Dekalinder's page

1,357 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No multiclass gives armor proficiency aside from champion. No multiclass gives weapon proficiency aside from fighter. No multiclass at all gives higher proficiency than what you get in your primary class.
Means, multiclassing fighter does not makes you any better at hitting that what your primary class allows.

I came out from hiding just to say that a multiclass system that doesn't allow you to trade spell proficiency for more weapon proficiency or weapon proficiency for armor proficiency is not an actual multiclass system for me.

Yes multiclassing is a very dear argument for me.

I'll go back to my cave now, bye.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"DM of the ring" should be an obbligatory read for everyone who wishes to become a DM

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that was intentional, so that since everything that affect the combat comes from the same pool, you cant "game" the tight balance by moving more or less pieces to the same basket. Basically, your combat strenght is locket to what amounts to 10 class feats. Your skill strenghr is locked to ehat amounts to 10 skill feats. Ecc. Classes like rogue gives you more skill in exchange for... actually nothing, the rogue is as strong in combat as other classes.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The things that makes me hate the paladin as LG only is that I have to ban it in every single campain where the rest of that party isn't LG. That is because I like to give players meaningfull choices on witch direction to take in the campaign, and even witch of multiple faction to join. With a paladin in there, it's either his way or the highway. The third option would be havin a party with one of the pc being a high level commoner.
LG paladins work for a cliche filled AP on railoads, non for anything where meaningfull choices are presented, because those choice for a paladin where already made on character creation.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Take away a Cleric's holy symbol and her component pouch, what is she? A miserable little pile of secrets! Take a Fighter's +3 holy shock corrosive sonic burst greatsword and what is he? Well, a 1d4+5 death machine!

Seriously, it's the People Who Wanted More Exalted in Their D&D vs. HWalsh. Can I get ringside tickets, because this is going to be glorious?

Everyone who felt like HWalsh already left for the 5e

WatersLethe wrote:

Now it looks like this:

1. Lack of combat style customization and flexibility outside of class
2. Weak spells
3. Limited class options (narrow feat level tiers, enforced party roles, "least bad" feat selection)
4. Limited first/early level customization
5. Over-reliance on a designated "healer"
6. Low success rate for optimized characters
7. Heavy armor being too heavily penalized
8. Skill feats taking too much away from baseline skill functions
9. Class specific problems (Retributive Strike, Hunt Target)
10. Bland races
11. Focus

Maybe we could brainstorm some less specific problem area categories that we could put into a survey to rank the importance of current concerns?

I do have to say, my current list is pretty much the same, maybe switching around the first 2 points.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:

Maybe this is the question they're referring to?

I would prefer no potency on weapons and armor at all. Attack roll bonuses and AC bonuses would come from item quality, damage would come from my character's inherent martial ability, and any necessary saving throw bonuses could come from elsewhere.
edit: It's near the end of the rules survey. It seems pretty clear, but knowing what it meant before reading it makes me a poor choice for evaluating clarity.

Talk about lumping 5 question togheter so you can be sure any data you gain from it is usless

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
thorin001 wrote:

You do realize that you are comparing the cantrip to a primary weapon. At 5th level you will only have the one +1 weapon and at 13th level you will only have one +3 weapon. It is at 9th or 10th level that you will be able to have a backup +1 weapon, and probably 16th or 17th level that you might have a backup +3 weapon.

I legitimately have no idea what you are talking about.

I said that Cantrips compare fine to Crossbows, which are the weapons that casters would be using if Cantrips didn't scale and the player didn't want to spend feats learning something better, and they have the bonus of not costing any gold to own. I've no idea what you interpreted that as, but I'm sure you interpreted it wrong.

Yea, cantrips compare equally with the worst existing weapon available used by the worst class at using weapons on the caveat that it hasn't invested anything on it. If that is considered to be meaningfull contribuition to the party, I don't get why people complained about the PF1 rogue.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like the changes in a vacuum, but.

