Dairian's page

40 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


5 (6)levels of proficiency.

Untrained, Novice, journeyman, expert, master, legendary.

In addition to the bonus, you get access to related feats. IE:

Melee skill at journeyman grants you:
+4 to melee attacks, and access to combat feats up to level 8.

Nature skill would grant yo access to ranger feats, stealth would grant access to rogue feats etc.

Just a concept, but it the direction I am heading.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, if accuracy advanced with level and defense did not, then we couldn't have a +10/-10 crit system (and no one would miss at high levels). PF1 handled this via having a bunch of different things that added to AC, but it was a headache PF2 decided to do away with most of the mandatory magic items.

So the way we get AC to advance with level is we key it off the proficiency system. If it helps, we can look at it as "you are better at avoiding blows when wearing this armor."

A better solution would have been to tie your melee defense, to your melee skill, and relegate armor to reducing damage when you ARE struck.

Furthermore, differentiating armor(taking less damage) from defense(avoiding blows) would have seriously opened up the play space, and made monks and rogues much more mechanically distinct from fighters and barbarians.

Evil wizard throwing disintegrate rays everywhere? Get the dodgy rogue or mink out there!

Slow moving stone giant got you down? Bust out a sledge hammer that has a negative modifier to hit, but does a LOT more damage.

Also, a system like this would create an i game reason for iconic movie tropes like throwing away your shield when you are tired, or a bars throwing on full plate for special occasions like when you are about to face an army of enemies, and like it or not, SOME hits are getting through.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The many threads on this topic really drive home for me how close Paizo was to perfection this edition, and how they botched it at the last second.

The core elements for a classes system are basically all here in PF2.

Add an extra level of proficiency, so there are 5, roll all level requirements for feats into proficiency requirements, I.E. a level 4 fighter feat would simply becomes "expert proficiency in melee" while a level 7 fighter feat would require "master" etc. etc.

Roll all the combat oriented feats into "melee"
all magic feats into either arcane or divine, etc.

Provide some templates for classic classes, but let advanced players pick and choose what they want as they go.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally love edition waring, but I am apparently a greybeard at 37.

Make vitality/wounds core!
Armor as DR!
No more vancian magic!
More counter spells!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Yakman wrote:
Torn between removing feat siloing because it's a mind boggling bad idea or adding multiclassing into the game because I don't see how they could ship a D&D style game without multiclassing.

I think the rules are robust enough that with just a tiny tweak we can ditch classes entirely! (still present "classes", but they are just pre-canned advancement charts for those who would rather not play classless.)

Replace level requirements on feats with proficiency level requirements, and bam, super slick classless system. Infinite variety.

21 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder was always just a way to keep 3.x alive, and I was certain everyone felt that way.

This new edition offers some cool bits and bobs to be sure, but the class gating, item focus, magic nerfing, and excessive lawyering of the rules really rub me the wrong way. It's like they filled in all the little cracks you could get lost in, and all that's left is a video game, except I have to do the math.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:

I'm sure this might have been discussed or suggested at some point, but I wanted to bring up the ramifications of changing proficiency to be a function of level instead of a direct modifier.

This addresses a lot of concerns surrounding the perceived value of being Trained vs Untrained and the value of being Expert vs Master/Legendary

I.E. something like the below:

Untrained = 1/2 level
Trained = 3/4 level
Expert = level
Master = 1 1/4 level
Legendary = 1 1/2 level

I think a better solution is to give everyone 1/2 level base, add a 5th proficiency level, and have each level of proficiency give a +2.


ie a 6th level expert would get +9, while a 6th level novice would get +5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
You could make a completely modular classless system and I think that would be a great variant rule for experience groups but it is too much for most new players and really shouldn't be the default option.

I would still present the standard classes, built using a classless system behind the scenes, for new players.

Back of the book gives the whole deal.

Also streamlines things like feats instead of needing to reprint everything.

I would also merge turn undead with the monks stunning fist/ki powers, and add additional feats to designate energy type (force, pos/neg, fire, etc.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am working on basically this.

