Diffan's page

Madness at Gardmore Abbey is easily top tier for 4e. It gives players a great sandbox structure, fun tactical encounters, and uses the Deck of Many Things really well.

If you want a shorter module to start with, Reavers of Harkenwold from the Dungeon Master's Kit is another fantastic choice for new groups.

Definitely second this adventure. Reavers was also a good one too. One of the earlier adventure paths would be Scales of War, which goes the whole way from 1 to 30 character levels. I ran the first couple of adventures and after a bit of time, it got really good.

As a DM/Player that loves the FOrgotten Realms, there's a lot of good stuff in Neverwinter as well from the Living Forgotten Realms website.

When D&D 5E came out in 2014, it was not an immediate smash. Pathfinder 1E was still quite dominant in the marketplace.

What happened?

Couple of reasons:

#1 Appealing to the Average/Weekend Gamer. This is, I believe, one of the biggest appeals for the game. It's simple enough on the player that his choices need not be in-depth min/maxing calculations where Theorycraft is largely irrelevant and pointless OR it can be far more in-depth if you want - still the disparity of someone who goes full-hog Min/Max and that Casual Person that doesn't isn't substantially high.

#2 It's Easier to Run. Seriously, running a combat encounter is so much simpler from a DM perspective and a lot of that is because there aren't TONS of sub-systems where people are constantly looking up rules and modifiers and adjustments based on a specific spell in it's application to that particular instant...it gets bogged down real quick. 3.5 and 4E (the latter due to too many Interrupts) meant that combat had the potential to turn into a slog, which got worse at you go higher level.

Just look at something simple like a bigger crit range. In 5E, the Champion just crits on a 19. Easy peasy. No additional rolling to "confirm". Now multiply that by 3-4 per character and/or monster. Yeah no thanks.

#3 It's more modular AND your options matter. Lets face it, the VAST majority of Feats in 3.5 (and PF1) aren't great or - at best - simply add a bonus, but it's largely Exception-based. Meaning that you can do X, but it usually a horrible idea that will fail unless you roll high. This feat eliminates that penalty. Meaning these feats are the "exception" to the normal rule. 5E just says "nah, those penalties are pretty dumb, lets ignore them." Like Firing into Melee. In 5e, the monster might provide cover but...that's it. In 3.5 it's Cover plus you take a penalty to attack rolls. More math means less time playing.

As for it being modular, well it's easy to change campaign specifics to make it more lethal or more heroic with very little change to what the PCs or Monsters do.

More dex to damage options. Yes I know this is "controversial".

I still don't see why this is controversial? What, it causes a bump in DPR? Oh heavens no! It makes strength less necessary? Yeah welcome to 3.5/PF where magic trumps everything! Honestly, I lump Dex-to-Damage haters in with those who thought Monkey Grip was too good (still laughing at that one) and how the Vow of Poverty is super broken (yeah, ok...)

I'm just glad we got the Unchained Rogue when we did.

It is Dragon magazine #310, page 46. Champions of the Divine lists Paladins for NG (sentinel), CG (avenger), LN (enforcer), Incarnate (Neutral), & Anarch (CN). They list the "Paladin" as the LG version.

Wow a 9-year old thread Resurrection....that's impressive.

I ended 2008 finishing up some 3.5 games.

I started 2019 with a 5e and a 4e game, lol.

I never enforced it because its unrealistic and ridiculously penalizing. Ive slept in gambison and plate over night and woke up pretty much ok. Not overly fatigued or in that much pain either. There's some stiffness but that goes away after about 10 min of moving around. I don't think I'm any more capable or better than D&D fighters...

You know all those feats and class features that let you do things that any person could reasonably try? I'd delete them.

I can disagree with this at all, lol. Mundane feats that basically let you not get punched in the face for trying a "maneuver" yea ditch those things OR at least let one feat cover them all under one umbrella.

Diffan wrote:

What determines morality is specifically what people pull from their own experiences. Your preference is the Paladin falls. Mine is he wouldn't is a good example of why this matters.

And that, to my mind, is exactly why the rules should specify this; so that players will have a consistent framework of expectation on alignment from table to table.

I would far rather have an established system within that game that was utterly at variance to my personal morality, than have it vary depending on DM whim. Because personal experience and real-world morality does not matter in this context, any more than Macbeth's personal morality is any reflection on the beliefs of any actor who has ever played him, and reliable consistency within the game does.

Except the rules are pretty ambiguous in terms of specific actions as they relate to particular circumstances. In my Paladin - demon example is there a specific rule in the game that says this is an evil act?

Diffan wrote:

OmniMage wrote:

In regards to quantity of spells, I prefer to have more spells than I need than not having enough.

Diffan wrote:

Practical Metamagic (quicken spell) -1 to spell adjustment

Arcane Thesis (enervation) -1 to any Metamagic feat used for the spell.

Slaymate (Libris Mortis) -1 to Metamagic spell adjustment for all Necromancy spells.

So split, empowered, and fell drain are all now at 0 and quickened is now 1.

I haven't heard of many these. This is one of the things I dislike about DND/Pathfinder. So many little things you need to learn to compete with the big players.

I think your problem is allowing so many things affect the effective level of spells. Wait! Do all of those belong to the same version of the game? I think I see a bit of DND 3.5 in your pathfinder game.

This was a 3.5 game (the forgotten realms super adventure path) and we were already at 16th level. Of course I said no to the character but it easily expressed one way that the mechanics were really ridiculous

Why did you decide not to allow it? It's perfectly legitimate, and intelligent of the player. Granted, it wouldn't work on a lot of foes like undead, constructs etc, which you could then use against the necromancer. But them's the breaks if you are a one trick pony, Pc's like that have huge weaknesses.

I didn't allow it because I read the rest of the adventure and out of the remaining 12 or so encounters there were only 2 that heavily involved constructs and undead (one of which included both). And there are other gimmicks that he had besides a suped up Enervate spell. He's a pretty smart guy.

The party make-up consisted of a scout/ranger, duskblade, a fighter/crusader/purple dragon knight, and another Fighter. Not exceedingly optimized but has held their own through the adventure. By allowing the DN in, he most likely would've dominated all but a few encounters, making their presence all but needless.

And yes as the DM it's my job to change - alter - fix - challenge the PCs based on the party makeup, but with a premade adventure I simply didnt want to. Plus the other players weren't too keen on simply sitting back while another player runs rough-shod over most of the challenges. So I said no.

Diffan wrote:

As for alignment, I don't have a problem with them being elements in a game. Certainly continuing the trend of L/C - G/E axis is something I'd like to see, but it's the forcing of this forced behavior that I really don't think adds to the game, especially when it's often used as a cudgel to enforce Catch-22 scenarios or simply make it all the more difficult on a party of varying people's ethos.

That's exactly what I see as the strong point of it, though. Enabling role-playing challenges, requiring people to play a character's worldview consistently to derive the benefits of that worldview (and incidentally, strongly encouraging people to get inside the head of moral and ethical perspectives different from their own seems a positive thing to me.)

