Gallyck's page

Love:
1 - Three action system
2 - uh the art maybe?
3 - not a whole lot

Hate:
1 - Archtypes being lame. They were honestly the best part about Pf1E
2 - Spells being destroyed, gutted, nerfed and the pandering to idiots on this forum who complain about martial vs caster disparity in a team game.
3 - PFS as a baseline for rules. PFS should be considered and then they get seperate rules similar to PF1E. A lot of the largest "problems" exist in pfs and are more controlled in a homebrew game

Houserules:
1 - Converting 3 action economy to Pf1
2 - Ignore resonance completely by playing Pf1
3 - Ignore ancestry and 15 feat pools by playing Pf1

Can we add "noone is going to take your 1ed books" to the list of dumb statements?

Gallyck wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

So while I protested initially over the "nerfing" of casters... it's much ado about not-so-much. Casters STILL have a huge selection of spells. Their lower level spells remain valid in combat, especially as weakened higher level foes will, after being softened up, be vulnerable to these lower level spells. And Cantrips will allow Casters to provide significantly greater support than a crossbow or the like, as do Wands and Staves.

SO now casters just wait until the enemies are really weak and then have them make the save anyway? Spellcasting in this edition is stupid. Just get a sword cast your 1 minute buffs and hit stuff with a sword.

You assume they'd make their save. You assume they GET a save. And there are plenty of spells that influence your party instead and enhance their own abilities... increasing the chance of criticals and the like.

Here is the fun thing. A level one Fear spell cast at 1st level has a greater chance of having someone make their save than cast at 20th level... because a 20th level caster has Legendary spell casting and a higher primary statistic and other Class Feats that may very well enhance the spell further. That Fear spell IS STILL USEFUL at higher level. Back with 1st edition Pathfinder, low level spell slots are useless unless you are using them for buffs or effects that allow no saves at all.

as someone who primarily plays wizards i find all sorts of uses for my low level slots in 1e. So that argument is pretty moot. Yes you can cast buffs all day and contribute in 1e and 2e. Is that fun? For someone it is, im sure.

So while I protested initially over the "nerfing" of casters... it's much ado about not-so-much. Casters STILL have a huge selection of spells. Their lower level spells remain valid in combat, especially as weakened higher level foes will, after being softened up, be vulnerable to these lower level spells. And Cantrips will allow Casters to provide significantly greater support than a crossbow or the like, as do Wands and Staves.

SO now casters just wait until the enemies are really weak and then have them make the save anyway? Spellcasting in this edition is stupid. Just get a sword cast your 1 minute buffs and hit stuff with a sword.

AndIMustMask wrote:

Gallyck wrote:

The new system is bad and the timeline of 1 year is nonsense when its really 8 months unless they extend the release. I cant get my group get characters down because the system is so watered down.

try starting at level 4:

-your ancestry has some small pool of unique abilities now
-you get a small selection of class abilities and means to make your character/build less cookiecutter
-you get your first general feat to start branching out (or specializing)
-you can actually interact with the archetype/multiclass system at all
-your skills are now stat+4 (see: 1 rank+3 class bonus from PF1)
-enemies now have room to downscale, so you can now actually fight things at the new "intended" monster CR of APL-2 rather than APL+0 so the game isn't quite such a meatgrinder it comes off as from players/GMs previous experiences in balancing

it's like you're really playing a level 1 PF1 character/adventure now!

Almost all of your points are not applied to level 1 PF1 characters...

Seriously, try making a core rulebook level 1 PF1 character and tell me how amazing and varied they are... Every 2h gets power attack... Every archer gets point blank shot... Wow so much variance.

2hand fighters can go combat reflexes for Reach builds. Archers go Point Blank because its a good option, true enough.

The latest close had maybe 9 posts out of 8 pages about whether or not it's a board game or not. And still on topic discussion happening concurrently.

Looks like another thread closed. You would think Director of Game design has more important things to do than to arbitrarily close topics under some thin shade of derailment.

