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.
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.
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).
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:
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:
Some assumptions I made during this:
Things I learned or had confirmed for me:
Sponteneous casters are always going to be overshadowed. Prepared casters know their whole spell list (effectively in the case of Wizards), and can swap out spells daily to suit what they're doing. Spontaneous casters get stuck with the same spells for most of the adventure.5e helps to balance this by giving spontaneous casters better/more class features than prepared (who, I might add, still know their entire spell lists), for example: Sorcerers get sole access to metamagic in 5e.
'Key ability score/modifier' as a term ties into certain feats, features etc.
Druidic order, p80 wrote:
You gain a pool of Spell Points. Your maximum number of Spell Points is equal to your key ability modifer. You regain all your Spell Points when you prepare your spells (see Daily Preparations on page 192)
They'd have to go through and change all the references to 'key ability modifier' to the intended stat(s) for the class if you allowed more key ability scores.
A solution could be to allow characters to choose between their key ability score, or Con for their class boost at creation. Gives a bit more leeway AND allows 18 con at level 1.
Whilst this idea is interesting, and I would like to see it as an option (put somewhere prominent, like the start of the GM section/book), I do feel like the 'attacker rolls' system or the current system should be standard. DMs like to roll dice too!
CHECKS, p290 wrote:
The GM will call upon you to attempt a check whenever you need to resolve a conﬂict or test your aptitude at a particular task or challenge. Examples include any attempt to attack another creature in combat, using skills, and resisting the effects of a dangerous spell that has been cast upon you.
Another instance of a relevant piece of information not being in the same section as a rule involving it, but its still there
(Slightly off-topic but) I would prefer the UTEML starting at 0, less negative maths. Removal of negative maths was one of the reasons behind the death/dying changes, so why is negative maths still in a thing that applies to (almost) literally everything in the game?
The problem is that people are passively *too* good at things. The Barbarian should be able to hold a conversation, but he shouldn't be able to out-diplomacizing the Bard.
This is where the (up to) 12 difference I mentioned in my last post comes in. On-level DCs (that should be 90% of what you're rolling for), at this point in time, are generally based on the highest a PC can achieve.
The Wizard should be able to pick a lock in a pinch, but he shouldn't be disarming incredibly difficult traps and stealing siege weapons in plain sight (barring magic, of course).
Untrained uses of theivery (p159):
PALM AN OBJECT wrote:
Palming a small (usually of negligible Bulk)...
STEAL AN OBJECT wrote:
Stealing a small (usually of negligible Bulk) object from another person can be very difcult...
Trained uses of theivery:Disable a Device
Open a Lock
I like this, it keeps the flavour while making superstition totem less gimped.
I will add my agreement to this and also:
So, it looks like simple weapons start(ed) at d6 for one handers and d10 for two handers and martial weapons d8 for one handers and d12 for two handers. Then the following things lower the penalty by one each (to a minimum of d4, which is the reason why so many weapons are d4):
Now for my opinions:
Saving throws I can understand the existence of, although I support decoupling them (and skills) from ability scores. For example, a rogue could still try to dodge a fireball by quickly moving to a less-hot part of it (Dexterity), while a wizard is more likely to use some quick counterspells to lessen the damage (Intelligence).
As with 'saves are defences', that is also how 4e did things, not sure if the resoning the same, but it worked great there too.The defences in 4e are:
AC = Dex/Int in light armour or just armour in heavy
Fort = Str/Con
Reflex = Dex/Int
Will = Wis/Cha
Means that more stats can be useful than just con/dex/wis for saves and tied into attacks being off your class's primary stat(s).
This is something I'd very much like to see. Having different rules for magic vs martial leads to weird things, like a blinded wizard still knowing exactly where to aim his fireball for best effect and there being no penalties involved.
Isn't that more or less how DnD 4th edition handled saves? Basically turning them into armour class against different effects?
It is, yes
Instead, we should be comparing 2e classes to each other (e.g., can the 2e barbarian dish out comparable damage with comparable survivability to the 2e fighter?), or comparing 2e classes to 2e playtest content (e.g. can the 2e druid contribute as much in the playtest scenarios as the 2e cleric can?).
This is something a lot of people here on the forums need to take to heart.