Ok but then why not enforce that across the board? All of what yiu said is fine and definitely can be fun but if only a few PCs are affected by it, I think that's where the problem is. Like I said, all in or all out.

Quote:

For example, if I paladin were to say he's going to torture a captured demon with holy water and religious relics to obtain information, I'd probably say "OK". I believe that such creature is the embodiment of evil and immortal, thus no quarter or mercy is applicable. Some DM's would out-right rule that as a violation of a Paladin's code. Who's right? Who's wrong?

In-game, whoever the rules say is right or wrong. End of discussion. (My own preference would be to rule that example as making a paladin fall, for what that is worth, because I do not view a commitment to Lawful Good behaviour as flexible based on whether the entity one would be behaving badly towards deserves it or not.)

In contexts other than in-game, it doesn't matter. Tying in-game alignment rules to real-world morality issues misses the fairly fundamental aspect of role-playing that your character isn't you.

What determines morality is specifically what people pull from their own experiences. Your preference is the Paladin falls. Mine is he wouldn't is a good example of why this matters.

Quote:

If a DM feels really strongly about such aspect, make them put them in the game, thus holding strong to their convictions, don't let them justify their decisions because they point to the rule book and say "well it IS the rules *shrugs*".

Asking the DM to justify their decisions based on anything other than an objectively specified ruling is pulling directly against the potential benefits of alignment as a system, because it goes right back into making it an issue of individual perspective. If you don't like alignment, don't play a game with alignment, but if you are going to play one with alignment, agreeing to a consistent and coherent basis beforehand is definitely more practical than allowing for ongoing debate.

I disagree. In our 5e games we certainly kept all the alignment aspects of previous editions but dont have hard-coded requirements or "falls" for special classes and it works just fine, we have moral dilemmas and morality tests but failing them doesn't turn just one PC into a pile of empty waste.

For example if a Paladin in our 5e game decided to do something against his oath and deity - based on severity - he might be forced into the Oathbreaker path instead of the one he's currently on. Maybe it's gradual, maybe it's a full change. Its up to the DM to decide. But he doesn't become a pretty useless tag-along to the group.

In regards to quantity of spells, I prefer to have more spells than I need than not having enough.

Diffan wrote:

Practical Metamagic (quicken spell) -1 to spell adjustment

Arcane Thesis (enervation) -1 to any Metamagic feat used for the spell.

Slaymate (Libris Mortis) -1 to Metamagic spell adjustment for all Necromancy spells.

So split, empowered, and fell drain are all now at 0 and quickened is now 1.

I haven't heard of many these. This is one of the things I dislike about DND/Pathfinder. So many little things you need to learn to compete with the big players.

I think your problem is allowing so many things affect the effective level of spells. Wait! Do all of those belong to the same version of the game? I think I see a bit of DND 3.5 in your pathfinder game.

This was a 3.5 game (the forgotten realms super adventure path) and we were already at 16th level. Of course I said no to the character but it easily expressed one way that the mechanics were really ridiculous

Diffan wrote:

With these, he augmented the Enervation spell to a point where he could cast a Split Ray empowered fell drained quickened Enervation using a 5th level spell slot and a split ray empowered fell drained enervation using a 4th level slot. That's 4 rays a turn that dropped targets on average 7 to 10 level per ray.

I am confused by this situation as all of the metamagics which are added to these castings make the spells above 9th level slots. Enervation by itself starts at level four, quickened adds +3, split ray, +2, empowered, +2, fell drained another +2. By my math, the character needs a 13th level spell slot he does not even have access to. Maybe he is using a metamagic wand, that still gives him 10th level spell slots to memorize the rest. Am I missing something else here (I realize it is 3.5, but I also checked those as well)?

Practical Metamagic (quicken spell) -1 to spell adjustment

Arcane Thesis (enervation) -1 to any Metamagic feat used for the spell.

Slaymate (Libris Mortis) -1 to Metamagic spell adjustment for all Necromancy spells.

So split, empowered, and fell drain are all now at 0 and quickened is now 1.

I definitely agree about reducing the number of feats needed to use various maneuvers, like dirty trick, item tricks, wrestling, unarmed combat etc. Honestly, all those booklets with additional combat options that are only useful if you blow a few feats on them seems silly. Everyone should be able to do them somewhat effectively.

Exactly! Looking at most forms of medieval combat, the notion is that a shield IS a weapon and often effective at being one too. A Fighter, for instance, shouldn't have to burn precious resource commodity (feats) on using a weapon he's already proficient with in the first place. Hitting someone with a sword - shield bash combo was an extremely effective tactic and this goes back waay before medieval Europe.

As my group and I sit down to discuss how to "Fix" various issues with 3.5/PF one of the points I'm going to bring up is either A) eliminating the "cool tricks" Feat Tax and just make combat manevuer simply non-penalizing (no provoke AoO's, no chance to disarm on failed attempts, etc.) and just make maybe one feat that incorporates ALL specific forms of combat maneuvers, granting you a bonus to all the checks at once. And the effects would naturally scale with level (probably +4 from 1-5; +6 from 6-10; +8 from 11-15; +10 from 16-20).

Other aspects, such as Two-Weapon Fighting would also be simplified too. It's simply off-hand needs to be light with -2/-2 to all attacks. If you want to wield two one-handed weapons, grab the Dual-Wielder feat (grants bonus to AC, removes the penalty, and allows you to use a one-handed weapon in your off-hand). This whole "it's -8/-10 with this condition, -6/-6 with this condition...blah blah" is too convoluted and almost never ever used at the table because NO player I've ever encountered was like "yeah, I'll grab two weapons and incur penalties so darn steep that it makes me less effective that simply punching with my bare fist!".

I have no problems with alignments or ability modifiers granting more spells.

I had a buddy wanting to join our long-running 3.5 game (we're finishing up the Cormyr, Shadowdale, Anauroch adventures) and he wanted to make a Dread Necromancer. Said DN character had 8 castings of his 5th and 4th level spell slots (the campaign is at 16th level). With these, he augmented the Enervation spell to a point where he could cast a Split Ray empowered fell drained quickened Enervation using a 5th level spell slot and a split ray empowered fell drained enervation using a 4th level slot. That's 4 rays a turn that dropped targets on average 7 to 10 level per ray. He had 16 castings of this a day. More if he used higher level slots to cast them (which he did). There was nothing in the campaign that was ever going to withstand that and I honestly didn't want to have to re-write the whole thing so everyone had Deathward cast on them 24-7.

Even with my "nerf" of no-modifier to extra spells he was getting 6 spell slots from 1st through 6th level. That's 36 spell castings (not including five 7th level and three 8th level slots). I mean, again at what point does the notion of resource management even become an issue in D&D/PF? Everyone always exclaims "well martial get to use their stuff all day long with no chance of tiring...." I don't know about you but at that point, I don't think I've ever witnessed a PC burn through 44 spells in a single adventuring day. Even with more conservative numbers such as from the Wizard, that's still 32 casting of spells from 0 thru 8th level by the time they're 16th.

