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?
You gain a +1 conditional bonus to spell rolls and spell DCs.
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.
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.
Looks like the rogue and the barbarian cleaned the encounter by themselves.
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.
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.
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.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Actually, just hunter mark scales insanely well with the multiple attacks. Also, Fighter dips are broken in 5E
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.
Personally, I'd like to see
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.
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.
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