Davor's page

Malk_Content wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

Excuse me while I cut in but I thought the proposal would be to add additional Dice INSTEAD of giving any flat bonuses to the Damage.

So it would be 1d12+4 VS 2d6 +0

The Greatsword still comes out ahead almost EVERY time.

Ah in that case it is better. It still leads to the weird situation of the 18 str character doing the same damage with a short sword as a 8 str character. I'm not sure that is something to strive for.

They would still get their strength bonus to damage, though. If the 18 strength character attacked with a shortsword using Dex to hit, they would deal 2d6+4 under this proposal (I think), versus 2d6-1 for the 8 strength dude.

It would certainly be useful for approximating "multiple quick strikes" but I don't know how the other math works out for it.

Not quite. I specifically mentioned that ones Strength modifier was NOT added to damage in my proposal.

The idea is that the average dice of damage roughly approximate adding the ability score modifier without a direct correlation. 1d6 being ~3, scaling up to ~7 at high levels. There are lots of factors, but not adding an ability modifier to the damage was part of that suggestion.

In the above example, an 18 Strength character wielding a shortsword using Strength to hit would deal a flat 1d6 damage because he is using a shortsword in an suboptimal way, and the weapon isn't designed to utilize the wielder's strength. A Strength 18 character using Dexterity to hit would deal 2d6 damage, no modifier, the same as an 8 Strength character, but the point is that a finesse weapon isn't designed to deal damage based on the strength of the wielder, but the wielder's precision (i.e., Dexterity).

Since the game is already centered around this whole extra dice philosophy, what if we made finesse weapons deal bonus dice of damage when used with Dexterity. Perhaps with a Finesse value, similar to Deadly?

"Finesse: You can add your Dexterity modifier to attack rolls with a Finesse weapon instead of your Strength modifier. If you do, your attack with the weapon deals the listed additional damage. You do not add your Strength modifier to damage rolls with a finesse weapon."

Or something to that effect. That way, finesse weapons have a distinct flavor, Strength characters aren't trying to abuse the extra damage, and we have a way of providing additional damage that ignores attributes. You would see a value like "Finesse (1d6)" next to a shortsword, or maybe even "Finesse (1d8)" next to a dagger, providing niche benefits for certain weapon types that make them better in specific circumstances. You could even say, much like Deadly, that a Legendary finesse weapon adds two of those dice instead of one.

Instead of rebuilding the entire game around a 10 level system, why not just leave the current system mostly the same, but add 1/2 your level to things instead of full level? It's functionally identical (sans the whole HP per level issue).

level for everything is much more important for martial classes than spellcaster s. For some time I was an opponent of level for everything but it has a lot of justification. In the current system, experience points are added for completing the +4 to -4 team level challenge. if we take the level to everything, the fight against low-level characters is considerably prolonged due to the lower chance of hitting 2 and subsequent attacks. The chance of a critical hit of opponents of lower levels is also much lower. However, in the vast majority of spellcasters it does not make a difference, because they will cast 1 offensive spell per round. And this will significantly slow down the challenges. In the current combat system, they run very quickly and efficiently. My players (mostly I'm MG) think that this is a great system. The player playing fighter said that this is the most interesting mechanics.In a different game (5 ed d & d) he just get bored. I agree that +1 can not speak to all but to me it speeds up the game and suits the players to feel special. Players like to have a potent magical weapons and the new system is great.

Question: As someone who primarily DMs, how often are you going to throw enemies more than 3 levels lower than the party at a group in PF2? I mean, in order for characters to feel the difference in their power level, you need to regularly remind them that they're higher level, right? So what percentage of your encounters will be small fries that pose no threat to the party?

Players get bored with 5e not because of the numbers, but because 5e failed to solve the simple problem of dead levels. Paizo understands this: it's why every level in 5e provides feats and/or proficiency increases. But if you look at the math in 5e, the difference between a high level character and a lower one is roughly 7-8 points of bonus to certain rolls: a 1st level character likely starts off with a 16-18 in their main attack stat, which bumps up to 20, they might end up with a +3 weapon, and proficiency increases by 4. A total net gain of 7-8, with only a little more wiggle room depending on whether or not the DM feels like being generous. In PF2? If you strip away +level, you find that it's almost exactly the same. Starting Ability Score of 16-18 goes up to about 22-24 (a 3-4 point swing), proficiency gives you a +1-+3 difference, and property gives you up to +5, for a total of... 9-11. The only appreciable difference between the two is a slightly higher swing in bonuses, brought about almost entirely by the magic item upper limit being higher in PF2.

After considering it for a long time, put me in the camp of "We should remove +level altogether".

Let's look at the basic gameplay elements of it. You level up. You get a feat. The feat represents character growth. You also found a magic weapon. Awesome. As your experience grows, you become more proficient with your weapons, armor, and your specific skillset.

All of this is accomplished by existing game mechanics outside of adding level. While I think that increasing proficiency should be more satisfying, it accounts for getting better at specific skills. So what does adding +level accomplish?

It's entirely game-y. That, however, is a loaded statement, so let me elaborate. When I look at something like BAB in 3.0/.5/PF1, I see something that clearly delineates combat-based skill progression. I don't think it was entirely without flaw, but it was functional. Even saving throws had a similar thing: some you were good at, others not, and it was reflected as you leveled up. So what's the difference?

In Pathfinder 1, you didn't have "training" for all these things. You had basic proficiency, then what your class gave you, and because of this fluctuating numeric bonus each level, you had a built in way of determining which classes were good at what, and how good they were, relatively speaking. These higher or lower numerical bonuses were how you managed the PF2 version of varying levels of proficiency.

So, what does adding +level in PF2 accomplish? Your basic skill bonuses are determined by your attribute and proficiency rank. Same goes for Attacks, Armor Class, Spell DCs, etc. So what does it do? Adding +level in PF2 gates challenges, and serves as basic number inflation. That's it. Those aren't terribly compelling mechanics. Yes, it might feel nice to get a +30 to an attack roll, but if all you're facing is enemies around 40 AC, it doesn't really change the nature of the game. The numbers are simply bigger.