As for alignment, I don't have a problem with them being elements in a game. Certainly continuing the trend of L/C - G/E axis is something I'd like to see, but it's the forcing of this forced behavior that I really don't think adds to the game, especially when it's often used as a cudgel to enforce Catch-22 scenarios or simply make it all the more difficult on a party of varying people's ethos. For example, if I paladin were to say he's going to torture a captured demon with holy water and religious relics to obtain information, I'd probably say "OK". I believe that such creature is the embodiment of evil and immortal, thus no quarter or mercy is applicable. Some DM's would out-right rule that as a violation of a Paladin's code. Who's right? Who's wrong?

This is why I don't think hard-lined alignment mechanics really do much for the betterment of the gaming system. If a DM feels really strongly about such aspect, make them put them in the game, thus holding strong to their convictions, don't let them justify their decisions because they point to the rule book and say "well it IS the rules *shrugs*".

You do know that Wish and Miracle etc are not only expensive to cast, but the GM is encouraged to mess with whatever the PC asks for, right? It's like that movie Wishmaster. Those superpowered spells are a last resort, and a trap for munchkins/powergamers/"optimizers".

At the point they can cast these spells, the assumed WBL is so astronomical that the cost is negligible for the most part. And I never really got the whole "Gotcha" aspect DMs did with these spells? Like, it's just not really what I like doing to my players.

Diffan wrote:

5. Stop Meta-magic stacking

6. Wizards pick 1 school, cast all spells outside that school at 1/2 CL.

I'm strongly in disagreement here. The way to address CMD is to make martials more awesome, not to nerf casters. (People who object to martials being too unrealistic/anime can always play E6 in a system that makes martials awesome at higher levels.)

While I'm not in total disagreement here, HOW do you achieve that? 4e did a great job but people didn't like that approach. The only other way is to give Fighters amazing deadly or imposing critical hit effects and increase how often they trigger. For example DCC does this and on a crit you could make someone deaf permanently or limb loss or decapitate people at later levels. Unless people are willing to accept amazing effects of a weapon-user the CMD will always be a thing where Martialss will never compete with the likes of Wish or Miracle or Gate.

Diffan wrote:

8. Remove hard-lined alignment requirements. Make DMs own up to their convictions and force it themselves.

Oh heck no. The last thing you want involved in alignment is the DM's own convictions.

Something along the lines of "Here are some common issues that come up with alignment. For game purposes, A, B and C are defined as Good, X, Y and Z are defined as Evil, 1, 2 and 3 are defined as Lawful and 7, 8 and 9 are defined as Chaotic. Good, Evil, Lawful and Chaotic are game-specific technical terms, their purpose is to be consistent and coherent and allow for quick judgements to keep a game moving. Any resemblance to any real-world morality, living or dead, is entirely accidental. Also, Paladins can only ever be Exalted Good, So There."[/I]

Alignment requirements and mechanisms are mostly an old-guard notion that really needs to die in a burning fire. Either everyone gets one or no one gets them. LG only paladins are largely dead (thankfully) and if a DM wants to really keep them then make him the one that enforces it. There's literally zero balancing reason they exist anymore.

Diffan wrote:

313. Stop excessive number scaling for the sake of scaling. It basically has no meaning after a certain level.

The bigger your numbers, the more granularity you have, and this strikes me as a plus. I want to see lvl 20 Fighters with effective Str of 40 once all the relevant buffs are counted.

If I wanted superheroes I'd play a superhero game. By the late portions of 3e/PF (and to a similar extent - 4E) PCs started looking like God's. Yeah no thanks. I don't want 3/4 of the Monster Manual / Beastiary completely useless because the PCs aren't challenged by them. It just forces the video-game mentality further.

Diffan wrote:

14. Ability modifiers dont give you extra spells.

Why not ?

Why do casters need 8 spells of each level from basically 1st thru 5th to feel relevant? At a certain point (limited spells and resource management) is a sham of any argument and pointless. It becomes wildly unbalanced as all their spells level AND they get more of them they'd probably ever cast in a single day.

Diffan wrote:

17. Limit multiclassing. Honestly the GURPS-style of plug-in-play class/feature PF espouses is really annoying.

18. Remove prestige classes, treat them as extensions of the main character - sort of like a template.

I'm strongly in agreement here. GURPS is a great game if you want to play GURPS, but what I want from PF or any other D&D-type game is well-defined classes with a distinct feel to them as they progress from newbie to legend.

I'd go so far as; no multi-classing. No prestige classes. No archetypes. Give me forty well-tested base classes with solid progressions that fit forty worthwhile character concepts, or fifty, or seventy, rather than hundreds of feats and skills and whatnot where it is not humanly possible to test all possible interactions for trap options or game breakers.

(Also, I would like something front and centre that says "Here are the basic axioms about how the game and the game world work. Any combination of interactions between game rules that causes these axioms to break is automatically not valid.")

Less feats that do more is certainly something I'd like to see (a la 5e) and the same goes for Skills (as per my paird down list) and overall less granular minute of options. The whole concept of Exclusion Mechanics (practically what 3e is based on) is dumb. If you wanna trip someone just try. No half-dozen caveats with "fixer" feats to not suck as described action that is the whole Improved [insert CMB trick here] feat.

How about starting here for a base of what people are looking for?

Well when theres nothing really there to begin with, I think its a good base lol. Id honestly take anything that helps facilitates that sort of Character concept better.

We should take a look at some of these and see why they aren't well known or brought up more often.

Diffan wrote:

· Goad (complete adventurer)

Goad from 3.5 had a Charisma pre-req which necessitates a certain build of a tanking character. There are big and obvious trade offs for building a character in this way. This is a time where each ability point is a lot more important than it is in the playtest right now (where we're seeing a lot higher stats thanks to the ability boosts). If a player showed me a "tanking fighter" that focused on Charisma (of which the DC was based on), then it's an interesting choice and build. But, not optimal. Sub-par for sure.

I dont see why a specific Charisma score is required to get the feat but I dont have objections to using Charisma in this fashion.

Diffan wrote:

· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)

· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)

I don't think it's fair to include 4e content in this list as the game was much more focused around grid movement and battle mechanics. I know that I don't speak for everyone, but this isn't any direction I would like the game to go in. The end result is that Pathfinder and 4e are apples and oranges and comparing their mechanics doesn't really apply here.

1. The knight is from 3.5 with the use of his Knightly Challenge feature (test of Mettle at 4th level). It requires a caveat to CR, language, and specific Int scores of the target. It's one of the classes better features.

2. I added in 4e exploits because its important to show the concept isn't alien to TTRPGs or D&D specifically. The fact that 4e uses squares (as opposed to feet) is a non-sequitur as is the notion that somehow 4e is more combat focused than PF (it isn't at all, BTW). The ability to draw fire is certainly a tactic many class-based RPGs use in some capacity.

Diffan wrote:

· Antagonize (PFsrd)

This is actually what I thought more people would bring up. PF1e had an easily accessible "taunt" mechanic that no one ever used. Why? The action economy for it was terrible. You use your singular standard action to get one enemy to attack you on your next turn. It's a trap feat in PF1e. To make that equivalent, would you accept a 3 action use taunt in the playtest? I feel like I most would decry that as a trap feat.