How about not nerfing the hell out of every good spell and give back bonus spell slots?

The new system is bad and the timeline of 1 year is nonsense when its really 8 months unless they extend the release. I cant get my group get characters down because the system is so watered down.

In the description it says it can be attached like a flash compensator. So it can be attached to small arms. However the table says it requires a rail. Anyway I can get a clarification?

I don't understand why people is mad at "no fighters with light armor anymore".

If you want to fight and use light armor, go Rogue with Multiclass Feat Fighter.
This is class based game, classes SHOULD matter. It should be important what I chose as my main class.

Why overspecialize? Why do you want a system that allows that? If the system allows it, it means half the game base might be "playing wrong", not having a 20 in INT as a Wizard (huge fail in PF1).
I like this holistic approach where it's harder to make something that is not good enough.

Overall it was interesting read. Havent finished it, but it seems great. I'm worried about needing a feat to do ordinary things, but I hope more things are not gated behind a feat, need more reading though

Probably because pigeonholing fighters into heavy armor describes only a few fighters. Lets use GOT as an example. Red Viper? Not heavy armor and not a rogue since he uses a spear. Members of the Nights Watch? I dont see much heavy armor. The Unsullied rock leather.

Why can't the whole party be "that guy"? The guy that talks, the guy that kills, the guy that casts and the guy that sneaks. That sounds more interesting than "a couple nobodies with no skills picked up a sword"

Whoa there. That would make too much sense.

This is what I asked myself before I read the playtest. I had some things I wanted accomplished. Pf2e does none of those things.

Or just focus on making the best product and people will come and play it. If pf2 playtest is the best after 10 years of pf1 and it's constant feedback then the feedback has fallen on deaf ears or they are too worried about biting into marketshares rather then releasing a quality, coherent system.

Gorbacz are you a stakeholder in Paizo or something. Every g@$#%~n post of yours is about business metrics. I for one don't care about business metrics if the product is crappy. ZOMG 5th ed has more users. Probably because even though I play pathfinder every night I still call it D&D night. Its that name recognition. Anecdotal i know but quite a few people came back to PF1 after trying 5th ed because its as deep as a puddle.

Quandary wrote:

There can be. P1E is OGL, so anybody can do with P1E what Paizo did with 3.x.

Do you really anticipate this happening? What happened with Pathfinder was a perfect storm. I suspect what will happen with 3.x is it will go off into the sunset with the other old editions (I think everyone except possibly the current PF2 design team* have given up completely on 4th ed)

Quandary wrote:

The "some of us were around" comment reeks of arrogance.

It wasn't meant to be. It's true that Pathfinder's base has grown considerably since it started. So it's a simple fact that Paizo's playerbase has changed in makeup.

It's great that you and Paizo are ready to abadnon the game that is Pathfinder and make a new one with the Pathfinder brand (I don't take it as fact that this is actually true for the Paizo developers. But for this post I'm treating everything you say as fact because it's not actually important). Not all of us are and some of us were excited to hear of a new Pathfinder edition hoping it would bring in a new Pathfinder edition and not a new game with the same name. Expect more disappointment from me and others as/if it becomes more apparent that's what we're getting.

* This was meant as a a light-hearted comment and not a serious one.

To add to this the playtest is going to be a mess if people who liked the first one so much are going to be called arrogant for you know, being heavily invested in a product and wanting to ensure that this new edition will cater to us as well. I think its safe to say our interests matter in this or are people really advocating the community being split in 2?

Threeshades wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Not happy with power attack, more dice means less reliable numbers, I don't want to base my damage calcs solely on variables.

I have to say i feel the opposite way. In Pathfinder rolling those 2d6 or 1d12 wor your weapon damage was just a formality, really a farce, because it was a pittance on top of the +45 damage the character got from all other factors. Might as well just change weapon damage to be static, so that players couldsave themselves that near meaningless dieroll.

I'm happy that dice will mean something again in the new edition.