Lowering the floor of untrained instead of increasing the bonus for higher specialization while lowering skills CD shows that they are tring to increase the 50/50 chance homogeneously instead of rewarding specialization, keeping the adherence to the 4e philosophy of "everyone is decent, no one really shine". As is also shown by the ranger rework, there still is lack of willingness of tacking on a more serious rework to the current system of tying general stylistic choice (i'm talking about combat styles, armor specializations ecc.) to specific class feats instead of generally available feats.
Resonance, everyone knew it had to go. But they are still refusing to lay it to rest. Let's see what they come up with.

All in all, the changes are nice, but the general trend they show to me is the lack of willingness to make big changes to the "4th ed" style of "Compartmented class roles. High floor but chockingly low ceiling. 0 narrative power on feats and spells, everything is there only for combat"

At least they put their s*$* together for that damn question about shield dents.

pauljathome wrote:
Cyrad wrote:

Your GM was very forgiving as running should be impossible and impractical because:

You're partly right and partly wrong.

Clearly, yes, the Manticore should have killed the party.

But its a playtest. At that point the lesson of the Manticore (Wow, flying creatures with ranged attacks can be nasty, especially to parties with few ranged options) has been learned. Rather than have a TPK the GM decided to continue with the adventure.

Which seems the right decision to me. From a fun point of view, the party keeps playing. From a testing point of view, more information is learned.

It skewes the results by recording 1 less TPK and 4 less death to the tally of the playtest. Then we have people saying it's impossible to TPK since non one reported having one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ludovicus wrote:

Though this really only confirms your point about the impenetrability of this rule, afaict characters with multiple attack penalties of -3 or lower (including, importantly, fighters with the Agile Grace feat) CAN use Press abilities, just not their failure effects.

I honestly don't know whether referring to an actual number was sloppiness, or an unfun plan to minimize synergy. I'd expect either from Paizo at this point.

I had to recheck, and indeed you are right.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get how people keep saying that PF2 is good for casuals. Have you even read the exploration mode tactics, and what a mess that is? Did you try and parse the dying rules? It took me 2 hours and a degree in engineering to understand what the hell that was supposed to mean. I'd like to ask how many of this "PF2 is easy" folks do actually now what it means "Press", and why you can't use it after attacking with an agile weapon if you are a ranger and used Hunt Target.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:

5e is a much more shallow game.

I'm not saying it's a bad game, but for everyone decrying a lack of options in the PF2 Playtest doc, please go read a 5e PHB and then come back and talk about lack of options. 5e is a perfectly functional...

5e has you making very few choices, that is true. But every single one of them is way more impactfull that the whole 10 class feat your PF2 class gets. In 5e you can chose the skill you are good at, you can chose witch talent you want, or even if you want them at all.

Right now PF2 let's you make 20 choices every time you level up, but aside from the class none of them is meaningfull.

My hope for PF2 was for a system where mastery was rewarded instead of cookie-cutter build. If you like cookie-cutter, at least 5e let's you spice it at your leisure.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lausth wrote:

So it is only me that feels like that this edition will be PF 2e:Martials will die edition.

I was thinking more about Pathfinder of the Exile, but SoulsFinder: Prepare to Die comes as close second.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
IIRC, said dev was also speaking from the perspective of himself as GM. I am given to understand that he did not reference a copy of the rules before answering, so gods only know whether or not he answered correctly, or even understood why the question was asked. I get the feeling most of the devs are working from their knowledge of the internal design documents; and aren't actually familiar with the playtest rulebook.
That's why I said "speculated". Really though, if the devs aren't even sure how things work, we certainly can't be.

Is not like they have been working on it for months (if not years). Or like playtested a few times before putting out a beta.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
That makes since. Looks like it ramped up difficulty to quickly though, if it's easy with 5 PCs but adding one or two Mook (lvl 0) enemies jumps it to deadly that's a serious system problem.
I think it's more an issue that they had 5 PC's and no main healer. a paladin or cleric or druid would probably have made a huge difference.

Guess we are back to the Holy Trinity. How long before BBEGs gets an enrage timer?

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:

If you've built your character well, that should be it - they should be able to easily overcome any obstacle within their specialization. You need a party because everyone specializes in different things, and because one fighter can't stab all the baddies at once.

