Dragon magazine, even the article in question, was unofficial optional material. Meaning it didn't count. In no official material was there a non-LG Paladin until 3.X.
Optional, yes it was (as all rules are technically). It was also official, as in published by TSR/WoTC.
But you don't care, you've chosen your (ant)hill and you're going to die on it.
You had it right, assuming enemies weren't somehow attacking the paladin's allies on the paladin's turn:
Multiple Attack Penalty, p 305 wrote:
The multiple attack penalty applies only on your turn and resets at the end of your turn. Attacks you can make outside of your turn might include their own penalties
Also, one that I didn't misread but multiple others have: 'Spell rolls' being used for 'spell attacks', i.e. spell attacks being off your casting stat instead of Dex.
Shain Edge wrote:
It doesn't have the 'Special: you can take this feat multiple times..' line, so no.For an example of a feat that does have the line:
GENERAL TRAINING, p36 wrote:
This, and it's a nerf for martial characters compared to casters. Martials are going to be making attacks every round, casters can just cast spells that rely on the enemy saving and not have to worry about fumbling.
If any sort of fumble system is made official, that will be the nail in the coffin for me playing this.
Recovery saves don't get you back up in the new rules. That was the original rules.
Errata 1.2, p4 wrote:
We better not start comparing the damage including the mobility of a lightly armored archer against a plate wearing bruiser as that will lead to bruiser tries to get in range deals 0 damage and dies while the archer runs around in circles.
That is the plan behind making them roughly equal to 1h weapons. Though I will also say the speed penalties (and ACP) need to be toned down a lot (probably to a maximum of 5') either way
The only thing I think needs to be addressed is range. Your damage bonus from Dex needs to shrink with range (except on critical hits). Maybe your Dex damage bonus could go down by 2 with every range increment, the same as the to-hit roll.
That is a thing that could work. Though it might be a little complex though for something that isn't going to come up hugely often. The penalty to attack rolls for range does lower the effective damage too.
Deadly is a quality that scales and is an awesome trait for bows. If the long bow loses it and the short bow keeps it, the short bow is a much better weapon, even as it levels up. Having bows be devastatingly effective when really hitting (critical hit) and not so powerful on regular hits really does a good job of making Archery fun and feel like it looks in fantasy action movies (regular hits glance off arms or armor, while critical hits are the ones that really stick in vital areas.
Die type is still king. D8 will still beat out d6, deadly d10 in terms of average damage at every level, especially as deadly doesn't go up as quickly as raw damage. You can see the difference for yourself here (compare rapier to d8 weapons)
This is why ranged weapons are balanced against one-handed weapons instead of two-handed. So they get some penalty in terms of damage per attack to make up for the fact that they can make more attacks because they have to move less.
If flat die to damage wasn't threatening at any level of play then fireball would never have become one of the most popular spells of all time over every edition of the game.
Fireball, I suspect, is mostly popular for rule-of-cool reasons. Against single targets its damage is lacklustre, it gets most of its damage capability from its AoE potential.
Correct, spells that have attack rolls have the 'attack' trait. Spells that only have attack rolls on certain modes of the spell, such as Heal/Harm gain the trait when used in that way.
Attack, Traits, p414 wrote:
This ability grants an attack. For each attack you make beyond the frst on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty (see page 305).
I would disagree, for one dex only partially adds to AC (which is why I didn't mention it). In the current system, a high strength character can wear heavier armour to get the same AC as a high dex character, but a high dex character can't do anything about their pathetic damage output compared to a high strength character. Getting dex to damage would BALANCE that out.
'Unbalanced at low levels, less so at higher' is how I'd describe the current system. Also you haven't answered my question: What big weakness in the Strength stat, and all it brings outside of attacks, would being able to get the same numbers when using different stats be unbalanced in pf2 when it works brilliantly in other systems?
Ok, then change them back. Regular (what even is a regular bow in terms of draw strength then?) bows get dex, composite bows get str. Feels weird to pay more for the downgrade though...