I'm not, it adds two layers of variation to lessen martial reliability whereas in PF1 there was more focus on making sure you hit. Now not only do you have to make sure you hit, but your damage is also swingy. I'm already having visions of snake eyes ruining the fighter player's night over and over again meaning he can't do his one job well at all.

More dice is not good game design, it just attracts people who like simplicity, it's the reason I stay away from 5e still.

Never have I smashed the favorite button harder than right here.

Definitely has a 4th edition vibe. Definitely didn't purchase 4th edition either. I hope they will listen to play test and this isn't just early access where they change superficial nothing's and say look we did a play test!

It makes me really happy to see all the push back on this everyone is good at everything system that paizo is trying to make standard. I hope in play test we can hopefully get some of this backed off. I don't want every character to be samey. Noone should want that.

I'm really interested in how they plan to not make every character within the same +/-3 range on everything. I think we can all agree that that is not good right?

Gallyck wrote:

Old power attack also gets multiplied on a crit and since the bonus is always higher then one it's floor is also higher.

Comparing two-hander damage at first, though, old Power Attack would give 3 on a regular hit, 6 on a crit. It would reduce the change of a crit.

New Power Attack would do 6.5 average damage on a regular hit, 13 average damage on a crit (assuming it multiplies- I'd call it likely). You give up an action for it, which we'll assume was an attack at -10, but don't reduce your crit.

For a regular attack, there's a 16% chance it does less damage than old PA. (So five out of six times, it does at least as much, generally more.) For a crit, there's only a 7% chance that it does less damage than old PA. (About thirteen out of fourteen times, it does more damage.)

But, if you prefer to focus on avoiding bad turns rather than focusing on the average turn, things like Quick Reversal might be more your style, letting you turn misses into potential hits.

Sure with a d12 weapon. Old pf1 power attack would catch up in consistency once it got boosted up. But what about a non big die weapon like the ever present longsword? I'm starting to come around to your thinking a bit but I'm going to be completely deflated when I power attack twice in a row for 2 extra damage. I prefer the old system of die + damage not die+die+damage.

Gallyck wrote:

The-Last-Rogue wrote:

Gallyck wrote:

Thomas, A wrote:

might be the lack of info given but it sounds fighters are going to be same-y

Yup.And videogamey. Ok i go into power attack stance! now defense stance! bleh

How is this different than saying, "I'm going to Power Attack." or "I'm using Combat Expertise."

It is, literally, the same thing...re: activating move or stance.

Because it sounds like action points and certain things cost more action points. Sounds like a videogame to me. As opposed to saying power attack which doesn't require a resource in pf1.

It does require a resource, it eats your chance to hit.

That’s why you have a penalty, it’s costing you in at first a 5% chance to miss an attack, then 10% and then 15%. The missed attacks, are the “actions” you spent on power attack.

A slow but strong attack isn’t just video gamey it’s also pretty well mapped to how we expect powerful attacks to work, requiring a powerful build up and/or recovery due to swing momentum.

Any reasonable fighter can overcome the penalties. Like not even min maxed. I don't consider lowering accuracy to be a resource I guess is what I'm saying.

Gallyck wrote:

RumpinRufus wrote:

thflame wrote:

Bad new devs:

Just ran your new Power attack mechanics with your old ones, and old PA IS better.

This is good news. In PF1 Power Attack was so good it was all-but-required. If PF2 Power Attack was better than PF1 Power Attack, then basically 100% of builds would end up taking it. And that's boring! It was due for a nerf, and this seems like a cool implementation to make it less powerful and more dynamic.

Disagree. It was one of the most useful feats heavily nerfed. It was what people want out of feats. Useful from 1-20. Easy to use. Now its pretty easy to blow 2 actions for +1 damage over using one action.

Right, but:

- It's probably multiplied on a crit, in which cases getting only +2 damage is very unlikely.
- It scales to more dice later, again making minimum damage much less likely. You can pick it up then.
- Getting +1 damage is better than 0, which is what your -10 attack will do at low levels.
- Roll the damage dice together without considering either die the Power Attack die. Then, consider the larger result your Power Attack die. You won't feel bad about it as a result. (Sure, this isn't fair, but neither is weighing the power of the feat by its lowest result rather than its average result.)

