You're just overthinking things. There are aspects of the game that won't make sense in the real world, because it's a game and sometimes fun and balance come before reality.
And if you think how crossbows work is crazy, I'd avoid the Magic chapter- people in the setting can shoot fire out of their hands or heal grievous wounds with a chant!
It's not an "odd perception thing". It's a perfectly understandable thing. Most of the text blocks for the Witch look just like the text boxes for every other caster class, except for this obvious section with that enticing Action symbol in it.
The fact that most people read it and wonder "what exactly does this do" is exactly the kind of design issue Playtesters are supposed to highlight, so that the Designers understand there's a potential perception issue. They may decide it's not a big deal, but that doesn't invalidate the value in people telling them their expectations and disappointments.
In fact it was the opposite, PF1 encouraged multiclassing so much that people would complain about how its "munchiky", "too anime", etc.
That wasn't encouraging "multiclassing" though, it was encouraging taking a single level of a class and moving on. You weren't playing a Fighter/Rogue, you were playing a Fighter who took a single level of Rogue to get Sneak Attack, or a Sorcerer with one level of Oracle for Cha to AC. Sure it was called multiclassing, but people rarely used it to represent your character trying to bring two disparate ideas together.
The "bottleneck" in PF2 isnt combat options due to the better base. It the part where can get a combat option, but then you delay getting an animal companion, and if you pick a dedication you have to wait a lot to get another. Unlike PF1 where you could get multiple of those simultaneously. Ex: Animal companions are now a feat tree.
And the trade off is that now you don't have to spend the same Feats for being good with a Bow to be good with Medicine or Thievery. You can make a fully competent healer or party face without diminishing your combat effectiveness in any way.
It seems like you are cherry picking certain mechanics (like Animal Companions) and ignoring the ones that benefit from the change. And Animal Companions are an especially strange choice for this, since they required a Feat (Boon Companion) to be viable for most builds anyway, and generally couldn't be acquired by Rangers at level 1, unlike now.
The problem with overly reductive arguments is that work just as well the other way- a Tengu is just a human with a beak, a Lizardfolk is just a green human.
At the end of the day the characterisation comes primarily from the player, and we are sadly mostly human, so in general most people will play their characters as "Human plus stereotype". The background for all the Core races highlights that they can be very different from humans if played that way.
Because it's a one action Ranged Unarmed Attack, not a two action Spell Attack. It's basically a Sling you don't need to take an action to reload, that benefits from your Handwraps. It's a solid option for the likes of Animal Barbarians, who otherwise have a hard time attacking at range when Raging.
I am personally happy that they didn't go that direction, and wouldn't consider it to be "better than ever before" if they had.
Most of the options in the LOWG and LOCG are situational, only being worth taking if they suit your character, rather than being the automatic best choice for a class. That is a good thing, because it's how you avoid massive power creep. Sure, some of the options are never going to be worth taking, but a lot of them are worth it in the right build.
Philippe Lam wrote:
The damage dealt to early AL by unlimited replay was telling, and even opening a permanent limited amount would be harmful for PFS.
As I haven't been around for the 10+ years of previous debate and don't really have a strong opinion one way or another, can I ask what was the damage done by unlimited replays in AL?
If the BBEG fails his initial save against a 5th level version he takes 10d4 damage immediately, which is less than he would take from a Cone of Cold (12d6) or a 5th level Magic Missile (9d4+9).
If he's really worried about the 5d4 Persistent damage he can try to shake it by taking an action to try get rid of the Sickened before he would take the damage, and even if he fails he still gets a DC 15 Flat check to shake it after taking the 12 or so damage.
It seems an okay spell, but not amazing. Obviously if your target keeps taking actions to get rid of Sickened and failing then that works out to be super effective, but it seems unlikely for that to be the case with a powerful higher level enemy.
A single level one skill feat shouldn't negate most of another skill, with specialized Treat Wounds being Medicine's most common application.
Why not? A single level one skill feat gives you another skill. Obviously Natural Medicine would be better than taking Skill Training for Medicine because you would benefit from Proficiency upgrades, but Skill Training is generally weak choice anyway.
