would see a intelligent animals/people go out of the way to finish off or cut the throats of a downed creature in the middle of combat is if said creature continuously came back to cause them trouble, or if no one is threatening the guy who downed the creature (but even the latter seems unlikely if the attacker's friends are in trouble). It may not be "optimal" in the face of party equipped with a healer and the players, but it's more realistic when you consider combat to be a chaotic brawl happening with each round being 6 seconds long with everything happening all at once.

And the secret rolls wasn't there to encourage fudging die rolls. It is there to prevent metagame knowledge from affecting player decisions because they saw that they rolled low, and it prevents scenarios where everyone joins in to roll a check because one person rolled poorly on a skill check, even if it was intended to be a one person skill check.

Porphyrogenitus wrote:

We interrupt this regularly scheduled thread for an off-topic on-topic observation:

Quote:

most of the time make good game design. If you read books like Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals from Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen, or The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lens by Jesse Schell

Ahhh, so *that* explains what's been going on in the unfolding trends in gaming over the last generation or so.

Let me guess: these books use quantitative psychometrics to help game designers see what keeps people clicking for the pellet like a grandmother spending down her fortune at the slot machine.

The same design principle behind those ftp games with microtransactions and rng enhancing that gets people to plunk down time and or money trying to get the pellet. It *does* work (and none of those games are loathed or if they are it's never for any good reason, and certainly no one who plays those games have feelings of frustration that they then take out via in-game aggression in likewise carefully designed contexts).

I don't mean to knock these - I'm sure they're invaluable for game developers, from the pov of a game developer. But I'm not sure these are the sort of game design principles behind the success of the hobby Gary & Dave launched. It comes from a orthogonal perspective.

If the game was made based on the sort outlook I'm sure it will make the devs a fortune (by tabletop RPG standards).

You should read the books before saying such blatant accusatory and defamatory things about it.

Both are very well recognized both by game designers and academics in the area.

They are the exact opposite of what you said here. They talk about creating good and engaging games, about player experience, game rules, balancing, and all the encompass good game designing.

They have NOTHING supporting...

Look, I didn't like the prebuffing, nor the martial/caster disparity in pf1, and I felt that save and suck mechanics in that 1e were bad game design (since those spells were impossible to balance around without making them useless or instant win buttons), but rather than telling people to buy and read 500-700 page books to get your point, why not quote specific lessons and theories from the book so we can get a pick at what you are referring to when you mention game design. Just saying "read the books" doesn't give much weight to your argument regarding game design (and no, I'm not trying to downplay the graphs).

The main issue, in my experience, with knowledge skills as a means to impart information to the player is that some dingus bad-DM back in the day that had a huge lean towards DM vs. player competitive attitude put forth the idea that there is a thing called "metagaming" and that it is a bad thing and should be avoided, and even punished if it does show up, and defined the term in such a way that literally any player that isn't in their very first table-top RPG experience ever and lacking any knowledge whatsoever about the game rules or game world cannot not be doing it constantly.

And no one said "wait a minute, that's actually nonsense, no, stop." to it.

It is entirely because of this unavoidable thing - the knowledge of a player existing, and thus inherently influencing the way that player approaches the game - being treated as inherently bad that you have GMs jumping through hoops seeking to avoid it and arriving at things like trying to convince a player that their character can't tell that their fire spell had reduced effect against the fire-resistant creature because "your character doesn't know what HP and damage values are." Duh. The player knows those concepts and can use them to understand information that the character does have, which is that the thing they are trying to burn doesn't seem to be all that flammable.

GMs should be provided better advice, and hopefully in the Game Master's Guide they will be even though for many purposes that is entirely too late, how to enable general character knowledge and thus make it so that Recall Knowledge isn't lying when the text for it says "You might know basic information about something without needing to attempt a check"

That isn't what metagaming is.

Metagaming is when you encounter a monster, look up (or remember from your past experiences outside of the campaign) the creature so you know exactly what the monster is (hp and everything) without making any check or doing any in character research beforehand before the fight even began, and exploiting said knowledge, even if it doesn't make sense for the player characters (not the players) themselves to know without a skill-check or research.