There is no way this is EVER going to fly. Adding Dex to Damage is SO good that once it can be done for free you will instantly see a massive shift from PCs with balanced/good strength scores, over to Fighters, Rogues, & Barbarians with 10-12 Strength.
This argument again...Other than Zman's hypocrisy (dex to damage would make them too strong, literally next sentence ability mod doesn't matter as much), what is so unappealing about Strength that players would dump it, given the choice?
Does Carrying capacity, Breaking objects, Climbing, Disarming, Grappling, Jumping, Shoving, Swimming and Tripping not stack up to Reflex saves, Balancing, Grabbing edges, Sneaking, Stealing, Opening locks and Disabling devices?
Kinda, though the deadly trait remaining on shortbows makes up at least some of the difference to longbows and gives a different niche i.e. crit fishing. Also most of those comparisons can already be levied towards the weapons in question.
Again read the whole thing:
♦ Composite Bows lose the Propulsive trait, Regular Bows gain it.
Which ties into:
♦ The propulsive trait changes the damage to (full) Strength mod
I admit I may not have been 100% clear, but this was meant as a replacement not an option. So regular bows (and slings) use Dex to hit, Str for damage, Composite bows use Dex for both. This makes Composite an upgrade over regular for high-dex characters.
Please read the whole thing:
Composite bows getting the upgrade of one stat for attack and damage makes sense in a balance sense, with them costing more money. They are also constructed to take the strain off the user, allowing for precision (Dexterity) to have an effect over Strength.
which ties into:
♦ Ranged and Finesse weapons default to Dexterity for attacks AND damage.
Again, read the whole thing:
So, coming off 4e and 5e D&D where two-handed ranged weapons are balanced against one-handed melee weapons of the same 'tier' (simple/martial/exotic), into playing PF2, ranged weapons just feel weak.
Balancing 2H ranged weapons against 1H melee weapons makes sense, you're giving up a bit of damage for extra range. Similar to reach weapons.
So, coming off 4e and 5e D&D where two-handed ranged weapons are balanced against one-handed melee weapons of the same 'tier' (simple/martial/exotic), into playing PF2, ranged weapons just feel weak. Their damage output may have felt better in 3.5 where everything had much lower hitpoints, but in pf2 it just feels archaic.
My changes (and the reasons for them) would be:
Bloodlines, p129 wrote:
Like cantrips, bloodline powers are automatically heightened to the highest level of spell you can cast.
Works the same for powers from other spellcasting classes. Non-spellcasters (and powers from sources other than spellcasting classes, including multiclass feats) heighten their powers to a spell level equal to half their level.
I'm assuming the planetouched (Aasimar, Tiefling etc) races will be added anyway at some point, so my vote/suggestion would be Dragonborn.
Half-Dragons have been a thing in D&D since at least 3.0 (not read into much of 1st or 2nd). I love the way 4e presented them as strong and charismatic, honour-bound warriors from a fallen land and made them front and center on the cover of PHB1. I also like that 5e kept that idea of Dragonborn rather than going back to half-dragons.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
I will add my support for this. We already have a servicable spontaneous occult caster in Sorcerer. Occult wants a prepared caster to bring it in line with Wizard/Cleric/Druid. I do however also think that preparing spells should be looked at and something more akin to 5e's system would be a lot better than the full vancian system ported from 3.5.
Bard as an archetype would also allow for a facsimilie of Warlord, though I would still prefer that type of character to stay entirely martial and start from level 1.
I have my doubts over wether Paizo would do this though. One of the major things that kept being brought up around 4e's release is that Bards (and Sorcerers and Gnomes) weren't in PHB1 (and thus 'not core'). It wouldn't be palatable (from the fan's point of view) for the company who made a 3.5 clone so that people could continue playing it to not keep the core 3.5 classes in their new product.