We can't simply fix that? Make it require less actions to use? I dont see that as a problem per-se.

Diffan wrote:

· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)

This is a good example of a "taunt" mechanic that I would love to see. It debuffs the opponent with the shaken mechanic until they succeed at an attack on the barbarian. It's not forcing any action and it's making your choices impactful for your team. Yes, this 100% all the way.

It certainly a step in the right direction, I'll grant you that.

Secondly, run it where the enemies have the access to taunt and see how your players feel after encountering. Once more, I feel like taking away player autonomy is going to feel, at the end of the day, not fun. It introduces a challenge, yes, but overcoming it doesn't feel like a victory so much as it does, "Oh, good, that annoying obstacle is gone."

Unless you're suggesting that we also get rid of spells, such as Command, fear, sleep, confusion, or most spells of the Enchantment school then I don't think "player agency" is really that much of an problem. Heck at least with a taunt you're not losing your actions at all unlike many spells where's it's you stand there babbling like an idiot or drop everything and walk stupidity towards the guy commanding you.

I dislike very much the free pass magic always gets simply because it's magic yet Martials have an ability that's not as reliable, usually has caveats, and functions in a limited factor but its considered "broken".

· Goad (complete adventurer)
· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)
· Antagonize (PFsrd)
· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)
· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)

And the list goes on...

Taunts, goading, pulling Aggro, and other distracting or creative non-magical devices have had places in D&D/PF for many many years so lets stop pretending that the notion is crazy or doesnt have precedent in TTRPGs

Once again, Sentinel and the Guardian sphere. If you're wearing a tin can and have a massive pool of hp to boot, most remotely intelligent enemies will ignore you in favor of that squishier-looking person in back casting spells and not wearing armor. But then you challenge them and even give them a bonus to hitting you, while if they try attacking anyone else, they take a penalty to attack and trigger an attack of opportunity from you. Suddenly, ignoring the tin can doesn't seem like as smart of a decision.

It may not be aggro in the sense of forcing enemies to attack you, but you're still forcing them to think about whether it's worth it to ignore you.

Or practically every defender-role character in 4th Edition. There was an article written long ago called "why fighter the Fighter?" and went on to list the dozens of reasons why vanilla flavored Fighters in 3e/3.5 (article was written pre-PF) were never engaged with until all the other squishes were dead or dropped.

Unless you were a chain-tripper or some other AoE-style warrior with tricked out Strength and size buffs (Certain items, enlarge person, Jotunbrud feat, etc) then people were running right past your slow butt to hit the allies. They'd suffer a one-shot AoO and continue on and you'd have to huff and puff to get back to your allies for that one attack standard action.

As for the Fighter itself - I think they're missing the mark in just how versatile the class should be in terms of handling of his tools (ie. weapons and armor). Just as an example - the shield. Every major warring culture in our known history has used a shield at some point. Every one of them knew a shield was a weapon. There is no arguing about it, it's fact. Unfortunately RPGs think this isn't so and PF2e isn't any different because they list it as an Improvised Weapon (history says otherwise).

Or how about the penalties to speed in heavy armor despite numerous examples of the weight being evenly distributed and not really hampering maneuverability OR speed yet here we are again, thinking your classic armored knight walked like a stiff-legged Tin-Man without his oil-can.

Oh where to begin...

1. Remove iterative attack penalties
2. Allow all attacks on a standard action, full-attack action adds one additional attack.
3. Reduce the Skills to 17
4. Give Martials more skill points
5. Stop Meta-magic stacking
6. Wizards pick 1 school, cast all spells outside that school at 1/2 CL.
7. Special Mounts are a spell, not class feature for Paladins.
8. Remove hard-lined alignment requirements. Make DMs own up to their convictions and force it themselves.
9. Cut down on the types of modifiers. More than 10 is ridiculous.
10. Make it easier to perform combat maneuvers.
11. Couple Feats together, make them bigger and actually worth their investment.
12. Remove most Stat requirements for Feats.
13. Stop excessive number scaling for the sake of scaling. It basically has no meaning after a certain level.
14. Ability modifiers dont give you extra spells.
15. Less higher level spell slots (1 or 2 less at 9th level)
16. Dex to damage with specific weapons.
17. Limit multiclassing. Honestly the GURPS-style of plug-in-play class/feature PF espouses is really annoying.
18. Remove prestige classes, treat them as extensions of the main character - sort of like a template.
19. Add in non-magical healing
20. 5-ft. step causes an AoO if it leaves a threatened area into a non-threatened area.

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Branch off these with Archetypes:
Fighter/Cleric = Crusader
Cleric of Nature = Druid
Wizard/Rogue = Bard
Fighter with emphasis on hand-to-hand combat = Monk
Wizard that foregoes traditional training = Sorcerer
Fighter/Rogue with emphasis on foraging, tracking, and camouflages = Ranger
Fighter with irresistible surges of wrath and fury = Berserker.

Done.

Igwilly wrote:

The Paladin, as any other class, has changed with time. However, they still are the Paladin. Just as the Wizard still is the Wizard, and the Fighter, and...

"Opening" up the Paladin to other alignments is not "changing" the class, is destroying it by changing their fundamental nature.
A fighter still fights. A wizard still casts arcane spells. Therefore, paladins should still be paladins, even if their abilities change over time.

And this article proposes a terrific approach to the paladin! Paladin fans have much to celebrate!
If you don't like the class, play another ;)

Doesn't work that way.

Part of the appeal of the type of hero the Paladin represents is the exclusivity.

If you open it up, you destroy that exclusivity, and you destroy the class.

So yes. You being able to play an CG Paladin of Milani damages the LG Paladin, because for us it isn't about what we can play. It is about the class's place in the world. You have to understand that.

Then that should be up to the DM to distinguish. If the exclusivity is important, the DM should then have the conviction to implement that on the game/setting/campaign. That's their job anyhow. Why does a designer in Seattle get to dictate what my Paladin does in Pittsburgh??

All of those words are perfectly appropriate to an archetype or prestige class type mechanic - not a base/core/whatever common 'class' as presented as the fundamental building blocks of YOUR character in the core rulebook. What they are doing here is saying that you can make a fighter yours, and make a rogue yours, and a cleric yours - but Paladin? No - you have to play Gygax's paladin.

Gygax's Paladin was actually a sub-path / archetype of the Fighter anyways. With more limitations and unique characteristics than what this and 3e shadows essentially turned out to be

HWalsh wrote:

The Paladin is unique. It isn't "just a class" like many others. It is special. Singular. Unique.

Then it probably doesn't belong with the other classes.

I'd say anything that wasn't Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard is actually unique. The big 4 is the primary basis for all others and they need niché specialities to make them viable concepts.

Diffan wrote:

Nox Aeterna wrote:

Pathfinder wasnt based on everything ever was, even more the core book. It was based on 3.5.

Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.

And so they are in PF1? As far as im aware we dont know if they also wont be in PF2.

Or did they already list this for said classes?