Dealing with a troll is generally (and should be) common knowledge in most settings, just like assuming a skeletal creature is undead (because why wouldn't it be unless the "skeleton" is just a carapace or the creature is actually a living beast that is just wearing skeletal bones for protection). And finding out in combat that a creature that's getting hit by fire damage is suffering more from it is not meta-gaming either, that's just obvious observation that's obvious both in and out of character. Frankly, I have never ran into a dm who would punish players for things like that or consider those examples to be metagaming, but it sounds like everyone in these forums suffers from this quite often, and it's rather unsettling.

As a player, I have always tried to separate what I know about monsters in tabletop games from what my character knows about them, since it makes it more fun to roleplay my characters fighting said creatures for the first time in their lives and trying to survive from what they have learned and experienced. And in all honesty, it feels cheap when a more experienced player stats telling the group about an obscure monster's abilities before anyone makes a move or a knowledge check just because the player fought the same monster in a different campaign or used said monster in a campaign he dmed in.

I personally find it a lot quicker to make a new character in 2e than in 1e.

In 1e, I when I would think of an idea, such as a gun or whip magus, a hunter, a ranger (with or without guns), or a unchained rogue with a shadow spectre, I would have to try to research if said build was actually viable or if I would be simply shooting myself in the foot if I tried that (and I never play humans or half-humans, so the bonus feat is off the table). It would involve browsing through guides or through forum lurking, only to find out that there are some conflicting posts about said ideas or guides that are heavily outdated. Some classes like the slayer don't even have guides. Granted, I do have the archery feats memorized.

In 2e, I just have to look at the class, which has the class feats listed, and then switch to the multiclass feats section if I wanna try that. It feels like it's more comfortable to just grab feats as I go as opposed to having to plan out everything.

Michael Sayre wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

This, however, is what I was concerned about.

YMMV, but spells that simply allowed a caster to completely replace a skill-based character were viewed by a large swath of gamers as problematic. Now, a wizard who casts e.g. invisibility will be stealthier than he was before, but tactically it's likely a better move to cast invisibility on the rogue (assuming the goal is to sneak someone into a place) since their better Stealth facility will compliment the buff.

That was the case in PF1 as well. +45/65 is better than +25/45.

And I never saw a spell that could completely replace a skill. The classic example of knock invalidating disable device is silly, because a rogue can get a much higher disable device score than level+10.

That's true in pathfinder, but in 3.5 knock pretty much unlocked devices (and even opened secret doors), no check required.

And even in pathfinder, a rogue was more than just someone that unlocks doors and disables traps, yet it felt like in mummy's mask I was obsolete in everything else besides unlocking stuff (and yes, I was playing unchained rogue). The Spiritualist was a better scout than I was because of his spirit that can peak through walls and spot stuff without risk, I wasn't able to get damage in due to low accuracy and difficulty with sneak attacking, the bard had skills, buffing, AND spell-casting, and it felt like my skills didn't match up to spells in terms of versatility, especially when invisibility or similar spells showed up.

I ended up switching to an alchemist, which handled rogue's roles just as well, if not better, on top of having "spell-casting" to vastly improve my utility and have better overall damage to boot. Now when ever there's a skill I need to solve, I can just cast "alchemical allocation", chug an elixir of the right skill, and get a +10 to that skill for an hour (or even use another spell potion or extract). And because the class naturally uses intelligence, my skills aren't really behind the rogue to begin with.

I guess in hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have run a rogue when we had a bard in the party. I didn't think the two classes would compete as much as they did.

I apologize for that rant earlier.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to seeing what they ended up doing to the skill feats in the final version, the new bard and the ranger.

I noticed today that when ever I tried clicking on some of the links to check the sub-boards, they just take me back to the homepage. I guess some of the links just broke during an update or something

gwynfrid wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

RussianAlly wrote:

I feel that system mastery should be rewarding when it shows through intelligent strategical and tactical application of the systems in play to achieve unexpected and interesting results. It should not be a reward for having extra 20 hours to spend on manuals or the SRD reading build options.

And why not? It's just like any other subject. If I spend an extra 20 hours studying statistics, would it be unfair for me to perform markedly better on an exam than someone who did not? I certainly don't see a difference.

If you work hard, you should do well. If you dont, then you shouldn't complain.

