Assuming that Paizo is going to discount a subset of survey results because of the <insert demographic categories here> of the respondents is quite paranoid.
And I don't see any evidence that Hanlon's Razor would apply in this case. Collecting voluntary demographic information about your player base is eminently reasonable, and is one item that can help add nuance to the interpretation of survey results.
"Overall, player opinions were slightly negative about this change. Players under the age of 25 in general were neutral about it. Players over the age of 50 nearly universally hated it. There is a strong correlation between the age of the respondent and their opinion of this change."
vs.
"Overall, player opinions were slightly negative about this change."
Which one of these is more useful? Well, if you have a goal of not alienating your older fans, the first one is. But you can't have that particular analysis without asking about player age on the survey (you can do other potentially useful analyses from other survey questions, but you're definitely missing out on a subset of useful data).
When the world is as magical as it is and angels/devils/demons walk around in disguise and people are mind controlled or dopplegangers and so on, it seems to kind of make sense to double check anyone you're going to spend at least a few minutes with to see if you spot any illusion.
In a world where people can craft and wear disguises, and where people commit espionage and sabotage, it makes sense to double check each person carefully to spot disguises and spies. I can see how this would play out in a campaign.
The PCs go to meet the king, who desires their help in locating a possible spy ring from a rival kingdom. As they walk into the room, the PCs carefully eye up every guard, examining every square where they walk with caution. When they reach the king after several minutes, he looks slightly confused.
King: "Um, what are you doing?"
PC 1: "We can't be too careful. Your guards might be spies, or illusions, or even doppelgangers. In fact, YOU might even be a spy, or an illusion."
The whole party stares at the king intently, looking him over.
PC 2: "Yeah, and we needed to check your throne room for traps. That is, if it's really even a throne room. I rolled low on my perception checks, so I'm pretty unsure."
PC 3: "Excuse me, I need to go examine your throne."
King: Wow, I know adventurers are eccentric, but I think these guys are actually crazy."You know, uhhh, on second thought, the reason I called you here is to invite you to a fine dinner next month."
Bluff:1d20 + 4 ⇒ (4) + 4 = 8
PC 1: "He's lying! This so-called king must be an impostor! Maybe even a demon!"
PC 2: "Tell us the truth, demon, or we'll have to get rough with you! Where is the real king?!?"
PC 3 begins casting detect magic.
King (0 ranks in spellcraft): "Help! Assault! Magic!"
I've seen people recommending "emergency force sphere if you lose initiative." While emergency force sphere can give you breathing room after you've been attacked, this spell does not work before your first turn in a combat. EFS is an immediate action cast time, and you cannot use immediate actions if you are flat-footed (before you've acted in combat).
Immediate actions (CRB, p. 189) wrote:
You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.
Flat-footed (CRB glossary, p. 567) wrote:
Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation.
So if the rogue (1) wins initiative, (2) can move and attack in that round, and (3) hits, the sorcerer has to eat that damage. After that, the caster can EFS, go invisible, dimension door, or whatever else to [eventually] win the battle.
A lot of this sort of arena combat at level 9 with a relatively fixed sorcerer build (my assumption) depends on the arena TBH.
My first instinct for "when the fall should take place" is probably something like "the Paladin, once they realize what's going on, decides to slaughter everybody in Illmarsh and burn the town to the ground." Or something like that. Seems like a natural point for a righteous person to go "too far."
"This entire city just be purged! Those of you who have the will to save this land, follow me! The rest of you ... get out of my sight!"
I thought of another question: If someone has see invisibility on can they tell if a creature would otherwise be invisible? and if so, what would they look like? I imagine they would be kind of translucent or have a weird foggy outline.
It's in the spell description for see invisibility.
See invisibility wrote:
Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures.
Just standing there with whatever AC your armor gives you is enough Vs lower level opponents. Wasting an action on your turn to raise a shield just seems worthless Vs mooks
A bold statement, but one not borne out by the math.
Say a bunch (4) of lower level enemies each have a 20% chance to hit you (hits on 17-20). Raising your shield (for a heavy shield) lowers that to a 10% chance, reducing your expected damage input by ~50% (neglecting crits). The ability to shave damage off of one of their attacks makes that even better.
Additionally, some classes (Fighter) have feats that allow you to reactively Shield Block. Thus, you can spend all of your actions on offense and save defense for a reaction (granted, this can compete with other uses of your reaction). Furthermore, since the trigger to that feat is "an enemy succeeds or critically succeeds against you with a melee Strike," you don't have to use it if the enemy would have missed you.
Male CG Medium Elf, Investigator (Empiricist) 1/Swashbuckler (Inspired Blade 1) | HP 16/17|AC 16 14T 12FF|CMB +2 CMD 16 / 12 Fl|F +2, R +8, W +2 (+2 vs ench., immune Sleep)|Init +4|Perc +5 SM +5 (+7 hunch) |Spd 30'|Senses: L-LV| Insp. 3/6 | Panache 4/4 | Conditions:
@Yngvilda - thank you for moving my token. I did not apply a flanking bonus on my attacks because elementals are not subject to flanking (though I'm not sure that Galandram knows this).
While your concerns are near and dear to my heart Edge, I must respectfully disagree with your proposed solution. Clearly, we should be using SI naming schemes here to match PF2E's very timely switch to meters, centigrade, and kilograms in update v1.7. I suggest the following weapon names:
Greatsword -> Megasword
Longsword -> Kilosword
Shortsword -> Sword
Dagger -> Millisword
It'd be far more simple and elegant.
I wholeheartedly endorse this suggestion. It will also make unit conversions between weapons much easier.
In the old system, it was very challenging to say how many daggers there were in one greatsword. But in the new system, we can very easily say that there are 1 billion milliswords in one megasword.
Its a range increment. So you can throw a bomb at something 20 or less away at no penalty, 25-40 is a -2, 45-60 is a -4, etc.
That being said: Explosive Missile, Far Shot, etc.
