| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the next blog could be about Resonance?
Haven’t the Bards waited long enough?
... I am so confused by people who seem to be acting as if they're forced to play high level games when they seem to have issues with high level gameplay. Especially when it's so easy to avoid. Agreed. It’s what, level 15 to be able to reach the rank for the +3, then level 16 when you get the Skill Feat to put into Cat Fall or Legendary Medic? I’ve been playing with my group for like 8 years or so now, and the game normally falls apart way before then. I think that in all that time the only group to ever reach level 16 was during Rise of the Runelords during the last book. At that point I was actively encouraging the PCs demigod status! I want levels 16-20 to FEEL legendary. I’m planning to rebuilding RotR’s final fight in PF2’s system once the Playtest is out, and for my Players to rebuild their level 18-20 characters. I want the characters to FEEL legendary because in my Golarion, these characters ARE legends and household names now.
So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds... Fighter Vs. Paladin: Unstoppable Force meets Unmovable Object. Paladin Vs. Paladin: Metapod Vs. Metapod. The Hardening.
So to hit the Ranger (who's usually sniping in the back, away from the fray) the maximal Fighter would have to roll a 9. But to hit the Paladin it would have to be a 14. I like dem odds... But then again that ignores all the Legendary effects for everyone. Another benefit for the Paladin is that the Fighter can only crit if they roll a natural 20 to bypass beating their AC by 10 (5% Chance). While the Ranger can takes a crit on a 19 or 20 (10% Chance). The Paladin also has a shield which will potentially absorb an entire hit’s worth of damage if they are hit, meaning that they can more safely take any damage the fighter does land on them.
Imagine that, people don’t want martial characters to break physical laws in a world steeped in magic, where wizards and clerics can wave a hand and do the same thing. As a person whose favorite characters for decades have been clerics, I say Welcome to the martials! It’s time overdue.Well, then at least give me a good in-world explanation for it. Not this determination, and hard training nonsense. Just curious, but you wouldn’t happen to be an anime villain, would you?
Easiest solution: Everyone wears a cape! (I mean, in PF1, most people already did mechanically because of Cloaks of Resistance.)
Why would you make them fight each other? They’re in love! *points to the Redcaps reinacting the spaghetti scene from Lady and the Tramp, except the spagetti is soaked in blood* See, all Love is beautiful and precious to Shelyn in whatever form it may take, and- *Redcaps see my Holy Symbol of Shelyn and flee* WAIT NO COME BACK!!
Also there’s no “I Channel Positive Energy to harm undead” anymore from what I can tell. Now you just pick the target and it either heals them if living or harms them if undead (3 Action burst being an exception that doesn’t target). There is certainly an opportunity for a truly trollish moment of gameplay. Cleric: “I spend my 3 actions to Channel Positive Energy in a burst!”
DM: “As your friends are filled with the holy light of your diety, you see the Grim Reaper writhe back in pain!” Cleric: “That means he’s undead!” *back to Cleric’s turn* “Alright, now I’ll cast the 1 action version of Heal, adding another 2 actions to it with Empower Spell* and then use my Metamagic Channeler Feat to add Maximize Spell* to it!
DM: . . . *chooses to not count the Grim Reaper as undead* Players: . . . DM: . . . : ) (* indicates that the Metamagic Feat in question has not been confirmed to exist in PF2 and only is being used in this example for comedic purposes.)
Student of the CanonI want a 'Student of the Cannon' feat. ;) The Students of the Canon are at constant war with the Cult of the Headcanon. Just last week, the Students of the Canon had to embark on a journey through the ruins of The Great Shipping War just to stop the Cultists from performing the Ritual that would summon the dreaded “Highschool AU” onto Golarion! Just imagine if they had failed . . . “Seoni is running down the sidewalk with toast in her mouth. Dragon, her kawaii familiar, didn’t wake her up this morning and now she is late for her first day at Pathfinder Society High! She bumps into someone and falls onto the ground, her toast nowhere to be seen. Who did she bump into? It’s . . . Valeros-sempai!” . . . *shudders*
Arcana = knowledge regarding Arcane Spells, Monsters, and Rituals
Calling it now . . . Society = knowledge regarding Social Spells, Monsters, and Rituals! (Joking. But would be somewhat fitting for a Bard.)