This approach is perfectly valid on its own logic. However, it implies that the game is designed for an elite group of heavily invested players. Other players don't need to apply, unless they don't mind their PCs being vastly outclassed at the table. Your exam analogy is telling, in that perspective. You have those who pass, and those who, well, fail or drop out.

I don't agree with this philosophy. It's appropriate to reward mastery, but that reward should be moderate in scope. Otherwise the difference between hardcore and casual players becomes so large that they can't play together.

So then the casual players ask the hardcore players for help. Back to the metaphor, I used to study with and help classmates all the time. You can do the same thing with character builds. Think of it like tutoring.

As long as it takes some effort to make a solid character and the cap on outcomes based on effort is high. Tutoring or studying on their own, either way the casual player learns the system better (I would expect the experienced player to talk things through and go over why to pick A vs B for a given scenario, and why C is usually a trap, to raise the quality of the game overall by educating the casual player for future events, not just say "take A"). Sure, the experienced player has to be willing, but I've always been happy...

That's all fine and good, but then you run into cases where a new player asks the experienced players in the group for advice on a type of character, only to find out that said experience players in the group are unfamiliar with said class. For example, I remember my first campaign I decided to play a hunter (the Ranger/Druid hybrid that focuses on animal companions) as my first pathfinder character. When I asked for advice, no one had any idea on how hunters work, and had never worked with teamwork feats before. Needless to say, I had to rely on some outdated guides, and as expected, the character flopped(though at least the pet raptor was decent when buffed). After the party wiped, I remember a couple of those players being pissed off at me and my crappy character, and it actually caused me to get turned off from pathfinder for a while. A few months later, I then tried an alchemist for a one shot, then a unchained rogue for mummy's mask, which also flopped, even though I was just going for a simple twf build that happened to dip 3 lvls in shadowdancer (and it didn't even reach the dip point), and then I made another bomber alchemist, which was finally a character that can hold his own. But the only thing that those experiences had taught me is that I shouldn't play non-casters or hunters, and that alchemist was my "safe-zone" class. I'm too cautious to try anything else now.

I actually have an expert optimizer in my current group, but his knowledge focused in pure martials. He's able to give people all the advice in the world when it comes to making unkillable monks or deadly gunslingers and fighters, but he wasn't able to help me much with building inquisitors aside from maybe focusing on crossbows.

I'm for system mastery when it comes to things like positioning or coming up with creative ways to use your spells, but it just feels overly punishing when it reaches into building your character the way you want it. I think that kind of mastery belongs to trading card games like magic the gathering, where at least you can change your deck after a 5-20 minute game. In a campaign, you're forced to bear with the fact that your dragging your team down, or your just reduced to being a spectator. And not every gm is fine with you changing your character multiple times

I don't know why you can't just take will saves and swap them from being wisdom based to charisma based. I know having a choice between the two was suggested earlier, but to be honest,given how it influences perception and now initiative, I doubt wisdom is getting dumped even if it no longer influences saves.

I want to see an artificer, but more along the lines of using gadgets and technological inventions to fight as opposed to just being an item crafter. I want to be a gadgeteer.

Lucas Yew wrote:

Even 5E has Medium playable dragons from the start (albeit without wings and breath severely limited), PF2 should have at least a Small one as soon as possible!

Dragonborn are the single worst thing in D&D. They're nothing but an appeasement of whiny nerds crying that they couldn't play a dragon PC without taking a 10-level prestige class. I don't want that sh*t anywhere near Pathfinder.

Their race features are rather lacking compared to the other races, and the race could have more flavor, to say it's the worst thing in d&d is rather harsh. I always viewed them more as an option for players that like playing reptile/scaly characters (I'll admit, I'm one of them).

I know I made a different thread earlier, but I figured it would be better to start anew regarding this.

What I have right now is as follows:

Ikeshti bombard soldier

16 str
14 dex
12 con
12 int
8 wis
10 cha

we're starting lvl one, and while I have one of those sonic powerfists for now, I plan on focusing on unarmed strikes for my melee option (meaning stuff like ring of fangs, improved unarmed strike, and raw lethality), and for ranged, probably those shock casters and then eventually a rocket launcher. I went bombard primarily for using the hybrid grenades along with some of the utility ones, but melee is going to be my primary focus. The setting has some restricted healing (mostly no mystic and limited hp healing), so that was why I bumped by con up a little at the expense of having a 14 dex, but I wonder if that is really necessary as well.