My order of priorities would be:
The rules for resting and daily preparations seem broken and overpowered, especially for spellcasters
I didn't read many of the published adventures (only the very first, preview one), but almost every DM I've interacted with (myself obviously included) has said to only use on-level monsters (the rules for levelling up/down monsters are there for a reason :p). Use elites/solos and more monsters relative to the PCs (elites count as 2 regulars, solos count as 5). Using higher level monsters just throws off the hit rates for PCs and monster, making things less fun.
That sounds like an annoyance to deal with (and shortens adventuring days, not lengthens). Also what's stopping players walking out of the dungeon and camping elswhere for the night?
Also back on topic: The concept of a short rest, to restore some hp and get some spells/powers back is another thing I would like PF2 to adopt.
The rules for resting and daily preparations seem broken and overpowered, especially for spellcasters
2 was for the weird vampire class. Normal classes got at least 6+con mod per day.
Several classes had powers that consumed, triggered off of, or otherwise played with Surges. E.g. the warlord (sort a paladin class) could use a (once per fight) power that caused him to spend a healing surge and an ally in 30 feet got the benefits (it was 1/4 of their max, not the warlord's).
That is the paladin's Lay on Hands (except it's melee range), Warlord works like cleric below. Warlord was also an awesome, martial leader (healer/buffer)
Stuff like that. Even clerical healing consumed surges (Cleric targets someone, they spend and heal with a bonus). Healing surges were the primary 'resource' you'd need to conserve across your adventuring day as most of your abilities were either per-fight or at-will. The once-per-day abilities were kind of a toss up (thematically you always wanted to use them on the boss, but mechanically you were best using it on small fry, due to the miss chance against higher ACs).
Bosses (elites and solos) had the same defence calculation as regular creatures of their level. They just get flashier abilities, action points and more off-turn abilities to make up for their disadvantage in the actions department. This is one of the many things I very much wish Paizo would adopt from 4e: The concept of monster roles rather than just throwing a higher level monster at players and calling it a boss.
Anyway, the first published adventure was a revisiting of...tomb of horrors? Classic module, several rooms had traps described except that "someone else already disabled it." The adventure's atmosphere was what caused the lack of surge regeneration, but it had the desired effect of making the players push as far as they could before stopping: if you had all your surges and recharged to max-1 you lost that unspent surge.
I've never played Tomb of Horrors, that rule sounds horrible (heh). Was it cumulative? So if you spent 2 days there you'd be at -2 etc?But yea, adventure day in 4e generally ends when PCs are out of surges AND daily powers. This usually starts off ~3 fights but gets longer as time goes on and PCs get more powers, the ritual to share surges etc.
Also Action Points encourage players to go as long as they could. Action points let you (1/encounter) take an extra action and you gained one every other encounter. Also certain classes, and every paragon path (kinda like a prestige class, but everyone gets one at level 11) do stuff to interact with Action Point use.
Also, to clarify the (base) rules on resting in 4e:
Lore, p151 wrote:
So, not just for making money...I don't like the overlap with other skills. I feel like lore should be one skill, for things the other knowledge skills don't cover, like history.
I also really do not like having rolls for exclusively downtime activities, like 'Practice a Trade'
I agree with pretty much everything on the list, except I would also keep the 4 stages for attacks. It means differences in attack rolls matter more, needing less than a 10 to hit increases crit chance for example.
Updates with new maths:lud's questions
Greatsword: 13.125 DPR
Greatclub: 12.35 DPR
Glaive: 12.225 DPR
Shortsword: 10.5 DPR
All still need two rounds to kill the commando, so original answer for C still holds
Longsword is 9.35 DPR at two actions (2 rounds to kill commando).
Greatsword: 6.875x2=13.75 damage taken
Longsword + Shield (no block): 6.875+4.95=11.825 damage taken
Longsord + Shield (Block 1st attack): 6.875+1.95=8.825 damage taken
Oh! Didn't realise fighters get expert in simple/martial at level 1!That throws off my numbers a bit, but won't change the relative rankings. Also don't think it'll throw off the calculation for number of rounds for Unicore's longsword question, will have to check when I get back home
My question is whether or not Valeros takes less damage dispatching the Goblin over more rounds with a long sword and shield raised or by focusing entirely on dealing damage as fast as possible.