I’m a bit confused about when we can increase our Skill Proficiencies. We normally gain skill ranks at each odd-numbered level (and also even-numbered levels for Rogues) and we can use ranks to improve our skill proficiencies. Is that correct? So a Rogue, who I’m assuming begins the game with Trained Stealth at least, can span Skill Ranks to increase their Stealth proficiency to Expert at 3rd Level, Master at 4th Level, and Legendary at 5th Level???
I’m kind of hoping that tomorrow’s blog won’t be Druids, just because we already learned so much information about them lately. I couldn’t imagine that a Druid blog would reveal much information at this point that isn’t just a recap. Still, it would be nice to have it all in one Blog and to see some more Druid Artwork. I’m personally hoping that we’ll see Rangers tomorrow. We already learned some stuff about Animal Companions. We learned some bits of information about TWF such a Double Slice and Archery such as the Volley Trait. We’ve even seen some Monster Statblocks for the sake of Favored Enemy! So now would be perfect opportunity for Harsk with all of his Dwarven perfection to show us what Rangers will be bringing to the table.
You need only 4 days if you’re not making the entire Sword from scratch. If you’re willing to pay the full price of the item, you’re likely just buying the individual parts of the sword and then spending those days to weld them together, sharpen the blade, etch the rune slots into it, and add personal finishing touches to the weapon.
Remember, unless you’re crafting the item for charity or whatnot, you would be selling the item for full price in PF2. The customer would pay you half of the cost for the item up-front for materials, then the other half once they have received their item. If they specify that they want that item quickly made, the customer would need to pay that extra fee. So let’s say that your customer wanted to purchase a 200 sp set of Expert Quality Scalemail. 100sp up front, then 100sp once the item is delivered that would be done in let’s say 2 weeks (14 Days). A 100sp profit for you. But your customer really wants that armor as soon as possible. Crafting that armor in 4 Days requires an additional 100sp worth of additional materials. So now the customer pays 200sp upfront, then another 100 sp once they have received the item. A 100sp profit for you. If, because you’re really really good at crafting, you can make the armor in 4 or less days without using all of that extra 100sp on extra materials, then you can pocket the leftover as extra profit. :D
They need those gills to harvest their precious Pearls of Powler from the sea floor.
This isn’t even sawdust! It is chewed pencil shavings at best! I’d threaten to strike for better sawdust but the last guy who did got replaced by a Goblin Alchemist and I need this job until the new silver currency rules come into effect so that my copper pieces might actually mean something . . . *goes back to drawing the in-between frames for your beach episode*
Please please please somebody tell me that we aren’t doing “+1 to four stats every 5 levels” instead of “+2s”. One of the things I’ve been most excited about is the removal of the awkward odd ability scores that don’t effect anything. Everything so far in terms of character creation, enfeebled and similar conditions giving a penalty to rolls, and monster statblocks has led me to believe that we would only be gaining even numbered boosts to ability scores, so that we could effectively translate every bonus as a +1 to the actual rolls. I’m the “DnD uncle” in my family and have been regularly introducing the kids to the game every year or so at the family reunion and they’re so excited to get that 4th Level Ability Increase in PF1. Then they turn their 18 into a 19, nothing changes, and there’s this palpable feeling of disappointment. The odd ability scores feel exactly like the sort of thing that’s stapled to Pathfinder’s Hip because of 3rd Edition compatibility. It would be so much simpler to explain stats to my players by just removing the actual ability scores and telling them their modifiers instead. And then “+2 to four Ability Scores every four levels” translates to “+1 to four ability modifiers every four levels”. I don’t want to attack the Core Math of the game too harshly, but does what comes to an effective difference of +2 to a roll at 20th Level really break the game enough to justify the existence of unsatisfying odd ability scores? Also whether or not it uses Starfinders “+2, only +1 if 18 or older” doesn’t change my stance on the subject. +1s in a system where bonuses are determined for every 2 points feels dissapointing. If my player increases their constitution by virtue of gaining experience and adventuring, then they’ll always want to see that bonus improve their character in some of way beyond “only 4-5 more levels to go before this bonus actually matters”.