If were going to be toted the "tradition" line then they absolutely should be. Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin all had alignment restrictions in PF1. It would make sense to maintain consistency

Ultimately it doesnt matter what other editions are rooted on what, PF literally thrived over 4th edt, which is also D&D. The idea wasnt to make a game about everything D&D ever made, it was made to be made out of 3.5, again even more in core.

The idea is tradition. PF1 is simply a houseruled 3.5 system. 3.5 grabbed ideas from previous editions. The traditions of the Paladin are deep and very setting thematic. A LOT of that was lost in 3e (mainly because the class lost a lot of steam mechanically compared to the Fighter).

So if were keeping tradition, why are we also throwing away very strong thematic aspects that made the Paladin special?

Diffan wrote:

Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.

You can take or leave the "Any Neutral," but for the love of Brigh, remove the restriction on metal armour!

It seems as the designers really want to maintain a consistent image of what thematic elements a class exhibits and for the Druid, a fur-clad savage with primitive weapons and armor is the clear definition here. Im sure some waxing poetic about metal and wild-shape will crop up as the reason.

Remember, "its tradition"

Pathfinder wasnt based on everything ever was, even more the core book. It was based on 3.5.

Which had a lot of roots in previous editions and their traditions. Still, is the Barbarian being saddled with an alignment restriction? The Druid or Monk or Bard? All classes in 3.5 that were alignment restricted.

Diffan wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there all,

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

Then I guess we can also expect Barbarians to be non-Lawful, Druids to be any Neutral, Bards to be any non-lawful, Monks to be any-Lawful, Rangers to be any-good, etc?

What about it's roots in being Human only, or tithes, or having specific ability score requirements? Or only having a specific number of magical items?

These are just as significant in their legacy as the Lawful Good requirement or don't these count?

Honest Question.

Those aren't really a part of the paladins identity as a holy warrior dedicated to a cause of good and order. The restrictions of yesteryear are just the adornments surrounding that core identity.

me last year wrote:

..as I understand it...they were based off of a (primarily Victorian) romanticised and idealised version of that, (the blood-drenched crusaders) where chivalry and courtesy was offered to all, even the basest of knaves and unbelievers.

I happen to like that mythology and purity of vision despite the history behind it. Aspiring to an ideal that never really existed appeals to me, I guess.

I respectfully disagree. Tithes to a church or charity make perfect sense to a class all about chivalry.

Being human-centric and having ability score requirements were designed to limit the number of this special class because they were supposed to be rare.

Having a limited amount of magical gear showcased just how the Paladin felt about personal wealth - which isn't a lot - and focused more on using the monetary assessts to help their fellow adventures.

Hey there all,

Now.. I know this is a playtest, and the point is to try out new things, but stripping that Paladin of this core piece of identity felt like changing what it was, making something else. I am fine with doing that through rules alterations and modifications, like archetypes, but it seems like we would lose something special if the class went away from its roots.

Then I guess we can also expect Barbarians to be non-Lawful, Druids to be any Neutral, Bards to be any non-lawful, Monks to be any-Lawful, Rangers to be any-good, etc?

What about it's roots in being Human only, or tithes, or having specific ability score requirements? Or only having a specific number of magical items?

These are just as significant in their legacy as the Lawful Good requirement or don't these count?

Honest Question.

If you stray from lawful good, perform acts anathema to your deity, or violate your code of conduct, you lose your Spell Point pool and righteous ally class feature

See, this always bugged me. If you don't act a certain way you become less, lose stuff, etc. I feel a Paladin fall should bring about a gradual change in abilities to reflect that. I mean look at your common "good guy goes bad" tropes - Anikan Skywalker didn't lose the abilities of a Jedi when he turned to the Sith or Arthas losing his abilities til after he gained Frostmourn, etc.

A Paladin falling should see a feature change, maybe his Lay on Hands hurt instead of heal, his spells can't fuel healing prayers but can be use for offensive powers, his righteous ally feature shifts, etc. I feel this better reflects the trope of falling from grace than just the faucet being turned off.

Just because you don't like them does not make them poor design choices.

I can't think of too many exclusion based mechanics that were ever really well received or didn't cause a slew of issues at the gaming table

So to change gears past alignment, what are the chances of paladins and Rangers getting access to 5th level spells? Was this ever discussed?

Diffan wrote:

'Meh' 5th Edition did a better job.

First and only time I have had this thought regarding a class too.

This just feels significantly watered down with only mastery of armor replacing a lot of iconic paladin things.

And the threat to bring rainbow alignment paladins in the game only reinforces that notion that we are getting the, as Wei Ji so elegantly put it, American Pilsner of Paladins.

We haven't see all of the changes but I liked how Smites were tied to spells and burning spells for smites is cool and not a separate thing.

As for rainbow of Paladins, 5e has zero "fail" policies and doesn't strictly enforce a specific alignment. Its all tied to the oath and if you start to "fall", you basically transition to an Oath Breaker.

Also there have been Paladins of different alignments since 1e so..yeah. Not to mention that originally the alignment was design to curb some of their power since they were Fighter+ extra stuff. Now though, its outdated and archaic with no significant purpose but nostalgia.

'Meh' 5th Edition did a better job.

Diffan wrote:

I'd be all for Critial Fumbles if Criti Hits were better. If they were to look at a game like Dungeon Crawl Classics, classes get crit severity based on level and the effects get worse the higher you are. Its pretty awesome.

That could maybe work, a fighter might deal triple weapon damage on a critical at 7th level, and quadruple damage at 15th or something.

Its not just extra damage though. For example only the Warrior (DCC version of The Fighter class) gets access to Crit table V. Things on this table include cutting an opponent's scalp, dealing an extra +2d12 damage and blinding the target until healed or a blow destroys the opponents ear, dealing an extra 1d12 damage and he suffers permanent deafness.

What the hell is a "grey Paladin"?

And neither 4/5e Paladins were weak. Heck the Paladin of Freedom in UA was pretty cool and had some good spells and features.

The Paladins of other alignments in Dragon had some cool concepts too but I'm too lazy to go dig it up to have a side-by-side mechanics comparison right now

I'd be all for Critial Fumbles if Criti Hits were better. If they were to look at a game like Dungeon Crawl Classics, classes get crit severity based on level and the effects get worse the higher you are. Its pretty awesome.

Plethora of Paladins....
Anti-Paladin...
Paladins of different alignments from Dragon magazine and Unearthed Arcana...
The entire 4E game...
The entire 5E game...

All of them have Paladins that aren't forced LG and do/did just fine from both a mechanic and lore-based stand point.

ryric wrote:

Stuff that may be 4e-like but I'm still unsure about:

NPC/monster building uses different rules than PCs

That's how every edition of D&D has worked except for 3e. They even managed to restrain themselves from going that way with 5e, where nearly all the other times the 3e mechanics clashed with traditional D&D they went the 3e way.

I dunno, there's quite a bit of departure such as the removal of different attacks for classes (THACO & BAB) and alignment requirement for classes. They did go 3e's multiclass route though, which I'm rather 'meh' about. And the saves are pretty unique to themselves

4E was terrible. I don't know anyone who liked it. I never played it because I read the rulebooks and they were a huge turnoff. I sat thru some of other people's 4E games and it sounded terrible. Those people quit playing it after a short time because they thought it was terrible.