Distance Thrower can also be useful, especially combined with Far Shot (NB: you need the 13 str to qualify for the feat). Combined, you have no penalty up to 40' range, can hit an enemy at 60' range with a -1 (rather than a -4), and can hit an enemy at 100' range with a -3 (rather than -8).
Looks like a lot of people couldn't do like the OP asked, and focus on positive experiences in the thread.
"Don't you straw man me!"
"No, it's you who straw manned me first!"
There's definitely been some derailing, but the signal to noise ratio is a lot better than I feared it would be. I've seen lots of interesting posts, and also feel like I'm getting some gradual insight into those posters who said they never felt awesome (which is sad).
Hoping we continue to get some interesting reports!
When in the playtest did your characters feel helpless or frustrated? When did you think: "This sucks. My character is super weak and useless?"
How many of these moments did you have? Did you feel that the PF2 ruleset specifically hindered your character? And as you played through the playtest, did you adapt your style to become more effective?
So the formal Pathfinder 2.0 Playtest has largely been completed at this point, and Paizo is sitting on a bunch of data from playtest surveys and other sources. Data is great. I love data! But right now, I'm more interested in personal anecdotes. Specifically, I'm hoping people are willing to discuss the following question:
When in the playtest did your character pull off a victory or accomplish a feat and think: "This is awesome! My character is a total badass!"?
How many of these moments did you have? And did you feel that the PF2 ruleset did anything to enable them, or would you have been able to do it just as well (or better) in PF1?
I've created a sister thread for this one, for negative experiences in the playtest (linked), so I hope you will please focus this thread on positive experiences (if any) you had in the playtest.
I myself have gotten very little chance to try out the playtest (though I've read the rules fairly extensively) because of real-life scheduling commitments and the lack of a group that wanted to do so. The one adventure I got to play (The Rose Street Revenge) I really enjoyed. But that's low level, and fairly limited in scope. So I'm really curious to hear from those with more direct experience.
Either way, pretty much all Adventure Paths would work as an anime series without really changing anything about them. Heck pathfinder mechanics, whether at higher or lower levels, aren't out of the place either.
That's true, but lots of anime wouldn't work as Adventure Paths. Then again, lots of anime wouldn't work as other anime.
If Spike in Cowboy Bebop suddenly started screaming and powered up, then launched an energy beam from his buttocks that destroyed the planet that Vicious was on, that doesn't fit in the story.
Similarly, in Assassination Classroom, people who aren't Koro-sensei don't randomly fly around at Mach 5.
In Death Note, it would be pretty stupid if Light could punch so hard that it parted the clouds from Japan to India.
In Neon Genesis Evangelion, Shinji (or any of the other Eva pilots, or any human) can't kill Angels barehanded because of the intense physical training they've undergone.
deuxhero wrote:
I seriously wonder if people who claim something is "too anime" can name more than Dragon Ball (Z), Pokemon, Sailor Moon and maybe Gundam and Yu-gi-oh.
"Too anime" is a kludgy way to put it, but the idea it's getting across is reasonable. For any fantasy world, you want a set of rules that the world obeys. People who complain about options being "too anime" are generally complaining about over the top options that break the laws of physics without a reasonable in-universe explanation.
Hence, I highly doubt that many would complain about options from The Ancient Magus' Bride showing up in Pathfinder. Similarly, the world of Black Clover probably wouldn't bother them (outside of magic, people behave as expected). Neither would (I suspect) giving characters the physical abilities of people from Danmachi, Darker Than Black, or (for a non-fantasy) Attack on Titan, or Samurai Champloo, or Code Geass.
But people don't come on the forums advocating that. They want their non-magical characters to have the abilities of characters from Hunter x Hunter (actually, probably too low power), or One Piece (probably also too low power), or Bleach, or One Punch Man (Saitama's power level, from what I can tell, is one of the major running jokes in the series, but hey, let's ignore that). It's major Power Fantasy stuff. Stand on the air just because I'm badass. Slice through spacetime with my sword and teleport where I want to because I can swing my sword so hard. Blow away mountains when I parry your attack because I've become so powerful (in fact, I'm now so powerful that you can no longer sense my reiatsu and don't realize how outclassed you are!). Destroy a city by punching it. Catch a lightning bolt with my teeth and use it to lasso a tornado, which I then turn into my mount.
People react to that and say "it's too anime!" And they're simultaneously wrong and right to do so.
Me personally, I want non-magical classes to have some grounding in the physics of the real world, though they don't have to be rigorously tied to it. I don't, for example, want a Fighter to be able to pick up two towers and swing them around as weapons, decimating entire armies. Nor do I think a Fighter should be able to Leap from Varisia to Absalom in a single bound. But hey, that just proves my closed-mindedness and lack of vision (and that I want to screw over Fighters), right?
No. You're an intelligent biped. If you have a dagger in your teeth, would you try to stab someone with it or simply drop it from your mouth and bite as hard as possible?
Obviously by raw, there is nothing saying it can do this to begin with, but if you look closely, we aren’t in the Rules Questions forum, rather, we are in the General Discussion forum. So would you find it believable for an intelligent quadruped to wield a weapon in its mouth?
Disney movies aside, No. Though to be fair, I also wouldn't find it believable for an intelligent biped to wield a weapon in its mouth. I have nothing in particular against quadrupeds.
Also consider reading the HOW TO PLAY PLAY-BY-POST section in the Campaign Info section of The Flaxseed Lodge (PbP Lodge for Pathfinder Society) for very useful basics on how to participate in a PbP game.
This adventure centers around the town of Saringallow in the region of Isger. Isger is a vassal state of Cheliax located between the merchant Kalistocracy of Druma to the northeast, the parliamentary democracy Andoran to the southeast, and infernal Cheliax to the southwest. Saringallow is a large predominantly human town, located on the Conerica River, south of Isger's capital of Elidir. It is governed by Mayor Sandra Trinelli.