Take the multi-class archetype feats, tweak them a bit, add a few more, and presto, classless system.

Add an additional proficiency level so that you have 5 (6 if you count untrained) and 5 feats to expand abilities (like spell access)

In that system, the wizard casting class progression is replaced with 10 feats:

Wizard Dedication:
Novice - cantrips and L1 spells
Breadth 1 - more spells (1)
Journeyman - L2/L3
Breadth 2 _ more spells (1,2,3)
Expert - L4/L5
Breadth 3 _ more spells (2,3,4,5)
Master - L6/L7
Breadth 4 _ more spells (4,5,6,7)
Legendary - L8/L9
Breadth 5 _ more spells (6,7,8,9)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
vestris wrote:
Dairian wrote:

I would have loved to have seen an edition that embraced wounds/vigor, and armor as DR as core.

It would have doubled down on the "dnd for grown-ups" thing that (imo) drew so many of us to PF after the 4e debacle.

The ability to differentiate fast but squishy opponents, from slow but tough targets would have really opened up the design space, while simultaneously addressing some of the "bounded accuracy" concepts that seem to be all the rage.

Goblin lucks out and crits your level 15 character? say hello to wnd(essentially CON) dmg!

How does the goblin crit your lvl 15 character? Even unarmored a lvl 15 character trained in unarmored has an AC of 26 which makes the goblin just hit critically on a 20, if you were any sliver of armor -> no can do.

DR as Armor is not really how armor works though, DR when armor gets hit maybe, in PF if armor is hit DR = DMG. If you wear a fullplate and I stab you in the armpit or the throat your DR is 0 -> as applied in the system.

A character with 27 armor will get hit by a goblin on a 20 but never will he be critted.

Wounds and vigor including armor as DR then need body zones and the like which is really complicated.

Well the great thing about goblins is there are always a bunch of them, so ONE is bound to roll that 20...

Also in Vitality/wnds systems ac (called defense) is much lower, as armor adds to DR, not AC.

I envision a L15 fighter with an Def(AC) of around 19 (10+half bab+dex)

Plus there are combat maneuvers, dog pile on the fighter, grapple him, hold him helpless, and stab, stab, stab, until something gets through...

Admittedly, for this sort of system to really work, a lot of things need tuning, but that can be said of any new system

1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
It's honestly kind of cute seeing so many people complain about the caster nerfs. These nerfs were definitely needed with how dominant 9th level casting was in PF1... but then they've been coupled with major nerfs to the martial classes as well, with powerful tools moved much further back and more restricted (I'm looking at you, Spell Sunder). The best class in the playtest is easily the Cleric, and surprise surprise the Wizard falls in line at #2.
Yeah, they were really not needed, IMO. What was needed was moving the martials up to the level of casters in many respects. But I know that it is basically religious dogma for some that casters needed to be nerfed into the ground.

There is a type of "balance" that is clearly lost on paizo.


The relative simplicity of martial classes exists to allow more casual gamers ACCESS to the game. The trade off of playing a caster vs a martial class is that PLAYING a caster is more complicated, and requires keeping track of more things.

I generally prefer more complicated characters to play, but once in a while I just want to smash stuff, and not have to think about managing resources, enhancing spells, crafting items etc.

Casters SHOULD be more powerful, because they require a greater investment of time and energy to play.

At least that is how I have always viewed it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am 100% on board with armor as DR!

Differentiating between being hard to hit, and hard to wound opens up all kinds of possibilities.

For example:

Fighting a big slow ogre? Two handed axes that have a negative modifier to hit, but do extra dmg, are the right call.

Likewise firing off a volley of arrows without taking your time to aim.

Fighting a fast moving foe? might be better to sling that axe and go for the quicker, more accurate (but weaker) short sword, or to spend a action to aim to make sure your arrow actually finds it's mark.

Same goes for the armor you choose to wear:

Going up against a horde of goblins? SOME of those little buggers WILL hit you, so best to bring the full plate.

