Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Darksol the Painbringer's page

7,906 posts (7,929 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,906 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I'm sorry for your misfortunes, but I'm likewise not surprised. Whenever we've wanted to sign up for events, almost every Pathfinder and D&D 5E event was sold out well before we had a chance to look at them, so this isn't news to me.

However, to add on to that, our group won't be able to make it to Gencon this year either, both due to financial as well as commitment issues. (A new vehicle is not cheap or easy to recover from.)

That being said, I have been playing the Playtest with our group for a while now, even after it's ended, and it's been a blast being on both ends of the screen. Between psyching players out with the threat of Attacks of Opportunity (among other reactions), as well as creating and acquiring new powers as a character (a Sorcerer with a Golden Dragon Head staff which can spout a cone of flame ranging from 15 to 60 feet based on the quality of staff via spending Resonance, with a 50% effectiveness if used again within a minute).

Even if we can't be there for an event, I'm looking forward to opening a great new chapter in the realm of fantasy when we purchase the updated and revised Core Rulebook for Pathfinder 2.0.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
After playing the playtest for a bit, I have found that not being able to draw two weapons with a dual wielding specialized character (Rogue) really hampers the first round (and often the second). Did I miss something about drawing two weapons, or is it possible to add in a feat for drawing two weapons?

Per the rules, you must spend an action for each weapon you wish to draw. Wasting 2 actions on the first round of combat just to properly participate in combat is pretty bad and clunky design, something that I feel is an oversight on the developers' part.

Quandary does offer something that can help mitigate this, but Quick Draw is at-best a band-aid and at-worst a waste of time since you can only use Quick Draw when you're in a position to attack, and it actually wouldn't work if you wished to use feats like Double Slice or Twin Takedown, which aren't available to the Rogue starting out anyway.

Then again, most adventures I've been a part of thus far have had us with our weapons out anyway, so I haven't felt the worst of consequences, but I imagine if you're in an unexpected encounter (such as being attacked while sleeping), or if you regain consciousness from the Dying condition, that you would have major struggle to initiate (or maintain) combat participation effectively.

Hopefully with the new rules they'll have it fixed.

Why would you need to draw a weapon if you aren't in a position to attack? Why is it an issue that quick draw doesn't work with Double Slice if rogues don't get it? Also, it works fine with Twin Takedown. Quick draw >quick draw > Twin Takedown is the same number of attacks at the same bonuses. It may wind up getting broken up across two turns if you need to move or hunt target, but it still keeps offensive momentum going.

So you don't waste precious in-combat actions doing so. I said it was clunky, and this is precisely the reason why.

It's an issue because this creates a major disconnect with fluid and flexible multiclassing. It's the "Vital Strike doesn't work with anything" issue we had back in PF1, except now it's with drawing weapons instead of specific action types, which is problematic when the game is supposed to be simple and effective. And now I have feats which require multiclassing to acquire that I can't use because of separate mechanics being extremely clunky. And I'm not the only one who's made this claim; there's actually a player right now in our group who dislikes having to spend actions drawing weapons when most trained individuals can do so at the drop of a hat without any special effort required.

This assumes you're already toe-to-toe with the enemy. In every combat I've been in, that never happens except when it's not in your favor, as well as having a target previously hunted (Twin Takedown only works on a Hunted Target), meaning staying and fighting is probably the worst thing you can do in that moment.

Following the "combats last 3 turns" ordeal like it has been in PF1, you're spending 2/3 of your combat just setting up to do your schtick. That's bad design. If you're lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you view it), you might get more if combats last longer, but more often than not, those added rounds may very well be because you had to waste 2 rounds just to properly participate in combat. Which is again, bad design.


Narxiso wrote:
After playing the playtest for a bit, I have found that not being able to draw two weapons with a dual wielding specialized character (Rogue) really hampers the first round (and often the second). Did I miss something about drawing two weapons, or is it possible to add in a feat for drawing two weapons?

Per the rules, you must spend an action for each weapon you wish to draw. Wasting 2 actions on the first round of combat just to properly participate in combat is pretty bad and clunky design, something that I feel is an oversight on the developers' part.

Quandary does offer something that can help mitigate this, but Quick Draw is at-best a band-aid and at-worst a waste of time since you can only use Quick Draw when you're in a position to attack, and it actually wouldn't work if you wished to use feats like Double Slice or Twin Takedown, which aren't available to the Rogue starting out anyway.

Then again, most adventures I've been a part of thus far have had us with our weapons out anyway, so I haven't felt the worst of consequences, but I imagine if you're in an unexpected encounter (such as being attacked while sleeping), or if you regain consciousness from the Dying condition, that you would have major struggle to initiate (or maintain) combat participation effectively.

Hopefully with the new rules they'll have it fixed.


Claxon wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Rage should be a meaningful combat tactic, but that doesn't mean you should drop out of every 3 turns (on average).

I understand that they were shooting for "the unpredictable fury of rage" type deal. But what it honestly leaves is just a sour mechanic that makes me shy away from the barbarian class in PF2. Barbarian and Inquisitor are my two favorite classes in PF1. Barbarian is a class I probably wont play in PF2 (if I play PF2 at all).

The barbarian requires rage to maintain effectiveness in combat relative to other martial classes. It really sucks to suck every 18 seconds.

No, but it does mean that you need to watch when and where you rage, and what you're raging for, which is where the "meaningful choice" aspect of Rage comes into place. This isn't (and shouldn't be) a matter of "Oh, there's a combat, guess I'm going to rage because it's a combat!" That's PF1 tactics and paradigm, which is what they're getting away from.

If that's the case then I'll go ahead and consider the barbarian a dead class that doesn't exist, because that's exactly what the barbarian should be in my opinion. The barbarian should be raging every combat as much as they possibly can. In fact, all of their abilities are based on raging (as far as I recall). So not raging just means you're a really s##$ty martial character.

Then why make Rage a temporary benefit if we're expected to have it always going? The Barbarian should just always have rage going 24/7 with no drawback or issues whatsoever. Your expectations of PF1 are clouding what the original intent of Rage was meant to be, a powerful but fleeting and risky boost in strength. I'm not saying Rage is a perfect mechanic as it stands, I just think a major paradigm shift like what you're suggesting isn't an appropriate way to make Rage a fitting mechanic.

A permanent damage bonus with AC penalty doesn't really make the Barbarian a "not crappy" martial character, especially when we consider that the rage power feats are largely junk or not worth the price, and that there are several non-rage feats that are very solid choices. Sudden Charge and Whirlwind Attack come to mind, and multiclassing Fighter for Attacks of Opportunity as well as Power Attack makes for a solid frontliner whose rage is merely an optional boost instead of some mandatory requirement for combat.


Lightning Raven wrote:

I don't understand why go for a flat check instead of going for something Constitution-related. It's more flavorful and it can be used as a trade-off. Some people would want to invest more in CON and less in STR/DEX to have longer rages, while others would go for the burst damage. This could mean a small difference in earlier levels, but as they go on, the gap would increase and making it an ever significant increase and reward.

After all, they wanted to eliminate rocket-tag and this translates into longer fights, specially late-game, so a Barbarian with investment CON would either not worry at all about it running out or having significant chance of extending it way past over the threshold of those the trade-off for damage and AC.

But one thing is for certain. It may be a balanced mechanic to have rage lasting 3 rounds... But I'm sure it makes Barbarians lame fighters in-world. In PF2e, not only they are just glorified thugs with a magical stick doing all the work, but they also have minor tantrums that randomly ending. It's not looking good for martial classes and Barbarians if heavy changes in this department don't come with the final release.

I personally rule that a Barbarian's flat check is reduced by his level + his Constitution modifier. So a level 1 Barbarian with a 16 Constitution only has to make a DC 1 flat check on his 2nd round, whereas a Level 20 Barbarian with a +5 Constitution only has to make a DC 5 flat check on his 6th round of Rage.

The biggest reason why they don't do this is because of sticking to simplicity, but IMO it's not really that difficult.


Claxon wrote:

Rage should be a meaningful combat tactic, but that doesn't mean you should drop out of every 3 turns (on average).

I understand that they were shooting for "the unpredictable fury of rage" type deal. But what it honestly leaves is just a sour mechanic that makes me shy away from the barbarian class in PF2. Barbarian and Inquisitor are my two favorite classes in PF1. Barbarian is a class I probably wont play in PF2 (if I play PF2 at all).

The barbarian requires rage to maintain effectiveness in combat relative to other martial classes. It really sucks to suck every 18 seconds.

No, but it does mean that you need to watch when and where you rage, and what you're raging for, which is where the "meaningful choice" aspect of Rage comes into place. This isn't (and shouldn't be) a matter of "Oh, there's a combat, guess I'm going to rage because it's a combat!" That's PF1 tactics and paradigm, which is what they're getting away from.

The fact that players now have to question whether now is the time or not to rage is, in my opinion, a great place for the mechanic to be. Do I plan my attack for when the Dragon decides to swoop down and try to kill the Wizard, or do I want to rage and take the fight to the Dragon? Compare that to PF1's "RAGELANCEPOUNCEDEADGG." That's not really fun or meaningful gameplay. Being a default or automatic option really just meant that the effects should've just been active 24/7 for all intents and purposes.

I also would like to point out that Rage being required for Barbarians to maintain combat effectiveness is outright false if you actually consider the mechanics of the ability. All it does is make you deal increased damage (minorly, I might add) in exchange for a reduced defense that will eventually come to bite you in the ass if you don't make it count. Rage Powers might be a significant requirement, but when you consider that most every totem choice currently does jack squat in terms of rage powers (Spirit Totem, I'm looking at you), it's not the end of the world if you don't have Rage going. Some auxiliary benefits of Rage are certainly still nice, like the ability to change your damage type, as well as have different options, but in my opinion this is a designer failure because it was basically putting an orange in an apple orchard.