Now for the main question, should I get the feats weapon focus and versatile focus, and if so, should I get it asap? I looked at the feats, and they seems like they're designed more to help lesser bab classes hit things.

Get a ring of fangs, improved unarmed strike, and just reflavor it as a punch if you don't want to actually bite people.

Oh damn, I never even thought about magic items when trying to make my character. I was originally going to use those power glove/fist weapons, but this sounds so much cooler. Thank you so much!

The Operative can handle most of every skill check.

If the soldiers diversify their skill choices so they don't overlap much they can fill in the odd gaps left by the Operative. Skill Synergy is your friend.

Summons don't last long enough to be that useful for skill checks.

If you do go Technomancer but still want to do punchdicuffs, you could get the Junksword spell from Pact Worlds and just flavor it as a Junkfist. I am a melee Technomancer with the Steward Officer archetype, and I do plenty well in melee with the Junksword.

I was actually thinking about getting skill synergy (and maybe skill focus) for some skills as I got more intelligence from ability score increases.

As for technomancer, I heard about melee builds that centered around junksword. I was tempted to try that, but the low hp/stamina per lvl has me concerned.

I am going to be playing in a new campaign in the short future, and I was excited to try out the hybrid grenades in it. However, I still wish to primarily be a melee fighter, preferably without using power armor since it would kill the feel of having a small lizard girl beat the crap out of people twice her size with her fists.

I don't know how long the campaign will be, but I do plan on getting blitz as the second fighting style. I just don't know if early game melee relies heavily on blitz to do work.

A lot of problems can be solved by reverting to proper kobolds, yipping little dog/rat things.

There's more than enough support for boring old dragonish and lizard races.

I like them as lizards, and I always found lizard races more interesting than the standard elves and halflings.

btw, the playtest bestiary seems to suggest that wisdom is the kobold's main mental stat, but that seems rather odd to me. I think charisma and intelligence make more sense (the former because kobold sorcerers were always an iconic type of spellcaster).

Captain Morgan wrote:

Wait, are people actually arguing that the specificity of PF1 weapon focus was a good thing? I feel like weapons are one of the least controversial improvements of the playtest. There have just been so many improvements to facilitate you using whatever weapon you want, and differences them feel much pronounced. What exactly are people wistful for here?

To be perfectly clear:

Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization/PBS/Precise Shot are not the Feats/Combat Styles I am referring to.

Those are just numerical feats, they provide no real "style" other than they exist.

Double Slice, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Cornugon Smash, Shatter Defenses, Multi-shot, Rapid Shot, etc.

Those feats are non-numerical, "combat style" based feats that provide new and interesting actions that differ from the standard attack.

All of those feats were available to anyone and did not require you to spend Class Features to get them (the new form Class Feats have taken).

The "weapons now let you operate without penalties" bit is not brought up, because that is not what I mean by forcing combat styles to compete with Class Features.

The above (and MANY others) are what I am speaking about. Double Slice has already taken up it's nest in Class Feats. As will the rest of these.

I personally think limiting Class choices to only things in Class Feats when it comes to Combat Style choices like the above is a poor decision because of the silo competition. Those Feats are not iconic Class Features or Class specific in any way.

Making every archer, twf, two handed weapon, thrown weapon, etc. all exactly the same because weapons no longer have penalties does not create "deep and meaningful combat styles". And then if I choose a combat style and wish to pursue it, I have to do that at the cost of being my class (which previously in PF1 is not the case).

PF2 has done nothing to address this. This is a staple of the game. It is a choice they made. It is a real...

A separate combat/weapon feat category for martials can help, as I am also a bit worried about how animal companion feats can compete with twf ones in this game. So far the early feats are fine, since I can simply take the twin takedown feat at second level, but I wonder what will happen as more feats get added. Also, why are they called silos?

I'll be honest, pathfinder 1 does have a lot of choices, but many times, it feels like most of them are trap options that can cause players to end up feeling ineffective.

My first character was a kobold hunter that hailed from a tribe of dinosaur taming kobolds, and she had a deinonychus as her trusted companion, and she supported him with her shortbow. Unfortunately, hunter was one of the harder classes to play, and especially optimize, and it turns out that unlike the ranger, the hunter with its teamwork feats heavily favors melee combat over ranged. I managed to optimize the dino quite well, but the kobold herself really struggled to be effective.