Old power attack also gets multiplied on a crit and since the bonus is always higher then one it's floor is also higher.

RumpinRufus wrote:

thflame wrote:

Bad new devs:

Just ran your new Power attack mechanics with your old ones, and old PA IS better.

This is good news. In PF1 Power Attack was so good it was all-but-required. If PF2 Power Attack was better than PF1 Power Attack, then basically 100% of builds would end up taking it. And that's boring! It was due for a nerf, and this seems like a cool implementation to make it less powerful and more dynamic.

Yeah, weird assessment of new game system , "A Feat does 5% less average damage than Previous System Feat with same name = BAD NEWS! FAIL!" As if achieving X numeric damage is important vs systemic dynamics (never mind they inflated HPs) Doing big damage in full attacks was never problem for P1E martials, they were more than sufficient at that.

Doesn't make what he said less valid. It seems like you have more hit points now at least to start. The guy simply shows that despite the devs saying you "get more power".

Gallyck wrote:

Thomas, A wrote:

might be the lack of info given but it sounds fighters are going to be same-y

Yup.And videogamey. Ok i go into power attack stance! now defense stance! bleh

How is this different than saying, "I'm going to Power Attack." or "I'm using Combat Expertise."

It is, literally, the same thing...re: activating move or stance.

Because it sounds like action points and certain things cost more action points. Sounds like a videogame to me. As opposed to saying power attack which doesn't require a resource in pf1.

thflame wrote:

Bad new devs:

Just ran your new Power attack mechanics with your old ones, and old PA IS better.

This is good news. In PF1 Power Attack was so good it was all-but-required. If PF2 Power Attack was better than PF1 Power Attack, then basically 100% of builds would end up taking it. And that's boring! It was due for a nerf, and this seems like a cool implementation to make it less powerful and more dynamic.

Disagree. It was one of the most useful feats heavily nerfed. It was what people want out of feats. Useful from 1-20. Easy to use. Now its pretty easy to blow 2 actions for +1 damage over using one action.

Strachan Fireblade wrote:

coxey292 wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

Point of order; what in here says that fighters won’t be able to compete in skills?

Everyone can compete in skills it seems. The proficiency spread is a +6 at best. That doesn't really make the game any more engaging though. If everyone is basically the same, why are there even numbers. The variance on a d20 will often out-way how much better one character is over the other.

You keep making these statements and in essence you couldn’t be more incorrect. The proficiency spread is is only 5, but then you need to factor in attribute bonus which can be another 5, circumstances that could give you another 2 or so, magic items which could provide another 2 or 3, and finally the difference in level from your opponent (1 for each level).

This means there can easily be a difference of 10 on prof and attributes alone. With a magic item and some luck, it could be another 3-5, and then add 1 more for every difference in level.

Wow, look at that. Suddenly you have some major differences in numbers. And we haven’t even talked about the percentages of the +/- 10 crit effects yet.

Your hyperbole on the d20 is a little off base methinks.

Everyone can have those things. They have already said that magic items aren't going to be number bonuses, so that's out. The difference between a fighter who is good at a thing, and the wizard who is good at it, and all the other classes who are all good at it, is a bonus or penalty from -2 to +3. That's it. The lack of choice in the matter makes this even more obvious. Two dex based characters will almost always be the same at stealth because the difference is in the -2 to +5 since their stat is likely to be the same. No work needs to be done to be great at something, and systems like this make classes feel boring. It is the reason a majority of my friends don't play 5e. A monk and a wizard of equal level are pretty much the same in everything besides a couple of...

So are you saying you like all characters being jack of all trades and the same? Isn't that a huge problem in your eyes? If I optimize being stealthy I should have to sacrifice things for it. If I want to do the most damage I should have to sacrifice things for it. Making everyone the same +/-3 would be absolutely, unequivocally, terrible.