Claxon wrote:

I really really really hate the barbarian rage mechanics of PF2.

I know they're trying to simplify things by limiting powers which have duration measured in rounds or times per day, but it just doesn't feel right to me.

The whole dropping out of rage thing once or twice per battle just doesn't fit with how I imagine barbarians.

Well, it's not just a matter of simplification. Rage is meant to have a meaningful limitation of how long that person can be so empowered before they just lose their energy and fail. After all, rage rounds and general "drawbacks" stopped mattering after level 3 or 4 in PF1, and even then you could take Extra Rage feats to extremely enhance the amount of time you spent raging if you decided to multiclass Barbarian (or get some other form of Barbarian goodies).

If it's not "right" for Rage to be a meaningful combat tactic, then the Barbarian is on shaky ground as it is and needs a new niche to fill besides having anger management problems.


Garfaulk Sharpstone wrote:
On the 4th round, when they drop to fatigued, do they also drop their animal aspects? Would be odd for, say, a werewolf to turn back to a human every 18 seconds while attacking things, but I'm curious if there's anyhting official in there about it (alas, not home to check. Just wondering)

Keep in mind that a werewolf is more of an involuntary curse, and there are rules for it in the Werewolf beastiary entry. I'm not saying you can't flavor the Beast Totem effects to function like lycanthropy, but remember that it's more of a calling upon their powers temporarily, and as such shouldn't be treated the same as having a more permanent "illness."

That being said, if this is pre-1.6 rules, then yes. Barbarians would only ever benefit from Rage effects for 18 seconds at a time period. With 1.6 in place, it can be as little as 12 seconds, or even as high as 30 seconds, depending on your flat check results. More often than not, though, it will average to the same 18 seconds, but with some lucky bursts of 24-30 seconds (or unlucky shortness of 12 seconds in some cases).

In my opinion, I would rule that the flat check DCs a Barbarian makes with rage is reduced by an amount equal to their level. That is, a level 20 Barbarian would have to make a flat check of 10 if the Flat check DC is increased to a total of 30, as in the higher levels, combats take longer since the scaling of HP and healing is stronger than the damage dealt per target, and it doesn't make sense for a Barbarian who is more experienced to not be able to rage longer more often than not, than a Barbarian who is lower level.


RazarTuk wrote:

Remove TAC. That's it. If you were to remove TAC as a mechanic, I think heavy armor would have enough of a trade-off associated with it to be a viable option. But to explain why, I need to start with a brief history lesson on why TAC is a thing.

Way back in war gaming days, your battleship might be described as having 1st class armor, 2nd class armor, 3rd class armor, etc. This is the origin of the term "armor class" and why it was decreasing in AD&D. When porting this concept over to a pseudo-Medieval fantasy setting, Gygax and co. made a list of armor types and ranked them. For example, wearing full plate and carrying a shield was 1st class, wearing full plate without a shield or wearing half plate with one was 2nd class, and wearing half plate without one was 3rd class. Dexterity did affect your AC, but at least in AD&D 1e, it did nothing from 7-14, and changed your AC by 1 point for every point of Dex up or down. (E.g. 15 Dex was -1 AC and 16 Dex was -2) Thus, and this is slightly speculative, going into 3e, the assumption was that the bulk of your AC would come from armor. This will be important in a second.

See, while all this was happening, they were shifting how attack rolls worked. First it was Class x Level x AC tables. Then it was THAC0, which let you generate the entire row for Class x Level with a single value. And eventually, in 3e, they had the idea to simplify attack rolls into the 3.PF BAB+Str/Dex mechanic. But that led to a bit of a problem. Wizards had low BAB so they wouldn't be good with weapons, but that also meant they had a hard time landing spells. Thus, the solution was to create a new type of AC- touch AC- for wizards to target. And- and this is the speculative part- since armor was the main source of AC, wizards could just ignore it.

This, of course, led to a feedback loop. Because armor no longer applied to all of your defenses, it was more useful to invest in Dex and wear lighter armor. But because people weren't wearing armor, wizards had trouble...

I just think that Heavy Armor should actually grant more of a raw armor bonus (even just 2 higher is a solid start), but have that TAC weakness, which both better fits how it functioned in PF1, but also gives Heavy Armor a better niche identity of "This is the hardest stuff to hit normally, so use alternative tactics to beat this guy" and since monster rules are basically "Make whatever numbers you want your monsters to have," it doesn't affect enemies in any meaningful way that it already hasn't before.

There is already a "rule" mentioned in one of their previous streams that determines how much heavier armor hampers you if you have a certain amount of Strength; that is, the stronger you are, the less the armor reduces your movement. Which is awesome, and gives Strength a better niche identity. I have no clue as to how that scales, and if it persists in the final version we'll have those numbers so I have a better understanding as to how it works, but the concept seems solid to me.

And while Light Armor being less likely (if not impossible) to be Legendary proficiency in serves as somewhat of a problem, I do think it should be less available compared to the Heavier proficiences. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, but that characters like Fighters and Paladins with their own armor proficiency scaling with whatever tier of armor they prefer would be nice, compared to other classes like Rogues and Barbarians and Rangers who shouldn't based on their current proficiency scalings. Archetypes (assuming they function as changing the base packages of classes instead of being another form of Dedication feats) can fix the concept of "X class can never be Y tier of Z proficiency."


This generally falls under GM purview, because there are technically no rules for digging your own tunnels. (Should be, especially if mining and other such similar concepts are meant to occur in these games, otherwise the rules fall flat upon themselves and create impossible paradoxii.)

Per RAW, only trained individuals could properly construct and dig a tunnel (which somewhat makes sense), meaning your fellow party members couldn't realistically help you.

Per RAI and/or a permissive GM, I would allow your party members to aid you in a Craft check (even while untrained) to dig a tunnel, with results based on your check.

What those results would entail is up to GM FIAT, which I guess I can give you my personal estimate on what that entails, but your GM would ultimately decide how that works.

In my opinion, I would probably use a more realistic approach as to how far you would progress each day. That is, you need the appropriate tools (such as mining picks and shovels) for you to get any sort of reasonable result. I guess you could try digging with axes or your bare hands, but that will get very little results, and also serve as a potential hazard. Specialized tools (such as Adamantine Picks and Shovels) will certainly yield more results (at least double the original progress). As to how far a single person could get in 8 hours worth of basic tunnel work, I don't know for sure, and largely depends on how stable and structured you want the tunnels to be, as well as how good your check is, and whatever anecdotal knowledge I have. Assuming no support beams or anything like that (like in typical mineshafts to prevent cave-ins), I could see it being in the neighborhood of 40 feet. If you want to add in support beams, that would likewise improve the difficulty of the check (if not make it require a higher tier proficiency to even try), as well as reduce the progress of your check on average (cut it down to 20 feet for simplicity purposes, though it might even be 10 feet with how much added work that is). I probably wouldn't require a support beam for every check, but for maybe every other check, since having too much distance between support beams can be problematic, and honestly, every 40 feet seems like it's a little too much distance for support beams.

The support beams, assuming they are made to make a steady and safe tunnel, also requires its own set of materials (such as wood for the beams themselves, along with basic metal and steel combined with a forge to help shape the metal to the proper shapes you need them to be). This is also important if you would like to create doorways and other similar structures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought TWF is only penalized with Double Strike and not Twin Takedown. Could be wrong, I'm not 100% familiar with both descriptions, but the odds still aren't in the favor of TWF for consistency, since Certain Strike is a powerful feat if you don't use things like Intimidate or Deception (which could be understandable for a Fighter who doesn't have an extreme reason to push Charisma), and is not conducive to TWF combat due to it being its own action requirement.

And remember, while it's true that on-hit effects like damage bonuses and weapon properties can be applied more with TWF combat, the odds of it actually being the case isn't as possible, and also don't forget that those properties still take effect even with Certain Strike, meaning it won't be as close as it may seem, since even the near misses apply the extra bit of damage or so from weapon properties. (Yes, I double-checked and it says every dice; a shame, really, but excellent for weakness exploiting.) Similarly, Certain Strike can't be used with the Quickened condition, which is a pity. All that really does is give them a free Move, or a free non-special attack that could or could not work out so well.

Yes, Battleaxe/Hatchet is an awesome combination, perhaps perfect for the TWF niche, since if they are meant to excel at defeating low level enemies simultaneously, getting the bonuses to attacking different targets helps out a lot if they can defeat them in a couple quick strikes.

Again, I do agree that TWF has more potential, but the odds of reaching that potential are very slim. It's about the same odds as getting maximum damage on a top-level Fireball spell, or another spell with crazy amounts of damage dice. Hopeful, but realistically unlikely to happen compared to rolling less dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's do a basic math gameplay breakdown on how this apparent combination will be effective. For simplicity purposes, we're going to use a 14th level Fighter with Ranger Dedication and two +3 weapons (or a +3 weapon with a Standard Doubling Ring; either way works). We can add more, but this is merely an exercise in accuracy.

So, our 14th level Fighter will probably have 22 Strength thanks to his Belt of Giant Strength, and will also have Legendary in Weapons. With his +3 bonus to hit, we're looking at +26 on his first attack. If we throw in agile weapons (which reduces his overall damage), we're looking at +22/+18 on his subsequent attacks, or +21/+16 if non-agile.

Of course, we also need to rely on mechanics like Hunt Target, as well as getting into melee range, to make use of our special combat feats. In most combats, we can expect to spend an action on each requirement, since enemies can be as little as 10 feet away, or as much as 60 foot (or more in some cases). But a standardized 30 foot distance seems appropriate in most every scenario (and the good news is that Quickened usually lets you Stride in place of Strike for your free action, meaning Quickened can still help even when not attacking).