Fighting a giant with a club that can crush steel as easily as bone? maybe leave the full plate at home, and try and be as nimble as possible!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awesome bits:

1 - Action economy
2 - Proficiency (for SKILLS only, and with tweaks for wider spread[+ 1/2 level?])
3 - Bardic music
4 - spell caster multi-classing feats (not as a replacement for actual multiclassing, but as a way to enable the half-caster as an option for some classes) In fact I would remove the martial archetypes, along with the bard's spell casting (in exchange for more feats, more music, more combat prowess, etc.

Lame bits:

1 - proficiency for combat skill (bring back BAB, if only just for bonus, not multi attack)
2 - no real multi-classing. IMHO, multi-classing is what makes tabletop what it is, being able to build exactly the character you want from the available pieces.
3 - gated feats. Just generalize the combat/metamagic feats, and giv ethe fighter other cool stuff (feat sharing, leadership abilities, etc.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would have loved to have seen an edition that embraced wounds/vigor, and armor as DR as core.

It would have doubled down on the "dnd for grown-ups" thing that (imo) drew so many of us to PF after the 4e debacle.

The ability to differentiate fast but squishy opponents, from slow but tough targets would have really opened up the design space, while simultaneously addressing some of the "bounded accuracy" concepts that seem to be all the rage.

Goblin lucks out and crits your level 15 character? say hello to wnd(essentially CON) dmg!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also love grappling, and I would just rule that if the grappler remains in control with a success, they can drag the target 5feet, on crit success the drag them 15.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Could someone explain to me how pf 2e is in any way LESS complicated that PF 1?

In PF 1, you pick a race, and a little blurb give you all the info you need on what playing as that race does

In PF2, picking you race, literally the first thing you do, requires you to pour over a big list of racial abilities, and try to decide what will be most useful to you, when you ostensibly have yet to PLAY THE GAME.

In PF 1, aside from casters, most of your classes abilities are neatly summarized right on the class table. You can see what you will get, and its name gives you an idea what it does.

In PF2, the class table just points you to a long list of options to pour over for each and every level, making it hard to get a feel for a class at a glance.

In PF1, if you wanted to multi class, you just took levels in the class you wanted levels in.

In PF2, if you want to multi class, you need to again pour over a list of possible options, which are essentially copies of abilities printed elsewhere in the book.

In PF1, combat feats, and metamagic feats are just that, feats, that only need to be printed once.

I definitely see a few cool concepts thrown into this edition, but the changes made to basic things like bab, class abilities, races, multi-classing etc. are just mind boggling.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I say add to each missile (rule of cool)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fallyna wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Well - to add this to the discussion - I'll be happy if PF2 means they allow the devs to answer the questions about PF1 without a company meeting - 3 roundtable discussions, several 5 hour dev meetings, and then a straw poll to decide if the DC to jump over a 10 foot pit is 10 or 15.

You won't be the only one. Seeing FAQ threads unanswered for years after their product release (or be rejected as FAQ candidates), while Paizo seems hell bent on publishing new expansions with minimal testing (that make everything that much worse) has driven away several long term players in my group. They won't go to 5E (too simple), but Pathfinder has reached a point they consider unplayable without extreme frustration.

This is Paizo's big chance to make a fresh start with a product that might appeal to new players and grognards, without the baggage from earlier products. I can see Pathfinder dying a slow death if they screw it up, so we need to give the best feedback and testing we can, in the hope that it'll make a difference.

As grognard, I can say with certainty that this edition, as presented, does not appeal to my people.

... Which is not to say it without elements worth pilfering (Actions, proficiency [with tweaks to increase the bonus spread], and the new take on bardic music come to mind)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tithron wrote:

Ok, I don't want to get into an edition fight here, so I will be direct. No it is not 3.8. PF1 took 3.5 as far as it could. 5th ed is crushing Paizo in market share at this point. They are not trying to make another 3.5, they are taking the Pathfinder engine and making a NEW edition. That means taking risks and making changes. The 3.5/PF1 die hards will still be playing PF1 regardless of what happens with this Playtest.