Pathfinder 2E sounds the opposite of terrible. I'm excited about it.

While I don't know you personally, I enjoy 4E, as do the people in our group. I can't comment on how others play but for the majority of our sessions 4E is done pretty much the same way our 3.5 and PF and 5E games go. There are differences but the game usually takes the same time, though low level 5e is quicker.

For example, using the at-will spell Scorching Burst to melt the ice covering a door or using the Cleave exploit to cut through wooden pillars supporting enemy archers or Sacred Flame prayer to light up a hallway. All of these are "attacks" but used in utility-based ways. I had a Ranger player use Twin Strike to shhot the candles out so it would be easier to sneak down the hallway or Ray of Frost to freeze a small area of water to cross over.

I dunno, maybe we do things differently? We have a blast with 4E (as well as other systems too) and a lot of that comes from the more freeing feeling that system gives us than previous ones.

I found it to be a reasonably enjoyable tactical game, as open to roleplaying as many other RPG options, but not very "D&D like."

I'd say that's an accurate portrayal. While I do see D&D-isms in there, they're not consistent with previous editions. Personally I thought it was a good thing, but I also know that's an outlier opinion.

So far what we've seen of PF2e doesn't have too much of a "4e vibe" for me - about the only 4e-ism I see that I don't like are the free +level to all skills.

Agreed. I'd like to see a more concrete product before judging it fully. I wasn't a fan of the Fighter preview or All About Actions but the Cleric and Rogue ones were intriguing. And mostly not like 4E.

What I don't see and I'm happy not to:

A complete lack of "noncombat" class abilities
Classes not getting anything permanent/distinctive past level 1(i.e. class abilities outside the AEDU structure)
Removal of traditional options like gnomes and druids
All spells turned into damage or healing with minor riders
"Noncombat" spells not usable in combat
Minion enemies that work on their own ruleset

You played 4E a handful of times, so I can only assume you had just the PHB to work with. I assure you, as the game progressed, all of what you stated (aside from Minion rules) is there in 4E.

Stuff that may be 4e-like but I'm still unsure about:
NPC/monster building uses different rules than PCs
Damage being weak compared to enemy hp

I've read a bunch of conflicting things about the last two so I'm reserving judgment for now.

I can only hope Monster math and building is different than PC. Its one of th3 single biggest offenders of making classes compete against one another. Not to mention really dumb rules and requirements on monsters that are just going to often die anyways. Plus the metagaming...oh dear the metagaming.

"The enemy wizard shoots 2 bolts of magic missiles."

Player: "Oh so he's only 4th level tops. He doesn't even have access to 3rd level spells yet!"

SteelGuts wrote:

4e was a boardgame, not a role playing game.

Preach it! (wow, it's like 2009 again!)

If only they actually played it......*sigh*

I'm liking a lot of stuff here. Glad to see that Ability score modifiers won't add to oodles of bonus spells. It does make playing a cleric focusing on Strength more appealing.

I also like how Turn Undead is a feat now that just does more cool stuff with channeling. Hopefully there's no more dumb table with 3 different things to track.

How about making Spears the amazing weapon they have proven to have been throughout history.

As for the statement it was removed in errata: never saw that errata (although my group did stop reviewing it sometime around either Psionic Power/Martial Power 2). But your houserule or later errata doesn't mean it wasn't part of the rules for 4th ed.

"In the Daily entry of this section, delete

all material after the first sentence. This change makes the text consistent with the new rules for magic items."

It was apart of it originally, but removed because it was a bad idea.

PCScipio wrote:

I played 4e Living Forgotten Realms up to 21st lvl, and I don't recall any encounter lasting longer than 2 hours. Meanwhile, I've been in a Pathfinder encounter that lasted ~10 hours over three gaming sessions.

I don't believe that.

Believe it. I still play 4E and most of our encounters (in paragon tier) are handled in under an hour. Better math from the Monster Manual 3 on, knowing how to play the game, cooperation with other players in terms of combinations that work well, and well designed encounters make for a fun - and fast - pased game compared to some of our mid-level 3.5 and PF games.

Due to the nature of RPGs, any critical failure system will effect PCs (who make more attack rolls than NPCs) far more than they will any individual NPC. This makes players feel incompetent and makes the game less fun.

So...no, this is not a good idea and in no way necessary to make the system work.

Well said. Crit fails always seem to effect martial characters far more than spellcasters and I can't see that as a good thing

Diffan wrote:

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

Mark Seifter has already confirmed that healing is available via non-class-related options.

Cool, I didn't see that. I'm wondering if that's a Feat or other Skill option that allows you to delve further. I find that very refreshing.

Diffan wrote:

· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.

Everyone can take three attacks a round in P2e if they choose, whether they're martial or not. "Swimming across an ocean" has been mentioned as something possible for Legendary characters to do, but that's skill-related, not specific to martial classes. I believe "splitting a mountain with a sword" has also been offered as something a high-level martial could potentially do in the system. There's a fighter-only ability to leap 20-30 feet into the air and smash flying foes to the ground.

Just because you can do it (hells, Wizards and PF1 could make two attacks as a full-round action) doesn't mean it can be done well or with a decent chance to hit. For example, a 4E Wizard could take Melee Training and use Intelligence for their Basic Melee Attacks, so they'd add +1/2 level + Int. mod + any other feat / weapon enhancement buffs to strike a foe. It's not going to do as much damage as a Fighter or Rogue or have the impact of a weapon-based spell of a Cleric but he still has a pretty good chance of hitting the monsters AC.

We haven't seen the numbers yet, so I'm hoping that this is similar to PF2. It'd be nice to see a wizard pull out the staff and knock some goblin heads without feeling like any attempt is a near improbably task.

Diffan wrote:

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?

There hasn't been a spellcasting preview yet, so we don't know yet. :)

I am curious how they're going to do Cantrips. If they'll remain their old (nifty yet hardly game breaking) effects of PF1 OR if they'll start to get beefed up like some of the X/day features they got instead?

So what do you think? Do you think there is a chance that PF2 is the spiritual successor to D&D 4th Edition that 4e fans have been waiting for?

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?

Crayon wrote:

I dropped 4E pretty quickly, but I believe most complaints of HP Bloat were directed at monsters.

Yeah the problem was the enemies had massive hit point totals and did pretty pathetic damage. So combats took ages but the party was never in any real danger.

The fixes generally involved leaving PC hp unchanged and halving monster hp whilst multiplying their damage (or similar).

Pretty much. By the Monster Manual 3 and beyond, they fixed HP/damage ratio to make encounters more challenging. After a couple of sessions of 4E, it was a house rule change we made that made 4E work better with faster combats.

You see, if you get fired instead of quitting they gotta give you your settlement pay for years of service, a fact that Mammon's church is no doubt aware of...