That first suggestion is still a lot slower than the caster rolling all the dice, then the target halving or doubling as appropriate.
Also Success is first as it's the most likely to happen, crits should only happen 5-10% of the time.
4e 'failed' because of mostly non-game reasons: Player perception of the game despite not having played it and not having a SRD.Player perception meant that people were less likely to pick it up. I have very much run into this, For example: My current irl rp group, that I'm DMing for, were very resistant to playing it because of the reputation. They caved ~18 months ago and we have been playing it weekly since, it's gotten to the point where I want to take a break to think up new ideas for where I want the campaign to go in paragon tier but they don't want to.
The lack of SRD meant no 3rd party publishers could make their own splatbooks, though in response to this WotC put out more splatbooks than they have for any other edition. This meant everything stayed within the balance floor/celing WotC put out, but also meant the game's lifespan was only as long as WotC were willing to keep making books, which also ties into the first issue.
But anyway, this is about getting dex to damage. You know what, you win, I don't care any more. I'll play out the rest of the playtest and then not buy the books when they come out if this imbalance continues.
and another general feat for heavy armour proficiency which, unless you're human, you're not getting at level 1. So you'd be at sub-par AC for at least 2 levels.
2. Variety of characters are actually not really a variety when you homogenize them. They are the same mechanically if all stats function increasingly the same way and armor does the same thing regardless of how light or heavy it is. You can call it different but we both know you are just advocating that things function more similarly.
This is why I'm saying things need to be different elsewhere (e.g. class mechanics, feats and traits for weapons). Making a set of weapons weaker than others is varitey, yes, but not good varitey. In practice, finesse weapons being weaker just means that everyone's gonna go for the non-finesse weapons.
q3. A dex fighter loses, what, a couple points of damage since he can still have a decent strength score (and likely would want some strength for composite bows). "Half his expected damage"..what complete nonsense.
Maybe 'half' was hyperbole, but let's maths this out:
These are asuming a fighter, starting at 18 str, 16 dex (as that's the max you can do at level 1 with the standard generation, even though the str character doesn't need that high dex) and vice-versa. Also assuming vs an AC that gives a 10 to hit (both have the same accuracy), so 45% of attacks miss, 50% hit and 5% crit
1-handers at level 1:
2-handers at level 1:
Now let's kick this up a notch and go from the opposite end, level 20. These are assuming both characters have raised both str and dex at every opportunity through their carrers (so ending up with 22(+6) in their primary stat and 21(+5) in their secondary) and again assuming vs an AC that gives a 10 to hit (both have the same accuracy), so 45% of attacks miss, 50% hit and 5% crit.
1-handers at level 20:
2-handers at level 20:
So yea, 'half' was an exaggeration, but a 14-29% damage loss just because you want to use a different stat is still huge
Again, you assume and treat us not as people with thoughts and feelings but as strawmen, or words on the internet for you to say no to.
My wanting for dex to damage is not envy, envy would imply that I am playing a dex based character and feeling like I don't match up to others (which is reasonable, given the system). I am coming from having played 4e extensively and loving the variety of characters you can make, with all of the stats to weapon attacks being available. I then look at pf2 and its backwoods keeping tradition for tradition's sake, when the number say that a fighter shouldn't lose half his expected damage just because he wants to use a different weapon.
(Also: I thought you were done)
+1 on the kits suggestion.Also: There are tables for class and ancestry, page 13 of the rulebook. One for backgrounds would also be useful though.
Quick suggestion too: I'd choose Class, then Ancestry, then Background and do the stats in that order too. That way you're picking in the order of most importance to your character to 'least'. Means the stats go from the most fixed to the most free too.
Thankfully, the lesser version (that the Mummy Guards inflict) at least, doesn't seem to do much, especially if you're not a bard or sorcerer.
Please stop just saying 'its making it worse' and instead say 'it's making it worse because...'. This thread is full of legitimate reasons why dex to damage should be a thing (balance, more build options etc) and you naysaying. It is not a proper argument.
And with the above I am not diminishing your concerns. Dex is a strong stat, it adds to (ignoring attacks): reflex, stealth, theivery and acrobatics. Strength is too though, it adds to (again, ignoring attacks): carrying capacity and athletics, which may seem less but every combat manuver as well as some alternate movement types (climb, jump, swim) are tied to athletics.
