The fact that Alchemists have at least ONE reason to invest in STR is a positive, not a negative. Every stat should be desirable and there should be a difference between the different builds that isn't just about being "more optimal".
Getting STR as the wrong class in PF1 was just bad, you'd get 0 benefits. Now there can be some stronger alchemists carrying more stuff, but weaker ones that maybe have better aim or initiative. There's opportunity cost to every decision instead of a lot of "false choice" in PF1: you could suck or optimize.
You're not "forced" to get STR to be viable, but whether you do it or not will have both upsides or downsides regardless.
Now if only Wizards could gain something from STR or anyone from CHA, that'd be good stuff.
Is it me or Brutish shove is awesome? Yeah, it is Press but you get a full strike + 2 riders on it for no cost. Even on a Failure it causes flat-footed? Will be spamming this every turn!
Also, can the guy from this blog cast Shield while holding his 2h Maul? Are "free hands" not needed for somatic components again?
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I also really dislike it, but it seems to be the most common way to play PF1 if the optimization talks are any indication.
I only feel pressured to do this when there is a Monk in the party, who are beholden to 1 specific item to progress, one that isn't easy to justify with lore a lot of the time.
Which roll did they fail here? The (common)fail-forward scenario is they just walk up the front door, fail the diplomacy/bluff to be allowed in but still make it in somehow, perhaps through a bribe or with someone keeping an eye on them. They wouldn't need to use the ladder gimmick, that would require the main attempt to be utter failure than they decide to try something else, or at least the players figuring it's not even worth trying the front door approach.
If I had to fail-forward this situation, I would make it so when they fail front door attempt they may notice an NPC open a nearby window... Or maybe overhear a conversation about a musical troupe being late to the event. Even those are a bit heavy handed if too obvious, though.
This does have one issue though. As soon as the players fail only ONCE, that challenge is over. This is one of the things John Lynch said that stuck to me. Maybe the players tried to climb the cliff and failed. In your example, they now find the entrance, which means they do not get to try the "Fly over it" idea since it's pointless now. This means the "obvious" solution is always the right solution. They aren't really incentivized to experiment.There are games where the players would be hit by the rockslide and then have to consider whether they now fly over or think of something else. Maybe now they can find the entrance IF THEY SEARCH. Seeing the consequences of attempting a check out of their league without much of a reward will educate players that they gotta actually think about the choices they make, because there are wrong ones.
It depends on the party, but after being a railroady/fail-forward GM for so long I've become disappointed in how I've raised my players to just sit around wait for me to tell them how the story advances without them taking initiative or trying creative things. I've since started doing my best to give them more independence, including the freedom to fail.
I guess there's a few upsides to putting the responsibility on the ally needing the heal, but come on. It's worse in 90% of scenarios. I'd take "the same" as compared to "just bad". I'm not sure you can be bottle feeding conscious allies while they're fighting, either. This is worse for Chirugeon than the other alchemists since at least they have better things to use their actions on while Chirugeon is kind of a healbot that can't use their turn to heal...
Heal bombs would be awesome, but we didn't get them.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
THIS is where Chirugeon falls apart. Can't even heal people on your own turn.
Is he friends with Captain Andoran, champion of freedom and democracy?
They didn't heal as much, Treat Wounds was suicidal until after some updates, costed resonance, Cleric could heal your full health like 10x a day, Alchemist was garbage in general and had to receive updates, cleric Channel had to be nerfed from the insanity it was.
Current alchemist is looking way better and Cleric is probably not going to be as silly anymore, but the gulf between them was VAST in Playtest 1.0.
This might be THE Alchemist spread depending on bulk considerations of all the stuff they carry. 16 INT/16 DEX is almost mandatory, and I feel 18 INT will be common
John Lynch 106 wrote:
There's some good ones! We got Archetypes from it. And it's one of my favorite implementations of that system since they include roleplaying caveats instead of just grabbing a set of beneficial mechanics.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Unlike most classes, the Alchemist doesn't use their primary attribute to hit. They have to spread points between DEX and INT which means it's not gonna be max for the entire campaign. So yeah, they are at -1 compared to everyone else for around half the levels. The same goes for STR builds.