@Fuzzypaws: That would be a solution. But at that point what's different between a stance and a domain power? We've got martials with spells that we pretend aren't spells. That would be even worse.Perhaps Stamina can be a smaller but quickly regenerating resource? As such a dedicated martial can hold a physically demanding stance for a period of time less arbitrary than "encounter length" can do this many encounters a day but can't walk around constantly tensed and ready to go. At that point it seems like you’re introducing an entire new subsystem into the game with its own ruleset to keep track of that offers no mechanical benefit other than avoiding a particular phrasing that you don’t care for. I’m concerned enough as it is that “Open” and “Press” traits making combos and the versatile “pick at the start of each day” are going to make fighters too complex for new players as it is.
I don’t exactly get the idea that only Composite Longbows should be a viable ranged weapon because Legolas used one. Like, what if I want to play a character with a ranged weapon who ISN’T Legolas? I mean, Hawkeye is cool and all, but if my player wants to build Bullseye using Throwing Daggers, then telling my player to just play Legolas instead isn’t going to be fun for the player. I mean, even Paizo thought that a Dwarf Ranger using a Heavy Crossbow would be a cool idea. It IS a cool idea. But it was just so mechanically underpowered that Pregen Harsk became a meme.
I’m a bit confused by this and would appreciative of some clarification. So I have this right, Universalist: Dispel Magic, Fireball, Haste + choice of Dispel Magic, Fireball, or Haste.
Unless I’m misreading this, it comes across that Universalists will be casting multiple uses of the same spell because how Arcane Bonds work, while Specialists are more suited to having a wider selection of spells prepared prepared. Because if they had chosen to prepare a 2nd Fireball, Universalists would have been the better choice. Doesn’t that seem kind of backwards? I’m concerned that Specialist players will feel like they’re forced to spread out their spells known more to maximize their niche, while Universalists will be more pressured to become One Trick Ponies.
In addition to traps, I would love for someone with a high enough proficiency in Nature to be able to "disarm" hazards, and for a high enough proficiency in Religion to be able to "disarm" haunts.Roll to disarm the erupting volcano? Calling it now. Legendary feat for Bluff. Road to El Dorado adventure!
The real question that this blog provokes, that somehow hasn’t been asked yet is: “If a Marilith devotes all of her actions to performing her “Spin2Win” for enough turns, can she gain a Fly Speed?”
This all looks amazing! The flat bonus damage to hitting a weakness reminds me of Monster Hunter in all of the best ways. I can’t wait to build a Ranger with two 2 Frost Short Swords and shred a Red Dragon into itty bitty chunks! :3
While it wouldn’t likely break the game, it’s just an extra bonus that pushes SAD classes an extra notch above MAD classes, which is what the new system appears to be addressing. There’s little reason why a Wizard WOULDN’T pick a 20 Intelligence for DCs over a 12 in Strength. It’s an pretty much a non-decision, which is also what the new design is trying to avoid. My opinion on the matter is that I think people just like the “feel” of a 20 in their main stat, regardless of how important the bonus will actually be. The new design doesn’t accommodate that option (yet. I’m sure we’ll see +4 “stat” Monstrous Ancestries in Ultimate Ancestries, or even the 1st Beastiary), so people are fixated on having the 1 option taking away, instead of the 10 or so new options available to them.
Pathfinder 2 Featuring Dante from Devil May Cry
Shnungeons and Schnagons! GoblinQuest Disparity: A Tale of Martials and Casters Findervania: Symphony of the Path. Murder Hobo Simulator 2018 Bravely Path: Where the Fairy Finders
After a week like this there needs to be the softest of softballs for the Friday blog. Like, just a picture of a kitten holding onto a branch that says, "Hang in there" underneath. Great idea! :D It’ll be the Falling Damage Blog.