The next was the time where I wanted to run a twf rogue that relied primarily on flanking (eventually grabbing circling mongoose), and I was wanting to take 3 lvls in shadowdancer to be able to surround people with my own moving and deadly shadow (well, shade, but still). Again, I felt like I got overshadowed, and my friends and the dm eventually wanted to go over the build with me, and we found out that it didn't really work well with the map (we were running an adventure path), that we had too many people in melee, and the shade was too squishy and punishing to use to be worth putting 3 lvls in a prestige class.

There's also the part where there are quite a few feats and spells that are literally too situational or weak to implement.

Yes, I would rather the feat chains get meshed into macro feats that scale with lvl, but I would also rather have fewer but more effective choices than having a ton of options but with the ivory tower in full-effect.

Captain Morgan wrote:

If focus is still based on Charisma that would leave the stat with a cool function sans Resonance.

I sure hope not. Classes with Focus Spells should use the stat that actually makes sense for the class. Shoehorning it all into charisma feels way too artificial to me. It's just trying to force Charisma to be relevant to everyone. But not all stats should be important for every character. Most casters don't use strength for anything, so should we add some strength based magical class features to force it to be relevant? No, it doesn't fit. The druid has that for Wild Shape, it's nonsensical and I hope will be changed back to Wisdom (but it probably won't be).

I think I'm in the minority here. But I feel that all stats shouldn't be equally relevant. The existence of dump stats isn't really a bug, but a feature. If they get out of control it can be a problem, but I don't think every character should be well rounded either. This gets into requiring the bookish introverted wizard to have social graces to not fall behind in power. The reserved, inward-focused monk also gets tossed aside in favor of strong personalities, not very zen at all. It's really a conflict between game balance and story. Sure making all stats equal is good for game balance, but it's bad for verisimilitude (at least for me). It was one of the many flaws of resonance.

While charisma doesn't make sense for some abilities, I do think strength based features should still exist for magical classes that call for it, like gish based class feats for wizards and sorcerers, and yes wild shape too (since you're still physically mauling faces off).

That being said, just like how you mentioned that not all stats should be important for every character, I think wisdom and dexterity should be less mandatory as stats so to speak. Right now (and in pathfinder 1) it feels like you need to have a positive modifier, at least in the former, to be viable for any character, not just the ones that really need them like rogues and clerics.

I like a lot of the ideas behind second edition, but after thinking about it, I think 5e style preparation would work better for the system, but if they do so, sorcerer needs some stronger abilities (whether it be stronger bloodline powers or better spellcasting feats) to distinguish themselves as specialist casters compared to the more generalist "prepared casters" who are able to adapt every night to different occasions.

I know there's a change to animal companions that allows them to still use an action even without "orders", but I want some more support for the animal companion and twf combo. One of my favorite characters was a dualwielding kobold ranger with a raptor for an animal companion, and they would essentially tag team enemies together at melee combat. I hope that build works in the final version, because while I haven't kept up with everything, what I know about the action economy of animal companion users have me worried that I'll have to stick with ranged combat to use animal companions.

I think the branching styles thing, like the brute and finesse rogues, or the different ranger fighting styles are a good direction, and should be expanded a bit, or add a part two of it, like how the part 2 of the ranger could be spell-casting or animal companions. Not sure how it could be expanded in terms of scaling though.

Scaling skill feats are a good design, and should be kept. If there has to be standalone skill feats, then they should definitely be stronger. A medicine legendary skill should be equivalent of resurrection spells, like how Asclepius using the blood of medusa to resurrect people, well, until Zeus struck him with a lightning bolt out of fear of him tampering the eternal division between humanity and the gods.

By the way, is the chirurgeon research field going to be a medic kind of alchemist, or is it going to be like the vivisectionist from pathfinder 1e?

With the idea of different paladin orders existing in the world, I think paladin being "any good", or heck, even "any law" in the case of the Hell Knights, makes more sense than every paladin being Lawful good, since "order A" would have different creeds and oaths from "order B".

Edges and techniques are something I really look forward to. All the game needs now to have me on board I think are better skills/skillfeats to boost martial narrative options.

