Sargogen, Lord of Coils

Darksol the Painbringer's page

7,744 posts (7,767 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,744 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Oh, I do see it. But buying the +4 better offsets having Greater Acid on my weapon, simply because even doing +4D4, with +4 to hit, is much better damage and accuracy than a flat 2D6 (with the potential weakness bonuses) on a successful hit. You can remove the bonuses being mandatory all you like. The fact of the matter is that +X weapons are still massively superior in terms of power, and the effects of properties like Acid are trash, and they always have been since PF1. A better comparison would be PF1's Keen to PF1's +X bonuses, where certain characters would actually value Keen over +X. But since +X and properties aren't mutually exclusive, people ended up having the best of both worlds at the end of the day. You don't need some sort of threshold curve to demonstrate that.

Heaven forbid we get to the Armor portion of these arguments...


Corwin Icewolf wrote:

@DarksolthePainbringer So in response to the the magic items = technology argument. I'm going to address monks specifically first. I have never heard of any monk(-like character...) in real life or in fiction use a fallout style power fist or something. Monks eschew technology in favor of developing themselves physically, mentally, and spiritually. They prefer not to rely on it excessively at the very least. If magic items are equivalent to technology shouldn't they have the same feeling toward magic items? I never liked my pfs monk because of this, his need for an amulet of mighty fists always made him feel like a crappy monk to me.

As to whether other characters are dependent on magic items, some are and some aren't. Sure the guy with magic items is a common trope, so is the guy who sees them as a crutch and eschews them because he doesn't wish to grow dependent on them. Plenty of people in real life do things like avoiding using calculators to do math. More rare is the person who wrestles a grizzly bear naked to become stronger, but they exist, if but in reality then definitely in fantasy. The guy that trains and overcomes all his limits and gets stronger and stronger I guess is just cooler to me.

Like Goku I suppose. He outgrew the nimbus and power pole towards the end of dragon Ball. In z he's strong because he's trained forever and constantly overcomes his previous limits, not because of any tech or magic. And sure being a Saiyan helps him, but he can't sit on his butt in the sun and get power like superman. Nor are there any magic swords he can just pick up and suddenly kill a dragon that could easily defeat him before.

Or like Chase young from xiaolin with his dismissing the Shen Gong Wu as trinkets. Even the main four eventually pretty much outgrew all but the most powerful Shen Gong Wu.

Anyway, I think part of my point in writing this was because I wondered if I might be expecting too much. So I genuinely was asking if it's even possible to both have magic items be useful and have...

Monks, no. Other kinds of hand-to-hand combatants, such as boxers, pugilists, and back-alley fighters? They use hand/arm equipment constantly. But I wouldn't take a typical trope and apply it as blanket fact. Even Sajan, the iconic Monk in PF, still has items he relies and uses. Not all Monks are assumed to take Vows of Poverty.

I would actually argue that Goku being a Saiyan is probably the only reason he has defeated numerous enemies in his storylines, and in some cases he still loses, despite his inherent advantages, such as in Z against Cell, or in the Dragon Ball Super movie, against Beerus.

I don't think it's possible, and I've explained above why that is. Changing the meta doesn't solve the issue, it moves the issue elsewhere until there's nowhere left to move it, where it lingers until circumstances change or the game is over. You're more than welcome to take your pick on what to choose, just know that choosing the former will just reinstate the meta back in a different place again.


dmerceless wrote:

I think that there is one detail that should be considered though: This is a game, and it is a game in which you can buy and craft magic items, and that makes the situation even worse. In a system where you can only find magic items as loot, the only thing that happens if one characters find a really powerful magic items and others don't is "the party is unbalanced", which I consider a problem in itself but is temporary at least. The problem is: combining damage AND accuracy that scales with magic weapons with being able to buy and craft said magic items makes so that you are almost obligated to buy level-appropriate magic weapons just to keep up.

"Oh, but what if my Fighter wants to buy a magic item with a cool effect instead?"

Well, you can, but you will be a Fighter that sucks at being a Fighter in comparison to his level.

Even if it is just one or two more dice or a +2 to hit, you will be very suboptimal at your main thing by getting litteraly anything else that is not Weapon Potency. You need to have those two things before even thinking about getting that cool worn item, trinket or Property Rune you liked, for example. Unless the GM gives out those items for free as "convenient loot", but then what's the point?

Of course I'm not suggesting to remove buying and selling magic items, this is one of the things that I dislike the most about 5e. Also, I don't disagree that this makes sense in the world, and that there are a lot of examples of this in fiction, its just that me and probably a lot of people that want this to go away just find it really unfun to have mandatory items, and would much rather have magic weapons with cool properties that make the wielder feel special instead.

Well, crafting in this game is both a joke and a waste of time, if we want to put all the cards on the table here. It's all GM FIAT, and there's no one way to craft a given item, nor is it really accessible or practical to do so for items that players might truly want. You're more likely to badger the GM enough times to just have it randomly come as treasure from a dragon's hoard than you are to be able to craft it, especially since it takes valuable character resources to do. On top of that, it's a bunch of unnecessary rules to remember for something that no sane person would want or care to do other than to test your patience or adhoc'ing as a GM, and quite frankly I do enough of that without player influence as it is.

With that rant out of the way, if we remove +X items from the game, can we really expect players to have the motivation or drive to acquire special weapons (or property runes, to be more frank,) compared to other items? Probably not. As a power gaming player, if +X items went poof, I would only have the basic items and that's it. I wouldn't have any motivation outside of my character's machinations (whatever they might be) to adventure, since I'm of the opinion that I do not (and cannot) get any cooler or stronger than what I'm at. Acid damage? Pfff, 20% of monsters are resistant/immune, making it worthless those amounts of times, compared to the +X properties which worked 100% on every creature I faced. Get the Greater effect? How is that much better than +X benefits when all it does is also give flat damage boosts? Sure, there are properties like Keen (or let's go the Invisibility route for armor), but they aren't properties that make me feel like I got super strong or cool based on their very limited (and uninspiring) purview, and this has been an issue with most every item property since PF1 (though not so much for Keen for obvious reasons).

You'd also severely diminish the important aspects of item quality being a factor. Some crude piece of trash in a goblin heap shouldn't be equally as effective as a weapon forged by a being of the divine, but if we went under this system, it'd be true. Now Goblins and Demigods are of equal smithing capabilities! Only in some Bizarro Golarion universe would that make any sort of sense. More seriously, it can throw that balancing point way out of whack, and elements like the +X are still inherent to more than just magic, meaning you'd have to handle those things too, and it is something that I'm certain player types such as yourselves would not foresee to resolve before the problem changes from "I need +X" to "I need Expert/Master/Legendary Items," being left with the handbag to try and cover up the mess.

And then if we decide to remove that, we are then left with deciding "What "cool" powers are the best to have? Do I want the option to go invisible, or the option to fly?" You'd then still have "cool" options which are never chosen simply because they are bad compared to the other options. All removing mandatory magic items is doing is changing the "meta" at which the gamers (the power ones, specifically) operate. Now, instead of +X items being all the rage, it's Invisibility and Flight items. You're then going to have players complain about those choices to be removed because they aren't "cool" and the game expects you to have or counter these options, and we're back to square one.

In short, it's all a vicious cycle that will repeat until the game goes splat. There are ways to houserule this stuff, and I imagine Paizo, much like a lot of their unclarified rules in PF1, will leave it up to the players and GMs to decide how that stuff runs for their games.


Shinigami02 wrote:
-snip-

It's not like Pathfinder doesn't have dramatic shifts in setting available. Plane Shift to a Plane of Ice? Probably doesn't have the same sun Golarion does, if any at all. I wouldn't expect to win an argument with Superman, but I will say that other similar characters (such as this season of CW's Supergirl) have been in situations where, without macguffinsitems, they would have failed.

CW's The Flash had to use technological advancements to surpass the enemies he faces in the previous seasons (Season 2 and 3 in particular). Even if he has his inherent gifts, that's not the point. The point is that even with that, the Flash still needed those items to succeed, otherwise he would have failed, Speed Force or not. But he's still regarded as a very strong character even without it.

Not too familiar with Wonder Woman, but I'd have to liken her to our current 20th level Fighters of either edition, since we know even without magical equipment, Fighters can do some crazy stuff similar to her (such as wrestling T-Rexs to the ground and beating them to death with their bare hands). However, the point here is that Wonder Woman similarly needed items to defeat some of her strongest opponents, but nobody looks at her and says "Wow, I just realized she needed items to win, she's a lame superhero!"

In most X-Men cases, they are more inhibitors since their powers aren't easily controlled (think Cyclops, Professor X, Rogue, etc). However, it doesn't change the factor that in-universe, there are characters whom wouldn't succeed without items, and if we want to view the inhibitors as something that reduces (obvious) weaknesses, then it would make perfect sense here.

The Thor point is true, but in most "canon" depictions, this sort of thing didn't happen. Then again, I'm not a big Thor comic nut, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong, though he does explain in that movie that his hammer did have perks he doesn't have (such as using it to fly around), so he still does suffer somewhat by not having it. It's just the power he gains from not requiring a conduit is worth the sacrifice. **EDIT** In hindsight, this is actually a point for keeping mandatory magic items, since Thor decided, as a character, that the +X of his inherent powers is more valuable than the "cool perk" of flight.

Yes, Batman and Iron Man are insane geniuses, easily having intelligence scores equal to or beyond 20th level Wizards, but they are still characters whom are largely dependent on their gear to succeed. They can handle some things that are fairly trivial for most any other superhero without their gear via brainpower, but if we want to consider appropriate level foes (as we would in Pathfinder), then realistically them not using their items would result in an immediate death sentence given how strong of characters they are.

Well, if the X-Men and the opening scene to Infinity Wars (or even that whole movie) is any indication, it's not really something he controls, which doesn't really make it any more viable than super-situational bonuses in terms of relevance to players, or their excitement. It's actually almost as disappointing as the current rage rules, truth be told. But I will say that a class feature as undependable and inconsistent as the Hulk's would be just as upsetting if not more upsetting than the current Magic Item situation. We already have a comparison: Just take a look at the Brute Vigilante class.