Now, the AC of a level 14 creature is in the 33 range. So, our intrepid Fighter with his amazing 7 attacks will hit this level approriate creature on a 7+ roll with his first attack, and an 11/12+ roll on his second attack, and a 15/17+ on his third and further attacks. In other words, his first attack has a 65% chance to hit (including a 15% critical hit chance), his second attack then drops to 45% (or 50% with agile weapons), and then to 20% (or 30% with an agile weapon).

These odds aren't the worst, but they most certainly stop being in the Fighter's favor after 2 attacks, and this is about as optimal as you can get without including bonuses to attack (or AC debuffs on an enemy, which do certainly help, but aren't factored in for simplicity purposes). However, each attack is likely to only do 4D8+Strength or 4D6+Strength with Agile traits, compared to a Fighter doing 4D12+Strength or even 4D10+Strength. The biggest difference is that our 14th level Fighter, if he went the two-handed route, could select Certain Strike as a feat, making even his low-accuracy attacks devastating; combined with a D10 Forceful weapon (such as a Falchion), he's inflicting consistent damage while still not forgoing the possibility of a full-on hit, compared to a two-weapon specialist whose feats are incongruent with feats like Certain Strike, and being Quickened gives him more of the same benefit if he utilizes feats like Power Attack or Sudden Charge. He also doesn't need to dip his toes into Ranger shenanigans. He could simply go into Barbarian territory and grab Rage (with the Rager feat in place of the Targeted Hunter feat), meaning when he utilizes Certain Strike, he gets Rage damage on top of Forceful on top of minimum damage! A basic math calculation would suggest that he deals 18 (or 22) damage, as we include [4 dice + 6 Strength + 4 Rage + 4/8 Forceful]. Sure, he might create a point of vulnerability for himself later on in combat, but this really pushes the playstyle of "Kill your enemies before they kill you," which is what has always been promoted back in PF1.

That same fighter can also make Attacks of Opportunity with Reach weapons, creating a safety barrier while also having a pseudo-full attack bonus to make enemies crumble before his power via tripping, and also being able to go toe to toe (AKA not being disadvantaged) against most larger enemies. He might not be able to get as much potential enemies, assuming they are weaker (such as level 12 or even 11), but he is far more consistent, which is what matters most in this edition now more than ever since the math is tighter than it was before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ethano wrote:

I only saw one other thread about this topic and it was older so I decided to bring the topic back. This is the feat breakdown.

1. Double Slice - two actions two attacks

2. Ranger Dedication

4. Twin Takedown - One action two attacks

6. Targeted Hunter

12. Desperate Finisher

14. Two Weapon Flurry - One reaction two attacks

+ Quickened is seven attacks

Give me two scimitars or Orcish Necksplitters and that damage is insanely high.

I don't feel like this is intentional. I wanted to let someone at Paizo know before the books get released.

The only thing that could really make this worse is if you take feats like Glancing Blow which turn misses into minimum-damage hits, but those are unique feats that don't stack with stuff like this since they are their own actions with specific triggers. I could be wrong here, but I'm certain this would be a reason why that's not viable.

That being said, attacks at -8 (or even -6 with Ranger class with Fighter Dedication) aren't going to be very threatening to appropriate level enemies. Against lower level enemies, they will be quite useful for clearing out adjacent trash, but I'd much rather trust that to Fighters using Reach weapons with Attacks of Opportunity, since they are more safe against lower level enemies, and are much more accurate by suffering less penalties, meaning they are more realiably able to clear out mooks, though they may not be able to potentially get as much, the math would work itself out to equal all things considered.

In short, it's not really strong, and has a useful niche that other fighting styles might not be able to compare to. In my mind, that's smart and fair design, and is certainly something I'd like to see in the game more often; useful yet varied niches of playstyles that classes support.


Corwin Icewolf wrote:

We interrupt your regularly scheduled spell debate to ask the following question: what in the name of Nethys' crackling left buttcheek is a tide pods fallacy?!

I think I may have seen it used on here but I have no idea what it means, and google keeps finding tide pod challenge stuff.

Anyway, it's a lousy spell for sure, kind of like that worse transformation spell in pf1e that allowed a wizard to become a fighter without bonus feats.

So I just re- looked Avatar over. There are a few things the op seems to have missed. Different move speeds and certain immunities the spell Grants depending on deity followed. I don't know if those are worth it because I haven't actually played playtest at level 20, though.

Tide Pods were something that was almost never consumed (at least seriously) until the news (or some silly upstarts prior to the news making it into an epidemic) decided to make a big deal out of it, and influenced the media and viewers as such. In other words, tide pods only really became a problem because the news made it out to be one, not because they actually were a problem compared to other horrible things that were much more likely to happen.

People are saying that Avatar, a 1/minute/day spell, which puts you on-par with a 12 Strength Fighter at-best, and at-worst puts you on par with a 14 Strength Barbarian or Ranger, outshines an entire class completely, even though logically speaking, nobody really ever has any major use for this spell since an optimized Battle Cleric will already have the attributes of the Avatar spell, and the spell doesn't truly encapsulate the kinds of abilities and powers a class has.

While it may not be 100% applicable here, I do think it's silly that people think Fighters in PF2 can be replicated with a 10th level spell. The reality is, they can't. And they never will.


Edge93 wrote:

Yeah, I came in ready to say pretty much what Captain Morgan said but he already said it. I do think the spell could use a little tweaking to make it more unique and fun but I think it DEFINITELY needs to be made sure that it doesn't actually make you as good a Fighter as the Fighter, even briefly. Close maybe, but not all the way. Clerics being able to temporarily become better Fighters than Fighters was one of the main reasons the class is broken in PF1 (and I say that even as Cleric is my favorite class).

I do think the numbers will need some changing for the final release due to the changing proficiency system, but I think the dynamic of "better than a melee focused caster but not quite as good as a focused martial" is appropriate.

I was going to argue that Avatar could get a little more power since Fighters have their class feats and stuff but that's a dangerous game and I think Clerics can still cast in this state so they still have their class features too. XP

One last little note, the cap for Fighter accuracy us actually +35. 20 level, 3 for Legendary, 5 for item, and 7 for Str, not 6. I think you might have left off a Belt of Giant Strength from that calculation.

That said all other Martials cap at 34, since only fighter gets Legendary.

Well, the spell technically already does that, it's just a pretty sad spell, and not really a reason someone would take that feat, for starters. 6 10th level spells for a feat is way more powerful than 1. (They aren't mutually exclusive, but the point is that the feat does more for something that isn't spellcasting compared to your actual spellcasting.)

Furthermore, a Cleric can't ever match the Fighter's numbers, both offensively and defensively. He will be at-least short 2 proficiency, and he will be down 2 attribute modifier (or 1 if he really invests in it, but not really favorable in comparison to a bonus 10th level spell). The spell might make you more durable through AC and temp HP, or offensive through to-hit, but any optimized Cleric in all of those attributes (assuming 20+) will hit those benchmarks anyway, all this spell really does is apply those benchmarks across the board instead of it normally being what the player originally invested.

In addition, and perhaps the most important is, that Cleric won't have access to any of the powerful feats a Fighter gets unless they took Fighter Dedication and spent some class feats on them. Even then, they'll get access to basic things like Sudden Charge or Power Attack, and not any of the higher level feats due to how Class Feat limitations via Dedications work. (Which is fine, not a complaint, just an observation.)

So really, this is a Tide Pods fallacy argument in favor of nerfing a sub-par spell just to make it weaker than a given class, because apparently the class being trivialized is nothing but a bunch of numbers, the thing that the spell mostly changes. (Which makes for a very lame and crappy class if that's true.)


The irony here is that the 10th level spell feat is mostly worth it for powers and cantrips that have a 10th level scaling. I would never take this feat for such a trash spell (especially since a simple fix for this would be to have it deal 7 dice of damage plus spellcasting modifier for damage at all times, and have either your weapon or armor proficiencies match your spellcasting proficiencies).

Even despite that, as a Cleric, having 5 10th level heals (or harms), for free each day is extremely powerful and unrivaled by anything else in the game, which is what makes the feat so strong.

That, and a free 5th level spell every hour is a pretty bad feat comparison.


Temperans wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
And also because there are feats that let you use Dex on a specific weapon, or traits for using weapons made specifically of a certain material, or high level feats that just plainly say "the weapon you chose at lv1 when you got Weapon Focus".

I wont deny that there are many feats that require Weapon Focus on a weapon or benefit only a single weapon. But, most of the feats were not that. Those that were, are mostly Fighter feats, which fighters have ways to share with an entire group (Martial Versatility/Mastery feat and the Weapon Specialist Advance Weapon Training).

'Ediwir wrote:
So... like a Fighter's weapon groups?

I don't know what you mean. Fighter's weapon groups do allow fighters to use any weapon in a group well, which most other classes can't do. Like I said above they do have some ways to share single weapon feats; Few other classes can do it, and its usually because they count as fighter for feats while also being human.

However, Fighters didn't get enough skills, magic, or ability to make them stand out like other more focused classes. (until Archetypes, Advance Armor/Weapon Training, and Weapon/Armor/Shield Mastery feats came out)

A solution of "just throw more feats at it" isn't very pragmatic or conducive to having a flexible yet optimal way to approach an encounter, especially when it takes time (and by relation, encounters and levels, plus additional resources) to accomplish such a goal compared to just going the simplest and quickest route. Why would I use a Bastard Sword at 3rd level when I can just use a Longsword at 1st level?