You begin this adventure in the town of Saringallow, have answered a call for assistance from Mayor Trinelli, whether for more altruistic or mercenary reasons.
A barbarian can Rage for 3 rounds with no penalties
Every round past the 3rd round, the Barbarian deals scaling lethal damage to themselves to stay in Rage (the exact numbers and scaling would be balanced, but exponential scaling would act as a soft limiter - something like 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 ...)
After the rage ends, you are fatigued for 1 round.
I doubt Paizo would implement it, but (A) it gives the player a choice over how long they keep raging, (B) it creates a tradeoff between keeping your rage going and (eventually) taking an unsustainable amount of damage, and (C) I like the flavor of a character that can literally push themselves past what their body can handle.
For example, at a certain party where the PCs weren't supposed to cast spells, a PC insisted on casting Detect Magic anyway. I suggested that someone in the crowds he was mingling in might notice and give him a quick dig in the ribs to remind him he wasn't supposed to do that.
You can immediately guess what the problem with that was. As the player said, "If he could do that, he'd have an AoO'.
Anyone else had similar problems? I think these need to be looked at carefully.
The problem is not a lack of AoO, it's a contentious player. Antagonistic RAW-happy players will cause problems in PF1 or PF2. In PF1, everyone gets to make AoO, which sounds good and all, but a motivated player could still make arguments against this very scenario in the PF1e Ruleset (AoOs and all):
(1) You (normally) can't make AoO unarmed. Therefore, the person in the crowd can't make an AoO to give him a quick "dig in the ribs."
(2) You can't make AoO outside of combat. Therefore, you need to roll initiative, and (since the Wizard always goes first) the person in the crowd doesn't have Combat Reflexes, and therefore can't make the AoO because he's still flat-footed while the Wizard is casting.
(3) The person in the crowd cannot give a nudge in the ribs, because making an attack that deals no damage is not defined in the rules [going off of memory on this one, but I suspect that's true].
(4) If the person in the crowd somehow has Improved Unarmed Strike and Combat Reflexes AND if we houserule that the person in the crowd can make an AoO that doesn't deal damage, there was not enough damage dealt to interrupt the spell and it still goes off.
(5) [if all else fails] He was going to cast defensively, so there is no AoO. You're not the boss of him, and your NPC can't nudge him.
As a GM, I'd suggest telling him that Rule 0 lets the NPC nudge him in the ribs, and that it's not an attack. There's no mechanical effect, and it would not interrupt the spell, but if he continues casting he'll deal with the RP consequences.
But the real issue is whether the challenges get harder because you are attempting harder things or just because you are gaining levels. In the latter case, the treadmill is too obvious and strains the suspension of disbelief.
The recent Treat Wounds update is an example of the latter option -- the skill DC is based on the healer's level, for no apparent good reason.
The motivation for the scaling DC seems obvious to me. A higher level character heals more HP than a lower level character. Assuming a party of six, with an average CON bonus of +3, a level 1 character will heal 3*1*6 = 18 HP on a successful Treat Wounds (54 HP on a critical success). A level 15 character will heal 3*15*6 = 270 HP on a successful treat wounds (810 HP on a critical success).
Now I think the way it is implemented right now is a bit inelegant and could be improved quite a bit. I feel like the DC could be based on the number of HP the target is missing, rather than character level, which would potentially model being able to patch up minor wounds more easily with higher level. But I don't pretend that such a system wouldn't have its own potential problems.
If you want to play your foes all as ruthless beasts, that is a call you can make. I am not sure that is a play style I find palatable, but if that is what you and your group enjoy, then more power to you. As for wether or not your reports are valid, your surveys are a part along with everyone else's. You are one extreme.. and that is ok. Our spreadsheets account for that.
Your playtest results are valid, but to be honest, I am not sure I am going to making any significant changes to the game based on a rather harcore approach to NPC tactics.
Could you please clarify what you mean? The playtest results are valid and are taken into consideration along with everyone else's results, and yet no significant changes will be made based on any results that stem from an extreme GMing style?
How is it possible that results can be valid, yet not taken into consideration for changing the game? How would Paizo even discern if a given set of survey results stemmed from a hardcore GMing style?
They won't discern it directly. You'll just be part of an extremely small subpopulation of high kill-rate GMs that won't affect the overall statistics of the group.
When the overall lethality of the game is where the designers are happy with it, and 0.02% of players has a nearly 100% TPK rate, you're probably looking at a statistical outlier.
Expecting a change in that case is a bit like expecting car makers to limit the top speed of a car to 80 MPH because some people like to floor the accelerator and then crash when they can't control the car.
An average Pathfinder human clocks in at 12.5 feet per second for each stride action they take. This means they move at roughly 8.5 mph, which is pretty much on the nose. A monk will eventually outstrip an Olympion, and wizards can do ridiculous things from level 1 (an elf that casts fleet step has a 60 foot movement speed, striding at over 20 mph.
Neat! I can dig the average well equipped adventurer having a combat speed about even with what the average person can do in a sprint while carrying nothing.
8.5 MPH is a pretty easy pace for a runner (7 minute mile). Definitely not a sprint.
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was in high school, the 40 yard dash times (by students) were under 5 seconds. That would be an (unencumbered) PF2 speed faster than 48' (which also accounts somewhat for acceleration, though not for deceleration).
Given that combat movement involves things like "dodging arrows and fireballs," I have no problem with the more sedate 25' movement speed for heroes.
As far as the OP goes though -- is it common to envision movement in combat in PFNe as walking? That seems to be at the core of the post (calculation Usain Bolt's speed aside). I've never thought of characters in combat walking around the battlefield, as it just seems very counter-intuitive. Am I in the minority here?
I have to be careful even mentioning Warcraft on these boards, but like it or not, Warcraft is one of the most iconic sources of Paladins that exists. The Warcraft III paladins had healing, a defensive aura, and a mass resurrection ability. Their healing ability could harm undead etc like Lay on Hands. Not much offensive focus there.