Strangely, I didn't read or watch Lord of the Rings, or the Hobbit(s). (Yes, I know, burn the heretic, blah blah blah.) From what I've heard, however, there wasn't really much magic to begin with, making it a low magic setting more likely than not. So the odds of finding +X items is practically non-existent. I'm not really sure that this is an appropriate comparison, especially since there isn't much difference between the magical and the mundane to warrant the amount of complaints being presented on the forums. Honestly, just the idea that one is magical and the other isn't seems to be fair enough for people to not be up in arms about it, it's just the magnitude of magic that seems to be the issue.

One of my brothers whose read all of the Tolkien novels has stated several magic items that have done some crazy things that would be along the lines of artifacts. In fact, an item like the Dragonlance would be one such magic item as well in the appropriate universe, based on Wikia entries. To say that popular fantasy doesn't involve magic items which create major disparities between those that don't just sounds disingenuous based on this evidence.

This sounds mostly like a complaint of the Caster/Martial Disparity, which is largely gone in PF2, so I'm not seeing the point here. Yes, spellcasters can still fly, go invisible, and so on, but martials do have better tools to work with now to counteract this stuff. Fighters can use weapons (magical or not) to stamp fliers back to the ground, reveal invisible locations, and other similarly crazy things. Any other "broken" thing spellcasters could do before? Now relegated to rituals or nerfed into trash, most notably spells like Summon Monster, Simulacrum, etc. Casters having their own niche while Martials have theirs is probably the best compromise between the two class types we'll ever get, since it's been clear that one being superior than the other (such as the Caster/Martial Disparity) didn't work out to the players' benefit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

The argument on potency runes is repeatedly rehashed, though it was dead for a time, it has recently resurfaced in a preview thread, a question asked and answered by the developers on potency runes going up to five. On players wanting magic items to be important.

The problem of course is that the more important magic items are, the more reliant upon them The fighters, monks and barbarians are. And rangers too now.

Alas, Dependency is not awesome. It in fact sucks. It is a horrible thing found in real life. It is why I love to take options like the void kineticists no breath. Like the legendary proficiency survival skill feat. To know that a character is capable of besting dependency on even basic needs is a beautiful and precious thing. To see the basic needs of sleep, hunger and thirst overcome by will and skill is incredibly, even if it is just a game.

As such it may not surprise you to know that I'd love the idea of a monk being able to punch a dragon out, not because he has magic handwraps that he's worthless without, not because he has power from some sun God but because his will is absolute and indomitable, and he trained and fought until he was a force capable of doing so. Because he is a monk and therefore awesome, and needs these magical trinkets that others find so important.

Yet a high magic item setting is golarion.

It's a complicated question then, how to make these items useful, without making fighters dumbnormal oafs that need magic swords to win fights.

Without making monks dumbnormal karate people that need fancy handwraps.

Without making barbarians dumbnormal drooling berserkers that need a magic edge.

I envy not these developers that must either balance on the razor edge of this conundrum, or choose to side with one end of it while alienating the other. Yet tis not a low magic setting I seek, but a high magic one where still a fighter can be more than some numbnuts with a magic sword. The current rules make the sword over shadow your skill. Magic weapons trounce...

I'm not trying to sound condescending when I say this, but I want to ask you an honest and serious question: Do you think that a lot of the most powerful and iconic fantasy heroes that people are attracted to are somehow not reliant on magic, items, or some other object to succeed and overcome the challenges that lie before them? Or more accurately, shouldn't be reliant on these things?

I'm not kidding. Look at Drizz't. Look at Batman. Fantasy settings like Dragonlance. The list goes on. Each of these heroes (or anti-heroes) and settings have items that explicitly give these characters the tools they need to succeed and to carry on their story. Yes, Batman came into money based on his history, but the rest of his storyline, technology, and skills he has was something he's acquired and developed throughout his lifespan, and wasn't something that was natural to him; he worked for it, and used items to defeat enemies like Twoface, Joker, etc. Drizz't wasn't some awesome Drow character that showed up out of nowhere and owned stuff "because Drizz't." They aren't stupid or already so powerful that they don't need those tools, and they struggle and work their way to get them to accomplish their goals they set out to do, because, much to your and others' dismay, those characters, as cool and awesome as you apparently view them, are equally as dependent on those items. Yes, characters like Superman who don't use "items" exist, but remember that even those kinds of characters are still reliant on things (most notably, the UV Rays of the Yellow Sun). Get rid of those, and what are you left with? Someone who is probably not much stronger than you or me.

The point here isn't necessarily that "Magic Items (or other factors in Superman's case) are mandatory for these games," more that there are countless fantasy heroes (both medieval and modern in description) whom are depicted as acquiring or possessing items (or abilities) which are required for them to succeed, not unlike the Martial characters we've seen in both PF2 and PF1, don't forget, and people do not express any issue with those characters at all. Do you see people complain about Wolverine solving everything with his Adamantium Claws? No. I have not seen or heard a soul seriously make this remark.

In fact, you could even extend this argument well to the origins of D&D, big man Gary Gygax himself (may he rest in peace) especially when you take into consideration that acquiring and using magic items is one of the biggest draws to playing these fantasy games. So do we really want to go down this rabbit hole of "I hate how I need to have magic items!"? Because not only is it counter-intuitive to one of the game's main goals, it also draws into question the reason you play such a game to begin with, since it's become quite clear you do not view acquiring magic items as something fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Pramxnim wrote:

- Are there any plans to make buffs last longer?

Mark: PF1 had issues with parties pre-buffing themselves to high heaven. His own party did this often. The party would then steamroll an encounter and it would feel anti-climactic.

Now that Treat Wounds exists, there is incentive to rest for 10 minutes after a fight. Adding back 10 minute buffs would create an interesting choice for parties. Should they rest and recover hp or push ahead while maintaining their buffs?

Yeah... I've got one player who routinely had an issue with pre-buffing to extreme lengths. It got to the point that they'd actively refuse to contribute for the first several rounds of combat while they buffed if they didn't get time to beforehand. While there is a chance for an interesting choice between resting and rushing... I still worry that 10 min buffs could be too easy to stack and recreate the same issue the group either steamrolling or getting steamrolled with little in between. While I'm not totally against them per se, I hope this is handled with a bit of caution.

Having buffs but never the opportunity to cast them (due to bad range or short durations) was really bad and extremely hurt my spells known choices as a Divine Sorcerer in the Playtest. I couldn't cast Resist Energy in an encounter with a Dragon due to the short time (and range) to cast, and I couldn't cast spells like Bless because I'm required to move with the party instead of buffing them like I had planned (or else I'll get singled out or they'll be separated from me).

I don't know if it's necessarily the durations, but I'm almost certain that I'd rather not have short duration spells, especially since spells as a whole are nerfed everywhere else. If anything, spells not lasting nearly long enough was a point of contention between Martials and Casters. A Martial could swing his weapon all day, but a Caster could only sling so many spells before he goes *Poof.* I'm not saying that Casters should have the all-day longevity of Martials, but that it was one of the few things that Paizo didn't need to touch to help maintain the balance between the two niches. The spell durations were almost never an issue in the PF1 Caster/Martial Disparity. The issue was strictly flexibility and viability, which was all they needed to touch. Having less spells? Fine. Having spells do less? Fine too. Having spells not be functional for typical adventuring tactics? Not acceptable.

**EDIT** Apparently a certain word gets automatically censored for reasons unknown. Rather than keep it and risk the banhammer, I got rid of it. Whoops...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

SPOILERS AHEAD FOR "AFFAIR AT SOMBERFELL HALL", IF YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED THIS ADVENTURE OR THE ADVENTURES PRIOR TO THIS ONE, DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER!

It has been awhile since I've reported on this sort of thing, between real life commitments, and actually having the motivation to type this sort of thing up, but since I'm in a bit of a lull (being sick and not having any major commitments at the time being the biggest factors here), I might as well do this.

This was ran using the 1.4 Update rules (so Wounded and such is a factor here now).

Party Composition:
The party followed the assumed guidelines. We had two Clerics (one of Desna, another of Sarenrae), a Paladin (Half-Orc), and a Halfling Druid (Me). Since we were the assumed party of 4, the GM did not have to boost the monsters (much to our benefit, more on that later).

Introduction and Exploration:
Combining these into one section for simplicity and because of how it was ran.

We approach the door, unsure of how to proceed. The person of interest could be dangerous or outright ungreetable, even if he has worked with us in the past. It seemed strange that we are sent specifically to search him out instead of having other forms of communication, so we had to be ready for anything; maybe it was overrun by enemies, maybe the professor went crazy from one of his experiments, it was really hard to say. Searching for traps (and not finding any), we simply knock on the door. What's the worst that could happen?

Being greeted by Lucvi, we explain our business and we are begrudgingly welcomed in. We take note of the strange lighting in this place, and eventually we are brought to the professor, whom stated he was indisposed of offering his help to us, despite us stating our case strongly. Eventually he stated to reconsider after the experiments he does tonight, and retired to the laboratory with the other researchers.

Afterward, Lucvi offered us bedrooms to rest for the night, but seemed worried about something. Once interrogated, she stated that the professor was acting extremely strange as of late, and requested that we investigate the manor in hopes of uncovering clues. At this point, the Halfling Druid made the snide remark, "Well gang, looks like we have ourselves a mystery!" And so we investigated.

We checked all of the rooms and once more interrogated the professor in the laboratory (to no avail). We found the trap door in the professor's room (but didn't open it), as well as the drop-down door to the attic (which was locked, but the Halfling Druid was trained in Thievery and possessed a Skeleton Key). Investigating the attic, we came across a dilapidated corpse that ceased being human, with some scissor-like object inbedded in the skull. Removing the object revealed the initials of the professor engraved on it.

With this evidence, we confronted the professor, causing the researchers and Lucvi to freak out, and finally we are told the full story. If we helped the professor with his problem, he would be more than willing to help us with ours; the deal was struck at this moment, but there was loud knocking and scraping on the door. The professor goes to answer the door; we tried to tell him not to open it, but it was too late.