And Weapon Groups via training wasn't really applicable when you consider that Weapon Focus had more exclusive mechanics (singling out weapons versus groups of weapons), and when a lot of those weapons were same-y, the "one true weapon" choice always came out on top. Why use a Bastard Sword by 3rd level when you've been using that Longsword since 1st level, and have probably sank a Weapon Focus feat or something into it already?


Draco18s wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


You kind of solved your own question:

Quote:
There are some higher level feats that let you choose between the two.
The problems you're presenting don't compute with what you've just stated as a mechanic.
Except that some of them explicitly state that the enemy chooses. "Target becomes flat-footed unless it moves."

Where is that rules quote from? Last I checked, there's nothing in the game that does this, because it's counterintuitive.

And also, does that text also state the enemy can move as part of the critical effect? Because there's nothing there that states an enemy gets the ability to move, which means the target is flat-footed until it takes an action to Step, Stride, and so forth. Until then? It's flat-footed. If it's immobilized? It's considered perpetually flat-footed at all times because it cannot take actions to Step or Stride or otherwise move.


The DM of wrote:

There are crit specials and feats that enhance your blows by moving an opponent 5' or making them flat-footed. There are some higher level feats that let you choose between the two. That higher level option is a good benefit. I would argue that the "options" that don't let you choose are problematic and unwieldy in a game and should be removed in favor of always letting the player select and select direction.

Problem 1) My opponent gets moved 5' away and is no longer in range - Unless you are intentionally doing this to clear a path, you have just gimped yourself as it wastes an action to move 5' towards them to get another attack in. This is not a reward of getting a critical. It's a punishment.

Problem 2) When it's the DM's choice to move an npc or flat-foot them, how do they fairly choose? - If I know my player needs to clear a path, I either have to give it to them knowingly helping them, or I have to choose flat-footed and intentionally thwart them. This is a silly, unfair burden on the game. If I'm flipping a coin, that's a mechanic. Why doesn't the feature resolve the problem itself?

I think the Move or Be Flat-footed "non-choice" mechanic is negative and should be removed, because it is not rewarding as intended and not handled well as a mechanic.

You kind of solved your own question:

Quote:
There are some higher level feats that let you choose between the two.

The problems you're presenting don't compute with what you've just stated as a mechanic. If it's a choice, then it's a choice that the player makes because they are the one making the attack, not the GM (unless the rules specify otherwise, but it would make no sense in any case). If it's not a choice, then the player needs to live with his decisions, and understand that certain weapons have certain uses in combat. A reach weapon that knocks enemies back is awesome for Fighters or other martials whom can exploit their Attacks of Opportunity, not so much for someone who similarly doesn't have a reach weapon and is therefore gimping themselves or their allies out of actions. In contrast, against non-reach enemies, it's solid to make enemies likewise waste actions to close the gap, as this means they can make less attacks (even if it's at -10), or be less likely to perform other combo actions, like spells, or even class/monster abilities.

In short, if a player makes a decision on his own without understanding what his decision precisely entails, then that's a decision he has to live with. There are now ways in-game to where he can change these benefits, and it's up to the player to decide if he wants to make those changes or not. (Assuming a GM is fair with downtime rules, of course).


Malk_Content wrote:
Its funny you mention Wild feats when not wild pathed being not great, whilst saying the evolution sorc feats are when they do functionally the same thing. Give you an extra cast of a specific thing once per day. Although I'd argue the wild feats are better because you can put more into them an (for example) get more shaping than a Wild Druid if they've not focused Str (which why would they normally want to, they are shape changing into things that ignore their Str score.)

Not necessarily. The feat effects depend on what choice you originally made, and there are multiple individual choices that receive an identical benefit. The big thing is that there are numerous interchangeable parts with the Sorcerer choice that gives it more modularity than the Druid's choice. Having that choice affect both the spell list they cast from as well as the powers they gain, as well as creating feats that adjust those multiple interchangeable parts, is the exact definition of meaningful choice that I want to see happen more in PF2.

That being said, I could agree that a lot of the extra benefits could be rebalanced to make the feat more or less appealing compared to both other versions of the evolution, as well as other feats of the appropriate level, but the skeleton is there to set the groundwork for what I personally believe to be a proper definition of meaningful choice.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You do realize that significant and meaningful are practically synonyms in this case, right?

I disagree. A meaningful choice, almost tautologically, changes what something means. But this can be as little as "changing how I think/feel about something, or how it is interpreted". Case in point, the illusion of choice can be meaningful if executed well.

A significant choice, since "significant" is an intensifier, has to actually make a difference in what happens.

But if I take the trait, for example, "creepy" and that changes how I RP my character, then that's a meaningful choice. But it's not significant if I never actually end up rolling intimidate. It's only if I reinforce that choice with other choices (by specializing in intimidation) that it becomes significant.

Then you and I have different definitions of what "meaningful" and "significant" mean. To me, they are synonyms; being meaningful means it has an impact on your decision. Significant, likewise, means it has an impact on the decision. In my opinion, they are synonymous here because things that are significant are likewise meaningful choices, and vice-versa. It could very well be that the reason you don't roll Intimidate checks (or make active uses of the Intimidate skill) is because of the significance of the Creepy trait, which thereby has its meaning properly defined by how significant it is.

In other words, I think the two words are too intertwined together that trying to define one or the other would be splitting hairs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

I didn't list armor and stats and the like, because they aren't meaningful customization, and aren't really expected to be. Unless you're a wizard clanking around in full plate who calls themselves "The Iron Mage", your choice in armor isn't going to stand out for your character. Your stat selection isn't even something most other players are going to notice. Regardless of any balance tweaks they made, those likely wouldn't be meaningful customization. It doesn't seem like they're good examples to use, as people aren't using it as an example of meaningful customization in the first place.

I'm definitely on board with discussing druid and barbarian paths, though.

Druid: Paizo tested out a couple different styles of first-level selection with their different casters. Sorcerer's "pick what replaces your feats" got dropped. Bard has "pick a head-start on a path, but build any path". Wizard has "pick a path and choose if you build on it", which Sorcerer got moved to. Druid got "pick a path, and get bonuses on that path". If you view those bonuses as the expected baseline, then it's a negative thing. Personally, I think that's a bit of an unfair view. A storm druid's animal companion gets nimble or savage two levels before the (mount-restricted) archetype and four levels before Ranger. And, you're trading those small improvements (+1 hp/level, get one action when not commanded) in exchange for a pool of lightning bolts to throw. But it's not like the animal companion is inadequate for to bring to the table; it's the animal companion that everybody else is using but with early advancement. I dunno, maybe druid's just too big into feat chains for it to be considered as customizable. Druid kind of got to do everything before, so it's not surprising to me to have the class end up with their powerful stuff broken out (especially since their spell list isn't supposed to be a balancing point anymore).

Barbarian: Barbarian's operating on the wizard model. You pick your totem, and you some options based on it. I have no idea what you mean by spirit barbarian having little/no class feats hinging(?) on their choices. Their totem unlocks two feats, both of which seem reasonable. But, two-thirds of the options barbarian has are non-totem. Or are you saying that at certain levels, there aren't a lot of choices? (As far as second level feats go, I'd personally go for No Escape.)

The Sorcerer being able to expand on their bloodline as much or as little as they want is actually the best existing example of "meaningful choice." Sure, they get a base benefit that is (should be) solid, and actually has multiple interchanging options (such as the Evolution feats working based on what type of bloodline picked, but multiple bloodlines can take the same Evolution feat, whereas the bloodline power advancements are specifically unique to the bloodline you chose), but they still have solid base options independent of their initial choice (AKA their Bloodline options). The Concentration feats, Dangerous Sorcery, Counterspell, these are all solid choices that fairly contend with expanding Bloodline Powers. That isn't to say that they can't have things like the Druid has, but when it takes up most of your available feat choices, and the benefits are limited based on what your first choice is, or are outright denied unless it is your initial choice, you're running into the PF1 Cleric issue all over again, where their choices at 1st level are largely all they get to decide for their class, which is absolutely lame, and actually a sign of history repeating itself, even if there is this sub-choice "trap option" shenanigans they throw into the mix.

In hindsight, the Animal Companion is probably the strongest non-path choice since a lot of its on-path choices aren't extremely powerful enough to warrant a "why bother" response. Perhaps one of the two other ones (such as the Wild or Plant options) would be a more apt comparison.

Spirit Totem Barbarian options are pretty lame. The DC 5 flat check while raging against ranged attacks is a glorified Obscuring Mist, and the ability to summon a spirit to attack your enemies isn't very strong either since it competes with your ability to attack enemies. It might be fair if it functioned more like Summon Monster, where it takes 3 actions to activate (and as such not compatible with Mighty Rage), and requires an action each turn after the fact, but it's still pretty weak otherwise. I mean, what's the point when you can just use a back-up throwing weapon with a Returning rune?

The base rage benefits can be useful if you fight undead a lot, but otherwise aren't very strong. And if a Barbarian takes any feats besides Sudden Charge and No Escape (Fighter Dedication is better than this IMO, since even a 1/day AoO is very powerful, eventually taking Power Attack and Opportunist by 6th level), he's set himself up for a trap build, which last I checked was a Ranger thing. Darkvision and Scent while raging is trash, since things like vision and senses should have already been configured well before the first encounter in level 1. Those "meaningful choices" have no positive for them considering how limited they are.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Crayon wrote:
They weren't.

I strongly disagree. Perhaps traits weren't significant choices, but they were nonetheless meaningful since they could fundamentally change what sorts of things your character would/was able to do.

I mean if traits weren't meaningful choices in PF1, then feats weren't really either. "Student of Philosophy" is liable to change a character's focus a lot more than "Weapon Focus".

You do realize that significant and meaningful are practically synonyms in this case, right?