The difference, though, is that your DM is free to throw much higher, or much lower, level enemies at you without fear that the mechanics themselves will ruin you. In D&D 5e, for example, once the players hit 10th level or so and have a few magic items under their belts, you can basically throw whatever you want at them, with a few exceptions of course, because the math allows them to succeed, with harder fights requiring thought and planning more than raw numbers and character building. It's easier for the DM to go "My CR 15 Demon will be the big boss, but he'll have animated a cadre of ghouls in this hallway to flank the party and possibly paralyze the wizard, and some lesser flying demons will swoop in to try and poison the druid." He doesn't have to change stats, and for the most part all of those monsters, regardless of level, have a chance of succeeding. It means that the world is always somewhat threatening without needing to arbitrarily improve monsters.

Pathfinder 1 learned from what D&D 3.5 did, and unarguably did it a lot better, but we don't need number inflation. One of the reasons that D&D is currently crushing the market is that they did away with that sacred cow, and while I don't think Pathfinder 2 needs to do exactly that, I do think they should strongly consider at the very least reducing this static number dependency. Adding +1/4 or +1/5 level would be much more reasonable if you want a flat increase to PC abilities. Given the +/-10 Crit system, I think it's a great way to show improvement while not entirely removing the number treadmill for those that want it.

I actually kind of hope that archetype features are class-locked. It removes over-the-top complexity in character building, and gives classes something that makes them really unique.

Kai's wishes for healing...

--| Some form of reliable class agnostic out of combat healing. Treat Wounds checks this box.
--| Default in combat healing can't quite keep up with damage* (Cleric, Druid, Alchemist, etc out of the box).
--| More differentials between Magical Traditions
----| Perhaps Soothe heals and grants temp hp?
----| Primal gets it's own unique healing spell. Perhaps fast healing?
--| Only specialized in combat healing can outpace damage (Healing Domain, Life Oracle, etc).
--| The major healing classes all get Healing specialties (Alchemist, Bard, etc.)
--| More 'interesting' in combat healing options
----| Healing as a reaction (e.g. more spells like Breath of Life)
----| Healing as battlefield control (e.g. more spells like Pillar of Life from PF1e)
----| Healing from more sources (e.g. Bardic Performances, Rituals, etc.)
----| Ridiculously strong in combat healing spells at high levels (e.g. Deathless from PF1e's Mythic Handbook)

*Currently, the default Cleric's Channel Energy is way too strong. I'm okay with strong healing but it should be limited to specialties like the Healing Domain.

Once and Future Kai and I actually agree on quite a few things regarding he playtest, specifically in regards to healing.

My greatest desire for healing is that healing should feel ENGAGING. Right now, many spells simply don't, and there isn't enough variety. Heal is a great spell primarily because of the action economy nature of it. It's not that is't powerful, but that it's fun to use, and its versatility of use makes it engaging. We need more spells like this. What about a cantrip that tranferred conditions from allies to the caster for X number of rounds? Same action economy and everything (1 touch, 2 ranged, 3 aoe). That creates interesting gameplay, and is something I think healer types would actually really like.

What about Temp HP shield buffers? Reasonable AC boosts (+2 or greater on a regular basis)? Fast healing on Primal heal spells? I've mentioned it in other threads and I'll mention it here, too: Healing needs to feel unique amongst classes, and it should have lots of interesting interactions with the mechanics of the game itself. Heck, it could even interact with different character archetypes in unexpected ways. I love the idea of a Druid Wild Shaping into a troll, then casting a spell that shares his Regeneration with allies. Stuff like that.

I actually don't mind the overall trimming of the system math, but I feel like the considering of the +10/-10 crit system has led to a deflating of meaningful bonuses on the general scale. It seems like UTEML should progress +0/2/4/6/8. That'd provide a really noticeable feeling when increasing proficiency. If the numbers get too high, take it to -2/0/+2/+4/+6. But +1's aren't terribly noticeable, and it's a shame the system seems fixated on them.

I would be willing to entirely remove the +/-10 system if it meant getting more impactful buffing and debuffing choices.

Agreed, OP. I was actually relatively vocal in my dissatisfaction with available playstyles for a long time. The revamping of Dedication feats stemmed that a little bit, but I still feel like there is work to do: not because Pathfinder is so broad, but because there were things PF1's core rulebook didn't do that I want PF2 to learn from.

I actually like damage being tied to a magic weapon. It makes sense from a gaming perspective, and he idea of property runes being transferable from weapon to weapon is a nice convenience.

It makes sense from a versimilitude perspective as well. Why should a high level fighter be hitting THAT much harder than a low level one? Isn't that what all the feats are for: to show your increase in skill? A bastard sword is a bastard sword, and one person might be more skilled (mimicked by Increased Proficiency), but it wouldn't really make sense for it to do that much more damage. An enchanted, flaming Bastard Sword, however, makes sense to do more damage.

I feel like a small sidebar in the rulebook regarding automatic bonus progression for people who want to run low-magic campaigns is all that's needed, not a complete redesign of the progression system.

If my players didn't like it, I'd houserule that a +X weapon adds the weapon's average die of damage, rounded down, to each hit per plus. So a +2 Longsword would deal 1d8+8 instead of 3d8, a +1 dagger would do 1d4+2, and a +5 Greatsword would deal 1d12+30. It would certainly give a feeling closer to classic Pathfinder, even though I prefer rolling dice, personally.

The Medicine skill and Healing Surges are, effectively, the same thing. Now all we need is a feat that lets you spend a Spell Point or Resonance to use it as an action in-combat and you have that basic 4e interaction.

The only difference is the context in which it's framed, and in that sense I think using the Medicine skill as a replacement for Surges is a nice flavor touch. I'd still prefer rituals, but it seems reasonable enough.