Yeah, it kind of just feels like the same old Paladin and Alignmenf debates of PF1 to me.
The crowd needs something new to excite them. *takes center stage and addressss the audience* For where I ask you, is the creativity?
*cue Paizo to enter Stage Left*
Rings, amulets, belts, and the already stacked body/chest items all seem reasonable to stack.So how many belts will you allow? 2? 5? 20? 30? 50? So long as you impose a limit on how many items can be worn in any individual slot slots haven't been removed from the game, you've simply increased the number of items allowed per slot (on a slot to slot basis). I say that if you have enough resonance to attune 50 different belts, have the bulk to wear 50 different belts, has the Silver Pieces for 50 different magic belts, and can find 50 different magic belts with effects that don’t overlap to make the others redundant, then go for it. Yeah you may look silly, but who cares? You’re clearly proven yourself to be powerful enough to disregard the opinions of mere 1-belters. This is is how my Rogue who walked around with some 15+ Ioun Stones hovering around his head at all times felt about it.
Could someone please clarify this for me? Logically, the +1 to hit from an Expert Quality Dagger and the +1 to hit from a Potency Rune must stack. An Expert Quality Dagger gives the weapon a +1 to hit and has 1 slot to affix a Rune into. You need to have Expert Quality to have 1 Rune Slot (presumably 2 at Master, and 3 at Legendary). A Potency Rune gives the weapon a +1 to hit and 1 extra damage die. A Rune can only be affixed to a weapon that has at least 1 available slot. Therefore, an Expert Dagger with a Potency Rune gives the wielder +2 to hit and deals 2d4 Damage. If the bonuses overlap (so only +1 to-hit), then there is no reason to write down that the Potency rune gives a to-hit bonus. Assuming Master has 2 slots and Legendary has 3, you can’t exceed the Quality bonus from the weapon with potency runes. So a Master Quality Dagger with 0, 1, or 2 Potency Runes would still always give a +2 to hit. UNLESS! Master Quality gives 3 Rune Slots and Legendary Quality gives 5. Which would align neatly with PF1’s design where weapons could go to +5 and then have +5 worth of Weapon Qualities added.
You ate your spinach and mozzarella sandwich while wearing a white shirt, and ended up spilling pesto sauce all over it. You had to pull out the heavy duty cleaning supplies to get those stains out.
As is Light.Yes. Shield, Prestidigitation, and Tanglefoot are cantrips. Detect Magic as well.
... Comparing PF2’s Magic Missile to PF1 Spells isn’t the best way to go about this. We know from the blogs that Color Spray in particular has been reworked to retain its usefulness at higher because Paizo wanted lower level spells to not “fall off” later on. Color Spray will still be capable of inflicting a debuff, even on a successful Save. Much like how, Magic Missile will still be able to minor damage. Lower level spell slots being less effective at killing equal CR enemies isn’t bias against Blasters. It’s just how offensive spells have always worked. Only now, instead of the DC being what falls off, it is the base damage unless you invest into it. Again, Magic Missile is a bad example because it ignores the Critical mechanics. It doesn’t function like any other Blaster Spell, and doubles as a utility spell. If we’re talking about Blasting Spells, let’s discuss actual Blasting Spells like Shocking Grasp which deals double damage on a Critical Hit that doesn’t need to be confirmed. Which, because Casters have Full BAB, and the Spell Targets Touch AC, will probably happen more often. And that Fireball deals double damage on a critically failed Reflex Save. Why would it be bad if your Cantrips can scale to the point where they’re better than casting a 1st Level Spell Level in a first level Spell Slot? When you can simply prepare that spell in a Higher Level Spell Slot instead to make it more powerful?