Someone already mentioned the Retribution Paladin, which is meant to deal a lot of damage.
Pandora's was talking about Warcraft 3's Paladins, Ret Pallies are from WoW.
Ret Pallies also (A) didn't really do bonus damage against evil enemies, and (B) generally (through the end of Cataclysm, when I stopped playing) didn't top the raid DPS charts. "Dealing a lot of damage" just meant "getting in the ballpark with everyone else." Their contributions to a raid were more in the form of some utility while also doing respectable DPS ... similar to what Pandora's is describing.
Speaking of signature skills, the wizard multiclass feat Expert Wizard Spellcasting requires master in Arcana. How can you get that if you can't make Arcana a signature skill?
Wizard Dedication makes Arcana a signature skill for you.
Well you can CLEARLY see how much more exciting casting a healing spell is to using a healing wand... ;P
One option involves tactical use of daily resources by a character, and the other involves spamming a wand at no real cost. I know which one is more interesting to me.
But was one EXCITING and the other BORING? Not to me, neither one is either one. "tactical use of daily resources" isn't wildly interesting/exciting in an out of combat sense when all you are doing is shifting resources. If you could trade a spell for ki, would using it be nail biting, edge of your seat excitement? To me, it's up there with the thrill of counting arrows, rations and spell components. :P
To me, the use of finite resources is one of the most interesting (and enjoyable) parts of a pen and paper RPG. Do I burn this spell slot on a buff (or debuff) or save it for healing? Do I use Smite Evil now, or save it for later? Can I bluff (or negotiate) my way through this encounter, and conserve combat resources? Can I come up with an unexpected solution to avoid having to fight this army head-on, saving resources for killing the Big Bad?
Most classes have to manage resources in one way or another. A whole party doing so effectively can be the difference between clearing a dungeon in one go and having to stop and rest every 3 rooms (which I find both tedious and immersion breaking, for a variety of reasons).
To me, pushing past the expected limits of a group is exciting. Scraping by when most parties would be burned out, and then surviving by the skin of your teeth as you kill the boss is a great feeling.
Of course, you can take this idea too far in one direction or the other. Really heavy survival / attrition games can be a drag and can lead to death spirals.
But the extreme of the other direction would be where you no longer have to worry about resources outside of a single combat. HP/MP and abilities/spells automatically refresh after combat, and are available for every combat. Now, daily resource management is no longer a thing. And that can be a fine system -- I've played Dragon Age, and I enjoyed it. But it's not what I'm looking for in a TTRPG.
Well you can CLEARLY see how much more exciting casting a healing spell is to using a healing wand... ;P
One option involves tactical use of daily resources by a character, and the other involves spamming a wand at no real cost. I know which one is more interesting to me.
I think the thing about the anathemas of the various orders is that the order which gives you the most power over a thing also expects you to use those powers most responsibly when dealing with that thing.
So a Leaf druid can make it snow in the Sahara desert, a Wild druid can kick every puppy she sees, an Animal Druid can cut down every tree in the forest, and a Storm Druid can enjoy every vice civilization has to offer, but a Storm, Animal, Leaf, and Wild druid respectively cannot do those things.
Since no feats are order-locked (you just get extra benefits with them if you have the right order) this is just a "Great Power = Great Responsibility" thing.
That's good insight on the way the orders work.
It would also be insightful to see that some people don't want it to work that way. Me included.
And that other people, like me, feel it's both thematically appropriate and a light burden in terms of normal roleplaying.
I think perception, stealth, persuasion, intimidate, survival and craft are all things a fighter would realistically get better at over time without even needing to be an adventurer - just existing in an army or as a guard makes those things you would get a lot of experience at.
I don't agree with this. Say you have someone that guards the back garden gate of an estate. That entrance rarely gets used so it's mostly a formality. She's happy to sit there alone and read trashy romance novels for her shift.
And she doesn't level up, because she's just sitting around doing shift work.
PCs don't generally level up by sitting around and guarding things. They go on adventures. Adventures, as a rule, expose you to a lot of new challenges and environments. It's eminently reasonable that surviving those challenges and environments would give you broad competence in a number of areas, even if only from seeing others in action and then imitating them.
I'm sure that there's a counterexample we could find of a character who got up to level 10 by going into the woods and killing thousands of boars [or whatever other boring method of leveling up we want], but I feel that's really a rarity in Pathfinder.
I love the conversation about Stealth and "specialists vs. untrained [incompetent]" in PF1e. It seems people have a significantly different experience with Stealth in PF1e than I do.
My personal experience is that Stealth "specialization" usually works out one of two ways in PF1e.*
The Rogue goes off alone to scout/sneak/steal/burgle, because someone in the party is incompetent at stealth. The Rogue eventually fails a Stealth check while far from the party, and then is brutally murdered, without the party realizing it.
The party, gun-shy from losing the previous three Rogues to solo scouting expeditions, declares that the Rogue must stick with the party. Scouting is done by the Wizard's familiar, or not at all. Stealth seldom gets used.
I've seen this dynamic cause plenty of consternation among people who want to play a stealthy character. PF2e changing this dynamic is one of the things I'm tentatively excited about.
Also, I could easily have a Fighter who spent 20 levels practicing moving Stealthily in PF1e, and who is still terrible at it. She could literally attempt to Stealth every time it was thematically appropriate. She's just been a bumbling idiot for 20 levels, and never got better at it, because she never sought out training. I don't find this dynamic super appealing, and I don't think it models the way learning works in the real world.
Greater penalties to multiple attacks on top of the penalty for multiple attacks when they are accessible? Forcing a cookie-cutter archetype that, while some might find appealing, does not allow for flexible builds that are beyond the scope envisioned?
As with TOZ, I'm not sure what you mean by "greater penalties." Ranger gets reduced penalties to multiple attacks.