And then we get the million threads about "my specialized character can't do anything outside his specialization".

Personally I feel that a base of 50-50 against same level opponents is perfectly fine,
One of the goals of this edition is to reduce the rocket tag combat, but it seem that some of the people requiring higher to hit base values want exactly that.
"I win initiative, the enemy get to do nothig and I win the fight."
For them it can be fun, for me it is annoying and boring,

Is not that different if you need to be specialized to even hit that 50/50. It means where you are not specialized you dont even need to bother trying.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, 3 4 and 7 basically means "the system works we don't care what the forums says". I hope for them that we really are the vocal minority.
At this point from Mark comments about class feat is clear they are aiming at recreating a 4.5 edition, probably with the aim at catching all orphaned 4e players. I guess it's time they too deserve something new to play.
All I know is that I can now declare with utmost certanty that there will be no PF2 in any of my groups. I'll still hang around the forums out of curiosity, if this does not offends anyone. I've grown attached to this place with the years after all.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

Porbably shouldn't complain about the math too much since this edition can probably be nicknamed "Mathfinder RPG", and the developers probably already have all those spreadsheets and dozens more, which they used as the abse to design the game with. The only one they probably didn't make was one for Power Attack calcs, to be honest.

The bestiary, specially, was made pretty much based on spreadsheets with almost no attention going to the actual monster physiology and such. (Numbers-wise at least. They mostly have well-designed abilities).

So whatever numbers we're seeing, unless we're missing something, are exactly the intended ones, maybe +/- 1 as I've heard Mark seifter said the levels where you gain proficiency changed around post-bestiary.

Whitch is the reason I find this all the more terrifying.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

How about divorcing background from mechanics, and have everyone write the background they like, pick the stats that fit the character, and chose an appropriate lore and skill feat? Or that would be too much player empowerment?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Haven't seen the devs commenting anything else than "the system works, you just haven't got it yet"

Yossarian wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
If they skip 70% of the rooms as they should since they contain absolutely nothing but trouble, the adventure gets much easier. There are only 3 encounter that are mandatory to finish the adventure.
I mean you can say that about a lot of dungeons in APs/modules but how does the team know just what to skip?
In my experience skipping rooms is something that can happen in a playtest (because the levelling is artificial) but never happens in actual games. My players are out there hunting for XP and every room is potential XP. No stone is left unturned in case there's something to kill, loot, charm or trade with underneath it.

I do completely agree, I wasn't portraing that scenario as plausible nor advisable, just as possible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is being an incomprehension. Sherlock is talking about items, and specifically abount items with the "potent" attributes, aka stat-boosts. Not the level based stat improvements.
And bte, I do agree with you OP

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
FLite wrote:

It's called holy smite, and they get it at level 9 now.

Given the number of players who dipped paladin to get smite and CHA to saves, I am not sad about this.

Let's prevent players who like smite from enjoing it for close to half their campaign otherwise some clever character builder can have some fun breaking the game. This way we are going to show both of them. There is going to be no fun on my watch!
... Smite Evil was a first level ability.

And the actual replacement for Smite Evil is not Holy Smite (9) but Blades of Justice (6), the point of this phylosophy still stands, and permeates this entire playtest.

shroudb wrote:

Eh, the errata did nothing for alchemist power wise, just a couple of fixes to officially allow them to craft the mutagens.

All tables I know already allowed mutagen crafting either way.

If anything, putting in errata all feats to use Quick Alchemy instead of Advanced or Quick is pointing towards the development team going towards a really terrible road for the class...

At least they got 1 more skill. The sorceror just lost 4, and his amount of skill was the only thing that justified picking it over wizard.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:

It's called holy smite, and they get it at level 9 now.

Given the number of players who dipped paladin to get smite and CHA to saves, I am not sad about this.

Let's prevent players who like smite from enjoing it for close to half their campaign otherwise some clever character builder can have some fun breaking the game. This way we are going to show both of them. There is going to be no fun on my watch!

Ediwir wrote:

Spell attack rolls are made using Dex instead of your spellcasting modifier. It seems like the actual spell roll is only used in... spells that ask you to roll your spell roll? Not sure which ones these are. Also melee touch attacks use Str but are finesse, so they can use Dex as well.