Some people hate the idea that magical weapons are actually magical. They want them to slightly help with accuracy and add eh, a slight bit of damage.

I hated this in PF1 and earlier editions.

Even my beloved Paladin has this:

1d8+10(str x 1.5) +12(Power Attack) +3(magic weapon)

The difference between a normal sword and a supremely expensive magical weapon of great power is... 3.

1d8+25 vs 1d8+22

That is silly.

Some people hate, in PF2, that a +3 weapon would be 4d8 rather than 1d8+3

I don't understand that.

"If a commoner picked up a..."

Yes. A commoner would hit hard, but would have no chance vs the high level fighter because the commoner couldn't hit him.

In PF2 its realistic to a point. You can only do so much damage with muscles and skill. Magic is the force multiplier and I, for one, am happy.

I would rather have a martial character getting those extra weapon dice from his own growth and experience, and then have the magic part of the weapon have some powerful activation effect, like how noble phantasms worked in the Fate series, or a smaller effect for lesser magical items.

I wonder if martials like the fighter will be able to use focus for class-abilities. I think some of the "martial" spells such as Bladed Dash should've been martial abilities.

5e has less spellslots than pathfinder 1 (or heck pf2), but spell power still felt quite powerful, and some spells are stronger than their pathfinder counterparts, such as the case of invisibility (which lasts for an hour as compared to a min per cl) and hypnotic pattern (which no longer depends on enemy hd and has it's radius doubled, though it is a 3rd lvl). Granted, some of this was alleviated by ritual rules that let you cast certain utility spells without expending slots. Not to mention the cantrips compared much better to martial attacks in 5e.

Sure the math is different than in pf2e, and concentration functions differently, but I think it's a good model.

I feel balance between classes is an important aspect in tabletop games, and there are times where I am hesitant to even try some systems when it turns out some of my favorite classes are weak like how rogues were in 3.5 or how paladins are in 13th age. The ranger would be the same case too in 5e if it weren't for the revised version or the homebrewed balance fixes for said revised version.

That said, when I try to make characters for pathfinder, I usually gravitate towards 6/9 casters like the magus, the alchemist, or the eldritch scoundrel, mainly because they have a good amount of options, handle combat well, and can contribute to a variety of different challenges without overshadowing characters that specialize in handling said problems. What I want is for martials/non-casters to have that something like that too. To me, it feels like most martials in pf1 devolve into "I full-round attack" and cant contribute too well in non-combat situations.

Time has been a constraint in some of the sessions I was in, so healing for hours on in every fight wasn't something you could feasibly do. Plus, I like not having to rely on magic for effective healing. It helps give martials some more individuality. Yes, I like stamina better, but I like that the medicine skill is actually made effective right out the gate as opposed to most systems I played where it was either inefficient as a healing source, or straight up useless. I say give it a few tries.

I always thought that having the heal/medicine skill handle out of combat healing felt more organic than having it primarily done through bundles of cure light wound wands, and I'm glad that it finally has the chance to shine right out the gate.

Tholomyes wrote:

Mеkkis wrote:

The casting system in 5e tends to leave sorcerers at a massive disadvantage.

If non-spontaneous casters get this sort of thing, I'd want Sorcerers to get something massive to compensate: maybe free auto-heightening of spells, in addition to all of their spell slots able to cast their highest level spells.

Agreed with the premise. Agreed on free auto heightening. Having all their slots be highest level would vastly overpower them.

I'm not so sure that it would be overpowered. But regardless, I think that's the sort of calibre of ability that they would need to remain relevant

Paizo was trying to get rid of autoscaling on spells in pf2e, so leaving it on the sorcerer will cause them to greatly exceed other spell-casters. I rather they boosted bloodlines to a greater degree.

I played 5e, from my experience, the change was a great quality of life for prepped casters, but it made spontaneous casting a strictly inferior spell casting system to it, even though spontaneous casters could heighten their spells freely with high level slots in that system. Druids and Clerics would end up with free heightening anyways, since they have access to their whole list (including heightened versions), and I doubt wizard will be left without free heightening. You would have to give spontaneous casters some other buffs alongside "free heightening", whether it be stronger or more emphasized blood-line powers, or 5e style spell stealing for the bard (if bard needs any help that is. I'll admit, I was always more partial to the pure-caster lore bard in 5e).