As for AOOs, I also would like to interrupt things like drinking potions or casting spells when surrounded. YEah you can grab them ahead of time to prevent all this but it would still be cool.
The fact that 5-step costs an action now makes the old AOO system more powerful! Mages and Archers aren't just backing off for free anymore to avoid the AOO. SOme may say it's even more restrictive than before, but to me it means positioning is even more fundamental!
Plus by grabbing you can't do stuff like having enemies just ignore you as they run past early in the battle. It makes it so some chars can actually tank a bit without contrived mechanics like retributive strike.
Lord Fyre wrote:
It's already confirmed AOOs will be the same as in the playtest, so will need to be a house rule. That or I didn't understand your message.
Worry not, PFS players who hate their GM. In that mode of play, this item will pretty much ALWAYS affect your allies every single time so the week thing is meaningless. Reserve it for a full campaign GM who probably won't let the item TPK you when the party gets ambushed by Balors while they camp.
I do like this item and the imprecision! Also it reminds me of the guidelines for playing Mummy PCs in like 3.5 who have this ability built-in and always paralyze the party once a day when they woke up.
First World Bard wrote:
You can target saves, skills and all sorts of stuff in this edition. Anything that you can add proficiency to is able to compete vs each other reasonably fairly.
For sure some stuff that affects "Passive Fortitude" has been shown.
I have a little concern here myself as the Alchemist... Doesn't seem to get Master in simple weapons and bombs. They do get Master in armor though. Seems weird. Especially since they get E weapons at 7, E armor at 13, then M armor at 19. There's just a conspicuous lack of following up on the weapon boost. Any chance that got missed?
Speaking of this... Do bombs target full AC? They are the Alch's bread and butter attack but they aren't expected to have 18DEX and their proficiency is nothing special. Bombs are a pretty limited resource too.... How reliably are they landing?
I have to admit, I' not a big fan of how the Alchemist class feats are distributed. Almost every level consists of "Improvement to bombs, improvement to elixirs, improvement to mutagen" with a generic one as 4th every now and then.
The end result is that most alchemist of any given path are gonna have the exact same build. They can only pick 1 path at the start and from there on there is 1 feat per 2 levels tailored to them. You gotta multiclass to actually get more than 1 relevant option most of the time.
I realize this is a result of space considerations, but it is what happens when you have too many paths: Can't fit variety for all of them.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Yes. Multiple avenues of success is a good thing. Quite notably, he didn’t get to acrobatics his way to the other side. That failed. Now he has to find a new approach.
Yeah, a new approach, but the adventure accounted for this possibly failing and put an alternative specifically in case the PCs failed to cross it by whatever reason.
The examples so far in this thread have been really "brute force", but this is how I imagine it could be done discretely. A new thing opens up as a result of failure which would otherwise not come up.
Pretty sure Climbing is STR based, so it'll be the Fighter again!! Doin' work with skills for once.
No need for "Creating one-use wondrous item is better than a scroll" jank to happen again. I agree with Mark that codifying this too much makes it almost impossible to future-proof.
A scythe that's identical to the storm rapier except it's fire instead of electricity will probably have identical cost, give or take a few SP. I would be happy to just get a lot of crazy magic items published and extrapolate from the data.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Like everything else in adventure design, it has it's place. Of course it would be really dumb if all checks were like this, there's plenty of things that would be boring such as finding a secret item/door/shortcut, stealthing, bluffing, any knowledge etc. But a lot of times an adventure can get super derailed for failing certain checks like following tracks, convincing an NPC to do a thing, opening the ONE entrance to the next area.
Pathfinder adventures are mostly railroads, they expect events to happen in a certain orders so of course you don't need "Welp, guess the adventure is over because of a bad roll"/"This has resulted in creating an epic sidequest/contrived alternative solution".
Captain Morgan wrote:
Guess we're back to losing a full level of experience :p Then you don't need Enervated.
I’m not against making some simple generic feats that build off weapon proficiency and give classes some more options but I also don’t think it’s required given that basic competency is so high now.