Encounter 1:
The Ghouls. At this point, the professor reacts very quickly, and manages to run away behind us. The ghouls move toward our position and attempt to strike us, but fail horribly. They seemed overwhelming based on their approach and apparent gruesomeness, but in reality were fairly weak. We burned a single channel to decimate the creatures, and the rest was dealt with cantrips and simple melee strikes.

After the combat, the professor proclaims that the terrors of his problem are coming, and the others retire to their rooms, while we kept them safe from whatever monsters may come our way. With this time, we took chairs and other sorts of small furniture and built barricades to create bottlenecks in front of the bookcase tower that the monsters have to sift through (burning actions) or funnel through (making it easier on us) in order to attack us.

Encounter 2:
The Ghasts and Vampires. These creatures seemed a little more difficult, and actually managed to inflict one of our clerics with their Ghast Rot, but based on the time it takes for it to transpire, would not have any major effect on the module. (Which seems strange to me, doesn't really help us playtest the deadliness of their auxiliary effects.) We burned a spell point, but due to the chokepoints we made, we didn't need to burn any channels. The vampires were similarly easy to dispatch, despite being somewhat stronger.

Encounter 3:
The Wights and Poltergeist. This fight would not have been that bad if not for the fact that the Poltergeist being permanently invisible made it nearly impossible to fight. The wights managed to close the gaps and get a couple hits in, but our saving throws and offensive capabilities were strong enough (and focused enough, since we couldn't see the poltergeist until much later) to eliminate them before they became a real threat. If not for one of our Clerics coming prepared with a See Invisibility scroll, we could have easily TPK'd to this fight simply due to the strong stealth score of this creature combined with its equally strong offensive power.

Encounter 4:
The Zombies and Greater Shadows. When we only saw the zombies, we had a feeling something worse was coming, and sure enough, the greater shadows came. While the shadows were menacing (and managed to pull 3 regular shadows out from the others, I avoided them entirely), they weren't so bad as to overwhelm us. I will say that this wave is where we burned the most channels simply to eradicate the shadows in a quick fashion. The zombies were a complete joke and really only served to desecrate our barricades (which were worthless at the time) and to throw off our focus, and were easily dispatched with cantrips and basic melee attacks similar to the ghouls. The Paladin was pretty weakened here, but was able to recover in time for the next fight.

Encounter 5:
Ilvoresh and the Vampire Spawn. This fight was tough and somewhat annoying, but it wasn't too horrible thanks to our party makeup. If anything, the Poltergeist encounter was more horrible since it was such a deciding factor between players who are and are not prepared.

I will say that when your highest level area spells are just as strong as your single-target spell point options (if not worse due to potential variations). My Spell Points were more valuable in this fight than my highest level spells, which really hurt my ego as playing a Druid. Don't get me wrong, my spell points were pretty cool (calling down 30+ damage on a creature is pretty nice), but when my 3rd and 4th level spells like Lightning Bolt and Fireball were hardly matching those numbers, it really put a damper as to how (and why) I selected those spell slots, when I might have been able to select other spells in their place and potentially contributed more.

Another interesting thing of note is that the GM let the Brain Collector have access to Phantasmal Killer as a spell (since it's a spell they acquire through the Beastiary entry), and when he cast it on one of the Clerics, they almost immediately died due to poor rolling. The sad thing is that everyone at the table wanted the spell to work, and based on reviewing the spell rules, it didn't. (It still really screwed up the Cleric with damage, though.)

Regardless, the players survived. We almost had a PC death due to bad rolling, but reviewing rules prevented it (to the dismay of the other players, too). We had very little power left (there was only one channel left amongst the Clerics, the Druid was out of spell points, and the Paladin was out of Lay On Hands). Without proper preparation and use of tactics, this was a for-sure death sentence.

A few things to take away from this playthrough:
1. Always pack See Invisibility in some form that anyone in the party can use. If you try to rely on Seeking invisible enemies, you're gonna have a very, very bad time, and you'll probably TPK because of it. Especially considering how extremely limited and unhelpful the Seek action is. Furthermore, it needs clarification for when trying to Seek enemies that are outside of the 30' foot range; does it just automatically fail? Does a success tell you that they are more towards another direction? This is helpful not only for invisible enemies, but also enemies whom are stealthed behind debris and are well outside the 30' range that the Seek action allows, and is an issue I ran into in the previous playtest adventure that I simply adhoc'd to keep the game flowing.

2. Channel Energy is pretty broken and needs revision. While I understand actions have already been taken in the future updates, they aren't the correct ones to take in my opinion, for obvious reasons. I've said my piece on this topic, and I'd rather not delegate this thread to become a vessel for that topic; it's just a note that I hope the developers take into consideration.

3. The damaging spells were disappointing compared to the spell point options. While I understand that the spells weren't used in optimal circumstances (Lightning Bolt and Fireball on single target enemies), the fact of the matter is that these spells are too difficult to properly utilize in combat with friendlies being intermixed, and serve better as BBEG/Solo spells, where the odds of being outnumbered are much greater. The damage also being comparable and scaling to spell points (which, the hierarchy of power is Cantrips < Spell Points < Spell Slots) means a revision of sorts need to take place. And it has, but not having actually tested it means I won't know for sure.

4. Mirror Image is still a major pain in the rear to go up against as a martial, and takes numerous rounds (based on average successful probability and attacks per turn) to remove, which it can then just be recast for 2 actions (and are probably in range to use one of its devastating attacks or abilities for its remaining action). I will expand upon this more in the next playtest adventure (since it's more apparent there for obvious reasons), but I will say that a creature having the ability to use this more than once (or even twice for a BBEG) is extremely frustrating, even as a solo creature encounter.

Overall, it wasn't a bad experience. It wasn't a great one, though, and at times it was frustrating (Poltergeist and BBEG in particular, due to Invis and Mirror Images, respectively), but considering that like most other encounters it was a one-off, it was one that we as players were accepting of having happened, especially since, by the end of it all, we succeeded. Would we want this to be the norm for combat? Doubtfully. (And this is especially true for Part 5 of the Playtest Adventure.) But hopefully the future changes will help reign this sort of thing in.


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


Well, yes and no. On one hand, it might make player choice more consistent and valuable. On the other hand, it removes a variable players may want to consider, and it also removes a common fantasy trope. Gauntlets that make you strong as an ogre, a headband that makes you as smart as a dragon, anklets making you more agile than a cheetah, items like these have a place in fantasy as well, and removing those really hurts having those kinds of fantasy tropes in place.

I see your point, do you think their are acceptable ways to implement those items without changing your ability scores?

What about setting you ability score to a set number and having other abilities? Like :

Gauntlets of Ogre Power could set your Strength to 18 and your attack bonus to +18 if its below those numbers, if you Strength/Attack bonus is above those numbers you can use the following abilities at will. They also could allow you to make an unarmed Strike for X damage and Grab, and use an action to make a Strength Check with a +4 Conditional bonus.

Headband of Dragon Intelligence/Anklets of the Cheetah could have similar effects.

Well, here's what they should be changed to:

Gauntlets of the Ogre: Allows a character to wield weapons one size larger than them, incurring Sluggish 1 when they do so upon investment. For 1 RP, They can also pick up and throw rocks of their size or smaller as a projectile weapon as a Strike action, similar to an Ogre, as well as Grab enemies with any unarmed strikes if they are of equal size or smaller for the same cost, applied as a free action.

Headband of the Sage: This headband, upon investment, lets you use Recall Knowledge on a target even if it isn't of the appropriate skill type (such as using Religion on a Giant). For 1 RP (and a Focus Action), you can activate a magic item (such as a wand or scroll) without failure (this is in addition to any RP costs you might have to pay), and you can spend 1 RP to gain one piece of useful information about a type of creature by using a Focus Action, even after you have used Recall Knowledge. A given creature type (such as a Dragon) is bolstered against this option upon use.

Anklets of the Cheetah: These anklets, upon investment, make you Accelerated 5. For 1 RP, you may move through both ally and enemy squares unhindered, not triggering reactions until the end of your next turn, and you may pay 1 RP to ignore all difficult terrain you travel through for 1 minute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:

I'm still waiting for the question:

"Do you want your martial character solely reliant on his magic weapon and if its taken from him, he's nothing?"

Because that's what Magic Weapons increasing damage dice do. You can't have backups, you can't switch your focus, you don't have enough money to buy more than one and the best of all of this? If you don't have one, you're not doing your job, which means, all your money goes solely to NOT FALL BEHIND.

I mean. They just need to ask the question straight, does the ones that defend the current potency runes at least gave proper thought on the situation? Because I was all aboard and thought it was fun... Until I spent a few minutes thinking what this would look like in the game and how it not only would be terrible mechanically, it would simply make martial characters glorified adventures, since they're basically lucky people that found a pile of gold and magical stuff, that's what gives them power. Forget ability. Forget experience.

I mean, why the game are forcing the players to buy stuff just so the math can work? Is there even a point to this? I thought the goal was to get rid of the big six not replace them with 3 different "options" (more like hidden obligations).

While this is a valid concern, the biggest question then becomes "How do we fix this issue?"

One approach is to cut down on HP and by relation remove the requirement of +potency items. Maybe instead of offering 8 HP per level, maybe make it 8 + Level in HP. The issue then requires adjusting the damage of every little thing to compensate for this minor change, and that's a lot of work that I'm almost certain isn't worth it in the long run.

Another approach is to tie damage dice to weapon proficiency. This means Fighters with Legendary proficiency by 13th level are doing the highest damage they can expect to do (and other classes approaching that amount of power by the endgame or through scaling via spell levels of cantrips). The issue then becomes characters who want to multiclass (or don't have as strong of martial capabilities, such as Clerics, Druids, etc). There are ways to fix this (such as by making Weapon Focus/Armor Focus feats and such improve your proficiency in a group of weapons or a type of armor by one category (to a maximum of Legendary), but then you're back to doubling down on feat taxes).

And yet another approach is to tie it directly to level. The biggest issue I have with this is that this makes certain level gaps arbitrarily stronger than others, and that's already present with the +2 to 4 ability scores at 5th and every 5 levels afterward. Want to hit 5th level? Gotta fight some super strong guys that are stronger just because they're 5th level instead of 4th level like you. Hitting 6th level afterward? They're only as strong as you already are now at 5th level! It's arbitrary and kills gradual growth, and is something that I plan to houserule straight away.