Also, everything I've seen from day 1 of these PF2e blogs indicates that you will have far greater flexibility in terms of your class build than you had in PF1e, because of modular class design (you get to choose most of your class abilities through Class Feats). I'm not sure how this forces a cookie cutter archetype, and suspect there is a lot more flexibility here due to general class design than what you are seeing.
While the article does kind of describe the objectives, it was rather unclear to me how these were to be reached as they seemed to have nothing to do with each other or the mechanic presented.
Part of the problem, I think, may have come from misunderstanding the world-building bit as referring to GMs building their own worlds. The problem, of course, being that each world is unique and any categories created will be too arbitrary. Maybe something 'Common' on Golarion is 'Rare' on my homebrew world or vice-versa and if I have to go over the lists and redefine every spell, item, and weapon based on how appropriate it is to the milieu I'm in the exact same boat that I was in PF1.
If you take it as making it easier for the Paizo folks to organize splatbooks on the different regions of Golarion I suppose I can see some utility.
I've noticed this too, PF2 seems to be less user friendly for homebrew games.
Actually, that would be "equally or more friendly" than PF1e, almost by definition.
What's the highest workload scenario? You need to go through feats, spells, and items one by one and determine what is an is not available. That's the same as PF1e.
For homebrew, you also have the option to ignore rarity tags altogether. That's equivalent to just running with "anything goes" in PF1e.
You also have the option of taking the default rarity from the PF2e rulebook, and only modifying a few things (or classes of things). That's far less work than PF1e to get a complete set of "how available is this," while still allowing some customization. So that's a net win compared with PF1e.
So "equally or more friendly" than PF1e to homebrewing.
@Darkorin, I missed your edits before I posted, and certainly don't want to put words in your mouth; however, I also don't agree that the devs are employing faulty logic here. I suspect, in fact, that they're speaking both from possibilities and from what they saw in internal playtests. That suggests to me that the starting assumptions of your logical chain may not be 100% accurate.
Darkorin wrote:
Thing is, you're ignoring the point that the sorcerer will become the default group-magic-item user of the group, which means that this is a burden he has to take for the whole group.
I see little reason for this to be the case. I expect that almost any group with a sorcerer could also get by with a wizard. That means they don't "need" the extra resonance that a sorcerer brings to the table. I don't expect that a sorcerer will have to act as a "Resonance battery" for other classes in PF2e any more than a wizard had to act as a "buff battery" for other classes in PF1e. If individual players choose to, then one could argue they're bringing a competitive advantage to their groups compared with a wizard.
Assuming that a sorcerer does not "need" to contribute more to communal uses of Resonance than a wizard does (which is dependent on the culture of the individual table), a sorcerer can invest in more items (probably using multiple lower cost items with different abilities) than a wizard. A sorcerer can use those items more times through the course of the day than a wizard. A sorcerer can invest Resonance in more staves than a wizard (potentially Investing in multiple lower level staves than a wizard). A sorcerer can use more scrolls when necessary than a wizard.
TLDR: You are assuming that all or most of a sorcerer's extra resonance will get dumped into the "party pool" and cannot be used for items. I think that while certain groups might want this, it is by no means a guarantee.
I will say, it's also unclear to me what the process for acquiring/purchasing new spells is in PF2e, as well as the rules for scribing a scroll. Thus, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to assume that a wizard will have any spells they need and a sorcerer will not (it may be reasonable, but we have to see magic item availability and crafting/scroll scribing rules in more detail than we have). I do think that a wizard will probably be more careful with spending their Resonance points than a sorcerer, and may think twice about activating especially low level scrolls that a sorcerer wouldn't have to worry about.
As the devs themselves said before: my playtest group never really hit hard against the resonance caps, even the ones with lower Charisma. (From Mark Seifter), which means that sorcerers having an edge thanks to their charisma is plainly false, and even the designers should know it
Alternative interpretation: Wizard players didn't go with consumable/use heavy builds, because they didn't want to blow through their Resonance in the first fight. Thus, they never hit hard against Resonance caps because they made reasonable choices. Sorcerers had more freedom in their item builds, and this is reflected in Dev comments
Pros: we don't have to assume the devs are incompetent or lying.
Cons: we have to assume playtesters behaved in a certain way
From every fluff perspective, excluding weapons from resonance does seem counterintuitive. I would have added 1 to resonance and say you have to invest them all, though it might be that you are supposed to have a few (magical) weapons that can be deployed according to need.
I'm for anything that allows martials to move away from the "one true weapon" phenomenon in PF1e, even if it seems counterintuitive.
Also, does making weapons cost resonance this mean that a two-weapon fighter with a ranged weapon needs to invest 3 points of resonance? What if they're using magical ammunition? Does that need 4 points? 1 additional point for each arrow (budgeted at the beginning of the day)? Got an alternate weapon (maybe a magical light mace or something for overcoming DR or exploiting a weakness)? Okay, that's at least 5 points . . . It could get ugly in a hurry.
The result: "I use a single two-handed weapon and don't have a magical ranged backup."
The alternatives, such as "you can invest all of your weapons for 1 point of resonance" are similarly counterintuitive and would also cause wailing and gnashing of teeth on the forums.
Medicine in PF2E requires at least two proficiency bumps (Untrained->Trained->Expert) and a skill Feat (Assurance) just to make it so that you can stabilize dying people 100% of the time (or remove their bleed, but not both). But then, you have the stabilize cantrip which does the same thing, automatically (no idea about stopping bleed effects though). So the mundane option requires a much bigger investment than the spell option, which means you're back to where we were earlier with needing a someone specced just for healing to adventure. That or getting a positive energy cleric. Which is not something you should strive for.
Two proficiency bumps, one of which can come from your background, and a feat? You and I have different definitions of "someone specced for healing."
Maybe it's just me, but I don't find the idea that a party that spent some in-character resources on healing should have an easier time than one that didn't.
Similarly, a group that includes options for battlefield control will generally have an easier time than one that doesn't, and a group with good options for social skills will also have a better time than one that doesn't.