I am also of the opinion that they will be opening up the options more in the full game. I think the playtest is intentionally restrictive to make sure classes fill there niches properly. That is speculation though.

The fact that 5e is crushing it, only makes it more baffling that paizo would seemingly try so hard to emulate 4e...

3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

So here's the thing, I think that PF2e offers some really great and amazing ideas:

* The three action economy
* The way shields and multiattack interact with those
* The +/-10 critical system
* Scaling proficiencies
* Lots of choices in individual classes

These are all super innovative and I love them... That being said, the rest is pretty lackluster, and as currently presented, it's pretty easy to run 5e with the first three of those added (multiattack now reduces the penalty of your later attacks by 3, for example), and I think you wind up with a better overall system... That's a *big* problem, from my point of view, as 5e is also an overall simpler system, which makes it a draw. Pathfinder 2e might actually be *more* complicated than 1e as presented currently.

I absolutely agree, though I would roll the "ready shield" action, into a "fight defensively" action.

I also feel that the multi-attack penalty rules might be more complicated than they are worth (maybe just drop them and deal with more lethal melee?)...

My problem with the class (and race) choices, is that they seem to remove flavor from classes (and races) and force you to buy it back. This also has the effect of making the classes difficult to groc at first glance, which is not great for new players, or just daydreaming about builds)

A better route would have to just present the core path, and present options to swap class features later (ya know, like Paizo has done a MILLION times)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Barbarossa Rotbart wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
...I feel like --on a larger scale -- the two significant changes are really proficiency and class feature acquisition/progression rates, ...
And these two things are the main problem. The proficiency system completely changes the feel of the game. It removes the flexibility of the old skill system and leads to really weird effects.

I actually like the proficiency system for SKILLS (Just skills) Though I would have gone with like, half level, rather than FULL LEVEL, which just seams like a weird kind of one upsmanship over 5e's proficiency system...

And with real multi-classing, and maybe a feat the problems with signature skills are largely overcome.

I also like the way that skills have found their way into combat as a way to buff spells, or enhance other abilities.

I would also probably roll a lot of the skill feats back into the skill itself...

The biggest problem with the prof. system as iI see it, is that it has essentially done away with the middle road combat classes, which is probably why bard got full spell progression (which also doesn't sit well with me [bard = jack of all trades, master of NONE, imo])

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:

I'm having a hard time keeping my own morale up let alone trying to sell the system to someone else. I've read a good proportion of the rule book, but I'm not looking forward to either making a character or running the game. It may play a lot better then it reads, but the layout and seemly weird rules are putting me off.

Apparently Vic said in another thread that the action system has been overwhelmingly well received at the convention play-tests. Not sure how I feel about that since not a huge fan of it, but at the same time it's not the thing that bugs me the most about the new edition.

The action system is like the one bit I like in this edition! In fact as other have mentioned, I would love to see activities (spells) that take more that three actions to cast, requiring planning over multiple rounds!

My biggest complaint is the lack of true multi classing, and the way that the classes have had nearly all their abilities pushed off into feats or powers, which means I can no longer just look at a class progression chart and get a feel for what the class can do.

planning weird or interesting builds via multi classing is, as far as I am concerned, the big advantage that tabletop rpgs have over video games, and the reason I have stuck with pathfinder (and dabbled with 5e).

Removing that core feature makes this edition a non-starter for me :(

2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Dairian wrote:
I would say this edition is more dnd 4.5, than 5.5...
I had the same thought.

To be fair, it is no where near as bad as 4e, and I really do think it can be salvaged, if not by paizo, then by a bit of home brewing (bringing back bab, a few missing spells, and re-organizing the class feats back into the generic categories they belong in (combat, meta magic, etc.)

The updates to exploration mode seem fine, downtime rules are interesting, action economy is pretty nifty etc.