Semantics aside, traits being meaningful choices is akin to saying armor proficiencies are meaningful choices. After all, the most chosen traits are ones with choices that aren't replicated anywhere (such as Wayang Spell Hunter, Magical Knack, or Fate's Favored), or simply add more of the same (Reactionary and Indomitable Faith being the most common).

The fact that several traits did more than what feats could do or replicate really demonstrated a problem with system bloat and inconsistent design than it did meaningful choices. After all, Wayang Spell Hunter and Magical Knack do offer some meaningful choices between them (metamagic cheese versus multiclass cheese, both of which had value between them that the other could not replicate), whereas Fate's Favored compared to Weapon Focus are neither mutually exclusive, nor are they fighting over specific choices, they're just Double+Good shenanigans, and as such aren't a proper comparison of meaningful choices.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

There was a lot of discussion over what constitutes meaningful customization, and I personally think PF2 has quite a bit of it- at least, comparing CRB to playtest CRB.

To me, meaningful customization is anything that allows my character to stand out as memorable or unique in some fashion (so long as its not "memorably bad").

- "Ancestry plus class" is the most basic form.
- The path your class takes is pretty significant for the overall effect, so we can add that in. (If you're a bard, barbarian, druid, etc., people are going to want to know what kind, much like wanting to know if you took an archetype in PF1.)
- Heritage and background can count, but don't always. They're not necessarily significant, but humans get significant heritages, and bleachling vs. non-bleachling stands out for gnomes. Backgrounds only count if you've got a character that actually plays into their background. (A fighter who used to work at a tavern and a fighter who used to work at a circus could be very different, or their past could be glossed over.) That's borrowing some from the significance of a character's backstory, though.
- Ancestry feats count. A gnome bard with a songbird familiar, an elven fighter whose long life allows them to recall skills, etc.
- Multiclass feats count. Personally, I would say even more so than PF1 multiclassing, because picking something like rogue/cleric doesn't mean sucking at both anymore. Now your cleric of Norgober can actually emulate their patron.
- Class feats count. This is where your fighting style and tricks are coming from.
- I'd probably count skills and skill feats together on this one. Fighter who invests in medicine? Eh… might not really stick out, even with the large bonuses. But once you throw in some actual healing, it sticks out more.
- General feats are where a lot of "get better numbers" stuff ended up, and that's okay. It keeps it from getting mixed in with other stuff.

Sure, there is meaningful customization, but only because there is a lot more meaningful negativity than positivity, which is where people draw/blur the lines between "meaningful" and not. And I can personally agree that wholly negative meaningful customization isn't really meaningful.

As one prime example, Druids with Orders who take feats that don't synergize with their order (or don't have added benefits based on their order) technically have meaningful choice, but only really in a negative light, and that's not really a fair application of the concept of "meaningful choices." There should be both positive and negative connotations for those choices, AKA Tradeoffs, not strictly negative ones. A Storm Druid who wants an Animal Companion is not only sacrificing being solid at his schtick, but also forgoing a "meaningful choice" for something that is objectively worse for him due to his original path choice. One of my players, who is a Storm Druid, made this point to me, and I wholly agree with it simply because Druids are more than just a 1st level choice (anyone remember PF1 Clerics being practically the same exact way?), which is how he feels about it, and how I feel about it. Once you're a Storm Druid, there is no sane reason to take feats outside of your schtick (or more accurately, feats that are another order's schtick). And when the feats of a given order choice are split 4-5 different ways, with them taking up 90% of your feat choices, that's very little in the way of "meaningful" customization.

Some other examples are Spirit Totem Barbarians who have little to no class feats hingent upon their other choices, which means, like the Druids, they are merely going through the motions. At least several of their non-choice class feats are actually fairly good. (In contrast, the class' 2nd level feats are all trash, by the way, so more often than not they will take dedication feats with their 2nd level options.)

Armor is also a very telling blow against this concept, since people only use certain armors based on their proficiency or lack thereof (which isn't a meaningful choice when it's baked into your class), otherwise resorting to an eventual default of "the best" option (AKA Light Armor) based on how leveling up usually works is not much of a meaningful choice. Again, this can be a meaningful choice if players simply want to gimp themselves out of potential AC via MDB. But meaningful choices made of pure negativity aren't really perceived as meaningful to the general populace when there is no upsides to it.

Hell, even the flaws in attribute generation portrays this the best. If someone actually decides to accept flaws for no benefits, it's technically a meaningful choice, but with there being no upside to it outside of personal challenges and roleplay reasons, something that isn't positively mechanically represented in the game, who of the general populace would do that?

No-brainers like the above aren't really representative of meaningful choices, and there are a lot of those in the playtest 1.6 currently. If Paizo were to adjust a lot of these things to make them less no-brainers for the final product (not saying get rid of them entirely, things like the flaws can stay for obvious reasons), I'd think there would be a better representation of your examples.


Themetricsystem wrote:

Weapons of irregular size can currently only be used FLAT OUT by Barbarians of the Giant Totem.

Weapon Damage scaling for creature size has always been ripe for abuse and it only ever served the most munch-of-kin PCs.

This is one grave I am truly glad to never dig up again.

I disagree on so many levels.

As a GM, damage dice helped differentiate between weaker and stronger creatures and the types of attacks they had, and it's still used in PF2.

In my experience as a player, Vital Strike and similar damage dice "shenanigans" have always proved inferior to typical optimization tactics. In fact, the only real beneficiaries of damage dice is a wider range (and slightly higher average) of damage for those who can't get multiple attacks in. Why roll 4D8+6 when you can roll 1D8+30?


The DM of wrote:

There are no active choices to make to improve your armor proficiency past trained at all. This is disappointing. There are also no choices to increase your weapon proficiency. [I define choice as a feat or path you select, not the current locked down method which is waiting until you're 13th level and your class or feat progression earns an Expert proficiency or the like. That's fine but not the kind of choice I'm looking for. A comparable choice is the general feat for gaining Trained in light armor for example. I choose it. I get it when I spend the feat.]

Early dev discussions discussed the fighter as having the best weapon proficiencies. Paladins had the best armor proficiency. "That's the dynamic."

Why is this class-locked? And why aren't there options to improve proficiency by choice?

With the introduction of the new shield dynamics, it's fun to get creative with fighter feats around defense. I say "defense," but the only two choices are parry and shield feats. There are zero armor feats. There are zero armor proficiency choices. (The same goes for weapon proficiency choices.) This is a disappointment. A defensive fighter is a perfectly valid concept. Yes, you can play it with shields, but armor is completely overlooked. I can never choose to be an Expert with my chain shirt. I can never gain Mastery with my breastplate. Getting Expert in medium armor at level 17th is a slap in the face. (Side note: The high level delays in simple things fall flat as a game design. Rarely will campaigns reach this level, so you're consigning things that would be cool at a lower level to a nearly unreachable level where it's going to be inconsequential at that point any way.)

In further customizing my warrior, I would like to be able to select feats that give armor bonuses and abilities. Same goes for weapons. The loss of anything resembling P1's Weapon Focus is a disappointment, also. You shouldn't have to take the Fighter archetype and wait until the uncommonly high level of 12 to get any sort of bonus to...

The problem stems from proficiencies being level-gated as well as choice-gated, and keeping the game from becoming soloable. A Level 7 character who is Legendary in chain shirt while being a default Master in weapons, or even worse, has access to spellcasting, does not help game balance at all, even if they spent 2 or 3 feats to get it/them, hence why such things are put behind a level barrier.

But let's say we want certain classes to acquire these things easier compared to others, so we can either give it to them for free as part of leveling, or make them generalized feats with differing requirements based on class (such as Fighter 7 or Paladin 5), which is effectively what feats like Weapon Focus and Shield Focus did. Those add a lot of pointless complexity and bookwork to something that's meant to be very simple. I mean, we could also just create another subtype of feats, called Proficiency feats, where players get a certain amount of feats based on their class, and can spend General Feats to improve them as well if they wish, but this can mess with a lot of other things too, and I'd rather not add in even more different kinds of feats than what we already have, it's complex as it is.

Another potential concept is Archetypes or Sub-classes, which change around proficiencies and standard features of your base class. As a very basic example, maybe an Armor Master exchanges the rate of his Weapon proficiencies with his Armor proficiencies, meaning instead of being a Master at Weapons by 3rd level, he's a Master at Armor. However, I have a feeling this will either A. be something introduced in a follow-up rulebook (similar to how Archetypes were created in APG), or B. be something that Dedication feats will already attempt to do (and be fairly disappointing).


lilly sinclare wrote:

I've been running the playtest since day 1 at my store. we have a barbarian, wizard, ranger, alchemist. The barbarian titan totem is to strong. With the ability to wield giant size weapons and go huge is really strong, but when ur higher levels the gap is huge. As a DM i find encounters to easy and not fun anymore. The barbar kicks down the door of the end boss and as he tries to do cool stuff grabs him by the neck and smashes his face till death. and don't try to escape wizard. the raging ball of muscle can literally T pose slide all the way across the plain and spin to win kill you. my Barbarian has dropped 40 Damage at lvl 1 and 400 damage at lvl 8. and don't think armor helps. once you reach Level 5 Armor no longer scales and dose anything. with proficiency added to everything + Strength a average melee user is hitting with a +9 before Dice roll (at lvl 5). the barbarian with the giant tree and min maxing can at level 9 get a + 20 to hit before dice. Armor needs to be looked into. add a system to upgrade armor with easy rules. think gem slots in diablo or MMOs. where i can spend 1000 gold and by som plates or bracers that attach to armor that adds +4 (+2 per arm). Lastly Death and CMD/CMB, Death to me was not explained well. Keeping the original pathfinder rules would have been fine. With CMD/CMB you had the perfect system for things like grapple and trip. Would like to see it return.