The last approach would be to just have the game assume you don't buy this stuff, but considering this stuff offers the best benefits (a lot of extra damage, bonuses to important saving throws, etc.), all this does is change what non-power gamers will select. Which I suppose is a fine and fair compromise, but when the non-power gamers start seeing that their choice is inherently weaker, they'll start working towards what the power gamers choose, which doesn't really solve the idea of wanting to choose things besides the Big 3.

On top of that, what would make magic weapons and armor magical? That they can hurl/deflect fireballs? Congratulations, you're now not swinging your magic weapon (though the armor property is pretty cool). That they instead just have property runes? While sensible, they become situational at-best and at-worst you're now back to spending your money on things other than this situational crap because the game expects other things.

It's a very complicated issue, not one that we can expect to be solved overnight, or even at all without some other major changes that can even further negatively impact the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo wants to be known for their own accomplishments, instead of being "That one company that revived that old edition of D&D because WoTC had a brain fart."

The idea that PF2 should just be yet another rehash of PF1 with updates that will be equally confusing and counterintuitive (people thought the transition of 3.X to PF1 was clean and easy, but realistically that still had numerous issues when it came down to it) is not really a sensible standpoint for them to take. I'd rather Paizo be known for making a capable game that isn't stringent on them following what WoTC does/did to the very nerve. Doing that, they wouldn't expand their player base, and they also wouldn't be doing anything original.

If the energy we have for a "PF1.5" was instead directed at a company whom has the better rights and conceptions for it (I.e. WoTC), those people would be more likely to get what they want there than asking for Paizo to do it (whom didn't invent 3.X or PF1, even with people who worked on both at the time).


In the low levels of PF1 you had equally (if not more scarce) healing, and in-combat healing was trash until 11th level. When you have to designate cash for a CLW wand, and the game expects you to do this, it's a clear issue of bad design.

Even then, as I've stated, Channel Energy is really only "balanced" from levels 5 to 19. It's broken by 20th level due to the amount of healing power it is compared to others (7 10th level spells is totally not broken guys!), and it's broken by 1st through 4th level by the frontloadedness of it. It's not broken (but still crazy strong) in the levels described because by this point there are options for healing that don't require using Clerics, which aren't trash or super stringent on luck.

The reason Heal gives D8s is because that's all it gives: HP. Lay on Hands gives AC, Soothe gives Saves v.s. Emotional effects, and Goodberry counts as eating food for survival. They are temporary benefits, true, but something that Paizo feels is worth the loss of dice. If we wanted to make Heal have the same dice (which is fine by me, but sacred cows and stuff), it needs to give something in exchange. Maybe temp HP with a duration and value equal to the spell level?


The Charisma attribute represents force of personality. Since the bloodline powers are innate to your personal feelings, you rely on your instinctual demands, which Charisma helps in drawing out.

It also helps that Charisma also helps with keeping you attuned (and in-tune with) the magic of Golarion, implying that sorcery is done more through having the personal ambition to will the magic out from your body and soul.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM FIAT is bad when you want the rules to decide something, they fail at it, and therefore the GM is left to pick up the pieces. Chances are, that GM is going to make a ruling that A. the players don't like, and B. is more often than not against what the original spirit of the rules is, or C. the spirit of the rule is unclear and as such GM FIAT becomes a variable that not all players can reasonably rely on to function between tables.

With the item slots example, the rules want to decide that there are no item slots, fails at expressing this rule clearly and/or concisely (because items are still limited based on slot in a more realistic manner than an arbitrary one), and so we're going to have GMs make the claims of naked adventuring being the best adventuring, and others where you can't ever have more than two rings because tradition.

So yes, it can be bad and negative in the correct circumstances, and this is a recipe for where it will fall under that perception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:

So I saw that the devs were thinking of Arcanist style casting for prepared casters, but decided against it because it would limit the sorcerer's niche. That gives the perfect opportunity to make the sorcerer a core spell point caster for people who want to make a spell caster but don't want to use spell slots.

It fits with the theme of the sorcerer, and I feel like there would be a lot of people who would like that to be an option in core.

You would have to drastically change what spell points are, as a whole, just to satisfy the niche of one class. That's a whole lot of work just to effectively sate peoples' egos. It's not worth the headache and issues it can cause. I mean, they could just go the way of Channel Energy, but since everyone is still complaining about that (myself included), I'd rather we just keep it as it is. There are other ways to make the Sorcerer more iconic, I'd rather explore those ways first before we think altering the design of the wheel is a good idea.

Arcanist style casting is pretty broken and is outright better than Sorcerer spellcasting (and even Wizard casting, to be frank). Sure, I don't get more spells known than a Sorcerer does, but the fact I can change them every day is OP enough. Considering they want to eliminate builds like Schrodinger's Wizard, I'm actually glad they decided against it.


GM OfAnything wrote:
I'm not sure how you physically plan to wear both a choker and a gorget. They got rid of slots, they didn't turn every character into a giraffe.

No they didn't, all they did is make it so I can be Sonic and wear a bunch of rings, or (as others have said) Mr. T and wear a bunch of necklaces without issue.

If that's the case, why isn't everyone just a bunch of naked adventurers with some bling? Bracers of Armor? Why not Necklace of Armor? Arm wraps of Mighty Fists? Why not Ring of Mighty Fists? I have no reason to confine my item powers onto boots or gloves or similarly limiting slots (especially based on previous rulings as to what item slots grant what kind of benefits) when I can just make it into jewelry and not have any issue with slots or anything of that nature. It probably saves on bulk, too!

The idea that slots don't exist is poppycock, and the idea that I can't be a naked adventurer is because of GM FIAT, both of which aren't very convincing arguments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Jason S wrote:
citricking wrote:
Making lots of characters feel very samey. With lots having 18 Dex, Wis, and Con as they level up.

While I don't agree with your solution, I do agree that it's super annoying that all characters and all stats converge to 18 as you approach level 15.

It's also annoying that boosts after 18 are lower. In PF2, you can't "master" anything.

At level 10 in PF1, our characters didn't have the same stats, the same cannot be said for PF2.

Hopefully they reduce the power or number of boosts you get every 5 levels so we don't all morph into Greek Olympians at level 15.

It's not much different than how it was in PF1 in terms of stat allocations past 1st level. The only difference is that there were less stats being boosted, they were much more limiting (only a +1 every 4 levels to one attribute ever?), and there were a lot more outside stimuli (besides leveling) to improve attributes. Spells, magic items (which are more impactful), and class abilities all did this.

Notice how, except for the minor boost from a level 14 magic item, attribute improvements are strictly from level? And that, since leveling rules are universal, everyone has the same kind of leveling? If we ran PF1 like that, wouldn't you likewise see the same exact parallel concept of people just boosting their primary attribute to the atmosphere?

Hopefully they get rid of magic items boosting ability scores, it's much easier to have consistent armor class by character class and armor used if the Dex mod doesn't change over levels.

And I think Jason S wasn't saying he minded characters boosting their primary attribute, but that he minded everyone has pretty much every stat high.

Well, yes and no. On one hand, it might make player choice more consistent and valuable. On the other hand, it removes a variable players may want to consider, and it also removes a common fantasy trope. Gauntlets that make you strong as an ogre, a headband that makes you as smart as a dragon, anklets making you more agile than a cheetah, items like these have a place in fantasy as well, and removing those really hurts having those kinds of fantasy tropes in place.

I still don't see a problem, because it's similar to what I've stated above. Characters that become higher level generally will have better (and more) stats than lower level characters, and this isn't different from PF1 except in terms of scale. If they don't like the scale, then whatever. If they don't like the way it's acquired, then that's not something that everyone having high stats is at odds with.


Ediwir wrote:

People keep bringing up healing.

How about an evil cleric who blasts you for Nd8+4 touch damage per action, three times a turn, for three turns in a row?
That’d be fun.

*N being pretty much your level.

This would be considered strong nova capabilities if the Harm spell didn't suffer MAP. But it does. So all this really does is mean a Cleric doesn't have to invest in high Strength or magic weapons to devastate his enemies with damage.

I will say that Harm Clerics do get more mileage out of the Channel Smite feat than Heal Clerics, though. A high Strength Cleric running around with a magic weapon, Magical Striker (through Sorcerer Dedication, but that takes 4 feats), and his Negative Energy Channels is probably the strongest nova class in the game by far.

XD12+ND8+Strength+Wisdom is a brutal single hit, and heaven forbid we critically hit an enemy, where all of that dice (and Strength and Wisdom) becomes doubled.

Let's take 12th level, the capstone of PF1S. A CN Gorumite wielding a +3 Greatsword, casting 6th level Harm single-target via Channel Smite, possessing 18 Strength and 12 Wisdom (or 10 Wisdom if Goblin), benefitting from Magical Striker all at once turns this hit into 4D12+11D8+4+1. This takes two actions, yes, but when you're dealing, on-average, 70 damage, with an average of 140 on a critical, there isn't much left from that against an equal level PC, and it decimates equal level monsters.

Now consider that Pre 1.6, this Gorumite could do this upwards of seven times per day, without burning any existing spell slots. Now, they can do it only 3-4 times per day, but being able to nova out 70 damage a turn is still pretty nice, compared to a Fighter doing 6D12+4 per Power Attack (even if it's "free"). If we committed to a "5 minute adventuring day" like we have in the past, that Gorumite will always do more damage than any given Fighter, full stop. He won't be as accurate, but his hits will contribute to combat a lot more than a Fighter's will.

It's equally silly, and is why this change is needed on both sides of the spectrum.


Jason S wrote:
citricking wrote:
Making lots of characters feel very samey. With lots having 18 Dex, Wis, and Con as they level up.

While I don't agree with your solution, I do agree that it's super annoying that all characters and all stats converge to 18 as you approach level 15.

It's also annoying that boosts after 18 are lower. In PF2, you can't "master" anything.

At level 10 in PF1, our characters didn't have the same stats, the same cannot be said for PF2.

Hopefully they reduce the power or number of boosts you get every 5 levels so we don't all morph into Greek Olympians at level 15.