CRB pg634 wrote:
Minion (trait) Minions are creatures that directly serve another creature. A creature with this trait can use only 2 actions per turn and can’t use reactions. Your minion acts on your turn in combat, once per turn, when you spend an action to issue it commands. For an animal companion, you Command an Animal; for a minion that’s a spell or magic item effect, like a summoned minion, you Sustain a Spell or Sustain an Activation; if not otherwise specified, you issue a verbal command, a single action with the auditory and concentrate traits. If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm. If left unattended for long enough, typically 1 minute, mindless minions usually don’t act, animals follow their instincts, and sapient minions act how they please.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I feel like it's not any harder to teach someone how to play the few notes over and over again on the piano than it is to show them how to sneak silently past a wary guard or climb the side of a mountain.
Plus, it's a setting where people shoot fire from their hands on a routine basis. If you start modifying simple rules to be more complicated in frankly minor edge cases just so that it feels a bit more realistic, you'll end up just confusing players with your arbitrary house rules.
You are not using Treat Wounds when you preform Battle Medicine, you are simply using the same DCs and results. This is sometimes a benefit (not needing to use a Healers Kit) and sometimes a drawback (you can't use Practiced Medic with it).
I think my favourite thing so far about Pathfinder 2 is that nearly every time there's a post with someone pointing out some rules issue they think they discovered, it's just that either didn't read it correctly or they decided to interpret the written rules in as obtuse a manner as possible. It shows how great a job the design team did, that the vast majority of "mistakes" are actually non-issues.
This section is explicitly about getting additional Focus Points from multiclassing. It's unclear if it applies to multiple abilities from your own class.
I don't understand this point. When levelling your character and deciding what Skill to improve the Proficiency of, why does it matter "where you took it"? You are either Untrained, Trained or Expert when making the choice- I don't see the additional bookkeeping factors you are concerned with.
If the Goblins in your example both wanted to be Expert in Intimidation, why wouldn't they just Train it at Level 1 with their default free choices? This seems like a "I didn't pay attention when building my character" issue, and the only real solution to that is to make every option identical, which I am not a fan of.
So it's not offensive to do a bad French or Irish accent if you feel you look like a French or Irish person?
I know this might blow your mind, but sharing a skin colour doesn't suddenly make a s&*&ty attempt at an accent any more or less offensive. And, this is definitely going to shock you- French people and German people and Italian people and Irish people and Russian people all look different from each other. I understand than for Americans everyone gets lumped into groups based on skin colour, but that's not how the rest of the world actually works.
This seems like something that would only exclude players seeking a reason to feel excluded.
Yeah, you don't get to act like having to have some common sense when building the character means you're limited when it comes to roleplaying. Unless you can somehow explain the difference in approach you would take when roleplaying a character with 12 in a mental stat compared to a 14.
It's not a nerf to Wizards, it's how they were designed. It's simply a fix to a typo, to put them at the power level they were meant to be.
The flaw in the logic is yours, not the worlds. Just because these are the Core Book rules for PCs crafting in Downtime doesn't mean this is how crafting is traditionally done in the setting. Instead it is simply mechanical rules for PCs to craft in Downtime.
At level 7 you aren't using Wild Shape, you're using Dinosaur Form, so you wouldn't be getting the +2 Status bonus to attacks from Wild Shape anyway, so your own attack modifier would only be +13 (+14 w/Handwraps) compared to Dino Form's +16.
Wild Shape won't give you Dino Form until level 8, so you'd have +1 to hit from Proficiency over your math.
You move the goal posts massively between your initial requirement and what can actually be done.
A PF1 Rogue is in no way more swashbuckly than a PF2 Rogue. There are no "single one-handed weapon feats" in PF1 Core that you complain the Rogue in PF2 is lacking.
The rest of your examples are equally hypocritical.
And you apparently never bothered reading the Focus rules.
And it won't be once more than one book exists.
There has to be a baseline starting point to grow from, and I don't think "Heavy Plate Wizard" should be expected to be part of that baseline, because nothing about Pathfinder has ever implied it would be.
