I think the best routine is True Strike into Power Attack to leverage the better to-hit and thus crit with a single attack. Since true strike is verbal only you can usr a two-handed weapon for maximum effect (even if unfortunatly compared to the playtest bespell weapon does not scale anymore with the weapon dice)
Forums being outdated doesn't mean that 5e dev are silents. They are more active then ever (somethimes more than they should imho). And, as you can see, on platforms even more informal and inclusive than forums. 5e recieved a healty and steady flux of clarification, and some few erratas, even if they (rightly imho) mostly refrain from "balance patches" ala pf1.
People keep bashing the head against the wall repeating that since a solution is available the problems is non-existant. That's not how it work folks. Having solution for a problem is a fallback. Ideally, the problem should not present itself.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Yes, so?Mine was a mostly neutered list of things I know have been widely criticized about the 4 ed. I'll leave everyone to infer whatever they wish from that.
About the AC thing being gamist, it was not as much as the concept per se, but the actuality of how it plays. You get a 10 level wizard wading unscathed into a 500 volley of arrows and cannonbals fired by lv1-2 guardsmans.
I do believe most of the main problems with 4e was class omogenization (all had the exact same AEDU scaling with mostly same amount of nova and normal damage) and the impossibility of specializing in something as much as to be able to "beat the treadmill".
If the intent was just to learn the formula, it would have just said "you study an object for x time and then you can reproduce it" instead of devolving 20 sentences to raw materials and gold amounts.You can think of "raw materials" like magic pongo. You mold it in the shape of a sword, say a prayer to the gods of magic and the item is done.
The chart accounts for accuracy. Also, expert vs legendary is +4 difference, but weapon can get a +3 from items that spells cannot. Additionally, legendary spells is at level 19.
You don't need weapon or armor shape to be class-defining if you have interesting and effective class ability. I see too much of the class focus being put into proficiency, witch are just number-pumping, and too less on actually interesting class option.
We have gone full circle back to the "you must kill a person for no other reason than to join the assassins guild".
The main problem with dedication, for what I see, is that whatever armor or weapon proficiency they give you doesn't scale with your own proficiency.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Everyone who felt like HWalsh already left for the 5e
I do have to say, my current list is pretty much the same, maybe switching around the first 2 points.
Talk about lumping 5 question togheter so you can be sure any data you gain from it is usless
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.
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.
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.
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.
I had to recheck, and indeed you are right.
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.
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.
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.
Guess we are back to the Holy Trinity. How long before BBEGs gets an enrage timer?
Diego Rossi wrote:
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.
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.
Whitch is the reason I find this all the more terrifying.
I do completely agree, I wasn't portraing that scenario as plausible nor advisable, just as possible.
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.
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.
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!
We definetly don't want spell to actually be reliable, that would be really bad, wouldn't it?