It's remarkable to see the 4e comparisons keep piling up the more I read about PF2. 4e was a great high fantasy combat system, but ultimately failed at "being D&D" in many players' eyes, which ultimately proved to be it's downfall.

Here's hoping you all at Paizo can catch lightning in a bottle and keep the "Pathfinder" in Pathfinder while still making a fun system to play with.

You are welcome to your opinion but4th ed was widely panned by everyone so clearly thats not what the community wants. Getting closer to that shouldnt be encouraged.

Gallyck wrote:

Noone cared about the decreased accuracy because any fighter who doesnt suck should be reliably hitting.

Even if you only need a 2 on the d20 to hit on your first attack, you do not want to take a -5 penalty in PF2. Because it eliminates over half of your criticals hits, it's a reduction of over 1/3 of your expected damage (and you also don't get to do the fun things that only happen on a critical).

I mean thats fine and all. But assuming things like weapon focus exist it still should be possible to hit 10 more than an AC if slightly optimized. Im fairly neutral on the hit by 10 or more for a crit (why fix something that isnt broke though.) If its solely just hit by 10 or more then im afraid a lot of the weapon variety will be right out since there is no reason to take a scimitar at d6 when a longsword does a d8 and they both crit at the same rate.

coxey292 wrote:

Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

coxey292 wrote:

I don't understand how giving the fighter +1 to initiative to make him fast, when the variance on this is a d20 roll, helps that much. It doesn't even really feel that good. A cleric who is untrained will make up that spread if perception is still wisdom based. With the current maximum possible spread beyond attributes is 6, I'm not sure any of the numbers actually matter.

He might not necessarily be FIRST, but now there's less chance of being dead last. Keep in mind, that's +1 on top of moving from Expert to Master, so +2. That's a 10% increase. And while Charisma and Intelligence might be a dump stat for Fighters, Wisdom isn't for the sole purpose of Perception.

It is still a maximum spread of 6, meaning that no character is truly better than anybody else at anything. If the other guy just rolls 6 better than me, he too can be legendary.

What if being Master at Perception means you can take a skill feat that ensures you always act before non-masters?

Hence making all characters samey because they all want master perception? I mean bleh

might be the lack of info given but it sounds fighters are going to be same-y

Yup.And videogamey. Ok i go into power attack stance! now defense stance! bleh

Power attack sounds awful. It was one of the better feats in pf1 now its a shell of what it was. Extra damage die is so feast or famine. Noone cared about the decreased accuracy because any fighter who doesnt suck should be reliably hitting.

Gallyck wrote:

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

Likely far more complex then I like and this screams "bloat", but it is interesting

Then go play a rules light system? Its this thats going to turn me off of P2E. The oversimplification for an audience they dont need.

I likely will, I have not played PF in years. But, I will look at the playtest stuff and give my input. But over complex just to be complex is not a good thing in my experience costs players.

I mean this as respectfully as i can... but then why are you interested? Are you just hoping for a radically different system so you can play again? then i dont think the playtest is useful for you or Paizo. If the playtest forums get flooded with a bunch of people who arent as invested in the system and then they want a different game then that will ruin p2e for a bunch of people. I, as well as my group(s) and many many others dont want some super stripped down system. And more and more i see Man i wish they would go classless or they should get rid of xp or get rid of anything remotely requiring math. Its infuriating. Not that you said any of these things.

Likely far more complex then I like and this screams "bloat", but it is interesting

Then go play a rules light system? Its this thats going to turn me off of P2E. The oversimplification for an audience they dont need.

I want to take a moment and talk a bit about the a concern I am seeing here with some frequency, and that is that characters will be streamlined and not customizable. I get that we are using some terms that may lead you to think we are going with a similar approach to some other games, but that is simply not the case.

Characters in the new edition have MORE options in most cases than they did in the previous edition. You can still make the scholarly mage who is the master of arcane secrets and occult lore, just as easily as you can make a character that goes against type, like a fighter who is skilled in botany. The way that the proficiency system works along with skill feats gives you plenty of choices when it comes to skills, allowing you to make the character you want to make.