The bit that concerns me on spells is Spell DC scaling. Sure, all casters become Legendary in it, but does anyone else find it odd that there can be up to a +5 item bonus to all saves, but not a similar item bonus to spell DCs?

We definetly don't want spell to actually be reliable, that would be really bad, wouldn't it?

I searched there for Flat-footed, Conditions, dying, poison. I'm using the PDF so some of the searches where skipped thanks to the sidebar bookmarks.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You gain a +1 conditional bonus to spell rolls and spell DCs.
What that actually means?
If we calculate the DPR, we will conclude this:
if you have a 55% chance to hit (10+) and a 5% (20) chance to create for an expected average damage of 60% your average roll, the +1 increase your DPR to 60%, +10% = 70%, which is 70/60 = 1,16 times the "normal" amount, for a DPR increase of 16%. Doesn't sound bad on paper.
But in actual play? +1 means that it will transform a crit fail into a full 1 every 20 times, a fail in hit 1 every 20 times, and a hit into a create 1 more times every 20. So, this spell impact your actual roll 3 times every 20, so on average 1 every 6.6 times it is used. Meaning, a sorcerer with 18 CHA will, on average, gain an actual benefit from this class ability once every two adventuring days, if he get the opportunity to use it most of the 4 times on a spell that has all 4 degrees of success. The math gets worse if you use it for a spell with no critfail like most of to-hit spells.
PF2 is, at the moment, full of such low-impact ability that, while probably good when digging behind the math, are utterly unrewarding in actual play.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Problem is, you can only obtain the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 if you pick a race with +2 in 2 of your your 3 primary stat and -2 in your chosen dump stat. This severly limit your choice of race.
For example, if you want to get 18, 16, 14 in CHA-DEX-COS your only choice of race can be halfling. There is no currently legal build choice to start with 18-16-14 in CHA-STR-COS or INT-STR-COS nor INT-DEX-COS. I didn't list all possibility since I didn't sit and try for all of them, but there are probably others.
Also, there is no doubt in my mind that the 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 array is superior in all ways conceivable to the 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10

Classes also gives as much or more HP than the basic ancestry, so adventurer have around 2 times as much HP than commoners.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Korahir wrote:
Level 1 Fighters add +6 to their attack. All level 1 casters I built so far added +3 as I always ended up with Dex or Str 14. On the damage side of things the fighter mostly rolled d12 or d10 +4 while my casters either rolled d4 and d6 and added nothing when dex based or rolled d10 or d12 and added +2 when str based. All in all pretty close to each other and I am fine with that.

You have a peculiar definition of "pretty close".

The ooze is immune to crits.

Rholand wrote:

The alchemist went down from the trap and when the druid arrived a round later, the Commando and a warrior took him down quickly.

The goblin pyro died in no time to the rogue and only the Commando really put up a fight here, getting a few good hits in, but the rogue was hard to hit and the barbarian hit hard.

Looks like the rogue and the barbarian cleaned the encounter by themselves.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Just here to say i'm following this with great attention. And I appreciate someone inflicting themselves this playtest. Best of luck going forward to you and your players.

Thanks for the synthesis.

On the actual content. So, what we get after all this feedback is -4 skills for the sorcerer, witch is already regarded as strictly inferior to any other spellcaster option. And 1 more skills for the Alchemist. Talk about underwhelming.
But still, it has been only about 10 days from the release, I'm willing to give them a bit more time to see if they decide to stick to their design philosophy or finally take into account the direction most of the forum has expressed to prefer. After the feedback from 3 session with my pals, I'm currently holding from running additional games until an extensive update to the ruleset is released.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
cant a few of them also target TAC? which'd be a pretty solid accuracy boost by itself

TAC is not what it used to be. Most of the times it's only 1-2 points lower than full AC, and you can't get any item enhancement to hit with spells. After a few magic items, spell are actually worse at hitting than shortswords.

Pramxnim wrote:

After checking my math and comparing with Double Slice, I believe even just doubling he damage dice would be too good.