It's weird, I kinda feel like if you mixed the good parts of 2e with the good parts of 5e you'd end up with something pretty slick.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Amanda Plageman wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:
I welcome all the nerfing. It's more in line with 5E and other recent trends of getting away from all the absurdly ridiculous high power nonsense that is from a dated age of design

..... But.... if I wanted to play 5E, I'd play 5E. It already exists, and is lovely in its own way.

Maybe I should have expected this, but I didn't. Pathfinder 1E was effectively D&D 3.75. But somehow I didn't expect that Pathfinder 2E would be D&D 5.5.

I guess I'll try to change my expectations and start going over it again....

I would say this edition is more dnd 4.5, than 5.5...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't understand why people think there is LESS bloat in this system, the metamagic feats are duplicated between wizard and sorcerer, the familiar rules are duplicated between alchemist, wizard, druid, and sorcerer.

They also applied curious nerfs in many places, like removing feather fall from the bard spell list (occult, I know), and getting rid of cats grace, bulls strength, etc. (they clearly have a thing against stat buffs).

All the generic combat feats, are now fighter specific, which is weird for the other martials...

Overall it reads like 4e, but less awfull

This really feels like they un-did the majority of the things that made pathfinder a compelling alternative to 4e.

So far I think 5e definitely has an edge over 2e, but they make some wonky choices as well.

I really think this edition can be saved by going back to BAB, keeping the proficiency system for skills, and bringing back real multi classing.

The core mechanics are pretty solid, and no where NEAR as inconsistent and weird as 5e for things like combat maneuvers(trip grapple, etc).

Races also seem off, removing a lot of the quirky weirdness that made playing a non-human interesting, and adding needless complexity to the choice of what race to play (how long are people going to need to pour over the ancestry feats before they make up their mind?)

Also this book is organized very strangely, like how all the alchemical items are just lumped together in the same section, making it difficult to get a feel for all the elixers, bombs, mutagens, etc.

Also, needing to list the insane number of feats for each class in the class section just makes everything seem much more complicated than it needs to. (one of my big gripes with 4e).

And yeah, the way you build your stats just feels too formulaic, and really discourages playing against type.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The right solution might be to ditch proficiency for melee and magic, and return to good ol'e fashioned bab, and caster level.

Leave proficiency for skills to cut the book keeping, as it shines there.

I know this isn't going to happen, but another solution is to make Vigor/wounds a core mechanic, rather than an option, and add bab to melee defense.

Then if a fighter gets within striking distance of your uber-caster, they will soon be a dead caster.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see that as a problem.

In a world where Magic is a thing, why wouldn't everyone want some?

In terms of maintaining a semblance of balance, casting restrictions while wearing armor can cover that ground, as well as tying melee ability to AC, particularly in a system that generates a crit when you beat ac by 10. This would expose casters to serious pain, requiring more martial characters to protect them.

Plus, I mean not everyone always wants to deal with the complexities of playing a caster.

Pure melee builds are great for beginners, or people who just want to hit stuff.

That is another great thing about this type of gaming, everyone can play the way they want, and it is up to the DM to ensure that everyone is having fun, has a role to play etc.

Let's not forget that this is a COOPERATIVE game, and it is about more than just who's character is the most powerful.

That is why I feel like balance needs to take a back seat to letting people build the kinds of character they want to build.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My big issue with multi classing in PF2e so far, is that while on a certain level it may technically offer more choices than 5e, you are a still a (class) + Feats.

I don't want to play a fighter who has some wizard abilities, I want to play a fighter 2/wizard 3, rogue 2/ blade dancer 5.

Digging into the classes, and there abilities, and planning fun, weird builds that take a while to come online has always been one of my favorite parts of table top role-playing.

If you are still the class you started as, you are not multi-classing, you are just poaching some abilities.

If this rule stays as is, I will be left with no option but to home brew something with my fellow grognards, at least until some other company comes along to eat Paizo's lunch, the way Paizo ate WotC's after the 4e debacle.

I really hope that Paizo fixes this before the final version, I am rooting for them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerobelis wrote:
Dairian wrote:

I mean what is a Paladin really other than a more martial Cleric, who is just a more martial Priest?