*all numbers estimated & before trained/master added*

Well, a standard Barbarian at 1st level has +5 to hit and can do a maximum of 36 damage on a critical with a D12 weapon and rage active. But criticals are slim compared to AC 15, and rolling maximum damage on both dice is even slimmer. This also assumes Rage as well, which reduces damage a bit. Average damage would be more reasonable, so 25 damage on a lucky critical, while devastating, isn't the end of every combat. However, while Giant Totem has much increased damage, this puts a major decrease in the Barbarian's defense and accuracy, meaning the odds of a hit or critical, especially on consecutive attacks, is very slim against appropriate enemies.

By 8th level, while the damage will increase a bit, and the Barbarian gets a little more accurate, he will most certainly not exceed more than 120 damage a round against more difficult enemies.

In my opinion, you need to scale up the encounters, a lot, and be more aggressive with enemies. Several of my battles have required me to throw numerous enemies with amplified HP and potential class levels (like Fighter or Barbarian) to make encounters challenging. I think this will be remedied when I tone down the amount of loot my players get, but still, if enemies aren't being challenging, then change your tactics.


Ediwir wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Yeah but even 4-6 mooks will likely only hit you once if your shield is up. If you can negate that damage entirely without cost, you'll be waltzing through it and basically just dueling the boss.

If that's how your mooks operate in such a situation, then those mooks aren't being ran the correct way.

Mooks may not have to be deadly themselves, but they can (and should) most certainly serve in a way to make the boss more devastating (otherwise why would the BBEG keep them around?). Can you imagine how powerful a BBEG Wizard is when he has lackeys creating distractions for him to unleash his raw arcane power on the PCs? Certainly more devastating than if he went to face them by himself and gets rekt via action economy and shutdown tactics.

Depends on the mooks, really. In Sombrefell Hall the zombies did close to nothing besides blocking movement, and with only 2 actions per turn and minuscle modifiers I couldn’t have them do much more than that - they slowed down PCs while the shadows picked isolated targets.

I agree that mooks are tactical more than damaging, but sometimes there’s little tactics to use when the big guys themselves need a piece of melee combat.

The Zombies serve as both pressure and a diversion for players to be potentially concerned about in an attempt to reduce the effectiveness of the real threat. If the Zombies could get into flanking range with the Shadows, the Shadows become that much more deadly thanks to the zombies. In this case, the zombies (mooks) didn't really need to do anything other than be in the right place at the right time. This forces the PCs to stand their ground and suffer the penalties associated with it (such as by wasting actions to negate flanking bonuses) or eliminate the secondary threat prior to the primary threat, otherwise the fight can (and will) get much more devastating.

On top of that, let's say the mooks aren't smart enough to do what I've described. A lot of times, a Big Bad melee creature will be very big and have reach to work with, meaning he can outright circumvent the fact that the mook is right in front of him, and the mooks serve more as a barrier for the PCs to break through in order to affect the big bad, since most PCs don't have reach any bigger than 5 feet. Exceptions do exist (reach weapons), but I'd rather call that PC preparedness than a failure of the mooks' purpose. And since a Big Bad is larger than the creatures in front of him, he can reach over them and affect the PCs unabated.


Ediwir wrote:
Yeah but even 4-6 mooks will likely only hit you once if your shield is up. If you can negate that damage entirely without cost, you'll be waltzing through it and basically just dueling the boss.

If that's how your mooks operate in such a situation, then those mooks aren't being ran the correct way.

Mooks may not have to be deadly themselves, but they can (and should) most certainly serve in a way to make the boss more devastating (otherwise why would the BBEG keep them around?). Can you imagine how powerful a BBEG Wizard is when he has lackeys creating distractions for him to unleash his raw arcane power on the PCs? Certainly more devastating than if he went to face them by himself and gets rekt via action economy and shutdown tactics.


Captain Morgan wrote:

None of that is really true if you simply aren't interested in in using weapons in the first place, is the point. I mean, using a shortbow is only worthwhile if you actually invest in keeping your shortbow up to date with the latest runes, for example. If you wanted a relevant option, you should have pointed to staffs, which are excellent for pure casters and would offer a legit reason to not use an instrument. (Even then, there's nothing stopping you from holding the instrument by default and pulling out the staff when you need to utilize its spells. In most situations having a staff/weapon in one hand and the other with an instrument is the same as just having a staff/weapon in one hand.)

Also, critical successes on compositions let you do stuff like save an action across multiple rounds, or grant a basically automatic +4 to all ally skill checks. Boosting that bonus sky high is GOOD. Also, you seem to be using the final PF2 version of UTEML for your argument, which strikes me as bizarre because you are assuming everything else remains the same from the playtest. We have no idea what changes might be in store for the bard, instruments, or casting.

Again, this is also assuming players have not, nor will ever, express desire to use weapons. Some won't, which is true, but some will. Not only in this thread, but the whole entire previous edition of Pathfinder, will show a large grain of disagreement with your sentiments of not wanting to use weapons, even if the core of the Bard's design has been changed. And again, the argument that "choosing to use your weapon versus your main niche" is a valid one when numerous other classes don't have to make that choice proves to be quite absurd across the board. Even compared to other primary spellcasters, as you so eloquently pointed out, having to choose between bonus spellcasting or a minor boost to compositions (which means a Bard is a spellcaster before they are a performer), the choice is quite clear, especially when there is no real strong support for either in the Bard class, and the spellcasting itself is something that a Bard's core design is now wholly a part of.

The whole "critical successes" thing is like prepping your build around a Vorpal Weapon or assuming you are 20th level. Not only are they super rare and not realistically expected until the endgame, they are also something that falls apart real fast in actual play. Amongst all of our playtesting of the Bard, not once have they critically succeeded their perform check, primarily thanks to the treadmill effect, since every bonus or two they get from leveling or character choice is negated by scaling DCs. In fact, one of our groups at 4th level didn't even succeed a single Perform check with expending spell points!

Even with full optimization (highest proficiency, best item bonus, optional feats, and most attribute boosting), they have at-best a 10% critical success chance. Their spell point expenditures have at least a 40% chance of doing nothing, and those are supposed to be a precious source of power (weaker than spell slots, but still). Not only is that highly unfair, but it properly demonstrates how pointless and bad an instrument would be compared to having more slots or spell versatility with a Staff. Hell, I don't care about the fact that the instrument can virtually last all day, if I wanted to adventure with two hands tied behind my back, I'd use a hand-held instrument as a Bard, because that's basically what you're doing here.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Not really. A pure caster Bard is a very viable build and has no reason not to use an instrument. They can (and should) focus on non-attack stats (well, they have Dex, but no intention of using it to attack with non-spells) and are thus practically useless with a weapon anyway.

Combat Bards are another matter, certainly, but that's always been true and them focusing on arts that involve fewer props continues to make sense to me.

Even with a pumped Dexterity, using a ranged weapon (such as a shortbow) can be a fair contributor to combat, especially since Strength isn't a very useful attribute for damage with ranged weapons anymore (unless you throw, but those are still junk in this edition sans Daggers for Finesse Striker Rogues), and Bards have proficiency with that kind of weapon right out of the gate.

Granted, it won't receive too much use since it competes with spellcasting and compositions as it is, it's still certainly better than a minor boost to a skill that will most likely not make a difference in determining whether spell point expenditure is worthwhile or not, or in replacing a skill that the character is probably already well proficient in anyway, since other boosts (such as proficiency, level, and attribute modifier) will always be higher and make up the difference. Even if bad rolls happen, there is no real penalty for failing or critically failing Performance checks with spell points, so there's no justification for it outside of "I want my spell points to matter more," in which case there are numerous better ways to accomplish that which don't involve soaking up precious hand slots.


QuidEst wrote:

This is a weird direction to take stuff- adjusting instrument bonuses for handedness because of combat? Why should instruments be exceptions, especially over something they're not meant for? And why should bulky musical instruments be handing out the largest bonuses of any mundane items?

Before, Bards couldn't cast while their hands are occupied by an instrument. Furthermore, Bards were 6/9 casters with features that left their actions free, so they were strongly pushed into using weapons.

Now, Bards can cast by playing an instrument- a substantial improvement. And, with Bards as full casters who have souped-up cantrips, you can actually make a Bard focused primarily on casting. Just because you can not make a caster violinist doesn't mean that the game ought to make a gish violinist just as good, and shouldn't mean that instrument rules should be reworked as a special case.

Because the instrument is competing with what you could otherwise do with your hands in combat, and the instrument, outside of spell point mechanics, does very little in exchange. Everyone will be singers and dancers because other forms of performance take up precious hand slots that players clearly have expressed desire to see have use in combat as well as out-of-combat. Not only is that an extremely shoe-horning concept, but it makes instruments very trash.


Nettah wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Let's follow the "1.7" set-up and subtract 2 from everything (so Legendary is now Level+6 instead of +8). A Level 20 Bard with Legendary Proficiency, a Legendary Magical Lute, and all of the relevant feats (a Performance feat grants yet another +2 to a specific type of Perform) would have a +38 at the absolute highest barring Aid Another shenanigans, pre-rolling, meaning they can have a result of anywhere from 39 to 59, which is probably the highest you can expect.

A stronger creature of the same level somewhat geared towards the relevant benefits would probably have +30 (20 base, 4 proficiency, 6 attribute), or a 40 Will DC barring specific benefits. A truly optimal creature of a higher level with specific benefits will have a significantly higher bonus, or would outright negate such a check from happening via immunities.