I would like to see that. Doubling the damage means basically nothing more than getting +5 to your secondary attack, with the added bonus of applying only once resistance but with the additional penalty that, given the normal doubling rules, a crit would only increase your damage by 50%. It is better than attacking twice? It should damn be, it's a feat whose only purpose is exactly that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Power attack should just double the amount of damage as per doubling rules. This would make it exactly equivalent to double slice if using 1d12 weapon compared to double 1d6 weapon, but slighly less damaging if using 1d8 (1h) weapon, balanced by the free hand.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, shield are currently overtuned compared to anything else. And the game seems to be balanced around them.

If they skip 70% of the rooms as they should since they contain absolutely nothing but trouble, the adventure gets much easier. There are only 3 encounter that are mandatory to finish the adventure.

Igor Horvat wrote:
John Teixeira wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
John Teixeira wrote:
The only characters who use strength in 5e are two handers, grapplers/shovers, and the unoptimized.
Please don't forget Quarterstaff + Dueling + Polearm Master cheesers like me. STRanger for life.
I mean, a 5e ranger using a quarterstaff to do a PAM build would fall under "unoptimized."
Not if you manage to shove in shillelagh cantrip in the mix

Actually, just hunter mark scales insanely well with the multiple attacks. Also, Fighter dips are broken in 5E

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:
I really dislike the "no defiance" part of the anathema. If my totem is an evil Dragon, I doubt that evil dragons will be nice to me in turn... I see no reason that a barbarian that respects the ideal of a red dragon's power would not want to test himself against an actual red dragon.

Yea, it's like a sith not wanting to kill his own master.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'd like to see
- resonance ditched
- substantial rework of class and general feats, where among others changes a large amount of the former should be included in the latter category
- rework of the whole ancestry concept of feat progression
- alternate multiclass option to VMC
- substantial increase to the amount of narrative agency that the spells and skills/class option (both casters and martials) provide
- rebalancing of the math to have a larger scissor between "best at something" and "just passable"
- more steamlining of the action system, where lots of lesser action tax should be removed, like drawing a weapon or changing grip

I personally believe that some of this changes are incisive enaugh that they should merit a second round of playtest if implemented to smooth out the inevitable kinks that would come out. I sincerely hope that the stance on an updated playtest rulebook is going to change.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I dont think there is any possibility of us doing a revised version of the rulebook in the time frame that we have, but we will be taking comments and feedback about the design of the book to heart when creating the final version.

So, no second round of playtest based on the feedback that has been given? This gives much more credit to the feeling that this rules are actually very close to what we are getting on the final release, with no real intention of making any sweeping changes between here and the official release.

I'm very disappointed, even if not really surprised.

Full attack routine of my Imperial Sorcer Gish

True strike -> Magical Striker -> two handed smash -> shield

For less nova you can sub True Strike with Ancestral Surge just to trigger Magical Striker off your otherwise kinda usless Spell Points.

I'm debating if upgrading the two handed smash to a power attack is worth the feat for after the shield is broken. Unless they fix at least the scaling at level 10 for multiclass I don't think is worth.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, when the Bard has better Heightening than the sorc you know someone on the design board hates the class

Tying damage to proficiency opens up a whole other can of worm since atm there is no way to increase you proficiency with weapons unless you vmc fighter. Also, at that point you are effectively killing gish since they can't keep up with the damage

2 people marked this as a favorite.

90% of the interesting tactical decisions to do with martials seems to be tied to having a shield.

vuvko wrote:

On page 128 in "Sorcerer Spellcasting" there is a hint that Sorcerer should have Eschew Materials feat: "Because you’re a sorcerer, you can usually replace Material Casting actions with Somatic Casting actions, so you usually don’t need spell components."

Most likely it refers to the following text presented on page 196, under the "Special" section of the "Material Casting" action

"If you’re a sorcerer Casting a Spell from the spell list that
matches your bloodline, you can draw on the magic within
your blood to replace any Material Casting actions that require
material components with Somatic Casting actions. You can’t
replace a Material Casting action that requires a spell focus"

If this is true it's probably the first good news I heard in this playetest

1 to 50 of 1,357 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>