It's not much different than how it was in PF1 in terms of stat allocations past 1st level. The only difference is that there were less stats being boosted, they were much more limiting (only a +1 every 4 levels to one attribute ever?), and there were a lot more outside stimuli (besides leveling) to improve attributes. Spells, magic items (which are more impactful), and class abilities all did this.

Notice how, except for the minor boost from a level 14 magic item, attribute improvements are strictly from level? And that, since leveling rules are universal, everyone has the same kind of leveling? If we ran PF1 like that, wouldn't you likewise see the same exact parallel concept of people just boosting their primary attribute to the atmosphere?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
citricking wrote:
It forces odd ability scores, which don't do anything.

I hadn't even thought of that...

Odd ability scores served a purpose in AD&D, because they had individualized tables for each stat. In 3.PF, they still existed, but were mostly only used for prereqs. But now they aren't even used for that. And with default ability score generation being in increments of +2, the only purpose they serve is slowing down ability score advancement after 18.

They can just adjust the clause to "If an ability score is at a +4 or higher, increasing it further only improves it by +0.5." And still get the same exact result. They can also adjust the attribute boosting magic items to "The item improves your ability score to +4, or improves it by +1 if it is already at +4 or higher." It's such an easy (even if tedious) solution that I don't understand why they aren't doing it.

Optional rules of generating attributes (which is "Roll 3D6 in order") and "tradition" (which is mostly broken at this point) is literally the only reason to keep around "18 Strength" entries. They are otherwise clunky, pointless, and serve as further means of confusing new players. Even monster stat blocks don't have "18 Strength" in their entries anymore!

Down with ability scores, long live ability modifiers! Cut out the middleman and really have a name for yourself!


Maybe a Necerion from an alternate universe may exist within the confines of this universe's Golarion. Magic and rituals can (and should be able to) do some crazy things...


Zorae wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Zorae wrote:

I like the idea in theory. But it would make low level Clerics absolutely unfun to play.

It would make them even worse than the current Cha to channels right now. I don't think it would be at all viable to play as the only healer with this change at low levels. You would need someone to help you out.

I'd prefer the extra heal slot per spell level along with all Clerics getting the option to convert spell points into channels. This would give low level Clerics the ability to heal and contribute buffs, and (assuming domain powers are buffed) wouldn't be as needed at higher levels as I assume you'd actually want to use your domain powers then. But you'd still have something to fall back on if push came to shove.

The math can be changed to compensate for the lack of healing, the issue as it stands is that Channel is too strong and required of a feature, making it mandatory for all adventuring parties, and too strong to use for encounters. Another problem is that if we change the math on one section (as you eloquently demonstrated with reducing channels but not changing math), the other section becomes way out of wack.

In addition, Wisdom has little value to Clerics since more Charisma means more channeling, and that needs to change.

The thing is, I wouldn't want "Less but more powerful channels". That's not really helpful. Unless you want the 5 minute adventuring day to come back. And for low level Clerics to ignore people going down because they've only got 2-3 heals and they need to count.

I'd much rather they give Clerics back the number of channels they had (although not tie it to Cha as I agree that is ridiculous), but make them (and the related feats) d6s instead.

I didn't say "less but more powerful," this is a complete revision of the scale of healing that a Cleric gets in comparison to other spellcasters. The fact that any fully invested character can't ever compare to a non-invested Cleric in terms of healing is a complete joke and is equally unfun and not helpful. This mandates Clerics in every party when they shouldn't be mandated, and it also means that if I throw said Clerics as enemies against the party (because the story requires it, as one example), the slog drags and I actually have a great risk of TPKing the party simply due to the sheer power of Channel Energy.

So no, "Less but more powerful" solves none of those issues, and is not something I said. It's a strawman. Changing the scale is what matters here.

Reducing dice might help steep the power curve, but the fact of the matter is that Clerics are still getting EIGHT 10th level spells for 19D6 healing compared to everyone else whom are lucky to even get a single one of those things for 19D8. There's no contest and no comparison, and that's outright bad, especially when this edition's main goal is to make being a healer less class-based. It's stupidly broken by the endgame, stupidly broken at the beginning of the game (because it's still 6 more spells per day compared to every other class), and it's still overpowered everywhere else.

Even if we do implement the new "D6" rule, that serves as yet another subrule that players need to remember, and last I checked PF2 is meant to simplify and streamline a lot of the system so that for most every character using identical abilities, they use identical rules. If it turns out Clerics heal with D6s instead of D8s because apparently there's no other way to appropriately fix the Channel Energy issue, then Paizo will probably have lost me as a potential customer of their product.


Only Mythic characters and creatures could reach those stats in PF1. In the base game, the highest Strength was somewhere in the 50's and actually attainable by Wizards no less, compared to Fighters whom get up to 36 at the most.

Yeah, with that hindsight I'm glad the most physically strong character is more often than not a martial character, and not some "beef" Wizard with magic shenanigans.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A 20th level PC is extremely rare and also extremely powerful. They are beings of legend and fable. Actors like Tom Cruise more often than not play these kinds of characters in movies and TV series, meaning a 20th level character probably has all of those descriptors you use for attributes.

I'm not really seeing the complaint of "attributes don't match character identity" because heroes aren't simply willed into existence, they are born and trained to become what they are, even with some innate talent to help them out.

And as for the whole "Not use a D20 where it doesn't make sense" argument, this does not compute. We might as well abolish all dice and just let the base numbers do the talking. Except, stuff happens, and circumstances change everything, which is what the D20 represents. Maybe the 18 Strength guy got off-put that time around, maybe the 10 Strength guy got a lucky break. But the attributes mean the 18 Strength guy is more favorable to win the arm wrestle.


Stabilization and Recovery rules explain it.


Alarox wrote:

Precedence from 1E would lean toward yes, you are considered your own ally.

FAQ: You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, “your allies” almost always means the same as “you and your allies.”

Even if this precedent is the case, an ability like Retributive Strike isn't intended to work for yourself.


Zorae wrote:

I like the idea in theory. But it would make low level Clerics absolutely unfun to play.

It would make them even worse than the current Cha to channels right now. I don't think it would be at all viable to play as the only healer with this change at low levels. You would need someone to help you out.

I'd prefer the extra heal slot per spell level along with all Clerics getting the option to convert spell points into channels. This would give low level Clerics the ability to heal and contribute buffs, and (assuming domain powers are buffed) wouldn't be as needed at higher levels as I assume you'd actually want to use your domain powers then. But you'd still have something to fall back on if push came to shove.

The math can be changed to compensate for the lack of healing, the issue as it stands is that Channel is too strong and required of a feature, making it mandatory for all adventuring parties, and too strong to use for encounters. Another problem is that if we change the math on one section (as you eloquently demonstrated with reducing channels but not changing math), the other section becomes way out of wack.

In addition, Wisdom has little value to Clerics since more Charisma means more channeling, and that needs to change.


Ediwir wrote:
I think he was talking about pre-1.6 Lay on Hands, which is d4 based.

Pretty much this, I forgot they buffed it in 1.6. Even then, I'm going based off of the comparison of the Healing Domain, which costs 2 spell points for 1 use of Channel, since the Paladin's Channel Life is equivalent in power (and it makes no sense to have two abilities that do the same thing have a different cost, simply because of the current Channel Energy rules being broken if they were the same of a lesser quality).

Another thing to consider is that Healing Domain's Advanced Power got a lot stronger with how scarce its power is now (and serves as an alternative for Clerics in the higher levels), and players will actually feel rewarded investing in it instead of it more than likely being overkill. With my system, Healing Domain will be even more valued, and similar to the current iteration, can serve as a function to replace Charisma entirely.

One issue that presents itself is that now Clerics must build with the Healing Doamin if they want a comparable level of healing power, though they sacrifice other things in exchange, and it means players have to make that choice/sacrifice instead of it being something granted and that other players come to expect of their fellow Cleric. Does it sound bad? Possibly. But if the math compensates the lack of commonplace healing and treats it more spacious, Healing Domain would be more optional (and fit for those whom want to be a healer compared to others who aren't or just simply don't want to be).

On top of that, Heal and Harm have in-combat utility versus undead and other kinds of foes, respectively, so it's not the worst thing in the world to have extra spell slots for it.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

The Sorcerer desperately needs to be reconcepted, because the other casting classes are eating its lunch. It needs a core identity of its own, and its abilities need to be powered up to compare against the other classes. As much as many of us would like to see it folded with the Kineticist or Magus it's pretty obvious Paizo won't even consider that. So I've summed up some changes I think would help the Sorcerer stand out and find its way, in a way I think they might at least consider. I feel this would make it solid enough to remain competitive even if they do what's right and give all the prepared casters a version of Arcanist casting, to finally put the anti-fun headache of pure Vancian in the grave where it belongs.

Basic Traits and Proficiencies
A moderate change: the Sorcerer should be proficient in light armor and should have 8 HP per level, the same as the Bard. The Sorcerer doesn't cloister themselves away in study and instead goes about the world using their innate power, so shouldn't be as squishy as the Wizard.

Spell List
A big change: the spell list granted by the bloodline should be in addition to the Arcane list. All Sorcerers are rooted in Arcane, but gain the flexibility to mix and match their spell repertoire between Arcane and another list as determined by their heritage.

Of the current bloodlines, I would assign Divine to Celestial and Diabolic; Occult to Aberrant and Demonic; and Primal to Draconic and Fey. Imperial would get the special trait of only being Arcane, but learning 1 extra spell per level.

Skills
A minor side effect of the above: the bonus skills shift slightly according to each bloodline's new spell list.

Expanded Bloodline Thematics
A minor change: the Sorcerer should be granted the language associated with their bloodline as a bonus language.

They could also get a small bonus to all checks (including AC since that's weirdly defined as a check in PF2) against creatures sharing their heritage. Alternately...

I'm of the opinion that their proficiency lists should be a choice, much like their bloodlines (and by relation spell list) choice. They can start with the base D6, no armor and simple weapon only proficiency, but they get 3 "boosts" to use how they see fit. Proficiency in a specific martial weapon, going up a die size (to D12!), and going up an armor proficiency, each counts as one. Gaining shield proficiency counts as another, and being proficient in all martial weapons counts as two. This way, you can have a D8 Light Armor character proficient in a martial weapon as a basic standard, but for those who want the life pool, the higher armor, or the cool weapons, they'll compensate in other areas. It sounds complicated, but it's pretty simple in application.