However, they would be spending actions and spell points for empowered Composition cantrips and Intimidate checks, but no spellcasting unless they have 3 Hero Points, which doesn't grow on trees per RAW. Sounds in-line with what I can expect Bards to be capable of. In fact, I like...

I don't really get your math in this context. It seems you get a +3 item bonus in it, which is less than you are currently able to get (but might be right after update 1.7, but we don't really know) but changed proficiency levels toward 1.7 which is still pretty much unknown.

It would make more sense to stick with the current rules for the math, because then you can more readily compare it to the beastiary. Currently you would get a maximum of +37 (+20 level +3 legendary proficiency, +7 attribute, +2 circumstance from feat +5 item). Bards playing instruments being the best possible demoralizer is fine by me, in fact I believe that is how it should be.

But the whole reason I started mentioning the bonuses was because of your suggestion to increase the bonus you get from two-handed instruments to be double the current value to make one-handed instruments a...

I suppose I forgot the attributes, since it should be 20 level + 6 proficiency + 7 attribute + 10 item would be +45, or +42 by the original proficiency rules. Whoops.

Also keep in mind that any character could do this, and monsters who specialize in Perform can get identical benefits (if not stronger), so it's not necessarily mutually exclusive to Bards. Though Bards get the most via Compositions, Dedication feats can fix that, and monsters probably have their own abilities too. Sirens with instruments just became much more deadly!

I suppose now the big question is "Should perform be this high in scale and effect?" Using Perform in place of Intimidation (which is already really strong) and Diplomacy (which is the #1 way to avoid encounters) is where the real problem lies due to the way Performance can be inflated in terms of numbers. I believe if the feat let you use your Perform proficiency in place of the others' proficiency would be fair and still in-line with what the feat is intended to do. Now it's just a matter of making it happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


The bonus there isn't relevant for it to matter since the DC scales. Being 5-15% more likely to succeed or critically succeed is not really worth what you can potentially do with your hands.

Keeping with the current theme, +1 per hand per item quality seems fair. So a two-handed expert gives +2 compared to +1. And since Perform is so limited in use, it's not game-breaking to make it work that way.

That would make both relevant, but +6 just from quality (before going into the magic ones that would then provide +10 i guess) would likely be pretty game altering. Remember you can also use performance in place of other skills. Bards would be amazing at demoralizing with that kind of bonus.

EDIT: Just did the math. That could lead to a level 20 bard with +42 to demoralize when performing. He would scare pit fiends left and right :)

Let's follow the "1.7" set-up and subtract 2 from everything (so Legendary is now Level+6 instead of +8). A Level 20 Bard with Legendary Proficiency, a Legendary Magical Lute, and all of the relevant feats (a Performance feat grants yet another +2 to a specific type of Perform) would have a +38 at the absolute highest barring Aid Another shenanigans, pre-rolling, meaning they can have a result of anywhere from 39 to 59, which is probably the highest you can expect.

A stronger creature of the same level somewhat geared towards the relevant benefits would probably have +30 (20 base, 4 proficiency, 6 attribute), or a 40 Will DC barring specific benefits. A truly optimal creature of a higher level with specific benefits will have a significantly higher bonus, or would outright negate such a check from happening via immunities.

However, they would be spending actions and spell points for empowered Composition cantrips and Intimidate checks, but no spellcasting unless they have 3 Hero Points, which doesn't grow on trees per RAW. Sounds in-line with what I can expect Bards to be capable of. In fact, I like it, since this means a Bard isn't constantly casting spells, and is making great use of his Performance abilities both in-combat with Intimidate, and out-of-combat with his Diplomacy, which is, and always has been, the Bard's most important niche.

The most fun part about this is that, in reality, any character can do this. I could be a Sorcerer and be a godlike performer along with the Bard if I have identical investment. I can't do Composition cantrips or empowering shenanigans unless I spend Dedication feats, but for a pure spellcaster Sorcerer, that sounds pretty dope and could be worth the investment compared to, say, Paladin dedication, which really only gives me armor proficiencies (which, sans Light is trash), and access to additional healing options. Which aren't bad, but I might not want to do that for personal reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.

Not necessarily. If a character can perform Somatic components with an occupied hand, then I think numerous instruments likewise can be done the same, and numerous examples have been given.

I mean, sure, balance reasons is a thing, but there needs to be more of a reason to use the instruments besides a whole minor scaling bonus to Performance that can't reasonably be expected to have much use. If we had some feat synergy to work with, I'd consider it fair, but we have none of that.

Well the mechanical benefit is good for boosting your bard songs, so I think it's relevant. The issue is if you could replace a two-hand instrument with a one-hand instrument there is only disadvantages to use a two-handed one.

The bonus there isn't relevant for it to matter since the DC scales. Being 5-15% more likely to succeed or critically succeed is not really worth what you can potentially do with your hands.

Keeping with the current theme, +1 per hand per item quality seems fair. So a two-handed expert gives +2 compared to +1. And since Perform is so limited in use, it's not game-breaking to make it work that way.


QuidEst wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.
I mean, I don’t think Paizo is going to exclude actual one-handed instruments. But I also don’t think they’re going to say Bards can play violins with their rapiers either.
Why not? Van Halen's "Poundcake" song featured someone with a power tool (a screwdriver, to be precise,) play on the guitar, and it sounded really, really awesome (at the time). Suggesting a Rapier can't work on a lute or guitar is just going to amount to a "Challenge Accepted" stance, which is very unhealthy for the game's image.
You expect Paizo to say that Bards can play violins with rapiers? I expect they’re not going to address it, with it falling to GMs to decide if they want Van Halen Bards or not.

No, but with it falling to GM FIAT, there will be players who challenge the notion, and it will create issues with PF2S.


QuidEst wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.
I mean, I don’t think Paizo is going to exclude actual one-handed instruments. But I also don’t think they’re going to say Bards can play violins with their rapiers either.

Why not? Van Halen's "Poundcake" song featured someone with a power tool (a screwdriver, to be precise,) play on the guitar, and it sounded really, really awesome (at the time). Suggesting a Rapier can't work on a lute or guitar is just going to amount to a "Challenge Accepted" stance, which is very unhealthy for the game's image.


Nettah wrote:
I prefer to keep the instruments two-handed for balance reasons as well as the factor that more or less every instrument needs two hands to play or play optimally.

Not necessarily. If a character can perform Somatic components with an occupied hand, then I think numerous instruments likewise can be done the same, and numerous examples have been given.

I mean, sure, balance reasons is a thing, but there needs to be more of a reason to use the instruments besides a whole minor scaling bonus to Performance that can't reasonably be expected to have much use. If we had some feat synergy to work with, I'd consider it fair, but we have none of that.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Yeah, mooks can still inflict serious damage. If they are attacking 3 times a round, some of them will roll nat 20s as well. Plus if you get grabbed by one they can start doing auto damage with constrict and other shenanigans.

Yeah, threw some yearling owlbears in with some Cyclopes against my party in a homebrew campaign of Iobaria. Although they weren't as accurate or damaging, their mechanics and presence made them just as deadly as their masters. And there was only 3 of them compared to the 7 Cyclopes! (They were 4th level but quite overgeared; need to fix that eventually...)

It's also good to notice that Shield Blocks don't work on non-strike effects like persistent damage or constriction. Makes sense and also drives the concept of avoiding being hit by the bad guys due to rider effects not being protected by Shield Blocks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:

I suppose this means we'll be forced to choose which kind of violins we're gonna deliver.

But yeah I have a very hard time imagining playing an instrument with a sword in hand. This makes sense and it's fine.

A drum (like bongos) strapped to your body can be played one-handed. A Harmonica, likewise, is one-handed. Both are very common and popular instruments amongst some of the most iconic genres of music.

A Bard using a Harmonica and singing about the Murder HoboAdventuring Blues is probably one of the coolest character concepts to date that can very easily be exciting and inspirational to the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think Bards were ever designed to properly be a gish type character. If they were, they could only sing or dance (or other verbal activities), since any other form of performance requires hands to use. I suppose the drawback can be that Silence or Paralysis can shut those down, but the former doesn't stop dancing, and Paralysis stops all of them equally, meaning they aren't any more of a drawback compared to other options.

Now, if a Bard could get an instrument crafted in the image of a weapon (such as a Guitar Axe or a Drumstick Club), and enhance it and use it as if it were both a tool and a weapon, it'd be pretty awesome. However, those rules are neither here nor there. I'd love for Paizo to have these rules, but I am not expecting it to be core or even a supplementary book. But there will for-sure be splatbook/3PP sources for it.

Bladedancers and Bladesingers are the meta. Bladerockers are now dead and are a continually dying breed.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Doesn't Quality already improve the hardness of objects?

If it does then I don't know where that's stated, and just like other forms of Potency, the quality wouldn't stack with the potency benefits.

To be in line with my proposal, I'd think item quality would just increase the amount of dents it can take.


Ediwir wrote:
Yeah, I get the feeling that the idea of ‘shields cannot be magical’ simply stems from ‘we can’t double up on +5s’. Once you get rid of Potency, shields should be easily enchantable and customisable.

Or, potency on a shield could be way different, and PF1 has some neat insight into the matter.

In PF1, magic items had increased hardness and HP to compensate for its enhanced powers.

Why not do the same here? Each +1 increasing the number of dents it can take and adds twice that amount of hardness to the shield.

The downside is it adds another mandatory item, but it makes potency on shields a viable mechanic.


Greg.Everham wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
The progression of Hardness over level (when using the sturdy shields and upgrading regularly) follows damage increase with the same proportion
What? No they don't. At least, not based on what I was looking at. Care to explain?
I can agree with that. I mean shields absorve a lot of damage but 18 late game is much less than 4 early game...