I would like martials to be more versatile in and out of combat, and for legendary skills to be able to rival spells (not just the lower level spells), or do things that even spells cannot replicate. Skill unlocks were a good concept from pathfinder 1, and I think that the proficiency system should utilize that. Heck, the heal skill unlock made mundane healing much more viable in pf1.

I would like also for high level martials to not have to be arbitrarily be grounded to realism, especially since they already weren't grounded in most aspects in pf1 in terms of damage output and other aspects, like surviving lava or extreme fall damage. If they can make jumping and movement speed scale with level without breaking the game, that would be grand, but that would be a difficult task. The jet dash feat from starfinder is a cool feet, and I wish they expanded on it a bit more.

I love deeds and grit, and I like how battlemaster worked in 5e with battle maneuvers. Something with the likes of those would be a good way to expand a martial's combat flexibility beyond "I full round action" in 2e.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

No one complained about rangers in the PF1 forums, so paizo assumed that on one cared about them. And even though fighters are the kings of martials, they still complain about not being good enough. Thus, they'll get even stronger and ranger's will be the "special needs" class of the martials.

Yeah, something similar seems to have happened with the 5th Ed Ranger.

Well, it did get (un)offcial rewrite in UA.

Guess the ranger is so complex class that in every edition it need 2 or 3 prints to get out right.

Granted, it seems not a lot of groups or dms like managing exploration or do it well, so often times it tends to get glossed over, which sucks since that's generally one of the ranger's main strengths. It's either the exploration abilities are too situational and glossed over, or (in the case of the UA version of natural explorer in 5e) it is basically an auto win in exploration, which causes exploration to be handwaved in a different way.

That, and a lot of the iconic ranger abilities tend to be situational compared to other classes.

Favored enemy: Either a guessing game, you make the DM either spoil parts of his campaign, or the dm has to accommodate the situational nature of that ability. Or you just pick the typically most commonly faced enemies, such as people.

Favored terrain: Same with favored enemy, except depending on where the campaign is going, it can either change in usefulness more than enemies, or change less so.

Even the new hunt target is situational in that it's only worth it against tanky enemies that can survive numerous rounds of attacks.

I feel like they should've just allowed rangers to prepare favored enemies or terrain each night or let them swap them out fairly easily to better play into the whole wilderness warrior and hunter aspects.

I've been thinking about the two classes, and while I have always liked the idea of wilderness warriors and animal companions (particularly the latter), it feels like almost every iteration of rangers tend to fall flat in terms of mechanics or flavor, and it seems like developers in most tabletops don't usually know which direction they want the ranger to go in if they do end up as standalone classes that would allow it to stand out without overshadowing the fighter or becoming inferior to it. If it ended up getting merged with the fighter class, it could give fighters some new options and abilities that would allow it to perform well outside of combat.

I wonder if, instead of nerfing spells to how they are now, just tone down the major game/gameworld breakers a bit and push specialization of spells to a greater extent, and having you choose proficiencies for each school, then tying that to what schools you could use, and what level you can prepare them for (ie, trained for spells up to 2nd lvl, expert for up to 4th, master for up to 6th, then legendary for all of them). I'm not sure how druids and clerics would fit into the former, but it always feels like it's the sheer versatility of being able to change your powerful spells each day (or just leave em blank in-case of an unforeseen obstacle) is what causes a lot of the balance discrepancies compared to skill-usage in pathfinder.

That, and the fact that martials are too tied to "realism" at high levels, which limits the scope of what they could do outside of doing hundreds of damage. I want a high level characters to be able to do insane stuff too, like barbarians and str-monks creating passage ways by breaking walls down with their bare-hands (or at least a giant hammer in the former's case), or have the strong guy throw buildings (or his fellow melee adventurers) while raging to knock down that flying dragon.

I was always adverse towards the martial/caster imbalance, and disliked how dependent martials were on spell-casters and magic to help solve high level threats compared to spell-casters who could get away with shape-shifting or summons to fill a front-line role to some extent (with less damage probably, but still), and I disliked how martials/non-casters had less options or ways to contribute compared to a prepared spell-caster (or the latter having spells that let the mage outclass the non-casters in their own niches), especially outside of combat. Those were probably why I recently built my first caster to be a sorcerer focused on blasting, since the only role open was an arcane caster as our paladin decided to go for a hospitalier.