I'm seeing a lot of posts about DPR, needing an 18 in a stat to be even remotely decent at anything you plan on doing extensively, and how difficult monsters are, and I'm wondering if anyone has done any DPR testing with a few simple builds/classes to indicate the expected damage output of the party against a CR=APL foe.

Now, that's just handling encounters on one end, not accounting for monsters (in which case, we'd do an AC vs. Attack Bonus comparison), but I can't help but wonder if the game is half as cutthroat as the boards seem to suggest, and instead if GMs haven't learned how to run/create balanced encounters in the new system yet.

For the Inspiration progression rate, I would look at a heavily reduced rate, perhaps based on the Envoy from Starfinder. With the math being so condensed in this one, anything above a d8 would be a bit too far.

Talsharien wrote:

I also had an investigator, and after several attempts, went with Bard on the conversion.

My first impulse was Bard but he doesn't want to play a caster and he's already done some alchemy - just no bombs to date. He's also in love with Inspiration due to his terrible luck.

If it were me, I would take the baseline Alchemist chassis, sub Bomb progression for Sneak Attack progression, and give them a spell point pool based on Int at 1st level that gives them "Inspiration" stuff. You could have feats that reduce the spell point cost of certain Inspiration uses, and make Sneak Attack cost inspiration as well to use (Perhaps as a Reaction?). Should be pretty cut and dry from there.

...a time reversal version, etc...

Look! It's the Arcana/Arcane version! Sweet...

Disagree, do not want.

I don't want easy free healing in PF2.

I like the idea of player characters not healing up to full after every fight. I like player character healers to be more than an unnecessary convenience. I like PF2's healing situation as-is.

I do not like the idea of a 5e-style short rest.

At no point in time did anyone suggest easy, free healing to my knowledge. All the healing stated in this thread has been based on existing characer/player skill choices, with some sort of cost/healing ratio that the balance team can figure out. Characters don't need to heal up to full after every fight, but a way to keep the party playing the game that is flavorful can be a good way to keep the narrative flowing when the party is running low on a specific resource.

What about "short rest in disguise" do not you understand?

What's wrong with short rests? Again, you've failed to give details as to why that would be a poor design decision. PF1 had short rests. They were called "Everyone sit still for 5 minutes while I jab you with my wand."

This ritual is basically short rest in disguise, sound good but not a good idea.

Better add something like medicine/surgery skill as a better and mundane healing.

What's wrong with it? I mean, I get that you might not like it, but is there a legitimate reason?

I will again state that the problem is not that we get too few feats, but that feats gained are not impactful enough at their current progression. If we got these feats every level, it might be too much, especially given how successful the "Every Even Level" worked for PF1s class talents. I would just like class feats to be balanced around their current rate of acquisition.

Davor wrote:

You could also easily say that expenditure of party resources makes rituals more difficult to cast the more you use them, either by imparting a resonance cost (I know you guys hate it, but it's a way to make the current system work), or by increasing the DC's for the ritual every time the party attempts to use it consecutively. Want to double down on that healing ritual? DCs go up by 2-5, whatever's balanced. If you include critical failure effects for rituals (and I believe they should), that could make performing consecutive healing rituals just as dangerous as performing them in an unsafe dungeon.

I feel like "we're going to do it again" is a perfect excuse for a GM to use those random encounter tables that aren't in the game yet but will be.

*ding ding ding!

You could also easily say that expenditure of party resources makes rituals more difficult to cast the more you use them, either by imparting a resonance cost (I know you guys hate it, but it's a way to make the current system work), or by increasing the DC's for the ritual every time the party attempts to use it consecutively. Want to double down on that healing ritual? DCs go up by 2-5, whatever's balanced. If you include critical failure effects for rituals (and I believe they should), that could make performing consecutive healing rituals just as dangerous as performing them in an unsafe dungeon.

Why do we not want out of combat healing to be mundane exactly? Because I want that. I'd much rather have conventional first aid fill this role than rituals.

I personally like the idea of the "Healing Ritual" being a combination of multiple things, not just "We cast some magic and everyone regains Xd8 + X HP."

One person casts the ritual, which has a base effect based on the ritual type (Arcane, Divine, Primal, Occult), but other characters can help out, each in a way that ensures that the group is save, and each with additional beneficial effects. Medicine, for example, would bandage wounds and provide additional healing to the final total if successful. Stealth would help to reduce the chance of the group being disrupted while the ritual is being performed. Nature would be utilizing nearby flora/fauna/terrain to help bolster your allies, perhaps removing conditions or, again, restoring additional hit points. You could even keep those "Out of Combat" healing feats for Medicine and Nature, but have them allow you to start a Healing Ritual with those skills as a base.

I want every character involved, with everyone finding ways in-game, and mechanically, to help out during this time. It makes resting an engaging experience for everyone involved, and helps foster the idea of teamwork instead of just having the one healy guy do all the work. You could EVEN go so far as to have CLASSES also have unique mechanics that interact with a Healing ritual (a bard playing music to soothe the party would be a classic example, though that could also just be covered by the Perform skill), but that's a whole other subject.

I actually support this idea as a foundation for handling out-of-combat healing. Because they're rituals, they're doable by any class with the appropriate skill ranks, which means it bypasses class requirements for healing needs, and it's flavorful and thematic. You could even simply make "Cast a healing ritual" an exploration activity that has its own hazards, but can be boosted by any allies that decide to take part.

Wizards do not get a class feat at 1st level. They get their first class feat at 2nd level, with the exception of Universalist wizards, who get a bonus class feat at 1st level, after which they gain feats at the normal rate (2, 4, etc.).

He knew which plant would cure the corruption, which serves as an example of his knowledge of nature more than healing. Could you sight specific examples of him patching up the other members of the fellowship after fights? Which is the role of the healer.

