But is it healthy for the game that normal shields get destroyed on shield block?
You make it sound like I have a lot more agency about it than I feel I do.
I am playing a lv2 crane monk with +1 handwraps, what can I actually do other than put myself in a flanking position?
I don't think it would be too bad is players succeeded more often on their first attack, just make it less effective.
For example if every monster had a lower AC, just raise the monster's HP by an appropriate amount.
Oberyn was higher level, which is why he could afford lighter armour and still have the advantage. There, fixed it.
This implies Oberyn would fight better with heavy armor. I don't think that's the case and I definitely don't like the implications if it was (that would mean Oberyn is deliberately not wearing one despite knowing that would be the superior choice)
I see qhere you're coming from but again that's not broken, that's a feature.I myself hate what it can lead to if misused. Just like freedom. Freedom can lead to awful things if used for bad ends.
It's still inherently neutral. I like freedom. I like order, too. It depends on your priorities.
Because that's not it.
It needs to be rephrased to better represent the actual content of the point of view:
"I want to be able to choose to have a character who is overall able to attempt any challenge, which reflects a certain narrative trope, OR a character that has more marked strengths and weaknesses compared to the former, which represents another trope"
Min-maxing is not inherently bad.
I would argue that it is healthy in the right doses.
YMMV on what the right dose is, but here are some potential points to adress:
1 - It makes the game imbalanced
2 - It rewards players who min-max
3 - it is not necessary
4 - it is BAD design, ditto
what if "not competenet" was an optional training rank, that gives +1 to another skill at the cost of never getting the +level bonus to that "not competent skill; You can do it with a number of skills and never get the +1 to the same one.
+ it would be optional
- it would incentivize min-maxing (bad for those who don't)
Found The Path
man I haven't even finished reading but this made me laugh out loud, favorited without a second thought
EDIT: after reading the whole post, I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points (plus, I had a few more laughs, so thank you)
I really hope the best for this game. Regards.
I feel that I am the same kind of player as Go4TheEyesBoo
I want to add one thing:
It's not as fun if the concept and the mechanics are prepared in advance by someone else.
The fun lies in researching ways to make your own idea work.
Of course, it reached the point where previous version advocates were harassing people they disagreed with in private messages with personal attacks.
How could anyone tolerate such a toxic one sided environment?
1. Modifiers should affect the way you toss the coin. A regular toss is your standard RNG, but a requirement to toss it by throwing the coin up in the air, spinning 360 degrees and then catching the coin could represent the "disadvantage" style mechanic.
Controlling the randomness via throwing skill techniques doesn't seem to be in line with development goals.
2. We need hard and fast rules as to what happens when the coin lands on the side. Sorry, either that, or there will be much gnashing of teeth on the forums.
Given the current maths, many feel that there is no reason to stick with a d20.
So, why not just throw a coin!
1) -Every action requires throwing a coin; head is success, tail is failure
2) -Level, class, ability scores and DCs are instead represented with pools, just like HPs, and the ability to erode that pool faster, just like damage
Example 1 (attacks)
Rob is a fighter with a greatsword, on a succesful attack the amount of damage is calculated like this:
Subtract a certain amount from subsequent attacks to simulate MAP.
AC in this system is either represented as damage reduction or as extra HP
Dan is a rogue who's trying to pick a lock. Roll 1d2. On a success, he partially or completely solves the challenge, depending on wether he deals enough points of Success to the challenge Pool:
Jimmy is a wizard. He casts a spell with a save. The enemy throws a coin. On a failure, the spell takes effect.
I know this might look like a joke, but I'm honestly thinking this could actually work.
If I had to redesign stats and no sacred cows my setup would be
A character with high Dexterity would hit and crit more often but wouldn't deal as much base damage as someone with high Prowess.
A character with high Prowess would have more HP but less AC than a character with high Dexterity.
Both stats are useful for attack and defense, and you never feel that raising the lower one is a waste.
And?I'm not Paizo, my goals don't have to be aligned with theirs.
They have their priorities, I have mine, both parties are allowed to express themselves.
I don't like the idea of adding bookkeeping to individual spells used on individual characters. That sounds like a lot of work.
You don't need any book keeping
This spell can heal 1d8 HP, up to 20 HP. If the recipient has more than 20 HP maximum, this spell can only heal up to 20 HP.
This way, higher level characters can't refill their HP pools by using low-level wands.
Make N depend upon both the spell power and the recipient so that you don't get fully healed wizards and partially healed barbarians.
I will not go into details with the math because I don't want to focus on tweaking the numbers, that is not my purpose.
To make the system less restrictive, maybe add the following:
"By spending *daily resource* you can overcome this limitation"
So if you REALLY need that extra HP you can get it. But you cannot refill your HP after every single battle.
What do you think?
So my big problem is attack rolls. Some people are going to be massively more proficient in their weapons than others- at level 3 a fighter has master weapon proficiency whereas the Barbarian (whose job is hitting things) has to wait for level 13 to get expert.
This can be fixed by adjusting the base damage per swing so that despite the proficiency difference, the final DPR is about the same
I like it, but if applied to weapons it makes everyone significantly weaker than the Fighter
I mean, I really love this change!
As long as other melee classes like the Barbarian get a flat damage buff to make up for the lower crit/hit rate, the game will still be balanced... and classes will also feel different, which is great imo
"they try to propose us a more "Dark Souls" game"
Except in Drak Souls you win if you're actually good, while in PF2 it's down to randomness and player ability is minimized both before combat (optimization is no longer possible) and in combat (tactics are weak and unlikely to work, positioning is less relevant, CC is ineffective etc)
It's actually the opposite of a game like Dark Souls that rewards you for good play
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
or we ignore you and play right into your theory
You shouldn't be worrying about this. You're in control. Let people think what they want. Just make sure your communication is clear when you want to send a message. That is how politicians handle controversies and they are, arguably, the most succesful category of people in the world.
However I still crave for options that are fun in a pure gameplay sense.
My favorite "gameplay" feats from PF1 are Barroom Brawler, Lunge, Combat Patrol, Weapon Trick, Cornugon Smash, Street Style, Improved Spring Attack
Yes I want feats that give my character cool stuff to do fluff-wise but I also really, really want optional feats that enable new levels of tactical gameplay because... well, that's just what I like.
These are the kind of feats that make me feel like my character is actually my own. When I customize both fluff and gameplay, then I feel it's truly complete.
I'm ok if other people don't share this feeling.
I'm just pointing out something that I regard as great in PF1 and would like to see more in PF2
After all, IRL, picking pockets is a skill that takes a lot of specific training to master.
1) it's not something you should not be able to *attempt* without training
2) You are technically trained anyway so having to select the feat on top of that is extremely counter-intuitive
You have convinced me.
Then the problem seems to be that the current feats are restrictive rather than the opposite.
For example, it's quite disheartening that you need a feat to actually pickpocket someone even if you're already technically trained at thievery. It makes the feat feel like a tax rather than a cool new feature.