Ediwir's right, with maybe a smidge of an outlier around 1st level (where a lot of things are a bit special due to being the very beginning of the game), the top sturdy shield can block around half an on-level critter's hit (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less).

But the cool thing is, even without the maximum progession, you can get extremely increased durability over time with a shield build. For simplicity of the situation, consider a level 18 fighter with ~300 HP, taking damage roughly 40 per hit, twice per round, with a regenerate active to regen 20 per round. Keeping it easy to handle, we have the low-hardness-but-eminently-reusable invulnerable shield (13 hardness) and Quick Shield Block. Without the shield block, the fighter can last 5 rounds before finally falling (net 60 damage per round x 5 = 300). With it, she lasts 9. Not too shabby. Of course, most fights don't last 9 rounds, but it's still a cool durability stat.

"Follows scaling damage progression" sounds a lot like "isn't getting better at what they do."

No, it does get better. A shield block on an enemy of lower level or of less damaging capability will be much more effective compared to a higher level or more damaging enemy.

You just should likewise expect creature/enemy damage to similarly scale to compensate.


Captain Morgan wrote:
oholoko wrote:
The playtest version since the table of DCs was made for it. JB version seems to be the one going in game but without a DC table it's hard to judge specially when some opposite checks were based around athletics/acrobatics DCs.

Indeed. And there are a host of other differences between PF2 and the playtest that make upgrading the proficiency rules difficult.

PF2 will have reduced item bonuses.

Fighters having +2 accuracy over the other martials without the other martials getting something else to compensate seems unlikely.

Even wizards will get up to expert with certain weapons.

Grad Edge and break/escape grapple probably won't be based off skills if you can have a 0 in them.

Getting trained skills and skill increases will probably be easier.

You would need to do a pretty big overhaul to make the change without breaking the game, something on the scale of Edwir's automatic bonus progression houserules.

Nothing to suggest there will be less item bonuses to come around. I believe it was actually said the Table DCs won't rely on item bonuses or extremely high proficiencies and such, meaning a character who takes the time to invest in it (without other factors to increase or reduce the DC) will more than likely succeed at the check.

It would make sense that Fighters don't need to spend feats for the Legendary proficiency (though they could do so for Armor, as an example), whereas other martial-based classes can (and unfortunately, probably will). I just wish weapon proficiency did much more than grant bonuses to hit; maybe if each weapon type had some special maneuvers you could do if you had the appropriate proficiency, would be pretty nice. For example, a Legendary Axe Fighter could be doing some awesome Cleave action like in PF1, no feats required.

I don't think Wizards getting Expert tier weaponry is the end of the world. They probably will be getting it later than everyone else (15th level, where Legendary usually comes online across the board), but they will always use their Spellcasting Proficiency (which needs some work in terms of scaling) for their iconic feature, so I don't see why them getting something beyond Training in weapons (which could even be Master with Fighter Dedication and the Weapon Training feat, takes some serious investment though) is the end of the world when they're already getting that for their spells.

I disagree with that being the case. It is a character choice for you to not be effective at breaking out of grapples or grabbing an edge, just like it's a choice to be untrained in any other given skill. It also means if you don't want such choices to hinder you that having other options at your disposal (such as flight and freedom of movement, two perfectly valid options for obviously non-trained individuals to have) will be necessary if character survival is on your budget. I mean sure, you can argue that this will run the Perception paradigm from PF1, but there will always be some sort of "meta" that players will feel compelled to follow because they feel like the game demands it, and the "meta" will always change as options increase or decrease in power, as well as whether options remain as options or not. (As another related tangent, Will Saves are still pretty devastating to fail, meaning not boosting Will Saves will cost you a TPK, but no one has complained about that being a mandatory increase yet, so I'm not sure this is really that much of an end-of-the-world thing.)

As far as training skills, it's always been easy. Skill feats, Intelligence Boosts, Dedications (Rogue in particular) always gave tons of trained skills, but because of the game math, it never really came into play except for aiding someone who was beyond trained and was "the guy" in your party for it. Exceptions to that do exist (Battle Medic as one example, I might nerf it to just one application period, not one per character), but are few and far between and are honestly pretty shenanigans from a realistic perspective. But now with Trained being the new standard, and the proficiency boosts just being icing on the already good-looking cake, having more Trained skills is more valuable now simply because you can still tackle credible challenges with those skills, whereas being untrained makes it fall off at 5th level at the latest. I'm actually looking forward to this, since in my home campaign, I've already had half my party members boost Intelligence for 5th level for alternative uses (such as extra trained skills, Intelligence-based skill boosts, and so on).

I think the only major overhaul here that needs to be done is the math behind everything, as the system is already prepped for this method. And IMO, the current scaling of the JB method adds 2 for no apparent reason when, if we just subtract 2 from everything, we get the same exact result without pointless number inflation and unnecessary mathematical computations. (Maybe some people like it, but I prefer less complications and math, mostly because it's more likely to be messed up than if it wasn't there to begin with.)


MaxAstro wrote:

You are missing Deadmanwalking's point.

If every monster follows the same rules as every other monster - which does seem to be the case based on the numbers - that's not fudging, even if those rules are completely different than the rules PCs use. It's just a different rule set.

Clearly, PF2e monsters don't use Str mod + level + proficiency to calculate their melee attack bonus; instead the calculation is level + something else. As long as that something else is consistent - even if it's ridiculous like "monsters with an 'S' in their name get level + 5 and monsters with a double consonant get level + 6" - that's still following a consistent rule set, which is not fudging.

I'd have to say that it is fudged when the rules for them are inconsistent, and it's especially prevalent in the higher levels.

Also, Stat blocks referencing ability modifiers while then disregarding said modifiers in their overall calculations is beyond stupid.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Except the rules for monsters is fudging. And there's nothing about the "tight math" here because there is no math to be had. Want an enemy to have +13 to hit? Who cares if they have a 5 Dexterity and Strength and are only 6th level, you're the GM, so it has +13 to hit. Same with damage dice. Don't have +X in potency? Who cares, now they do because they can, because you, the GM, willed it so.

The ends justify the means when it comes to PF2 monster creation, and people (myself included) don't like it because the math doesn't reflect that at all when it's supposed to for the PCs, which is where the real upset lies.

This is, quite frankly, flatly false. We don't have the monster creation guidelines yet, but looking at the monster stat blocks, their damage dice and to-hit seem pretty strictly tied to level.

That's not the same as being tied to Ability Scores, certainly, and is different from how PCs do it, but it's also not 'fudging' or 'arbitrary' at all. It's a hard and fast rule that can be examined in detail if you wish.

It can have certain realism issues in terms of how someone with Dex 5 and Str 5 can hit things (though even in PF1, fudging that is as easy as saying it uses another stat for attacks), and in the playtest had the weird issue of 'Why can't PCs get extra damage dice independent of weapon?' (though the hints about the final version seem to indicate they fixed that by giving PCs extra damage dice independent of weapon)...but saying it's fudging or not objective when all Level 5 monsters have within a point or two of the same to-hit is just not true.

It is asymmetric with PCs, but asymmetry and fudging are, in fact, not the same thing. You can certainly dislike it based on the asymmetry, but the asymmetry is not really new (it's less obvious in PF1 but still definitively there...PCs can't take levels of 'Dragon'), and that doesn't make it 'fudging' by any normal definition of the word.

Just because they follow an arbitrary level treadmill overly much doesn't mean they aren't fudged. I've examined numerous statblocks of playtest creatures that I used for my home group, and almost none of them stack up to what the actual statistics would amount to. More often than not, creatures were tougher than what their math reflects, and as you state, some creatures deal extra damage dice with no magical explanation or special ability. If that's not fudging, then nothing is, and people are really just hungry for a special chocolate pastry at random.

Dragon isn't a class, it's a creature type. You can't take class levels in a creature type, most definitely if you don't actually have that creature type.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I'm pretty sure the nature of a fudge prevents codification. :P Or at the very least, without significantly increasing Paizo's workload.

I find the solution of "there's no fudging, monsters just use different rules" much cleaner.

Except the rules for monsters is fudging. And there's nothing about the "tight math" here because there is no math to be had. Want an enemy to have +13 to hit? Who cares if they have a 5 Dexterity and Strength and are only 6th level, you're the GM, so it has +13 to hit. Same with damage dice. Don't have +X in potency? Who cares, now they do because they can, because you, the GM, willed it so.

The ends justify the means when it comes to PF2 monster creation, and people (myself included) don't like it because the math doesn't reflect that at all when it's supposed to for the PCs, which is where the real upset lies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
As a completely off topic aside, I really want a handy haverstaff now. XD

Great for those who really want to play out the murder hobo role. A magical stick with a wrapped cloth at the end that actually serves as an extradimensional space is really awesome.


Captain Morgan wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Rings and Amulets had unfettered item creation, other slots not so much, nothing suggests this has changed from PF1.
I don't think anything suggests that it has stayed the same either; as far as I know we know basically nothing about what inventing new magic items will look like in PF2e, since there were no rules of the sort in the playtest.

I'm confused, where was this even a thing in PF1 in the first place? All the stuff I've seen suggested this was an optional rule with a whole bunch of warnings attached to it to not do exactly what Darksol is talking about, and I've seen no mention of rings or amulets getting special treatment under this. .

** spoiler omitted **...

I remember seeing a table that explains what sort of effects we can expect from a given slot. I thought it was one of the numerous tables in the GMG, but a cursory review didn't reveal it to me. It might be from 3.X, but even if that's the case, PF1 is largely identical to those rules, and your quoted rules actually spell this concept out: Not all slots are created equally. Rings and Amulets could do all kinds of things, whereas other slots are more limited in their scope, and the current item listings greatly reflect that.

1 to 50 of 7,906 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>