Yes, but not this one. The decision was made in 3.0 for the Crossbow to be the backup ranged weapon for Wizards, and that was kept with PF2. Because of that it's unlikely to ever be as good as a Bow, because a Crossbow is a Simple weapon and a Bow is Martial.
The Heavy Crossbow is one of the most damaging weapons in the Dark Eye RPG, with the trade off being that you'll shoot it at the start of a fight and pretty much never get to reload it. It's an alternative take on the weapon that suits that style of game better than it would suit Pathfinder.
Except that this isn't how the rules are written at all. Ravingdork misrepresented what is actually written in the book, and people are commenting without actually reading it.
They explicitly say most of the time you won't change anything, and then gives guidance on how and why you might change it, presumably to help new GMs understand some of the flexibility of the system.
I was genuinely impressed that they got through three combats on top of character introductions and some roleplaying scenes. I don't know if it's that PF2 is that much quicker at resolving combats or that my playgroup are just terrible at staying focused, but either way it's a good amount of content to get through in three hours.
What I think is that the rules explicitly say most of the time you don't adjust the DC.
"The number of dice being rolled means that there’s a very high chance at least one of them will succeed. Most of the time, that’s perfectly fine"
It then gives advice to GMs if they want to make the check result uncertain. Advice that gives insight to newer GMs, without actually being the rules declaration you state it is in your post.
As straitjackets go "You have baseline access to Common options and Uncommons that your build choices have unlocked, plus more if your GM gives the okay" seem fairly loose...
If you want to build lots of characters without access to a GM, then you use Commons, and Uncommons you've gained access to via Feat choices. It's not that complicated. The fact that Learn a Spell might allow you to learn Uncommons is irrelevant, because without GM to say what Uncommons you could learn using it there are none available for you to learn.
The Rarity system is good because Blood Money was a stupid spell that was supposed to only be available to people who had a specific spellbook, but if you didn't run that campaign you weren't likely to know that. And besides automatically making it obvious a similar spell in the future isn't available to everyone, the Rarity System also takes the pressure to say no off the GM, so he doesn't always have to be the a+@$$*# telling his players they can't do something.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Considering the OP stated that Alchemist's Fire cost 30 silver a usage, and two actions to draw and attack, I presume he is not discussing the bomb throwing Alchemist, but rather characters that don't have class abilities that improve alchemical items.
It costs half the purchase price to scribe a scroll. A scroll sells for half its purchase price. There's not really any profit to be made.
More info can be found here but the basics are that the price of a scroll is equal to the level of the spell × the creator’s caster level × 25 gp, so for a Wizard the purchase price are the values listed below, and the crafting and sell values are half that.
0 12.5 gp
Should an Android be allowed to have a class feature that denotes special heritage, such as a Bloodline?
Liberator paladins are problematic, and also, Channel Life is one of the strongest feats ever for paladins and paladin-multiclassers
I think your views on Heal are biased by the fact that your goal when GMing is to kill the party, which means you are inherently going to dislike abilities that hinder that. When a GM isn't actively trying to kill the characters in every encounter but instead focused on working with the players to tell a story then healing effects are incredibly useful for getting the players through tough fights and onto the next part of the quest. Unlike PF1, healing mid-combat in PF2 is actually good, and nerfing that to make healers feel worse seems like a mistake.
My thoughts are that posts like this are patently unhelpful, and do more to sap the will of Designers to interact with and seek the insight of the community than they do to spur the Designers to suddenly agree that everything they've designed is bad and wrongfun.
My thoughts are that too many people on this forum think that Open Playtest means they get to be Game Designers when they participate, something they have displayed zero aptitude for. Our role is to provide feedback as requested, not demand whole systems be changed to suit our own particular gaming fetishes.
My thoughts are that this is one of the best Playtests I've ever been involved in, and I've been playtesting games for years. Paizo have provided good information on what testing they want done, have proven they'll listen to feedback and make changes and have genuinely worked with the community to create a better game.
My thoughts are that whilst I agree I wouldn't buy the game as is today, I will absolutely buy the game that will be printed.