I posted about this before but Protection from X is now Protection, and it gives a non-conditional +1 status bonus to AC and all saves. You can upcast it to 3rd level to scotch-tape your own Circle of Protection, too, which is an incredible defensive boon to any party with a Cleric.
And unlike Bless, you get to select the target of the emanation as well. It doesn't obsolete Heroism or anything, but I'd be hard-pressed to use it over the killer combo that is Bless + Level 3 Protection, provided you have at least one round to get ready for combat (or have other party members with Bless).

A few scattered thoughts, but applying the clarified rules without making hard fights more lethal would definitely involve some getting used to from the players at the table, which could be tricky in ongoing campaigns where things like builds, party synergies, and access to competent healing might be set in stone and thus hard to change.

It feels like with how dangerous getting up after going down can be, the game effectively incentivizes characters that can operate at near-full effectiveness while at range, to the detriment of melee-oriented characters (including most Barbarians and all those who dumped DEX). Having powerful, consistent ways to mess with enemies' actions is more important now, conversely.

By the way, how do you guys feel about fast healing now? Some sources of it, like Witch's Life Boost, scale well enough to still be useful, especially since they help you avoid dropping to 0 in the first place. But some other things like mutagens could turn you into a liability if they heal you up from the floor, again, unless you have access to strong in-combat healing.
It goes back to what some people were arguing for at the start, that it might become tactically sounder to just let your dying ally stabilize on their own while you try to close the fight - if you spend your turn trying to heal them and then they have to spend theirs getting away from the danger (and the action!), then neither of you used your actions to help stabilize the fight or tip the scales in your favor. I can't help but think this has the potential to run counter to the way the game is set to be played, with a heavy emphasis on teamwork and party coordination.

Those are the impressions I've gotten so far after one session at level 7, at least...

Yeah, that's why I mention it might not be OP's cup of tea. Impossible to tell without specifics, so I just threw 'em there.

Apart from Champion and Fighter, there's also the Sentinel archetype; it's a pretty affordable way of getting both a better armor proficiency (the dedication itself) and its armor specialization effect via the Armor Specialist feat at 6th level, which is one level earlier than even Champ. It works out well for both martials and casters if you plan around it, and if you're getting Sentinel to nab heavy armor then there's also Mighty Bulwark, which kicks ass.

Lightning swap could have been a good candidate for a General Feat. It eould benefit a lot of classes and playstyles.

It feels the remaster was super rushed and some basic things or considerations were just missed.

This is just me, but I feel the same way about Blade Break as a skill feat. Then we could at least pretend to have a STR based analogue of Kip Up to help against being shoved.

But that's not what I dislike about the remaster: I think the Powerful Shove changes are completely arbitrary. Seeing part of the benefit restricted to either clubs or polearms got my hopes up that we'd get a bunch of new weapon-group specific feats, but no, they just decided to make that one feat less usable by certain characters to sprinkle some unneeded realism onto it.
It's a minor thing, but it sticks out like a sore thumb when no other feats besides the reworked Dragging Strike) work like that.

They fixed Additional Lore too, now you can take it for a Lore skill you already had, like those granted by backgrounds. Nice.

Did you guys see the Bless and Protection from X changes? The emanation on Bless starts out bigger now, and Protection now simply grants the target a non-conditional bonus to AC amd saves (!) - it can also be upcast to 3rd level, granting the same benefits in a 10 foot emanation around the target (!!!). You can replicate a better Heroism (+1 to attacks, AC and all saves) now for your whole party with just a third level and a first level spell!

All in all, Clerics are starting to look like the big winners here, at least from what has been shown.

More classes should be simple and not have the predefined paths. One of the biggest issues with other classes is exactly that: They are super complicated with very stricts paths, but then no real support compared to what the Fighter/Monk get.

I completely agree here, it's staggering how many good feats Fighter gets compared to some other classes. Anecdotical, but I'm playing one in a game right now and the other day I told one of my friends, a Magus, that there were around 5-7 level 10 feats I'd consider good to amazing picks for my character. He told me that for his, he had basically 2 choices that did anything. Not feats tha he was particularly eager to take like I was, mind you, just 2 that he could reasonably choose from because of his character, subclasses and other restrictions.

I'm thinking it just might be a particularly uneventful level for Magus whereas Fighter has a whole lot of things to sallivate over at 10, but a lot of thought was put into Fighter feats and it shows. I'd like to see the same extended to other classes, eventually.

This kind of build is rarely or never the comparison point against other classes, or part of the analysis of why the fighter is strong, which tends to focus on a damage potential that's marginally better than other classes.

I love the variety of character types that the feat spread offers. Many big brawly guys, some noble fencers, some scrappy shield soldiers. The blank slate is great.

Honestly I think the feats are stronger than the +2 (though they work off each other).

Anyway, good class. Those are my notes.

Au contrairie, I think that kind of character is incredibly powerful! My experience has been similar to that, although we're only level 6 so far and I favor double-hander swords instead. I've been meaning to play an Intimidation build centered on shredding enemy AC since the playtest, and I'm extremely happy with how the game delivers on that front. Thing is, it's just one way to do it, you can more or less mix and match whatever feats you want and you still end up with a good, cohesive whole.

Man, I wanna play some more now. Saturdays can never come soon enough.

Faemeister wrote:

That's where I believe a considerable part of their class identity lies besides simply being the best at hitting things: feat selection and customization.

If a fighter's identiy is "having none", I don't call this an improvement...

I think this may be an issue of perspective. You say it has none, when the class is purposefully designed as a blank slate so you can do whatever you want with it.

What's the fighter's equivalent of a barbarian's rage, a monk's ki powers, a magus's spell, a ranger's edge, a rogue's sneak attack and rackets, a gunslinger's way, a swashbuckler's style or a champion's cause?

I think that's a bit reductionist. Why would every class one specific action they need to use at least once every combat to define its mechanical niche? More to the point and if you're arguing mechanics, is access to Attack of Opportunity since level 1 not flavorful enough? You could level the same complaint to Monks despite Stances being a shared thing between them and Fighters. What about actions with the Press trait? Almost anyone can poach something like Combat Grab from dedications, but the Fighter is still gonna be best at it on account of the "must be under MAP" rule taking their higher accuracy into consideration.

pixierose wrote:

I think the fighters power is a bit exaggerated. Most other martials get riders to damage of some kind that make their attacks hit harder, fighters lack that in exchange for the accuracy, an accuracy that is still affected by the dice rolls.

White room testing has its value but so does actual play, and from personal experience I've had combats or whole sessions where the fighters accuracy boost did not save it from bad rolls. This is a major outlier, but I do recall the time my level 5 fighter wiffed their entire turn and their friendly neighborhood paladin crit 3 times in a row.
The developers also feel as if fighters are qoeking as intended.

Are you really going to sit here and use an anecdote to excuse the disgusting mess that is an Improve Knockdown Fighter? Show me any single action in the game as efficient as a Fighter knocking a boss flat on their back while dealing damage.

You're not asking for something particularly hard and I know Fighter feats well, so I'll level here.