Please forgive me if i’m misunderstanding something, but it comes across like your asking 1st Level Spell Slots to be just as Powerful as 3rd, 4th, or 5th Level Spell Slots. That’s a bit too far for my taste, and while I think Paizo could pull it off, I would prefer that blasting on that level require the caster to spend high level spell slots. Also I wasn’t saying that Skill Feats should be equal in power to Spellcasting. Just that Skill Feats will enable martials to contribute to solving problems outside of combat. We do know that the legendary stuff will be outrageous and dare I say . . . Mythic. But that’s like, Level 17+. By that point Casters will have Legendary Spellcasting.
I fully expect there to be Ranger and Fighter Feats that improve Two-Weapon Fighting in some way as you level up beyond just reducing the Attack Penalty. Even something as simple as, “If you crit an Enemy with a weapon in your primary hand, you may immediately Strike that Enemy again with a different weapon that is in another hand as a reaction.”We actually know for a fact that there's at least one Class Feat that is TWF related (Double Slice, which I believe has been mentioned as both a Fighter and Ranger Feat). What it does remains a complete mystery, though. Really? That’s awesome! :D Hopefully it does more than just remove the “Half Strength Bonus to offhand Weapon” Penalty (that my players always manage to forget when attacking, but are quick to suddenly remember once the enemy pulls out 2 shortswords . . .).
I too would like for Martials to be better in areas outside of combat and for “Blaster” Wizards and Sorcerers to be a bit more viable. I’m not trying to say “Fighters should only be good at dealing damage and Wizards should only be good for Utility”. The OP was discussing the idea of Martial characters possibly overtaking Casters on the tier list due to the new rebalancing options. I was attempting to convey that, while the design of Martials is improving and allowing more flexible possibilities, they likely won’t be stepping on Caster’s toes, so to speak, because of just how many different tools Spellcasting gives access to. At least until characters start gaining Legendary Proficiencies. For the fighter who wants to excel outside of combat, I strongly believe that the new Skill System will be the answer. As long as Martials have a decent enough selection of Skill Feats, you could customize your character to contribute meaningfully in a wide number of scenarios outside of combat. As for the viablility of Blaster Builds, I would like for them to be viable seeing how it is such an iconic staple of the fantasy genre. But not “casting Intensified Fireballs at-will every round”, levels of strong.
With the new Spellcasting Progression, I would like to see dedicated damage Spells to be more impactful in PF2 because we have fewer of them per day. And, with the new Critical System, I think that we may get that. If you’re dedicated to being a Blaster, and devote the Class Feats into making your Blasting Spells better, then I think it is reasonable that a 5th Level Wizard could spend an extra action to throw an Enlarged Fireball into a room on enemies, most of the mooks critically fail their saves causing them to take double damage (likely killing them instantly), leaving only a handful of the more powerful enemies standing, but badly damaged. And then have decently strong cantrips to fall back on. Does that sound more reasonable to you? If not, I’m open to hearing your opinions on the subject.
^To be fair, we don’t know yet if there won’t be any extra Strikes ever. Only that a character with no Feat investment in Two-Weapon Fighting can use an agile weapon to reduce the penalty on secondary and tertiary attacks by 1. That isn’t exclusive to fighting with two weapons, as opposed to say, swinging twice with one weapon that has the Agile Trait. I fully expect there to be Ranger and Fighter Feats that improve Two-Weapon Fighting in some way as you level up beyond just reducing the Attack Penalty. Even something as simple as, “If you crit an Enemy with a weapon in your primary hand, you may immediately Strike that Enemy again with a different weapon that is in another hand as a reaction.”
We’ve already seen that Merisiel had Dex to Damage at level 1 in a playtest demo, so at most, Fighters, Rangers, and Monks that want access to it may need to dip a level in Rogue. Or maybe they did something bizarre and made Dex to Damage a 1st-Level only Elf Ancestry Feat, in which case YOU MONSTERS!! Is this what you think that you needed to do to make Elves cool?! Because it wonk work! Dwarves will always be cooler than Elves! Everybody knows that! Dwarves have resistances to alcohol and poison so they can party and play RPGs with hot chicks/dudes! Elves have bonus movement speed so they can run away from bullies on their way home from from football/soccer practice! Unless I just REALLY misinterpreted highschool.