So, the problem with this question is that it assumes that all of fantasy roleplaying is based specifically on Lord of the Rings. In reference to D&D, that game pulled from a LOT of different sources, including Lord of the Rings, but also the works of Jack Vance and simple medieval history, including the heavy involvement of the Catholic church, and that's not even getting into things like Beowulf. Since D&D pulled from this medieval era, it made sense to have the church, and priests (aka, Clerics) play a prominent part in the original setting. We also get Vancian casting injected into it, as well as the core races coming from Lord of the Rings, creating a sort of hodge-podge of a number of different settings and styles.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that the "ideal adventuring party" when it comes to D&D, and to an extent all fantasy RPGs based on D&D's legacy (including Pathfinder), draws from a lot of different sources at simply a base level, before we even get into modern gaming archetypes and stereotypes, and as the genre grows, so too do the types of characters people expect to be able to play.

All that to say, asking "Who was the Healer in Lord of the Rings?" is about as relevant as asking "Who was the Halfling in Le Morte d'Arthur?" or "Who was the Dunedain in Dying Earth?" It's a loaded question that fails to address the hobby, or its roots, on the whole. The "support/healer" archetype, whatever the source, is one that has always existed in fantasy ROLEPLAYING, even if it wasn't in all of its source material, so it makes sense that players should be able to fill that role if that is the kind of character they want to play, but they should also be able to fill that role in the WAY that they see fit. Want to play a naturalist ranger who heals using herbal remedies and tinctures that take a while to find/apply? You should be able to do that. Want to be able to play the divine healer that is sent by the church to ensure the success of this venture? You should be able to do that, too.

Davor wrote:

Signature Skills are gone? Good. That alone is a huge step in the right direction. Now we just need to do a few feat updates, maybe change ancestry feat acquisition around a tiny bit, and give more options for playing support characters of ALL classes, and we'll be in business.

All that's left, really, is to: remove the class-locked feats for generic abilities everyone should have, fix initiative and perception so the rogue isn't the worst character at them, dial back some of the magic over-nerfs, tweak the monster stats so they all are not +2 higher than the PC's at everything, drop the fussy exploration mode rules, fix the mess that is figuring out DC's for things, make ancestries logical, make backgrounds interesting and inspiring, make someone other than the cleric good at healing, figure out what can be done with the 3-action system so that every enemy including L0 ones can't triple-attack every round and swarm PC's to death, make the critical success/failure system less swingy and not as heavily biased towards monsters, stop treating basic class features as optional feats, fix Assurance and/or bring back taking 10 and 20, fix proficiency levels to have meaningful differences, make the dying rules less complicated, make the time to identify magic items reasonable, make familiars make sense, fix the Alchemist, update the

Exception in thread "ERRATA 1.2 IS OUT" paizo.forum.StackOverflowError

My point was not that those were the only things that needed fixing, but that once those major issues are sorted (updating feats, which you mentioned, giving all classes better supportive options [other classes good at healing, which you mentioned], and making ancestry a bit less fiddly, which you mentioned), the game will be a much better state. Yes, a lot of small issues are still present, but I called out what I believe are the biggest barriers atm. We don't want a huge list of complaints. Let's focus on big picture stuff first.

I still don't see why "Give every class a way to provide sustain support to the group" isn't the clear solution. Give Barbarians a battle-cry that grants a few Temp HP to their allies (Like Shared Rage, only not a 20th level feat). Give rangers the ultimate "patch up during a rest" support. Just give everybody something, so that if the group doesn't pick the "Best Single-target healing" in the game, they have a way to patch up their support so that it's not necessary. That way, when someone comes along that wants to play a "Best Healer in the Game", the group says "Really? Sweet! Looks like it's all Damage/Control options for us!"

Signature Skills are gone? Good. That alone is a huge step in the right direction. Now we just need to do a few feat updates, maybe change ancestry feat acquisition around a tiny bit, and give more options for playing support characters of ALL classes, and we'll be in business.

I don't mind if combat is designed around the necessity for SUSTAIN (the idea that characters need a way to restore HP/abilities above and beyond their base), but am firmly opposed to combat, or the game in general, REQUIRING 1-3 classes in order to simply play. I got to play for the first time the other day, and another player stated that the group really NEEDED a cleric. I can't convey how furious it made me, but only because he was right. Combat can be pretty lethal from what I've seen, and groups can need an amount of healing that few classes can provide, and once you've required a class capable of large amounts of healing, and focused all healing into it, you've stripped players of agency.

If I can make a wizard that provides the same effective support, or a barbarian, or a fighter, then I'm fine with it. Otherwise, it's just bad design for a game that is supposed to reward player agency.

I really don't want to see a system where you can rest and recover for all or half your wounds. That blows realism out the door for me.

If a stamina/hp system were implemented, I'd be fine with healing all your stamina overnight (not a long rest), and maybe half in an hour, with hp natural healing being slow (maybe Con mod per night), but with just a single hp pool, it doesn't make sense to recover from multiple major injuries just by resting a bit.

While I don't agree with the realism, I do think you've really touched on the necessity for in-universe methods of restoring health/preventing damage, and for having each class have a unique/flavorful method of doing so. While I'm not opposed to Stamina personally (I actually really like the system, so much that my homebrew 5e rules use it), I find class-specific healing abilities much more enjoyable. The PF1 Skald having the ability to grant fast healing to allies while doing a raging song? AWESOME. We need more abilities like that.

That's not a bad idea, but the problem is that hero points are a discretionary system, while the DM doesn't REALLY get to arbitrate the number of spells you have (he CAN, but that's clearly houserule territory).

I would prefer if, rather than coming up with a way for EVERY class to have the same kind of healing, that every class heal in a different way. MMO's, to some extent, have kinda gotten the hang of this, and there are some signs of progress in this regard. For example, a Paladin's Lay on Hands doesn't only heal, but provides an AC boost. The Soothe spell (as opposed to Heal) gives a bonus against mental effects. I would just like to see more diversity in how healing works. For example: We have persistent damage, so why not have persistent healing? What about temp-HP granting as a main source of damage mitigation? I feel like there are a lot of avenues that we could explore before getting into NEEDING something like Healing Surges/Hit Dice/Stamina/Hero Point HP.