Again, spoilererd in case others want to do their own working:
Using spreadsheet again, longsword DPR for two attacks per round comes out at 8.075. 18/8.075=2.23, so 3 rounds
Goblin making his attacks vs AC 18 is 4.95 DPR normally (1.95 if we discount the first attack to a shield block).
So first round, Valeros takes a full hit (lost initative, so doesn't get shield raised) of 6.875, second and third are 4.95 or 1.95
Greatsword: 6.875x2=13.75 damage taken
Longsword + Shield (no block): 6.875+4.95x2=16.775 damage taken
Longsord + Shield (Block 1st attack): 6.875+1.95x2=10.775 damage taken
Oh look! A use for my Spreadsheet!
Spoilered in case someone else wants to do their own working out :)
So, for the first two: The attack roll of a level 1 figher with 18 str is +5 (4 str, 1 proficiency) vs the Goblin's AC of 15, so I've set the AC to 10 (my sheet assumes an attack roll of 0).
So across 3 actions:
A) Greatsword is best, coming in at 11.025 average damage per round
Greatclub is second at 10.498, Glaive third with 10.15 and shortsword last with 9
B) It'll take two rounds to kill the goblin, with any of the listed weapons
C) We know Valeros can kill the goblins in two rounds, so can the goblin kill him faster? Putting in the attack roll needed (16-7=9) and the modifier (1) into the d8 damage section gives an average of 6.875 DPR. 20/6.875=2.91, so not enough time to drop the greatsword-using Valeros first
Also, you're a mean person for including a backswing weapon in there :p
Jason S wrote:
3.5 characters also got extra attacks as they levelled up...
Jason S wrote:
Wasn't my original statement, but yes I agree that combat should be less about your weapon. It should be more about how you wield it, i.e. your class and feats
Good idea, I'd lower those by two each though. Would feel weird to need investment for Padded/Leather and need to wait until level 10 to wear plate effectively.Also why are hide and breastplate randomly so high?
I would guess that people might read "a trinket can be affixed to it" and take that to mean "only one trinket can be affixed to it ever". This way makes it clear that they work in the same way as armour i.e. “A single trinket can be affixed to only one item at a time, and affixing a new trinket burns out any trinket already on the affixed item.”.
As to why specifically light armour when there are no trinkets that specify what type of armour: I would assume futureproofing, so they can add in trinkets that do care about what armour they're on.
Ah, fair enough, glad the error was fixed :)
I think they are being pretty careful not to allow a d8 weapon that can be used with precise striker lest rogues become over powered.
I think the feature you're looking for is Sneak Attack which, should for the record, be more powerful than a regular strike (as it is). If you're worried about that being overpowered compared to other classes' entries then the other classes should get better options to bring them up in line.Finesse striker just brings them in line with str to damage with Finesse/Agile weapons (which, I might add are inherently weaker than non-finesse)
Why have the seperate entry then?Just do this instead:
If just the Katana were being made finesse: I'd make it 1d8, two hand 1d12 and drop the agile. Fills the niche of there not being a d8 or d12 finesse weapon and keeps it level with the Bastard Sword damage-wise, but gaining finesse as it's uncommon. Agile is not seen on two-handed weapons, my assumption behind that is that Agile is for 'off-hand' weapons. Two-hand also always seems to be two die types, so if it were d6 the two-hand would be d10 (in the four examples of it currently, not exactly the best sample size I know)
On that note, I think your Greatpick calcs for hitting on a 7 are too low. I'm getting 71.85 damage for 3 attacks at level 20. Similarly, the level 1 calculations are a slightly low as well.
What hit and crit percentages did you use for the calculation? I used:50% hit (7-16) and 20% crit (17-20) on the first
40% hit (12-19) and 5% crit (20) on the second
15% hit (17-19) and 5% crit (20) on the third
To be honest, I haven't looked at the monk class at all XD. Might do one for Tiger and Wolf if/when I get around to adding sweep and backstabber.