There are cases where a monster might be better off biting the bullet and staying prone, taking that -2 to attacks in order to not lose an important action. This could be a legitimate consideration if they're already flat-footed from a different effect (like the sword specialization effect, which contrary to popular belief isn't always strictly inferior to that of flails and hammers), or if your party is loaded with reactions that trigger on movement. Both of these instances are perfectly fine with me, as they incentivize (and reward) teamwork.
Debilitating Shot has none of these things to consider, you can just fire and forget. If they end up prone by other means then it's incredibly easy to disengage away from the monster's attack range, effectively neutering two actions and making them unable to do anything meaningful with their last remaining one.

Of course, fixating on the numbers only tells you none of this; playing the game does as it was pointed out by others, in the sense that it helps put all these considerations into perspective.

If you think Fighters are OP but bring up Improved Knockdown instead of Debilitating Shot (which I do think is pretty stupid power-wise, but also a rare outlier), then... well, it doesn't necessarily dismantle your argument that Fighters are overpowered. But it does take serious credence away from these bold, heavy-handed claims you're making.

And this is just one feat, from the same class, at the same level range! I could go on and bring up Wolf Drag, which can be gotten 4 levels earlier, gives your attack Fatal d12, is not a Flourish and gives you a benefit on top of the prerequisite feat (a Stance), rather than replacing the prerequisite outright like Improved Knockdown does, meaning that in practice you get one feat less compared to the Wolf Drag user. So pretty much strictly superior in almost every way, as I'd be hard-pressed to think a simple +2 in Fighter's favor is worth all of that and more.
Admittedly, I don't know the feat lists of other classes very well so there may be other things that give Improved Knockdown a run for its money, but hopefully this illustrates that it's not the be-all end-all god feat some claim it to be.

You know, a lot is being said about the Monk's class identity boiling down to " being the best at Unarmed combat" and I'm just not seeing it. Maybe in a game like Final Fantasy I where character classes govern mostly static stuff like HP or access to weapons and armor, but that was like 35 years ago and PF2e has better ways to differentiate between classes.

Following this same logic, you'd need to give the Monk Legendary in all weapons you can wield with Monastic Weaponry too, since evidently Monk is meant to be better than everyone else at using monk weapons: it's faulty logic, and it completely sidesteps the fact that even if you're not hitting with that coveted +2 to attacks, you don't particularly need it either to establish yourself as a master of unarmed combat.

This is important, as there is a massive distinction between "making the most precise strikes with your chosen weapon", which is what the Fighter does, and the dozens upon dozens of exclusive class features and feats Monk gets that enable it to shine on its own. You know, the crazy acrobatics, the custom save progression, the harnessing and mastering of ki/chi/qi, stuff like Flurry of Maneuvers... you don't even need to go into all the mystical Wuxia s+#~ you can do if you just wanna play a Pugilist, either! What I'm trying to say is that "unarmed attacks" aren't the Monk's defining feature: what actually defines them, relative to other martial classes, is the whole slew of things they can do as a result of their physical and spiritual training.

Faemeister wrote:

I haven't been able to keep up with the announced changes, it's a bit hard with so many threads to sift through... Does anyone know if there's a compilation of what's been confirmed somewhere, or at least a link to what was revealed at Paizocon?

I don't know if there is a more comprehensive collection, but you should be able to find most of the stuff we know over here.

Wonderful, this is exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks!

I haven't been able to keep up with the announced changes, it's a bit hard with so many threads to sift through... Does anyone know if there's a compilation of what's been confirmed somewhere, or at least a link to what was revealed at Paizocon?

2e is quickly becoming my favorite system, alongside the Log Horizon TRPG. They share tons of the same modular design, and really, the combat in both both is simply a joy to play.

All the problems people have listed above get solved just by exercising a bit of prudence and restraint. Sudden Charge and then stride halfway between them and your party; they now have to waste one action getting back to you, potentially more if you invested in movement speed. Charge forward then stride to the side and now they have to choose between engaging your teammates or chasing after you.
Even past round 1, it's amazing if you need to reposition unless you have a better Flourish for the situation, because the extra Stride guarantees you'll be able to outmaneuver anything in close proximity. Weave between enemy ranks without having to deal with enemy reactions or hazardous terrain, go in deep to destroy high priority targets, use it to set up flanks for free, that kind of stuff.

It's incredibly versatile turn to turn, which makes it fun to boot.

Claxon wrote:

YuriP wrote:

First of all, I do not imagine or regard order and chaos with the same antagonism that good and evil have. So much so that in the mythology of the game and in the deities of Gods and Magic you rarely see a dispute of this type.

You may not view it that way, but in the lore of the cosmos of Golarion law and chaos hate one another as much as good and evil. Our cultural views make law and chaos not seem as big of deal, but it's usually because we conflate orderliness with good. Unless you throw out the word Freedom specifically (which is something associated with Chaos). But Western societies generally prefer orderliness to chaos and so we often turn law vs chaos into good vs evil.

To +1 what you're saying Claxon, there are actually entire series of novels that focus on the order/chaos metaphysical conflict. And yes, there is definitely a reductive order=good, chaos=evil vibe going on in Western civilizations.

I'm with you both here. Say what you will about alignment being outdated, I'm all about some good ol' cosmic struggle in the way of Moorcock's Elric books; that's how I've always understood the Law/Chaos axis in DnD since it was taken from the books directly.

This is a perfect opportunity to fix advanced weapon proficiency scaling for non-humans and non-Fighters, seconded!

It's a level 1 class feat, it's not supposed to replace your normal attack routine.

Yes, it's worse than two Strikes and yes, Exacting Strike mathematically trumps it damage-wise, so Power Attack is situational by design; that's the point, you use it against things with high AC or damage resistance. To say it's without its uses just because it's not a strict DPR increase is residual thinking from past editions.

Spoilers: something like Exacting Strike might give you more damage in a vacuum but it's still not gonna come up most of your turns (unless you're used to attacking thrice every turn, which is downright suicidal in the encounters you wanna be optimizing for). I don't think Power Attack needs adjusting.

The cool thing with things like gauntlets is that you can wear a single one and get to choose whether you want lethal or nonlethal depending on which hand you use. Or, hell, just using other body parts like your legs or your head for unarmed (nonlethal) attacks works too.

Supporting the above, you can get most of the way there with already-existing options regardless of what flavor you're going for. Personally, I think the Fighter has a great chassis for it assuming you're looking to make a blademaster with access to specialized weeaboo techniques, but tons of classes have minute choices like that to really let you dig into a theme. On the skill side I love the Intimidation feat tree for that same reason.

The Bola is an amazing addition for a number of characters, being able to trip at 20ft. range is remarkable for anyone that's invested into Athletics outside of *very* specialized builds (like Giant Instinct Barbarian or Fighter with Lunge, both wielding something like a Guisarme or using a Hooked rune), and even then those don't quite reach the same distance in most cases.

On the other hand, it would make Assurance (Athletics) even stronger in combat as the feat specifically states you don't apply penalties or bonuses to the check. This is something I feel I'll definitely see a lot in our game, since both our Wolf Stance Monk and my double-hander Fighter value the Trip maneuver immensely.