The spell splicing change sounds too broken in my opinion. Sorcerers aren't meant to be the versatile caster who can draw spells from multiple spell lists simultaneously. In fact, no class is ever meant to do that short of some Trick Magic Item shenanigans, in which case that's a whole other issue entirely (such as "What's the point when I don't have ranks/training in X skill"). The biggest problem is that Paizo is treating having a choice between all 4 spell lists as a strength when it's not like the Sorcerer can change their spell list at any point in time. (Crossblooded Archetype, hint hint.) Having flexibility in how you build means nothing when every sort of flexibility you have is actually outright weaker compared to other classes whom are dedicated to it (sans Wizard).

I'm not really sure if Skills are something that need to be changed. I think that skills in general are too narrow unless you're a Rogue, and even then you only really have 3 usable skills by the endgame (or 6 if you're a Rogue), so it's not like having more trained skills or feats is worthwhile (or difficult to acquire).

Being able to speak a language is hardly something that is born through bloodlines, it is acquired through personal syntax and understanding through biological stimuli within your body (more accurately, your brain). Getting a bonus language based on your bloodline choice in that sense doesn't make any. (It doesn't make dollars, either.) That being said, if a Sorcerer has to have 14 Intelligence in order to take, say, a Dragon Disciple Prestige feat tree, I'll be upset.

I think they got rid of the whole passive benefits of bloodlines, which is, in my opinion, bad. Bloodline Arcanas in PF1 were very powerful, unique, and cool to possess, which greatly helped the Sorcerer's identity and power scale tremendously. Having an ability that lets you cast mind control or non-standard effects (like fear or sleep) on Undead is actually pretty strong and pretty cool. Yes, bloodline powers attempt to do this, but they're comparable to anything else every other class gets. Domain Powers, School Powers, Order Powers, Compositions/Bardic Performances, the list goes on. Bloodline Powers don't grant anything unique or interesting that other classes don't already have access to through their class powers.

The argument for shifting up tiers of spells makes no sense. So if I hit 7th level that means I can never cast Bless as a spell? Congratulations, this concept is broken and I'm glad Paizo didn't do something this silly in their design.

Sorcerers aren't cantrip gods (no class is, and it's not a very fair or appropriate class niche), and with that ruling combined with the Expanded Cantrips feat, you might as well just give them all cantrips when they're max level, which is stupid, silly, and in some cases broken. What's that, now I deal 5D10+10 without burning spell slots? Take that, fighters!


Unconscious, if I remember correctly, is a condition, and is usually caused when a creature hits 0 HP, though if spells and effects like Sleep are any indication, this isn't always the case.

In short, being unconscious wouldn't change your HP total, but it does mean that you drop anything you are holding and are prone, become flat-footed, the whole 9 yards. Oh, and you won't wake up for 10 minutes unless some outside stimulus causes you to become awake (such as a PC slapping you awake for whatever actions needed as determined by the GM, or being healed).


For those saying that Channel Life shouldn't be brought into discussion, I disagree, as Channel Life is identical (and I believe the text says it functions as Channel Energy). So, other classes that want this feature will bring a significant perspective into how this feature can be designed, and I think I have a solution.

Channel Life can similarly get nerfed by requiring 2 more spell points instead of 1 to cast, being identical to the Advanced Healing Domain feature (which is only limited based on spell points/focus, something that Clerics of my current design will no longer abide by). 10D4 is roughly the same amount as 5D8 (though 10D4 is more likely to give you an average and a higher minimum in exchange for more actions or requiring being next to people). The other tradeoff here is the three acton option, which is great for improved out of combat healing (or in-combat AoE damage versus undead), something which I feel should be worth a feat based on versatility alone.


Tamago wrote:

10 minutes is a little bit hyperbolic, but it still completely killed the momentum of the game.

We have the same problem with healing spells. Adding up 17d8 just plain takes a long time. Our group really misses the 1st edition Heal spell with its flat amount of healing.

Heal was flat (even if technically, still scaled by caster level), but broken and outscaled every other sort of healing in the game. It was actually the only valid in-combat healing permissible due to its sheer power and scaling, which is silly in hindsight, and I'd rather not have a repeat of that.

While I do wish the healing spells in PF2 went with that scale (such as by healing 1[spell level] + X[spell level] + modifier), it's still strong enough as it is, despite its variable dice results.

Also, if adding up the dice is really a pain, then use app rollers to calculate the damage/result for you. I'm personally against this, simply because it similarly kills immersion for me, I have a personal distrust of using apps since they can be filled and riddled with errors that I would see right through, and me and my group can add up numbers fairly easily. But for those who cannot develop the mathematical skills, it's an option to consider.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

I'm a big fan of legendary skills feeling legendary, but. I think full out resurrection is a bridge too far. If for no other reason than I like that ad a ritual with major consequences for critically failing.

I think the closest I'd want would be something more in a breath of life; you patch someone up on the spot when they are only "mostly" dead.

Too bad Breath of Life is broken and there's no way to tell how it works based on RAW.

It gives 4D8 + mod in HP, but then says it throws the character to Dying 3 and gives them a bonus on their next stabilization check.

Are they still unconscious? Wouldn't them being at positive HP from a heal effect make them conscious and they instead become Wounded 3? How long does the bonus to their next stabilization check last? And since the stabilization check is now a flat check, does that bonus still even apply, or is there some other roll we aren't talking about?

I used this spell in Part 4 of Doomsday Dawn on numerous occasions (once per encounter, actually), and it's baffled me as to how the developers made this spell into something completely broken and nonsensible compared to how easy and simple to use it was in PF1. And the silly thing is that I'm not even sure they are aware of this issue. (If they are, great, but I really hope I'm not the only player who has used this spell which has saved several PCs lives.)


Edge93 wrote:

I suppose the one spell per spell level Heal/Harm free is about in-line with the Sorcerer's extra spell per slot per day, with the conversion casting making up for the lesser versatility perhaps.

Certainly not a bad idea though not how I am likely to do it.

Honestly I'd kinda like to see Channel get keyed off of Wis but that still has its own problems.

This solves Charisma being more valuable than Wisdom (since Charisma no longer impacts how many Channels you get each day), but the fact of the matter is that Channel Energy, as a feature, is broken beyond all recognition due to its raw power. The difference between a party that does or does not have Channel Energy is massive. It provides so much for such a singular feature that the Cleric has trash for most every other feature they possess to compensate for it, and that's just bad design. A Cleric is much more than just Channel Energy. They have Domains and can be considerably strong in physical combat with the right build and buffs, and that's just as generic and bare-bones as it gets. I imagine other posters can give much more elaborate Cleric builds that they were fond of in PF1 that they would wish PF2's Cleric could better accommodate, and that's the kind of stuff that PF2's Cleric could follow as an example.


ikarinokami wrote:


if cleric healing is comparable to other healers, the entire class needs a redesign because there would literally be no reason to ever play the class.

Well, you have Sorcerers who are actually worse than any other spellcasting list niche (sans Arcane, because Wizards) based on proficiencies alone, and their bloodline powers and class feats are pretty sub-par and niche all their own. But you still have people playing Sorcerers. It's the same argument back when PF1 was released and we had Core Rogue, Core Fighter, and Core Monk whom were all trash without Unchained, Weapon/Armor Master Handbook resources, and Archetypes, so it's not really treading new ground.

It's still going to be superior because Clerics have access to healing feats that others don't (or require serious investment to match). Healing Hands, Channeling Smite, these are abilities that other classes don't possess unless they multiclass (which costs them more feats to do and subtracts from other feats they might want or need), and if Cleric Domain Powers get boosted to compensate for the lack of healing power, then there is all kinds of reason.

Also, by the endgame, having access to a 10th level heal that other classes simply don't have is extremely powerful, because that's one 10th level slot they didn't have before. Having 2 10th level slots compared to other spellcasters' 1 is plenty strong as it is.


Neume wrote:

I don't see how this is a compromise. So Clerics go from 3+ CHA to just CHA and the compromise is 10 + spontaneously popping prepped spells?

Absolutely not.

I don't like the idea of having other classes getting nerfed, but the reality is Heal / Harm is THE best spell in the game and Clerics get an alarming amount of uses with it. Even if CHA is required to up their uses.

And for sure, without any other channel feats a base Cleric heals much better than a Bard can AND the Cleric gets Expert Proficiency with their weapon.

I would be open to Channel Energy being able to spontaneously pop a prepped spell for Heal/Harm. Maybe a base amount for low level (like 3 free). But no way should they get one a level.

Actually, Charisma has no factor in this whatsoever.

It goes based off of their spell levels that they can cast.

At 1st level, with 1st level spells, they get one 1st level Heal spell for free.

At 3rd level, with 2nd level spells, they now get one 2nd level Heal spell for free (in addition to the 1st level Heal spell they got for free).

This scales all the way until they get 10th level spells with their 20th level feat (which, what crazy person wouldn't do that?). So, for each spell level they possess, they get one Heal spell of each corresponding spell level for free.

I do agree other things need to be changed as well (and explicitly say so), but this is specifically a thread discussing about what sort of power (or impact) Channel Energy should have on the feel and playstyle of this class.


Dasrak wrote:
So basically a bonus spell slot at every level plus the ability to spontaneously convert other slots into equivalent heal/harm spells. Sounds good, but I can't shake the feeling that those rules feel very familiar from somewhere... I just can't put my finger on it...

This was calculated (and yes, where the original concept came from).

Getting a choice of a free slot of Heal/Harm, even if it is as strong as it is, still makes for a fairly static (even if somewhat powerful) feature, and didn't match up with the modular scaling of other class' spell slot features. (The closest is Universalist Wizard, though even that isn't fair in my opinion due to the power disparities.) Having the option to convert slots as needed lets Clerics be the healers they want/need to be while letting them prepare the spell slots they would originally want. Heal/Harm is an almost universal spell to the Divine spell list that there is almost no choice to it, and while the original Channel Energy tried to eliminate that choice, it also created an insane power boost combined with the existing changes that the game doesn't (read: shouldn't) want. And yes, while this does cut down on Cleric spell power overall, with a feature as strong as the previous Channel Energy compared with everyone else's spell powers, something had to give, and there are other areas the developers can shore up (feats, domains, other sources of healing, etc.) that would both A. make Wisdom a better requirement, and B. make Channel Energy more of a supplement and not the absolute powerhouse and requirement of a feature it is now.