As long as it's "some resources from some characters" (aka a secondary role) and not "all resources from a single character, and that character is useless for anything else," (aka a primary role) I have no problem at all with PF2e rewarding groups that bring HP / status / ability healing to the table.
I feel the time reduction is the most drastic change to TDW, and it will have a major impact on combat as it allows mundanes to heal great chunks of their HP during encounters.
Frankly, I'm surprised this feat isn't locked behind a prerequisite of Channel Energy +3d6, an alignment of good, and two feat taxes.
In fact, a background [pirate] is more archetypal that the archetype is as everyone that has it gets the same set of abilities.
I feel that's a real misuse of the term. Of course, what makes something an "archetype" of anything is open to debate IRL, and there is always opinion and judgment involved.
Let's look at your example though. Since we don't know what it does, let's assume for the second that the Pirate background gives you:
Two ability boosts.
The fictional "Rope Climber" skill feat
Training in the Piracy Lore skill.
which is pretty similar to other backgrounds.
So you have two characters:
One is good at climbing ropes (useful on ships), and knows a few things about piracy.
The other knows how to sail, can move and balance effortlessly on a ship as it pitches in the sea, knows how to use a hatchet, scimitar, and spear, and is amazing at acrobatics. As they continue to advance, they also get better at swimming and learn to board enemy ships with great success.
Your claim is that the first is a better typical example of a pirate in a fantasy game than the second? It's a bit like claiming that the very archetype of a soldier is ... anyone who's completed basic training, because all soldiers have done that.
It's all just names to learn, so not sure that it matters over much but for me if they act the same way I'd prefer a unified naming convention.
I mean calling class feats 'talents', or skill feats 'fortes' (for example) just gives me more stuff to memorise for no good purpose.
'x-feat' means I know how it works (it's a feat) and I know what it...
Except they don't act the same. At all. General feats act like normal feats, class feats are class-locked and aren't interchangeable with general feats, skill feats are locked to specific levels unless you're a Rogue, and archetype and prestige class feats are class feats that replace other class feats but might also be general feats under certain circumstances?
Plus consider this from the perspective of a new player. Instead of a Rogue getting FEATS every odd level and TALENTS every even level (which is easy to keep distinct), they get FEATS every single level, except they have to alternate between two completely separate lists of feats.
Rogues get FEATS at every odd level and TALENTS at every even level.
Barbarians get FEATS at every odd level and RAGE POWERS at every even level. Of course, they can also spend FEATS to get extra RAGE POWERS, and many do. They get gradually increasing DR/- every three levels, starting at seventh level.
Fighters get FEATS at every odd level, and a FIGHTER BONUS FEATS or COMBAT FEATS at every even level.
Paladins get FEATS at every odd level, and MERCIES at every third level. MERCIES modify the class ability LAY ON HANDS, which Paladins get a second level.
Wizards get FEATS at every odd level, and WIZARD BONUS FEATS (METAMAGIC FEATS, ITEM CREATION FEATS, or SPELL MASTERY FEATS) at every fifth level.
Rangers get FEATS at every odd level, and COMBAT STYLE FEATS at second level, and then after every additional four levels.
Bard gets FEATS at every odd level, VERSATILE PERFORMANCE starting at second level, and every four levels thereafter, and ... something else different pretty much every level, unless we start breaking down Inspire Courage / Competence / Greatness.
Cleric gets FEATS every odd level, and increasing CHANNEL ENERGY dice at every odd level. Oh, and they get DOMAIN POWERS at first level and usually eighth level, but sometimes at other levels, depending on the domain.
This, of course, doesn't count the profusion of other class abilities that don't follow this pattern.
Seems easy enough. I'm not sure why Paizo would think that every class getting GENERAL FEATS, CLASS FEATS, and SKILL FEATS at defined intervals would be easier for new players to pick up.
I should add, the playtest is the perfect place to check these out and see the relative power compared with class feats. If people find that characters built with archetypes typically underperform those built with class feats, I'm sure that would be very useful feedback for the devs.
Of course, if you're playing a pirate in an urban/high society intrigue campaign in a landlocked city-state, you're unlikely to get to use some of these abilities. So caveat emptor.
Dedication feats seem quite like a feat tax to play an archetype. Pirate dedication doesnt quite have the same power as the class feats it would replace, do the further archetypes feats make up the difference? At face value here it seems archetype players will be set back in power level a bit than a base class player.
Considering that the Dedication feat adds a signature skill, in addition to its other benefits, I'm not sure that it's really underpowered. Signature skills are (as far as I understand) required to take a skill to Legendary proficiency, which gates a number of the most powerful skill feats. People have been wondering about ways to get additional signature skills, and the Pirate archetype chain offers at least two of them (Acrobatics and Athletics). Not too shabby IMO.
For myself, I like the design, don't think it looks at all underpowered, and plan to use the heck out of it on characters I build.
CG male human (Chelaxian) Bard 3|HP 21/21 |AC 15(16) Tch 13 FF 12(13) (+1 shield bonus from buckler)|F 2 R 6 W 2 (+4 vs. bardic perf., lang. dep., sonic, +1 when not on material plane) |CMD 16| Perc +5 | Init +4 | +1 darkwood comp. shortbow (+6, 1d6+2/×3, P, 70' range) | cold iron dagger (+3, 1d4+1/19-20×2)
consumables:
Bardic performance 8/10, wand of CLW 44/50, cold iron arrows 35, Spells: 0th - Any, 1st - 4/(4/day)
If the family decides they want to hear a tale, Marcus regales them (and any of the group who wish to listen) with the tale of the Princess Isinia and the shepherd Ignus, from the golden age of the Taldan empire. This happens AFTER any necessary discussion, after dinner, and before bed.