Off the top of my head, what if:

Clerics: Divine spell list offers the highest single-target burst healing, wit cleric's extra uses allowing them to corner the market. They can be good at other things, but this is something they can cover with no investment.
Druids: Primal spell list offers the longest-duration, or maybe even sole access, to persistent healing effects. These effects have the potential to heal for VAST amounts of HP, but the over-time mechanic requires interesting group planning to work around.
Bards: Occult Spell list offers healing with benefits, primarily focused around offensive bonuses and mental condition removal, and is particularly efficient at group healing. They can sustain a large number of allies, and are particularly adept at removing frightened and other mental afflictions.
Paladins: Lay on Hands is the unique Paladin heal, and options for increasing your number (possibly up to 1/2 your level, or at least 3+Charisma Modifier) would really open up the Hospitaler style paladin a bit more. Lay on Hands should keep its niche, which is single target moderate healing with beneficial defensive effects and physical condition removal.
Wizard: Abjuration is a really underwhelming school, but what if it was the go-to school for defensive support? Abjuration spells grant allies Temporary HP in the form of magical shields, etc. and wizards are usually also uniquely positioned to grant elemental resistances and damage reduction. These two things combined would make the idea of a support wizard a unique spin on the classic.
Sorcerer: I mean, you just pick one from the above (except Paladin, of course).
Alchemist: Specializes in versatility via potions, and excels at long-term, cost efficient care. Alchemist is your catch all, being one of the few classes with access to basically every form of healing, but with it being more limited due to the class's nature.

You could even have unique supportive abilities baked into the martial classes, and you already see this a little bit with abilities like the Temp HP from a Barbarian's rage, or Wholeness of Body for the Monk. I just think they should be opened up more.

Overall, I understand the concern. Too much healing access can slow down games, but I don't think any group really WANTS to do that. I just think it make sense for every group, regardless of composition, to not NEED to play a "Healer" character, or if the group later decides they need some support for their playstyle, nobody says "Who wants to be the cleric?" Forcing a single class on player is bland. Giving players options for unique playstyles all while offering the role of support? That's cool.

So, I've been pretty vocal about some of the things I struggle with or am frustrated by, but there are some elements of the game that I find are REALLY well done. If you have some, feel free to add. I might disagree, but that's okay. For me:

1) Runes. Specifically, weapon runes. Weapon runes are SO COOL. I can't say anything about the pricing, because I'm not familiar enough with the economy, but whoever changed weapon properties into the existing runic versions, or had the idea for it, did a great job. Each elemental property feels very distinct in its application, returning got an appreciable buff, and all of the other runes feel really spot on. I've found myself trying to do buildcraft around RUNES rather than classes, so to me that's a great thing (in regards to runes, anyways).

2) Unarmed combat. Monk unarmed combat, specifically the style feats and their progression, is pretty rockin'. Even better, other classes get access to unarmed combat, and they do so in really flavorful ways. The difference between an unarmed Barbarian, Monk, and Paladin is appreciable due to class choices, and that's a wonderful thing.

3) Multiclassing. I know that some people are sore on this subject, but I actually think that this method of multiclassing is really well done. I hope we get to playtest more multiclass/progression feats, because I really want them all to be spectacular. The amount of character concepts this opens up is pretty decent, even though it sometimes feels like a patch for boring feats. (But I'm still mad about my Arcane Trickster touch-cantriper.)

4) Heal/Harm. These two spells in particular define what almost all damage-dealing spells should be like. The way it interacts with action economy is brilliant, and changing damage-dealing spells to function like Heal & Harm ALONE would create cool gish-characters.

5) Rogue. Every time I look at the Rogue, I want to play one. The skill progression is awesome, getting tons of skill feats is awesome, and most Rogue feats feel like they're in a good place, with lots of interesting choices. This class may have my gold medal for best designed, and for me to say that about the rogue is a big deal.

That's all for now, but as I think of more, I'll post. I just want the crew to know that I actually really like some elements of the game, and want to see more of these good elements show up. Post your favorites, too!

Davor wrote:

I would argue that the issue isn't that classes don't get enough feats, but that enough feats don't feel impactful enough for the pace at which we get them.

It really depends on the Class. Rangers in P1 have a lot of versatility that was baked into the class. P2 has pulled a lot of it out and now forcing players to choose between feats that make you better at combat and feats that address two or three different themes. A perfect example is Wild Empathy. This was free for Rangers in P1, and not it costs a feat and is juxtaposed to Full Grown Companion, Swift Tracker, and Skirmish Strike. So in the Ranger's case, you need more feats to get back that feeling of versatility/agency you had in P2.

Another perfect example is the Animal Companion that Capt. Morgan already addressed. In P1, it took one General feat for me to have competent companion. In P2, there are eight feats needed to flesh-out the companion....eight feats. You only get 11.

Oh, I already vented about the Animal Companion RULES, but I don't mind needing to invest in a companion to get a powerful ally. We already had the issue of certain AC's in PF1 being too good at martial combat compared to actual martial characters.

But here's the thing: You don't NEED that many feats to get back the agency. What if you only got 5 feats throughout your adventuring career, and one of them was: "Animal Companion: You get X benefits, and at X level, X level, X level, and X level you select from these improvements." That would be an amazing, build-defining feat, and you'd sit there in eager anticipation reaching for 5th level because you'd get ANOTHER build-defining feat. You could also have a "Natural Lore" feat that gets you things like Wild Empathy, Superior Tracking, Nature-based Spells for Spell Points, etc., all tied to a theme, all for one feat. Again, in a 1 feat/5 levels, that'd work, because every feat would be huge. All PF2 needs to do is strike a balance given their current feat structure, and I simply don't think they've found it yet. SOME feats are really cool, but in general there needs to be a bit more scaling with current feats, especially in feat chains.