On top of that, the existing Channel Energy was a holdover of PF1 design (which clashed with the already existing spell points system) that was A. weaker, and B. a feature completely separate from healing spells (similar to Lay on Hands as they are now and as they were in PF1). It's a design that's outdated and doesn't match what the current design is. The ability to spontaneously cast heal/harm spells, on the other hand, is not outdated, because the original intent was to have the spell replace the prior channel mechanics to cut down on mechanics to memorize (though this makes no sense when we consider Lay On Hands, a similar mechanic, still exists), which means the spell rules still have a hold here.

In short, semi-flexibility with their spell slots is a nice feature to have, because it lets Clerics prepare slots "just in case" as normal, but if it turns out they don't need them, boom, free healing (or damage during combat) as needed. The Cleric can still be the best (or comparable) healer because they still have feats which work with the Heal spell, it's just that they shouldn't be the de facto healer, or rather that the disparity shouldn't be so bad as to allow other classes (Alchemist, Bard, Sorcerer) to provide comparable healing. It's actually one of the "hidden" features behind the Cleric class in PF1 that made them much more bearable to play if you wanted to have spells, but also had to fill a "healer" niche.


Ediwir wrote:

That is also a fairly good way to do things. Charisma is already likely going to be highly relevant because of Domain power once Focus shifts in, so we might as well use the other classes as measuring sticks.

That said, Cleric still needs a spell list revamp to make spells compete with Heal, and some option for Neutral clerics... but this is actually a better version of Channel than my own, so congrats. I am officially shifting my approach.
It’s simple, effective, and balanced.
Thumbs up.

Much appreciated. Neutral Clerics still get the choice of Heal/Harm like before; I tried making it clear, but I guess it got lost between using the same confusing clause over and over again.

I did consider giving them a flat spell slot to prepare anything of their choice, but I felt that it was too much freedom for the extra spell slot, since a similar comparison (the Wizard) didn't have that much unless they were a Universalist, but even they are extremely strong from what I've gathered.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to take a moment to discuss the relevance of Channel Energy, Charisma, and their overly strong impact on the Cleric class. If we stripped both of those away from the Cleric, the class would be extremely weak and bare bones. The class has too many feats to expand on Channel Energy, and with the new nerf to Channel Energy uses, it makes Charisma much more impactful to the class, as the ratio from stat to base uses changed as well. Prior to these changes, Channel Energy also felt like a mandatory party feature in a game that wasn't supposed to require players playing a certain type of class or role.

On top of that, the raw power from Channel Energy spirals way out of control once you apply levels, as now you're having that much more spell power compared to others. Consider at the end game, you can heal as a 10th level spell upwards of six times compared to any other class whom would be foolish to do it even once, and don't ever get bonus 10th level spell slots. That's an insane amount of power gained compared to anyone else's 20th level feat, and is not something that changing the ratio of channel energy uses solves.

To that, I propose a complete rewrite of Channel Energy to be more along the lines of how current power scaling of other classes work (and compared to PF1's channel energy):

___

Channel Energy

The cleric gains the ability to channel the energy of his/her deity's will onto others. The Cleric gains one additional spell per day per spell level they can cast, which coincides with his/her deity's channel focus. If the deity uses positive energy, the cleric gains an additional Heal spell per spell level prepared for the day. If the deity uses negative energy, the cleric gains an additional Harm spell per spell level prepares for the day. If a deity allows a choice between either positive or negative, the cleric must decide which form of energy they channel, and receive one spell per spell level based on their choice of energy, and once chosen, this cannot be changed.

In addition, the Cleric may spontaneously transform one of his prepared spells to channel energy, expending the spell slot as normal to create a Heal (if positive) or Harm (if negative) spell whose effects manifest at the same level of whichever spell was transformed.

___

This is approximately the casting power that other casting classes got. Sorcerers got Bloodline spells. Wizards got School powers. Other casting classes got things like Orders and added heightening, and that's fair. On top of that, none of their main features are tied to secondary attributes (sans Wild Druid, but special cases and all that), so why should a Cleric's Channel Energy similarly be tied to a secondary attribute? We've all seen what happened when we did that: Charisma outright replaced Wisdom in most cases, and it's clearly not intended. In reality, abolishing that wouldn't be bad.

Of course, some people wouldn't like the overall nerf to clerics, and that's fine. There are other ways to shore up a Cleric. For example, a Healing Cleric might want to take the Advanced Domain feat to turn 2 Spell Points into a Heal spell, compared to 1 spell point adding +2 per dice. Or, they could use both and actually get some solid nova mileage out of their Wisdom and Spell Points. Right now, Domains are too niche and weak to have (except for a few), so having them beefed up in exchange can help the Cleric get more into its niche instead of just being one overly powerful feature of a class that it is now. And there are other ways to help besides domains. What about actual feats that give you abilities fit for a Cleric instead of more and more stuff meant to enhance "that one thing you do"? I'm sure Paizo can come up with several that can make Channel Energy more of a compliment than a requirement.


MaxAstro wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
NielsenE wrote:
The duration of a rage should be roughly 75% of the length of an average encounter. Otherwise it doesn't matter and you should just always assume rage stats. 3+ Con rounds is way too long in most fights. The fixed 3 felt fairly reasonable in terms of how it fit into battles.
The problem is that most battles I've come across in the playtest have taken anywhere from 6 to 12 rounds between outliers and the difficulty ramp, so having it be "3 rounds" is unrealistic by my experience, and if the bad guys have healing, flying, or Mirror Image shenanigans, it's even longer. Final fight in Part 4 took 20+ rounds due to stupid Mirror Image and heal shenanigans, would have been even longer and more difficult if the final fight wasn't nerfed due to scenario conditions.
True, but it is unarguably true that the original way rage worked resulted in you raging more or less 75% of any given battle. :)

Yes, but combat was much shorter then. We didn't have combats lasting 20 rounds back then except in extreme circumstances. Here, I've seen combat lasting 6 rounds in a minor fight and 12+ rounds in a more difficult fight, and boss fights being 20+ rounds, within 4 rounds of play tests. The combat duration only gets longer in the higher levels, and 6-10 round durations means that Barbarians need to know when the right time to Rage is. Because if they rage too soon, they're out to dry, and if they rage too late, they might have lost significantly more resources for it. The strategy has both been changed and is now more player reliant, which is really where it all falls on.


Loreguard wrote:
tmncx0 wrote:
Tridus wrote:

I've been thinking that background shouldn't give you ability points. If that was moved somewhere else, it wouldn't be hard to enable taking a second background. If they want to limit skill feat creep, have the second one not give the skill feat but still give the lore and any other effects.

I like backgrounds too, I just think they're doing too much now power wise (because of the ability scores) and that limits them.

That could be rectified by changing backgrounds so that you choose the ability boosts and skill feat from any one of your selected backgrounds, while still gaining all of the bonus lore skills from every selected background.

That seems reasonable, allowing someone to pick a background from book and adventure and choose to take the ability choices from one of them, skill feat choice from another (can be the same) and Lore's from both.

@Darksol: And yes, having some little fiddly +1 that you can keep your eye out to use every once in a while is fun, in my estimation. No it shouldn't be something that stacks with things, making other things throw out of balance, which I admit could be a risk if left to get out of hand. But I think it could be kept reigned in.

It can be reigned in, and wasn't my main concern (merely a gripe of how PF1 traits were designed). My main concern is having to keep track of more things than what this game said we weren't supposed to be tracking, since I've seen it in play and numerous people have made complaints about it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just what we need, more fiddly and super situational +1's. While we're at it, we can make them super unique and powerful and go against the intent of them simply being minor benefits explaining a background instead of being a backdoor way into getting some of the best and most powerful benefits or bonuses in the game.

More seriously, I just think that the character creation options are too limited. I mean, in PF1, besides Ancestry, everything else was mutable. You could be an 18 Strength Cleric. You could be an 18 Intelligence Rogue. Heck, you could even be an 18 Wisdom Fighter. But because of class, background, and everything else limiting what you can have attributes in, really hurts the immersion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
The duration of a rage should be roughly 75% of the length of an average encounter. Otherwise it doesn't matter and you should just always assume rage stats. 3+ Con rounds is way too long in most fights. The fixed 3 felt fairly reasonable in terms of how it fit into battles.

The problem is that most battles I've come across in the playtest have taken anywhere from 6 to 12 rounds between outliers and the difficulty ramp, so having it be "3 rounds" is unrealistic by my experience, and if the bad guys have healing, flying, or Mirror Image shenanigans, it's even longer. Final fight in Part 4 took 20+ rounds due to stupid Mirror Image and heal shenanigans, would have been even longer and more difficult if the final fight wasn't nerfed due to scenario conditions.


TheFinish wrote:

I dislike both of them.

The Flat Check for Death because it doesn't take into account a characters Constitution in any way, but I feel that it should. I expect Thongor the Con 20 Barbarian to be able to escape the clutches of death by axe to face easier than Ellorn the Con 08 Elven Wizard. But as it is, once they're down, it's up to Ranald to decide who lives and who dies.

As for Rage, I dislike it for two reasons:

- I don't think your primary Class Feature should be random, at all. Sure, the chance of getting less than 3 rounds is "only" 20%, but that means that, on average, 1 out of 5 times you rage it'll end early. And that doesn't feel good at all. Plus it doesn't work well with some Totems powers, like flight from Dragon.
- It's completely divorced from a character's Abilities, which the previous version also was. But honestly, Constitution should factor into duration somehow. This is mostly a personal thing though, because I envision Rage as the Barbarian pushing themselves to the limit when they Rage and thus someone with more Con should be able to stay in that stage longer.

As for a change in design philosophy, I'm not sure. Given that I dislike both, I certainly hope it isn't, however.