The tale:
"The Princess Isinia, of the Taldan empire, fell in love with the shepherd she met while traveling anonymously and alone through the countryside. Isinia was a free spirit, and liked to get away from the court, and see the country without a bevy of retainers separating her from the people. She would often slip out of the palace, alone and disguised, and mingle with the people in the capital, or even travel to the countryside, riding along the River Porthmos.
One day, the Princess Isinia was riding swiftly along the banks of the river, when her horse pulled up lame, throwing her from the saddle. She struck her head on a rock, and slid into the river, and that might have been the end for her. Luckily, Ignus, a sharp-eared shepherd in a nearby field, heard her cry out when she was thrown and ran to investigate.
Seeing a body face down in the river, he immediately plunged into the broad river, and pulled her safely to the bank. When he realized that she still lived, he placed her on his shoulders, as he would one of his sheep, and carried her back to where he had his pack, leading her horse as well. He bound up her wounds and laid her on his bedroll, keeping vigil over her until she woke.
Surprised and disoriented at waking up surrounded by sheep and with a bandage on her head, Isinia soon realized that the shepherd had saved her from drowning and had cared for her wounds, though he did not recognize her as royalty. She gratefully thanked him, and even offered him a generous reward for doing so. Ignus, however, would have no reward, insisting that he had only done what any decent person would have. Intrigued by his kindness and his honesty, she asked him if she could at least give him her greetings when she passed through the area next, to which he agreed.
She took first one, and then many, rides to see him, slipping out of the city in disguise, as she often did. They often talked, and talked at great length, growing closer over time. Soon their friendship turned to infatuation, and she even revealed to him her true identity, with many apologies for keeping it secret for so long. Eventually, rumors began to spread throughout the region of the princess and her secret trips to see her lover, a peasant.
The local viscount, hoping to curry favor with her father the emperor, arranged to have the shepherd slain by bandits. The bandits, however, seeing an opportunity, decided to capture him instead, and blackmail the princess with threats to his safety.
Knowing that her father would order the death of both the bandits and the shepherd, Isinia decided to take his fate into her own hands. Aided by some skill in illusion and enchantment, she ensorcelled the viscount, who revealed to her location of the bandit camp.
Under the cover of night, she stole into the bandits' camp, again aided by her magical skills. In the final room, however, as she had found Ignus and set to work freeing him from his bonds, the leader of the bandits burst in to torture Ignus, furious at the lack of a response from his threats and blackmail. Realizing that someone was in the room, he soon found Isinia's location, despite her illusions. Hoping to catch him by surprise, she released her glamer, lunging to plunge a dagger into the leader's chest. With the reflexes of a cat, however, he avoided the worst of her blow, and caught her dagger arm. Seeing the princess herself appear before his eyes, he was overjoyed, and his black heart overflowed with greedy and wicked thoughts. Despite her skill with magic, and her fierce defense, he swiftly overpowered her, and things would have then gone poorly for her.
Ignus the shepherd, however, seeing his beloved fall to a vicious assault, found great strength welling up inside of himself, as a blinding rage flowed through his veins. He burst the bonds that Isinia had weakened, and grabbing him mightily, slew the bandit, laying him low. Exhausted from his sudden exertion and his harsh treatment at the hands of the bandits, he would have lain down and given up hope, knowing that they could not possibly escape from the midst of their enemies.
The princess then saved them both, covering them in shadow and illusion, and leading them to safety, through the alerted camp. Knowing fully that they could never be together in Taldor, they fled the country, and took to a life of wandering and adventuring together, knowing that they would be happy as long as they were together, and trusting in each other and in luck, for aid and comfort.
In time, they became heroes of renown, she as a great and powerful mage, and an unmatched illusionist, and he as a peerless warrior, known as an unstoppable berserker in battle. They traveled widely, and performed many great deeds, and though history does not record where or how they passed from this world, they surely passed from it as they lived in it, together.
Perform:Oratory:
Perform:Oratory:1d20 + 7 ⇒ (14) + 7 = 21 Hope you enjoyed the story. It's surprisingly hard to find stories about non-current heroes in Pathfinder, so I ... made that one up. Let's assume, based on the die roll, that Marcus delivers it much more skillfully and in greater detail than I wrote it. :-) As appropriate for effect, Marcus will use ghost sound to create ambiance for the story, and his last casting of silent image to generate an illusion of the two heroes at some point, if the family is okay with some minor magic to aid in the story.
Given how conditions work, I feel having a cleric or bard in the party may be helpful. Debuffs on the enemies and buffs on party may be even more valuable than in PF1.
Heaven knows, I love me some bard in a party. And cleric is pretty great as well.
Note that even traditional martial classes seem to be able to inflict conditions on enemies at times. In the Crypt of the Everflame preview (Glass Cannon Podcast), the paladin's Retributive Strike was applying Enfeebled 1 (2 on a crit) if it hit.
Crit specialization on weapons also has the potential to add conditions. Monks who critically hit with unarmed attacks may be able to apply the Slowed 1 condition on a crit,* which is huge.
I'm sure there are other options; we just need to see them.
--
*with Brawling Focus at level 4
@Secret Wizard I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Most or all of that "design" are indeed "legacy" design issues, and most of them should not be transferred to the new edition. There is a lot of agitation on the forums, however, advocating for keeping the status quo, however, and this risks dragging legacy issues into the new edition.
There is a potential for meaningful differentiation between a fighter and a monk, and for the monk to occupy a fun and unique design space. I can think of a number of ways you could differentiate the two, and the set you described seems like one reasonable version.
Comments from those who have done internal playtesting (Ssalarn and Mark Seifter, both of whom seem to be very honest posters) indicate that the monk does good damage, and can be defensively strong, with specifics depending on how the monk is built. That's the first test I think any class has to pass, and it sounds like they're accomplishing it.
The second test is the "does this feel like a monk" test. We have an unarmored combatant, who is mobile, deals good damage, and has good defenses. This combatant has a variety of combat stances, flying kicks, special punches, the ability to run up vertical walls, deflect arrows, and even has the option to have other fully mystical abilities. By default, the combatant uses unarmed strikes, and is very effective with them; he or she can also use monastic weapons from the first level, with some character resource investment.