Another example: Fighter's have a lot of Singleton feats, which is a great inclusion, but many of them feel kind of "meh" on their own. What if you got "Dueling Expertise" at 1st level, which gave you Combat Grab and Dueling Parry, having a feat essentially unlock those action types? That's not a GREAT example, but I feel like some of these feats could really stand to be condensed and/or allowed synergies to make them feel more impactful.

I would argue that the issue isn't that classes don't get enough feats, but that enough feats don't feel impactful enough for the pace at which we get them.

Take, for example, the now famous 1st Level Paladin Feat: Warded Touch. This is a feat that lets you do something that doesn't really seem like it should need a feat to do (Lay on hands with a hand full), but it also lets you avoid AoO's, if those are prevalent in your adventure. Using a shield and healing someone seems like it should be a basic thing, but now it requires a feat to be able to do something basic. Most classes have many feats like this; they tend to either do something that seems like it should be baseline, or that has a very minor effect. I would RATHER have feats that have a larger impact on play. There is, of course, a balance they have to strike: Weaker feats would be fine if we got them more often, and stronger feats would feel great if we got them less often. For what it's worth, I actually think most Skill and General Feats are in a pretty decent place for their pacing, but the class feats do feel very conservative.

Many feats simply don't grant enough of a bonus, or grant it too late. Why do fighters have to wait to get Combat Reflexes at 10th level? In PF1, an early Combat Reflexes is a build-defining feat, and I would argue that Combat Reflexes is actually one of the better carryover feats from D&D 3.5. I understand that it may be intimidating to front-load classes with cool/eclectic options, but with traditional 3.5 multi-classing gone there should be more freedom to allow for this. As it stands, class feats feel to conservative for being class restricted, and many build/style-defining feats are acquired too late in character advancement.

It still boggles my mind that Pathfinder, and most modern RPGs, haven't learned from the old Guild Wars Protection Monk, undoubtedly one of the most popular specializations for their support-themed class.

The basic idea was that Prot monks were proactive healers, and the player based loved them for it. Providing high amounts of damage blocking without actually restoring hit points is a really cool way to proactively support, and most modern d20 RPGs have had systems in place that mimic it for ages! (Ever heard of Temporary HP?) Why we don't have a cleric archetype, paladin variant, or heck, make Abjurer wizards cool by giving them cool, temp-hp support spells just makes no sense to me.

Paizo, this is your moment. Make Temp HP an effective form of proactive damage mitigation. It will inspire so much variety in the game.

Isn't the idea of a playtest to playtest the rules they have? Not to immediately look for ways to do things not covered in the rules? Maybe those of you who want more out of the game have already run all the current race and class options that have been given. I haven't had the time to run through all the combos I could do with the rules as is, so I'm not to the 'why can't I make x character' yet.

Oh, of course. I definitely want to play a bog-standard elf evoker wizard. /sarcasm

I am under the impression that playtesting is a way for us to see what Paizo is focusing on for the next edition, and to see if it works. If the next edition is focused on only allowing stereotypical characters in a clean, but uninteresting system, I feel like they should know that I'm not a fan, and that it could be improved upon.

This thread highlights one of the problems I have with the system too. It's a game where you only get to play the characters the designers want you to play rather than the characters you want to play. That's why all the feats went from well-designed general purpose abilities to highly restrictive no-creativity-allowed abilities that you only get by taking the class. The lack of a good multiclass system only exacerbates this.

The alchemist (for example) would be infinitely better if you took the PF1 alchemist, turned all the Discoveries into proper PF1-style feats. Give all the feats the Discovery keyword (and any other applicable keyword such as Combat, maybe add Mutagen and Bomb as appropriate to open up design space) and change the discovery class feature to granting bonus Discovery feats. Fix multiclass spellcasting while your
at it and you've got an Alchemist mark 2 that is really awesome.

Similar things could be done with Rogue Powers, rather than having Ninja Tricks and Slayer Talents (and the similar abilities for Investigators and Vigilantes). Turn them all into feats and just give the classes bonus feats that have the right keyword. Rogues would get bonus Trick feats. If you really don't want too much class sharing, then use a variety of keywords. Make some of the Ninja Tricks into Trick feats but others into Ki feats and give the Ninja bonus Trick or Ki feats while the Rogue only gets Trick feats. The important things is the feats are general purpose and anybody can take them if they meet the prerequisites.

I think there is such a thing as having too much freedom, particularly when it comes to games. Having some elements of tight or cohesive design is beneficial, particularly involving things like decision paralysis. I just think that there is a balance between a totally open system and an extremely rigid system.

So, I really like all the discussion about this. To be clear I actually DON'T like PF1 as much as it might seem I do. I enjoy systems like 5e a bit more, which may come as a surprise, but 5e is actually pretty robust as far as character customization is concerned, mostly because, despite they pretty tame base class structure, the way that they've structured their feats and multiclassing rules actually allows for some pretty varied character concepts.

As for being powerful, it's a little bit of that. I will admit that I enjoy building Pathfinder 1 characters that are extremely effective, but honestly, if you knew me, you'd know that what I want isn't a high level of power, but the joy of being a "Johnny" player.

For those of you unfamiliar with that term, it's a Magic: The Gathering name for the kind of player that likes building weird, combo-centric decks that, while not necessarily the best, utilize unconventional options in order to make what is actually an effective whole. In PF1, that was things like my Starknife-Paladin, or my Lore Warden/Slayer fighter. It was taking things that rarely got used, and going super-overboard with them to the point that they were really quirky, and turned heads at the table. I LOVE doing stuff like that, not because it's powerful, but because it's unconventional and it works.

I feel like a lot of PF2 at the moment is sticking too close to enforcing convention, to the point that it feels really limiting. I don't want to take away from the base game of Pathfinder for everyone else, nor do I want to bump up the power level. Instead, I want the rules to be more open to doing unconventional things, or messing with Action economy, or combining unique effects without unbalancing the combat. It really doesn't bother me if swinging a longsword and casting a cantrip isn't overpowered, but I WOULD like it if there were a way to do that with a modicum of success.