I, and many others in this thread, feel that giving everyone access to dex for damage would not break the game or make it worse. In fact it would make the game healtier.
As an example of how weak finesse/ranged weapons are right now in pf2: 1d6/1d8 damage isn't going to do much to a level 1 monster's typical 20hp, 1d8+4/1d12+4 is going to do significantly more. As has been stated before, this just gets worse as you level and get magic items.
There is a difference between opening some things to all classes and turning it into an open system.
Also armour is already all the same (they all give +7 AC), just heavier armours have massive penalties against all sense of game balance and realism
The suggestions for the recovery DCs are also (still) vague and overly complex.
I'd much rather it just be a standard thing (for both finesse and ranged weapons), and rogue gets some sort of bonus instead. As it stands, you're triply punished for using a finesse weapon:
At this point from Mark comments about class feat is clear they are aiming at recreating a 4.5 edition, probably with the aim at catching all orphaned 4e players. I guess it's time they too deserve something new to play.
Kinda how pf1 was for orphaned 3.5 players, except there's also the expectation of similarities to pf1. This brings in some good things (the idea of the Alchemist class, rage for Barbarians being more than daily powers etc) but also keeps some things for no reason other than grandfathering (huge ACP & speed penalties for heavy armour, triple punishment for using finesse weapons, fewer options for martial attacks compared to magic)
Top Right: The difference between each stat and that stat at the level before. This should stay roughly the same for each stat.
Bottom Left: Removing level from the stats for the stats level directly affects for PCs. This should be the same all the way down, with maybe some jumps to show when PCs get improved equipment and proficiencies.
Bottom Right: The difference between each stat without level and that stat at the level before, again this should stay roughly the same.
It may be the sample size that's causing differences from what should be expected, or Paizo are not using unified maths for the stats. As said above: The stats that, for PCs, are affected by level should go up at the same rate in order to keep parity with PC stats
Taking Damage while Unconscious wrote:
If you take damage while you’re already unconscious, apply the same effects as if you had been knocked out by that damage. If the recovery save DC for the new damage is higher than your current recovery save DC, start using the higher DC.
So yea, what Ring_of_Gyges said could theoretically happen. I would much prefer it if getting to positive hp makes you conscious, then it avoids silliness like this.They have said they're looking at dying rules
Jason S wrote:
Which is why they're balanced by having one less boost. Again, the flaw doesn't matter, you're not going to play an ancestry with a flaw to your class's main stat(s) unless something else makes up for it i.e. feats
Jason S wrote:
2) Humans should get their (Free, Free) boost, as is, but with the option to instead get a (Free, Free, Free, Flaw), where the Flaw is subject to the player's choice.
Why would you not play a human under one of these options? As is is now, you're trading two static boosts (and a flaw, but you probably wouldn't choose a race with a flaw in the primary stat for the class you want) for the ability to choose a boost, as well as access to the best feats. This lets humans be versatile with the downside that their stats are slightly worse than everyone else's.
The alternative to avoid that issue is having the caster roll for each character (I think each character absolutely requires their own roll)
This is what I was going for.
Having the caster roll all those saves just seems like it would consume too much time.
I feel like it would take the same or less time than it is at current: It's the same amount of rolls, just from one person instead of potentially multiple (i.e. players in an aoe).The main thing with this is that it would make casting feel less passive for spells with saves. As it stands, you say you're casting the spell and the DM and/or players roll a bunch while you sit there and read the rest of the spell description to yourself.
I'm just wondering how something like "Longbow only" and "Shield only" paladins can even happen.
The Shield-only paladin was the result of the player spending their money on a healer's kit and a shortbow, relying on a shield boss for melee. As documented here.No idea on the bow-only one
That is evidence that Retributive Strike needs to be buffed. Saying it needs to go from that evidence it like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Also a sample size of 3 is not the most viable of tests, especially as one of them was never going to get RS anyway (doesn't work with ranged weapons)
I've always found it weird in D&D/pf how some spells/effects have the originator roll for how well a spell affects its target (through an attack roll) and some have the target roll (through a save).