If I wanted to roleplay I’d play a videogame! I play TTPRGs because I want to kill monsters and level up!
New Playable Race in Pathfinder 3rd Edition! Now Introducing . . . Half-MerFolk, along with the new Half-Merfolk Oracle Iconic, Bubbles!” “Ugh can’t we just kill the sacred cow and let us play Full-Merfolk?” “Worst Decision Ever! Not even Half-Merfolks will be allowed at my table!” “What next? Half-Merfolk Paladins?!” “Oracle Bias!”
I’m still standing by my Full-Plate Monk dual-wielding Heavy Steel Shields prediction. Perfect Mind. Perfect Body. Perfect Defense.
I think that we’re overselling just how much more powerful these new mechanics will make the Martials from the Casters. A fighter with a Scimitar can:
Fighters can spend Class Feats for the ability to perform special actions such as
Wizards using spells can:
The Wizard can spend Class Feats to:
The end result? Fighters are good at fighting things. This is nothing new. Fighters have always been good at dealing a lot of damage. They just don’t do much besides that.
I think that the worry comes from us focusing on damaging spells like Magic Missile and Fireball. “Blaster” Wizard has always been a sub-optimal way to build a Wizard. Magic Missile is not supposed to be equal to a Martial’s Full-Attack. Fireball is an outlier because it deals so much damage for its Spell Slot against such a large Area of Effect, that it can hit multiple targets. “Blasting” also encourages burning multiple Spell Slots every combat just to “keep up” in the DPR race. The new Spell Progression design does seem to punish “Burn all of my Spell Slots in 1 combat” Blaster Wizards more. But because Cantrips will now scale better, Wizards who try only spending 20% or so or their resources per encounter before resorting to cantrips should be fine.
Uh, you could use PA with VS. VS wasn't more popular because A) you had to spend feats on it and its later versions and B) it cut off your other attacks.IIRC no attack penalty on Power Attack, but I forget its full mechanics. It was the cause of much consternation when it was announced.When they take an unpopular feat (vital strike), swap out the name of a popular feat (power attack) and then post it into a blog post are you really surprised people would be unhappy? *goes back and checks* Huh. Well I’ll be. I could have sworn there was something about “both modifying your Attack action” or something. I feel a bit silly about it now, but I’ll admit that I was wrong about that. I agree with you on the other 2 Points. I will say though, because of how PF2 does actions in combat and uses tighter math, I still think that the cost of an extra action for more damage is better than the cost of taking an accuracy penalty, even if you do get to keep your third attack at -10 that round.
How exactly are you disagreeing? I think that you’re misunderstanding something. The Monk Trait has never added any abilities to a weapon. It is just a keyword that says that Monks are automatically proficient with them and can be used with the Monk’s Flurry of Blows Class Feature, because Monks have a rather eclectic selection of weapons that they can use. There’s no difference in performance from a Monk using a Temple Sword or a Fighter using a Temple Sword. It’s like how Rogues are automatically proficient with Rapiers even though they’re martial weapons. The only reason why there aren’t “Rogue” weapons is because Rogues don’t have any Class Features that are only compatible with X type of weapon.
*Humbly requests Paizo to include the Blood Dragon Claw of Naughtiness to the list of Playtest Artifacts* Homebrew by its very definition is homebrew. It is the GM’s responsibility if they add or remove elements of the game. Using the Pathfinder rules in another fantasy setting is still basically running a homebrew campaign. Just one in a premade setting. It still requires converting on the part of the DM to make it work. It is silly to say that Elven Curved Swords shouldn’t exist in the Rulebook because your homebrew campaign personally doesn’t have Elves in it.