1) Remember that item bonuses mean literally "+X item bonus to whatever", which does not include any additional effects. For example, flaming - nowhere do I see that flaming is an "item bonus".

3) Err...did you forget that increasing a magic weapon by +1 also adds an additional die of damage?

4) Reminder that +4 is basically equal to +8 in 1E thanks to how crits work. Also reminder that based on the math, +3 to hit for the party is approximately a 50% increase in damage, just on that alone.

1) Yes, but that does nothing to solve animal companion accuracy problems. That's the big one, not even including the generally lower damage. That's also a LOT of money to spend if you want your companion to get 3 runes that apply to their unarmed strikes.

3) That's why I said it was good at lower levels, and lost usefulness as you got higher.

4) +4 is a nice number. I've yet to see how any class can feasibly reach it, since bonuses/penalties don't stack (as far as I can tell, you take the highest conditional bonus, and the vast majority of them are conditional).

While I entirely agree that that particular rule is unnecessarily restrictive, I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to state that

Davor wrote:

almost every time I think of a neat concept that I can't FATHOM being overpowered, the rules just flat out tell me "No!"

and then only give one example. Could you maybe provide some other instances where the rules have prevented cool builds?

Okay.

1) An animal companion-focused character. Animal companions seem really cool, with archetypes, fixed progression, and Work Together benefits coupled with unique attacks.The rules for them are actually really neat! Buuuuuuuut...

...though with the exception of barding allowing an item bonus to AC of up to +2, they never benefit from item bonuses.

So... I can buy all the magic runes and items for my companion that I want, but the vast majority (and I do mean vast) will have no effect. Why? It's completely arbitrary! Why in this fantasy game can I not have a bear with flaming claws? Or a gleaming horse with barding that reflects spells? Or heck, why can't I,from a mechanical perspective, have a companion that stays relevant later in the game? Because honestly, the stat bumps from Barding or Unarmored proficiency and saving throw proficiencies are not going to save your companion, and their attack bonus is going to be really darn low.

2) A Paladin that can Smite Evil. I tried this one with available resources, and Paladin is just... so disappointing as a whole. I don't mind some of the abilities, but Blade of Justice (the only thing resembling Smite Evil) is just sad. To be clear, when I say Smite Evil, what I really mean is "Be a warrior that situationally hits really hard." And I tried. I looked for spells or abilities that allowed for that style of gameplay, and they just aren't there. There are some spells that increase your item bonus to your weapon by one, but that's really it across the board.

Actually, I take it back. A CLERIC could do it by channeling negative energy and taking Channel Smite. So, yeah, a negative energy channeling cleric. Paladin could never do it, not even through multi-classing, because their Channel Life feat doesn't even give you the prerequisite cleric ability to qualify for Channel Smite, and of course cleric multiclassing doesn't give you access to channel energy.

3) The Wizard Gish. So, this one may seem a bit odd, because for a lot of people the Eldritch Knight was mostly wizard, with a hint of martial, and for the most part you get the vague outline of this in the playtest. But it's really depressing when you look at it. Buff spells, the source of what really made Eldritch Knight work, are basically gone as a form of balancing your character. Now, for the most part that's a good thing, as balancing between 6-12 effects on your character, all with different durations, was frustrating, but we didn't really get anything equivalent in their place. To make matters worse, there aren't even any Eldritch Knight/Magus core elements encorporated into the game. Where's the "Cast a Spell on Crit" feat? You could put that in Wizard + Sorcerer no sweat. It would even have SOME synergy with the existing Magical Striker feat and oh no I said Magical Striker.

This feat is probably the most disappointing one I've seen. The design philosophy behind it is actually REALLY good. It's the sort of counter to Cast a Spell on Crit: Cast a spell, free attack buff! The problem is action economy, efficacy of use, and the fact that you're a wizard and you kinda suck at combat and there isn't really anything you can do about it. At low levels, this spell can actually be pretty cool. Combining True Strike with this actually gives you a reasonably hard-hitting, high accuracy attack (Suck it, Power Attack!)... but this feat falls off so hard, especially once that +1 item bonus stops mattering as much. Without any other support, and with almost no spells that allow you to move/strike/cast in any sort of productive way, the whole thing just feels very underwhelming.

4) The Support Character/The Debuffer Character: These two are a bit of a longer discussion, but I'm going to keep it brief in the hopes that someone will point out something I missed and I'll be able to salvage these character concepts. As far as I can tell, Conditional buffs, and conditional penalties from debuffs, don't stack. In a way, this is understandable. The overall tightening of the math around level means that buffs/debuffs actually can work really well in tandem. The problem is that, alone, these things simply don't feel very impactful. If you had a whole group doing them, it could be cool... except most of them don't stack, so realistically you're looking at about a +4 to any given roll on the net (including debuffs to enemy defenses). That's pretty solid, but I can't, for the life of me, see any way to build a character around doing both well, let alone one or the other well. It's depressing, because the Arm/Anvil roles are my two favorites.

I'm sure there are more, and I realize that a couple of those are kind of a personal taste thing, but I'm very tired, so I'll have to let those suffice for now.

I would be sad to think I'm the only person seeing these issues, but I feel like the Paizo crew are good enough game designers that I shouldn't be finding what I would think are simple problems. Maybe I am crazy. It certainly wouldn't be surprising.

So, you've got a couple different ways to play an Arcane Trickster, if you define it as some kind of rogue/wizard hybrid. The magical rogue concept can be addressed, most likely through a Rogue(Wizard) multiclass.

Now, what I see you wanting is probably more along the lines of an Arcane Trickster PRC that can be taken with multiclass feats... we just don't have one yet.

More in general, as to your comment about how "limited" P2 is, think back to any core book of any of the previous systems, what exactly could we do with them? How limited were they? Lets not forget that this is the playtest, how much content is currently missing? How much more content will we have in a couple of splat books?