The cleric doesn't have to be lawful good! The cleric has lots of spells and the Paladin doesn't. The Paladin also has a harsh code he must follow (cleric's does as well now, but it usually isn't so harsh).

And that is why every group I have ever gamed with HATED those goody two shoes Paladins! Seriously though, the way 5e handled paladins was pretty perfect, doubling down on the whole "intense dedication to a set of principles" thing, while opening up what precisely those principles were.

But from an abilities perspective, Paladin have always been essentially fighter/clerics, and the pathfinder rules presented so far really make it seem like a fighter who "multiclasses" into cleric, will be nearly indistinguishable, conceptually, from a straight paladin.

As others have pointed out, Pathfinder has become home to those who prefer a more "crunchy" system, rather than the more simplified, first timer friendly direction that WotC has been going.

By and large I feel that Paizo has really been knocking it out of the park with this new addition, but in some areas it feel like they are hedging their bets on "casuals".

And while I feel that making space for less experienced players is a great thing, I am seeing the potential here for a system that is truly capable of satisfying all levels of experience.

Present "Advancement paths" that mirror the traditional classes, but build them using a classless system under the hood, that will enable more experienced players to really open things up and build exactly what they want.

The pieces are all there, and I am really hoping Paizo can live up to that potential, if not in core, then in a supplement down the line.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems clear (to me) that the bold move here would be to ditch classes in favor of this new archetype/feat based system, then present the "classic" classes simply as templates that less experienced gamers can follow to play a more traditional class.

Meanwhile experienced players can build their perfect custom classless characters in any way they want.

You can also use this to simplify things a lot with regard to the hybrid classes (Paladin, Ranger, Bard)

I mean what is a Paladin really other than a more martial Cleric, who is just a more martial Priest?

I am liking this approach more and more as a class building system, rather than a multi-class system.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had forgotten that re-training was intended to be a core part of this edition, and that does alleviate my concerns to some extent, depending on how those rules pan out, and if they extend to class levels.

"work with your GM" is a bit of a cop out when it comes to discussing the merits and flaws of a rules system, particularly as part of a playtest.

As others have pointed out, this isn't really multi-classing in the classic sense, and is so far really the only change I take any major issue with, at least in the context of how the rest of pathfinder 2e as revealed so far.

On it's own it is an interesting system, and if layered over a single "Adventurer" class, or the npc classes of old (warrior, expert, adept) would represent a really interesting shift away from classic dnd, and into something much more versatile, and customizable.

As things are shaping up, it feels like paizo is trying to have it both ways, push the envelope, but not TOO far, and for my dollar I would have preferred they pick a side, rather than try to split the difference.

Still excited to see the rulebook, as they have already proven that at the very least PF 2e will have lots of great ideas to steal from for my home-brew system.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dairian wrote:

At this rate, why not just ditch classes entirely?

Class features are already feats, BAB/casting progression are already standardized, why essentially reprint each class as an archetype, when you can just use a single base class, and grab the class features you like as you go, to the extent that you want them?

The problem I see with this approach, is that if my fighter does decide to dabble into wizard, he will not be able to switch gears and just focus on casting for the rest of his career.

Well, I think "this gets rid of classes eventually" is really a slippery slope. It is, currently, impossible to have fighter features, rogue features, wizard features, and cleric features since you don't have enough class feats to buy all those dedications. Classes are iconic and you're still getting over half of what you get in total from your level 1 class even if you spend all your class feats on archetypes and multiclassing.

As for "I fall into something and find I love it and want to do only that" style character changes, I figure that's something one can achieve via retraining. I suspect a lot of "I gave up the sword in order to cast spells" character concepts were motivated by how 3.x multiclassing required you to let your swordsmanship lapse, so aren't really necessary anymore however. I mean, I don't know why someone who is regularly involved in deadly combat wouldn't want to be good at as many different ways to stay alive and dispatch their enemies as they can.