The thread has been through this. Indeed it is not "required" to be effective in combat, but it is required to materialize your character concept. If you're some Rogue sniper archer you want some archery feats but you don't have access to any. You are competent even without any of these feats, but does that make you "The archer rogue"? Only in your imagination if you aren't picking options to reinforce it. Will someone who looks at the character sheet immediately figure out how your character plays? To some players, this has a lot of value. Many modern RPGs don't allow this anymore and it's why they have chosen Pathfinder.
So by making a lot of feats unnecessary, it made it harder to realize builds/concepts mechanically. Keep in mind you can still realize many other concepts, but only that your class specifically allows. So you can be an Archer Fighter or Ranger, but not Rogue anymore.
Don't think this thread right now is about "My druid can't specialize in archery" so much as "There's no resource to add some non-druid stuff to my druid (replace druid with any class) at a reasonable time." Certainly general feats exist but don't have the necessary options and you don't even get one at lv1. The other option is archetypes, but they are too slow and quickly begin costing a lot of "Druid" abilities in exchange for getting your 1 thingy.
Essentially, there is 1 dimension of character customization currently missing from the rules that did exist in PF1. PF2 added skill feats and ancestry feats to open up new avenues, but they don't replace the need to have a combat feat every now and then to flesh out a concept. I realize they're merged into class feats but you have to wonder if your Druid/Fighter with 0 Druid feats is even a Druid anymore. This wasn't a problem before.
Secret Wizard wrote:
I don't think it's "the game breaks down into insanity" so much as it's very difficult to maintain a cohesive party/story going on for this long. The longer you go, the more likely it's the campaign will fall apart due to IRL stuff.
As a longtime 1e player I can tell you those character concepts are way more viable now than before since the Ability Score distribution system rewards more spreading out and you don't need huge investment to max out your god stat.
For your second point: PF2 is a setting-specific RPG. It can be used for homebrew but that won't be an excuse to limit the hardcover content anymore.
I'm not quite sure why it's a bad thing for a high level character to pick up a feat and gain a bunch of cool benefits. They're quite literally 'legendary' after all.
Because I thought one of the cool parts of a scaling feat was that you watched it evolve together with your PC rather than jumping straight to the capstone. The other benefit, of course, would be to prevent it from becoming underwhelming at high levels.
Do agree that scaling skill feats can get a bit silly in specific scenarios. They sound amazing if you are taking them at the earliest opportunity and slowly see the feat grow. But imagine you're legendary in acrobatics and you grab a skill feat at like level 17. You suddenly get all of the powers instantly!
It's probably not that bad, but I can imagine it being silly depending on the feats. Having to work your way up from the first one made for sense as "organic" development, even if you call them "Feat Tax".
I'm actually happy with the carrying capacity being relevant this time around. For too long have people dumped STR and gotten away with no repercussions because of how hard the old system was to track. Not to mention that example with carrying Full Plate + Entire warehouse worth of items is ridiculous when you really think about it.
Videogames have really changed the perception of this... I actually thought it was kinda cool how you'd figure out the logistics in old games. Had to have mules or henchmen carrying your stuff.
Stone Dog wrote:
I dunno... Playtest was already rightly accused of expected a very high "floor" of competence from PCs before they can contribute to fights. This applies specially to Spellcasters, who need to squeeze every possible advantage so their spells actually work on level-appropriate enemies.
Sure, the wizard may only be at like -3 to hit compared to the Ranger when it was a lot more in PF1, but then you realize the ranger is only hitting on an 11+ so you still suck.
Some Kind of Chymist wrote:
Of Abadar? Nah. This is for clerics of Lord Asmodeus.
I do agree some class features like Woodland stride should be either automatic or use up a skill-feat slot. Actually spreading the class stuff to skill feat region opens up a lot of customization for some of the low-power abilities. Trapfinding is another good example that has been mentioned, but even stuff like Tongue of the Sun and Moon for high level monks would be a good skill feat since no way in hell it's gonna compete vs combat class feats.
Feat siloing now allows characters to be more well-rounded than before, but I think it can be expanded further to get some off the heavy load off the almighty class feat resource since Skill Feats right in the playtest were kinda garbage. You could even do this with ancestry feats like Catfolk Rogues had in 1e.