Beyond skills, every class now has its own list of feats to choose from, making them all pretty different from one another and allowing for a lot of flexibility in how you play. And just wait until you see what Archetypes can do...

Next Monday we will be looking at the way that you level up, and the options that presents. Next Friday (March 16th), we will investigate the proficiency system, and how that impacts your choices during character creation and leveling.

Stay tuned folks... we have a lot of great things to show you

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

I for one will hold you to it. Differentiate yourself from 5th ed and retain the complexity ( 4 spell lists sounds less complex and class based feats sound like dressed up class features) ill check it out. But the wording leaves a lot to be desired for those of us who like a robust game and not some rules-lite abomination.

Why the hell is everyone so against complexity in a game? I just hope this doesn't go too 5thy for my tastes. I like complexity. I like being able to think up a character and then be able to make it. 5th edition is just garbage for that.

People who wont want magic are wrong.

WTF do you think the force is? Bleh. All i see in this thread is everyone wish fulfillment of nerfing the piss out of casters.

He can headshot people from 2 miles away and can detonate powder on people. Can control the bullets somewhat in air. Displays super human speed when snorting Powder and in a Powder Trance. And his most notable ability and hardest to accomplish in Pathfinder is firing 2 shots from his musket at once at 2 separate targets. Any Ideas on how this can be made? I love the character.

Noone likes you get off the Paizo forum. Loser.

Note: I know him in real life so im allowed to raz him.

Gallyck wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

That's the point, though: it forces the PCs to specialize more. The guy who is good at fighting is less useful in the social encounters and vice-versa. You reduce the number of Jack-of-all-Trades style PCs so that the party is forced to either work together and succeed or struggle apart and possibly fail.

Isnt overspecializing the issue here? Minmaxing is specializing one trick to be overwhelmingly powerful. I mean all this goes away with good DM player communications. I run a game going on 2 years now and play in others and we all communicate and it helps.

I know the math wants you to minmax. But you can predict every characters point buy as soon as you say it. Its all the same. 15 point buy? Before racials?

fighter:
STR: 16 DEX: 12 CON: 14 INT: 8 WIS: 12 CHA: 8

Wizard:
STR: 8 DEX: 12 CON: 10 INT: 18 WIS: 10 CHA: 8
(maybe put some in con.)

Bard:
STR: 10 DEX: 14 CON: 12 INT: 8 WIS: 10 CHA: 16

I mean cmon. You roll dice for everything else. Roll it for chargen.

My workaround is let them roll 3d6 (or 4d6 drop lowest or 4d6 reroll 1s drop lowest) like 30 times. Then they pick a range of 6 numbers. I liked this method because it still made you make decisions. Point buyis so bad. I hate it with a burning passion.

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

awesome. Thanks guys. You rule.

So i think ive been doing this wrong for years. Like real wrong.

So for an item like Celestial Armor that gives you fly. What is the CL that is used when using the fly ability? (BONUS QUESTION: Can the fly duration be split up by minutes? Im 99% sure it cant but just a question)

What about wands? Do you use the minimum caster level needed to cast the spell? Do you use character level as CL?

These are newb questions but for some reason it doesnt sync in my head.

Thanks guys,

My response:

"Good Luck"

there is no +2 caster level traits afaik.

Im in ur game, murderin ur d00dz

All this looks like WRONGBADFUN to me and that just rubs me the wrong way. Since my latest character has been accused of murderhoboism because i killed a wizard for his spellbook i took great interest in reading the blog post.

But all it comes down too is wrong bad fun. And thats fine if the character you want to create are tropes. But maybe just maybe... we dont want to play like you? Maybe my character has legit in game reasons for feeling slighted and thinks he can take that item .It doesnt make the game any worse because a character thinks that way.

Yeah i mean i was totally annoying to all the party members by saving their skins multiple times and the only one with an int score over 10. But continue to call me the worst players ever because i dont play your way.