However, I agree with you that Paizo went too far with some of these nerfs, particularly with the more mundane utility spells. I mean, the disc and the servant are useless now. Cantrips damage is rather laughable compared to magical weapons to the point where just carrying an enchanted crossbow works better a lot of the time. I am not saying that they should rival a martial's damage, but as it is, it just breaks thematics for a wizard (unless it's the artificery kind of wizard) to be using a mechanical contraption instead of shooting energy bolts as a basic attack.

As for blast spells, the numbers are definitely lower, not just because of the lack of autoscaling, but also because of the lack of things like +1 damage per die rolled features that came from bloodline arcanas, blood havoc, or other sources. Blasting actually functions the same way in 5e as it does in 2e, but because of the concentration mechanics of 5e, I felt that blasting and control spells were balanced well, as the later typically required concentration, while the former did not most of the time, freeing the blaster up to utilize buff spells, and giving the battlefield controller some incentive for blasting (ie, while you got one horde of enemies locked down with your hypnotic pattern, you use fireball to deal with another to maintain concentration). The fact that fireball and lightning bolt's damage was inflated for their level in 5e was a nice bonus too. I am not sure pf2e accomplishes the same kind of balance between blasting and control.

I think quick preparation should have a limit of once per day, and maybe scale it to twice at mid to high lvl. From my experiences with tabletop games, while it would be inefficient to do this in the dungeon 50 times, getting a 10 minute respite or two isn't out of the ordinary to deal with problems, and in exploration periods like traveling to a different nation, it would be fairly easy to get the time to swap multiple spells out on the field.

Wizards are balanced around being able to afford to learn utility magic and being flexible enough to be able to take on numerous different occasions, but not always having the right spells prepared (or enough of the right spells), while sorcerers are balanced around being able to use the right spells more frequently, but not being able to afford utility and having to specialize. With the feat, it kinda takes away from this.

Wait, were non-magical healing resources really that unpopular? I always thought hit-dice were a great solution for extending the adventuring day, and always thought of them as less cheesy than wand of cure light wounds.

I just wish battle medic wasn't so limited. I always preferred the feel of non-magic healing in tabletop settings over the magical counterparts.

The limit is that battle medic can only affect the same target once every 24 hours (the bolstered effect).

I'm surprised that they didn't get those skills as signature skills, especially with the fighter getting some maneuvers that utilize intimidation.

I'm also bummed that the ranger doesn't get the medicine skill. That was one of my favorite skills to get on them, even if it's mostly for flavor.

Signature skills are basically the pf2e version of class skills, yet unlike the latter, signature skills are much harder to get due to lack of traits. I think backgrounds should've gave non-lore skills as well as signature skills just like how Starfinder's backgrounds gave your skills as class skills, that a fighter or ranger can take a medical background for the heal skill, or a paladin who was once a street urchin can utilize his past experience in pick pocketing and sneaking around to investigate and infiltrate a necromancer's secret lair inside a city

I like short rests. I do think they should take more time if you try to do them more than once. So maybe a 30 minute short rest the first time, 1 hour the second time, 2 hours the third time. After that you don't get any benefit and have to take a long rest.

While I like 5e's system for healing from short rests being tied to your level and your class's hit die(basically if you are lvl 5 wizard, you have 5 1d6s you can roll to heal), your suggestion sounds like a good offset for multiple short rests a day, and is more practical to prevent short rest recharge abilities (if those exist in pf2e) from being abused.

10 minute short rests actually originated in 4e dnd as far as I know. I have always liked the idea.

So far, I have seen nothing to indicate that such a mechanic is present in PF2E. If it were included in the game, I imagine that the rest would consume resonance (similar to how healing surges work in 4e, hit die work in 5e, and how resolve works in Starfinder).

I guess from that perspective, it would make sense, since resonance does sound a lot like resolve in their use outside of healing (magic item activation for the former and certain class abilities for the later).

Still, it just seems a bit strange for charisma to influence your ability to heal, even it is indirectly. I guess if it is your force of personality inspiring you and others to heal through a short rest, then maybe?