How exactly are you disagreeing? Just creating a “Monk” Weapon Trait, and then listing in the Monk section, “Monks are proficient with weapons with the Monk Weapon Trait” is a simple solution to future books releasing new Monk weapons. Otherwise every new Monk Weapon will need to specifically list that Monks gain proficiency with them. That’s an unnecessary amount of extra text, and by extension, book space. Or are you disagreeing that the Core Rulebook assumes that players have access to all of the classes in the Core Rulebook? Because, by definition, unless you are specifically removing something from your campaign, the game is built to assume that you are using all of the rules. If you are specifically taking Monks out of your campaign, then you still need to tell your players that. At which point, it is reasonable to assume that you’d either just remove the Monk weapons, or leave them in because the Monk trait isn’t doing anything anymore. I mean, it isn’t like you need to be a monk fo use them. A Fighter, Ranger, or Druid could just as easily decide that they want to use a Bo Staff.
Longbows, Longswords, Longspears, and Battleaxes already do have the same damage die (1d8) in PF1 so I don’t exatly see your point. However being stabbed by a Dagger is normally much less deadly and being stabbed by a Greatsword. That is why they have a smaller and larger damage die respectively to account for that. Changing the damage die is usually a trade-off for some kind of benefit the weapon has (expanded crit range for Rapier and Scimitar) or compensation for requiring more effort to wield effectively (such as the larger damage die for the Bastard Sword).Also splitting damage dice into, say, 1d6 for simple, 1d10 for martial, and 1d12 for Exotic and only seperating weapons by reach and damage type is just kind of boring mechanically. Why would anyone pick a Battleaxe or a Rapier over a Longsword if they all do the same damage, but the Longsword can do Slashing OR Piercing damage? Reach is already a strong enough mechanic to incentive players into picking up a Reach weapon.
Tons of new customization options and depth. This update is great, long overdue in fact. PF1 had a number of "dead" weapons, made irrelevant by a superior version of the same. Now we're going to go shopping at the local armory emporium and really, really think our choices over. Kudos!One of our core goals was to have few or no weapons (and armor types, while we're at it) that are rendered pointless by having another weapon in the same proficiency category that is just a better weapon. While some weapons do have a fairly narrow niche, there shouldn't be any that don't have a playstyle or situation where they are a good option for their proficiency. And if any do have issues (or if there' like one or two that are just too good somehow and blocking the other options out), I bet you guys will let us know during the playtest so we can fix it! The problem with this suggestion is that you can’t traditionally gain initiative after the battle has already started. The “Daggers cause bleed” effect is a Critical Specialization that only happens when you land a Critical Hit. Changing combat to work with that idea requires that either everyone rolls initiative at the start of every round, or making all of the DM’s initiative rolls public knowledge, then keeping a chart nearby tracking every change in initiative throughout combat. Both of which just bog combat down with extra paperwork and dice rolling. The idea for what you’re trying to recreate can already be done with the Agile, Finesse, and Backstabber Weapon Qualities. For being faster than the opponent, you can dodge more easily, swing more quickly, and take advantage of being able to hit your opponent before they’re ready. In PF1 this also translates to a higher Initiative, but seeing as how Initiative is no longer a stat in PF2, and is instead determined by whatever Skill you were doing at the time (normally Perception), this may no longer be the case. That is unless you can use Sleight of Hand/Thievery to determine initiative (I’m preparing to draw my hidden daggers as I enter the room).
Glory to the magnificent D12!! As someone who buys their dice in sets, this makes me very happy! All of my players preferred the 2d6 Greatsword over the 1d12 Greataxe, so this change will hopefully mean that I can actually use all of these d12s that I have lying around! Speaking of Axes, I love the idea of Auto-Cleaving on a crit and the Sweeping Weapon property. It fits perfectly for my idea of a Greataxe swinging Barbarian who enters melee and Whirlwind Attacks like a beautiful hurricane of destruction. Is the damage to the 2nd target automatic, or do we still need to roll? Because if we do need to roll, is it possible to Crit on the 2nd Attack and then hit the first enemy again if (and admittedly for a Barbarian, that is a big if) they are still standing?
At least drop it so everyone will quit bringing up yummy sandwiches . . . *rolls Will save to not break my diet* Knowing my luck, I’ll cave in and go buy a meatball sub only to discover the blog dropped while I was gone! C’mon Wizard Blog! I need to know how many Spell Points It’ll take to drop this unwanted Bulk!
|