I agree that these changes are lame. Granted, the former is more favorable than PF1 Dying rules, the latter is just poor design and favors randomness over calculated design. I would have much rather had Rage duration be equal to 3 + Constitution rounds, with half the duration being raged (minimum 1, rounded up) being spent fatigued, with the option to cancel early after one round has passed.

A character should be able to gauge how long they want to rage, just like how long an Athletic runner decides to sprint followed up by a cooldown jog whose duration is linked to how long the sprint was.


Edge93 wrote:

Okay, IDK what Schrodinger's Wizard is. I'm assuming a rocket tag reference maybe? But I laughed when I saw this because in the most LOLBroken PF game I have run there was a character named Schrodinger. Albino Catfolk. This was a game using a Pathfinder version of 3.5's Gestalt for all characters, hence the insane brokenness. Schrodinger was a Rogue/Wizard who eventually prestiged simultaneously into Master Spy and Arcane Trickster. Used the Knife Master archetype and Goggles of Sniping with Greater Invisibility to TWF throw Daggers with Sneak Attack 1d8+2 per two levels. To add insult, one party member got the spell Bestow Grace of the Champion and because Master Spy can alter their apparent alignment the CN Charismancer Rogue could get access to Smite Evil as a Paladin of 1/2 her level. And if Invisibility failed she was a master at feinting.

Like I know this is hilariously broken beyond anything legal because Gestalt but if we are talking about broken things that have Schrodinger and Wizard in the title...

As to the 18 Con, I agree that Barbarian should have that option. I think Paladin should too TBH. Ironically I made a thread on this very topic and almost every response was that we shouldn't bother because it would be a trap option. XD

Schrodinger's Wizard is a popular build using the Exploiter archetype and the Quick Study power which let said characters "re-prepare" their Wizard spells to suit their needs. While the slots would still be expended and unusable as normal (fixed through Pearls of Power, of course), the main point is that a Wizard with a large amount of Arcane spells could theoretically be prepared for any situation as the need for his spells beckoned. This, combined with the amount of versatility and power spells already packed, made Schrodinger's Wizard one of the most powerful niches in the game.

It's only a trap in that Constitution doesn't do much more when pumped, but you're still required to have a staple amount of it to even live as a PC, and even moreso if you're a martial whose expectation is to get thumped hard and often. But for a Barbarian who doesn't care about AC, and actually gets more use out of Constitution compared to other classes (like the Rage feature for Temp HP actually scales with Constitution), I think it's silly that they can't get 18 Constitution.


in◆⃟ wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Also keep in mind that while "your game" isn't broken, PF1 by-and-large is. Schrodinger's Wizard is a thing, and it's only a matter of time before that approaches your table and you're forced to step in and "fix" things.

Yes. Schrödinger's wizard is a thing. Specifically a strawman used to unfairly "demonstrate" why a system is broken.

It's not a thing that happens outside theorycraft.
"Stepping in an 'fixing' things" is the job of a GM of a flexible system like Pathfinder.

Of course it's not a thing that happens outside theorycraft, because any sane GM would've curbed that sort of power well before it ever hit the table. An insane GM would've either ran it as RAW and fought fire with fire, or would've just thrown the "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" card and abolish it that way.

And no, PF1 isn't any more flexible than any other system. A lot of things I could do as "fixes" for PF1 I could do for 5E or some other similar system, and say "It's just fine." The problem is, when I keep doing all of these fixes, am I really playing the same game as everyone else? No. Hell no. It's the reason why PFS is so vastly different from typical Pathfinder games, so that's clearly a bunch of hooey.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Short of the "Can't have 18 Constitution" claim (which makes no sense, Barbarians should have +Constitution as an option instead of simply +Strength/Dexterity, and is broken by no measure), those are deliberate design choices, because it shouldn't be fair that a Wizard with 18 Strength is as strong and melee capable as a Fighter with 18 Strength. Maybe a later-installed Kineticist will make it possible, but short of that, I'm not seeing it.

The problem with making the surveys short (or more accurately, too short) is that it can skew playtest data in an uninformed fashion. If I didn't explain how X wasn't working right, and simply said "X doesn't work right," it doesn't demonstrate to the developers that X is an apparent issue that needs to be addressed. Granted, you could just keep the survey answers simple as I've described, but by that point you aren't providing much help to the developers by saying something isn't working as intended (when it very well may be).

To be fair, the plot of Doomsday Dawn being "Stop Starfinder from happening" is a pretty meta plot, so expecting the story to be fun or original isn't a realistic expectation with that in mind. Furthermore, if this sort of stuff isn't stress-tested, then it's hard to say what the limitations of the game can be, or is, which means the curve that the developers want to spin on the game (such as by determining what sort of math they want the standard to be) may not be the right one, and therefore makes for a failed product at launch.

Also keep in mind that while "your game" isn't broken, PF1 by-and-large is. Schrodinger's Wizard is a thing, and it's only a matter of time before that approaches your table and you're forced to step in and "fix" things. On top of that, dmerceless makes a relevant point; people who are solidly in PF1 or 5E camps have no real reason to abandon ship, because PF2 isn't introducing things that both camps don't already have. Simple gameplay? 5E has you covered. Complex options and customization? PF1 with their billion splatbooks has everything you need. I mean, those are players who actually like those games better than anything else out there, and still have fun playing those systems (5E being the big winner due to brand name and apparently better system design). As such, it's an unrealistic expectation for Paizo to think attracting those players is a wise decision, especially since they have stated in the past that PF2 wasn't meant to be competition for PF1, or 5E, or even SF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:

Yesterday, Update 1.6 went live marking the end of the Playtest Updates. I thought now was a good time for a retrospective and had been planning to make this thread...but it looks like I'm not the only one who thought this was a good idea.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
Would it be possible to have new survey for a perspective that includes all updates?

One of the few remaining surveys I want to make sure we get out there is one talking specifically about the changes in the updates.

Just because it is in an update does not mean it is final. The updates are specifically so we can test out additional rules for the game.

So I'll be looking forward to that survey! But until then let's chat about the Updates here.

What Update was your Favorite?

Update 1.2 remains my favorite for abolishing Signature Skills and increasing the minimum skill threshold for all classes. Unlocking Skill proficiency had a drastic impact on the game and enabled a broad range of new character options. I'd love to see something similar implemented for all proficiency.

What Update did you Hate?

Oddly enough, I feel the most negatively about Update 1.4. It took a step in the right direction but in the process messed up several Ancestries. Gnomes made out like bandits while the changes to many other Ancestries were lackluster. Also, I hate what it did to Dwarves. This is a hard one because, in theory, I like the direction but I hated the details of the implementation.

Bonus: Rank the Updates.

I'm not taking this bonus question - I can't remember what Update 1.3 even changed - but I have a feeling it might show up on a survey.

Bonus: What Update do you wish we'd seen during the Playtest?

I'd have loved to see an Update focused on Exploration Mode along the lines of the Resonance...

Hard to say what the favorite update is. I guess the expanded multiclass and/or ancestry options, though I wish they were balanced a little better amongst themselves, several of which being "gateways" into abuse *cough*Channel Life*cough*.

The least liked update would probably have to be when the only major changes were to the Dying rules. The sad thing is not so much that the dying rules are what they are, but that it took ~4 different updates to reach that point.

As for what I'd want to see in playtest updates? More major changes to auxillary options like familiars and animal companions (which are currently trash or super-niche/munchkin choices). These need to be buffed and actually useful to the party in ways other than being added spell batteries to casters (for familiar choices) and "permanent summon speed bumps" for Druids and Rangers, respectively.

There have been so many rules and abilities that we've looked at and went "Huh?" over. For example, Breath of Life? Still broken. It heals for some HP, but places characters at Dying 3 yet. Would they stabilize automatically because of the HP, or still have to make Stabilization checks or risk being Dying 4? What about the bonus to stabilization checks, how long does that last? On the next check they make period? There's no duration and no effect on it. Also, flying rules are janky as hell and have no mention as to how they work in numerous commonplace instances, such as being knocked unconscious while flying. When does an unconscious target fall? Immediately? At the end of their turn (because they cannot spend an action to maintain flight, but otherwise assume to be flying)? The rules don't say, and these distinctions have been important to find out for the purposes of playtesting, but haven't been addressed whatsoever. I'm not saying I expect it to be addressed specifically, but I won't hold my breath for the final release to actually have these kinds of changes and rules fixed (or at the very least clarified in the book).


master_marshmallow wrote:

To be fair, tying your shoelaces would probably be an activity and take two actions to complete, not worth the action cost in a fight so you're better off not wearing shoes.

Clearly halflings are OP because of this.

It is when you have a DC 11 Flat Check to trip yourself and fall prone for each activity with the Move trait you take.

Also, Halflings have a heritage that makes it only one action to tie your shoelaces. Don't want them to actually make you wear shoes as a halfling unlike other heritage choices *cough*UnburdenedDwarves*cough*.

In other news, why isn't Orc a core ancestry?


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In other words, the intent of the playtest is meant to abolish questions such as yours being posed.
No words, that is absolutely absurd, the point of a playtest is not to abolish questions, but to raise them.
Good point. I suppose it's too late to pose the question of "Did I tie my shoelaces?" to the surveys. Whoops...

Odd, so to question design and development for a new iteration of a game, automatically excludes the questioning from credibility, and is therefore shunted into a mundane area such as "did I tie my shoelaces?"?

Did you?

The point is such questions are irrelevant to the playtest, so posing them helps nobody, least of all Paizo.

You might be better off asking "Paizo, do you even know how to do a playtest?" Since that's basically what we're asking here. I'd just rather not be insulting and give Paizo the benefit of the doubt in that they actually have an idea of what they're doing.

But hey, if shoelaces are somehow relevant to playtests, then by all means keep asking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Do I really have to explain the concept of "confounding factors", and why one might want to try to eliminate them in a playtest by removing unwanted variance where reasonably possible.

No, but you can explain it to the developers whom already know this and are more interested in stress-testing instead of standardized testing based on the playtest difficulty which they already explained as being ramped up for such reasons.

You can also explain pointless questions and their relevance to the playtest. [sarcasm]My shoelaces need to know if I need to tie them or not, it matters for the playtest. [/sarcasm]

1 to 50 of 7,744 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>