Okay, so I have thought about all this things:

1) "We don't have the Arcane Trickster PRC via multiclass feats"

Correct, but why not? They showed us the Cavalier as a prestige class (which they actually did a pretty decent job with), the Pirate (a sort of proof of concept), and the Gray Maiden (again, a proof of concept, but from a world-building perspective), but didn't think to put into the playtest what was a Core prestige class? Some of the core prestige classes are represented in some way (Mystic Theurge receiving a noticeably HUGE boost in this version of the game), but the gishy ones really aren't in any recognizable way, and that's kind of disheartening.

2) I understand that previous systems didn't have all the options in their core that we eventually got. But 2nd edition is supposed to iterate and improve on the first, not simply rehash it. They proved they were willing to do that by making the Alchemist a core class, yet a handful of feats and rules that would have made certain character archetypes exciting (not just possible, but EXCITING) simply aren't there, and that I can think of relatively simple fixes leaves me perplexed, and I haven't really seen a response from Paizo in this regard.

Okay, small rant incoming. I'm getting ready for a homebrew campaign starting in the playtest rules and I'm coming up with characters. The problem is, almost every time I think of a neat concept that I can't FATHOM being overpowered, the rules just flat out tell me "No!"

So, I was thinking about Rogues, as I often do because they're a pretty well-designed class in the playtest, and trying to make the whole "Gish" character work without resorting to Cleric/Wizard, because it really irks me that the Mystic Theurge is probably the best Gish in the game. (FYI, Gish is a magic/martial hybrid, for those of you who might not be aware of the term). I started thinking: What about Arcane Trickster? Could I make that work? I remembered reading that Sneak Attack worked with Unarmed strikes, and sure enough, melee touch attacks from spells count as unarmed strikes! With all of these spells costing two actions, but targeting Touch AC, including cantrips, I really liked the idea of a melee spell-slinging rogue.

Then I get to the rules on spell attacks:

Spell attacks are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell.

I will give the rules this: They've covered the base for this kind of interaction. But COME ON! Almost every time I think a character concept might work, I'm sent into this spiral of frustration with this game. I get that the rules are tight, but why are they so freakin' restrictive? Is there going to be some super special rule surrounding the Arcane Trickster dedication feats? Are we really worried that, what, MONKS are going to start picking up cantrips because they might get an accuracy bonus with them?

Actually, stop right there. That's a thing that could be neat, right? Monks critting more frequently with cantrips and touch spells because of their accuracy bonus? Well, no, not any more than wizards and sorcerers anyways, so it's basically a waste of time. And don't get me started on how "meh" sorcerers are. I heard they were going to be spontaneous primal casters and got so excited!... and there's basically no incentive to play them over a druid. Ever.

Paizo, please just consider loosening the reins a bit. The system has some upside, but the game is so restrictive it's aggravating. More cool stuff, less fuddy-duddy rules.

For 1 you cannot have a great sword with agile or finesse. As a great sword cannot use either agile or finesse and why would someone want to use dex to dam with a 2 handed weapon of any type they are Strength to damage weapons. Increasing a weapon that a Rogue is trained with to expert or master would be nice. increasing by a +1 hit for expert, +2 for master and +3 for legendary would be great. And in the same vein having expert master and legendary Sneak attack that bumps the sneak attack damage by 1d6 per advance.

We were specifically talking about allowing players the ability to add or change the properties on weapons, which is how it came up.

As for the whole extra Sneak Attack damage thing... BOOOOORING.

Everyone would want d12 weapons they obsolete everything else. There is no point having weapon traits.

I can't come up with a good reason not to get a reach weapon and multi-class fighter on every martial character. I would like to politely disagree with your assessment. Upgrading reach weapons with things like finesse or agile would be fun, as would momentum. Deadly could also be sweet, and I would love to see something like a fatal gnome flickmace.

You could easily limit properties based on die size, etc. if it were an actual issue. I just wanted a ROBUST system, and what we have is... again, meh.

Its because you would end up with 1 weapon that is just better than everything else. An agile. finesse great sword for example.

Then let it happen. Or tie it to limited proficiency bonuses. I was just really excited about the revamping of weapon properties, and it's so... MEH. For two-handers, you either want a d12 or Reach, for one-handers you either want a big versatile die, finesse and/or agile, and... that's about it. There isn't nearly enough done with it, and I want more!

Lou Diamond wrote:

Another design flaw found in the New game system. All classes should be able to increase their weapon skill in a single weapon by spending a general feat. There is no reason for this not to be able too be done.

This bolded part isn't actually true. In many ways, Weapon Proficiency beyond Trained is the equivalent of BAB in this edition, and not allowing it to simply rise via Feats is probably an extremely good idea from a Class Design and Game Balance perspective.

I actually would have personally preferred that Expert proficiency gave you a simple +1 attack bonus, and higher proficiencies allowed you to add or change weapon properties on your weapons.

Mostly, I'm just frustrated that there isn't a way to do this. It would be so much fun! What if you could craft a Deadly Falchion, or a Reach Greatsword, or a Forceful Handaxe? Or wield them in such a way that you could add change them around? This would really open up weapon options and give players a chance to really play with the whole property system, and it's so criminally underutilized! XD

Rogues eventually get Expert proficiency with weapons of their starting proficiency at 13th level (Weapon Tricks). That's about it.

I think my primary problem with Opens and Presses isn't that the mechanics are clunky, but rather that they don't do enough. I feel like Opens should be more focused on debuffing, and Presses should be more focused on damage spiking. That gives the whole combo feel they're going for. Right now, presses are just... meh. Hopefully we get some cooler ones in the final version.

Your insistence that acknowledging your real life beliefs is so important makes as much sense as christians demanding God and Jesus to be included in the setting would.

Fun aside: My recent favorite character archetype has become the guy who has actually heard God's voice in this fantasy world, and needs to figure out how to share God with people who are like "Yeah, we can make fire from heaven too. So what?" It's very Exodus-like.