To me, this sounds very much like a "monk," and very different from the fighter preview we saw, which makes me happy. Out of combat, I'm hoping there is similar distinction between the two classes, but that the distinction is not just "monk gets a big advantage, and fighter gets nothing" that my original comment was based on.
I personally think that adding mystical abilities to the baseline of the monk goes against the overall "modular" design that PF2e seems to be embracing. I do think that monk having access to mystical abilities that (for example) fighter lacks is a great distinction, and one I wholeheartedly support. That being said, I myself would be more likely to play the class if I have the option to avoid ki powers and spellpoints, and I am happy that seems to be the default.
If non-combat abilities are being quarantined into skill feats, I hope monks get more skill feats than fighters do.
I don't see any reason why monks should be more useful and powerful out of combat than fighters. In fact, I see plenty of reason why they shouldn't, unless you're okay with monks being less useful and powerful in combat than fighters (I highly doubt you are).
This sort of thinking leads directly to (possibly unintentional) underpowering of the fighter compared with every other class. Here's a fictitious example of how that design works. Let's see what the monk needs.
Monks definitely need all good saves. After all, high saves are a core part of the monk, so monks need the best possible saves.*
Monks also need to have high AC, able to match high-defense classes like fighter and paladin.**
For 2e, monks definitely need to be accurate and highly damaging (like the unchained monk). Otherwise, we'd have terrible design like flurry of misses or flurry of tickles.** That's unfair design, since combat is a very important part of the game, and monks are primary damage dealers. They need to have parity with other damage dealers, like fighter.
It's very important for monks to have easily accessible and strong mystical powers, with plenty of uses, since this is a core version of the class.**
It's also unfair and thematically stupid for monks not to start trained in weapons. It makes wizards better at weapons than them.**
And finally, monks definitely need more skills than fighters, since they had +2 SP/lvl relative to fighters in PF1e.
You end up with (compared to fighter):
Higher saves
Equal HP
Equal AC (higher TAC)
Equal damage with unarmed or armed styles
Unmatched mystical powers
More skills and out of combat utility, in a system where skills are supposed to be much more powerful than they were in PF1e.
Maybe we could balance some of these with fighter combos, but those are already counterbalanced by monk stances.
You can of course repeat this exercise with pretty much any martial class. It's not unique to monk. Basically, the fighter gets used as the baseline of "I can't be functionally worse than this," but then you get extra goodies on top. This was the common situation at the beginning of PF1e. I don't like that design, and I don't think Paizo does either. Hopefully they avoid it this go around, and provide fighter with useful and fun things to do both in and out of combat. This probably means evening out fighter skills with many other classes, including the monk. We'll see when the playtest comes out.
--
*see: Forum furor over unchained monk
** see: This thread.
It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? Foreign magic is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core wizard works. I can no longer sit back and allow wizard infiltration, wizard indoctrination, wizard subversion and the inter-dimensional wizard conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Whatever grants the totemic powers in probably substantially weaker than a Deity (though they may also be pettier) and are probably correspondingly easier to placate.
You don't need anything to grant totemic powers.
You need something, although that might just be a very particular state of mind. Otherwise, the word "totem" is meaningless.
2) This is not 1 group, this is roughly 30-40 people, and maybe around 15-25 barbarians not counting my own or multiclass characters. I would say if not a single person even in that small sample size had any care about totems as the argument made in the blog post, it is a pretty good indication that the premise is wrong. Wich was my initial point, the conclusion is flawed because it relies on false assumption why the totem powers were popular. I am sure there are some people who like the fluff of them, but that does not change the fact it based on poor logic or data.
A goodly number of players. Still, I guarantee you're working from a much smaller data set than the developers at Paizo. Even just Mark Seifter's experience with organized play has a sample set that is significantly larger than yours (based on his claim of 150+ organized play tables). The other developers, I'd bet, also have personal sample sets that are much larger than yours. These personal samples don't include any data they may have gleaned from organized play or conferences. Thus, I trust their data and conclusions more than I trust yours.
And even if you are correct, and players universally take totem rage powers to get pounce or DR or wings, the developers finding a relatively minor mechanical reason (anathema) to draw attention to this major class feature and get players to not ignore its "fluff" is a good thing in my opinion.
Clearly, you have a different opinion about anathemas and Barbarian than I do. That's totally fine. But you should recognize it as what it is (opinion and preference), rather than treating it as some sort of logic-based conclusion.
"Wultram wrote:
Call them as I see them, might be subjective matter. So is music, but I will still call bubblegum pop garbage music. Neither do I need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know that it is a bad idea. And yes I use strong language because that gets the point across I am trying to communicate. If someone takes offense to my use of language that is their problem not mine.
Since your stated goal is communication: your posting style comes across as arrogant and dismissive, and is insulting towards the developers at least. This style will generally lead to ideas being dismissed out of hand and not even being considered, even if they are good ones. It will also tend to make people who have the different ideas dig in as opposition.
In other words, it's your problem, because it prevents you from communicating effectively. If your goal is actually communication, I'd suggest adopting a more pleasant tone in your posts. If not, have at (within community guidelines).
I think the changes to rage look great. I think the 3/1 round rhythm has the potential to add some tactical depth and decision making to playing a Barbarian, especially since it adds a bit of a "HP tank" aspect to Barbarian, which I personally like the flavor of.
I like the totems listed, and am glad to see that some of them are still giving magical abilities. I also think the option of a totemless Barbarian is a good call.
I like having a specific anathema tied to a specific totem as well. The listed anathemas seem fun, thematically appropriate, and relatively lightweight in terms of day-to-day impact (well, giant totem's looks lightweight. Superstition totem's is more severe, but that's apparently a balancing mechanism).
All of these reactions, of course, are subject to change once we get to see the playtest.
