David knott 242 wrote:
I think you do get to know the damage before you use the reaction.
I'm in love with shields for the sole reason that it let me fulfill my fantasy of an Ulfen berserker who wields an axe and shield both as weapons at level 2 and that's easily enough for me to love shields in 2E alone.
To the OP, I think the rules are fine and we'll probably get more support coming, but it works well enough for the CRB.
I'm not dismissing your experience - but you also can't say it's an actual problem with the game, when it might just be a problem with a particular group.
I'm playing in a game right now with a single spellcaster, and it's also not an issue.
And, to 2E, I don't think it's an issue here either.
For you, maybe. I played the entire Dead Suns AP with two Technomancers and a Mystic in the party and none of what you're describing was a problem.
This is the first I'm even hearing there is a problem, in fact.
And a major fault of PF1, in my opinion, was that at a certain point you had such a huge bonus that the main mechanic of the game became irrelevant outside of combat. If you had a high enough bonus, it was like "well, you could roll, but you're not gonna fail" - frankly, anything that prevents that is a good step.
I think it's also important to remember that from what it seems like, the baseline competence for EVERYTHING if you're an adventurer is so far above non-adventurers, because if you're an adventurer, you probably know how to handle things. (Such as why an Alchemist could be almost as good at Stealth as a Rogue at certain levels.)
Otherwise you wouldn't be an adventurer.
Our game hasn't seen this at all. We've seen more successes, and people have found the less guaranteed success meaning more meaningful choices with what you look into specializing in with your skill increases and feats.
I mean, sometimes s&&$ happens. And the GM could just make a DC lower if they want. I still don't see how it's a problem. Even the most expert person can fail. Fate is fate, luck is luck.
I've had the complete opposite experience. I feel FAR more powerful in early levels in PF2 than I ever did in PF1, both in-combat and out.
I'm pretty sure the intention of the design was to make adventurers MORE capable starting out than they were in PF1. Hence the removal of a lot of 'now you're just baseline good at this' feats - Precise Shot, for example.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I would guess that the iconics for Witch (Human), Oracle (Human), Swashbuckler (Half-Elf), and Investigator (Human) will be the same ones as they were in 1E, just with updated art.
We do, actually. Here.
I seriously doubt it's all going to be the exact same shade of lavender or blue, in every art piece ever produced for Drow for inclusion in Paizo products from here until the end of time.
They still can be dark blue or dark purple, go nuts. The connotations come from a long history of it with the drow, and thus Paizo (rightfully) moved away from it - it always comes up in this conversation, eventually, that's why it's being discussed.
Probably because there aren't any actual people in real life with blue or purple skin. Pure black doesn't really exist, either, but that color has been used to mock people and so it carries connotations - blue and purple don't.
It's similar to why any changes to orcs to make them farther away from Tolkien's original depiction is a good thing - because that was hella racist.
High-level superheroes everywhere: lore implications for the "post-adventure-path cinematic universe"
There's also the idea that these adventurers might understand that if they solved every single problem in the world, then no one would ever try to do it themselves, and rely on them to do everything.
After all, the world will always need heroes, and new heroes must become that themselves.
I look at it like Gandalf and the other Istari - sure, they could have solved a bunch of problems, but it wasn't their purpose and Gandalf in the end existed much more as a catalyst to push others to do great things.
There's always been something interesting with drow being beautiful in roleplay - "How can something so beautiful be so cruel?"
I've played with a lot of people who roleplay as good drow or half-drow and a lot of them play on the idea that they feel they're hideous - when they likely aren't - as an extension of everyone's first assumption about their ancestry.
It's a neat thing to explore in RP.
I'd note a lot of this is a very western interpretation of the color black, which is fine, as it's where most of us live presumably.
But, it's sort of also the reason moving away from black skin color is a good thing, because it's not exactly unknown that a lot of older fantasy has connotations with monstrous races and the like.
I think they've always looked badass in Pathfinder, and they've had blue/purple skin color for a long time, too.
To that last point, I don't think that's true at all. I think Paizo just got rid of the mechanical penalties because it was an unpopular holdover from earlier editions. A lot of people I know who play have always ignored those rules.
And I think the elderly still are.. well, less strong and robust as they were, when they were younger. It's just that they don't penalize the player characters for choosing to be hold, but the CRB even says "There aren’t any mechanical adjustments to your character for being particularly old, but you might want to take it into account when considering your starting ability scores and future advancement."
NPCs are probably still going to be less equipped for adventuring and things if they're elderly, just not player characters because they didn't want to have those penalties anymore.
Sometimes things in the game are made the way they are to make it less complicated for us as players, but in-world it's not actually how it works. Bulk is one such thing - a weapon might be 1 or 2 bulk, but when you're talking to a shopkeep or whatever, you would say "this is a 5 lbs. weapon". The actual numerical weight might be important to the story, but it's not systemically.
It's simply that the actual weight of things is not important in the sense of how we track our encumbrance, so they abstract it with bulk. I'd also think it's less bulk on certain mounts because they have more ways to distribute the weight than humanoids do, so it's less cumbersome for them, hence the lesser bulk.
I see it a little like the scale of what you're talking about matters - like how in Starfinder, a starship weapon might deal 1d8 damage, but if you were to shoot it at a human standing on a planet, it would completely destroy them with one shot. Similarly, what is 5 bulk to a human is not going to be 5 bulk to a dragon.
The Gondorians used longbows, for sure, as did certain Elves, since they passed their knowledge to Men. The Gondorians had heartwood bows, 68 inches tall.
Igor Horvat wrote:
The Bow of the Galadhrim is probably a longbow - but Tolkein was never specific, only that it was longer and stouter than his Mirkwood bow. The Mirkwood Elves definitely used shortbows, though.
Unless the term 'swashbuckler' means something specific in the context of Golarion, that might differ from what we know the term to be. The class then is that, and not the thing we're thinking of.
Similar to how the 'oracle' in Pathfinder is not a prophet or seer, but that's what we know them as in real life. Same with 'witch' and 'barbarian' and many others.
Paladins in real life have nothing to do with paladins as they are in TTRPGs, but they had such a specific connotation, that when Paizo wanted to break away from the 'divine warrior being locked to Lawful Good', they changed the name entirely.
Perhaps 'swashbuckler' in Golarion means someone who has an almost supernatural ability to harness luck and charisma in combat, so the class is named that because of it.
Just spit-balling, but what I'm saying is basically that PF2E seems to be a lot more rooted in the setting than 1E was on a meta level, and the classes seem to be 'as Golarion would see them', so they might be trying to define what a 'Golarion swashbuckler' is with this iteration.
It's hard to say it invalidates a combat style of the Fighter when we don't really know what the Swashbuckler will do just yet.
Perhaps they are built such that they get a feature where the Stride action for them can be a free action if they do something else after it, or whathaveyou.
They did mention the Swashbuckler will play around with the action economy even more than the Fighter, and in ways people may not expect.
It's also entirely a thing a GM can do where they just strip out the flavor of a specific Dedication or Archetype if it doesn't fit with their homebrew world or whatever else.
I can't really fault Paizo for making things tied to their specific setting, when it's such an important part of their game.
Because it hit my LotR brain, Gandalf would be a Cleric of Ilúvatar or Manwë and probably of the Warpriest doctrine, since his power is divine and he was handy with Glamdring.
(Gandalf the White may have even become a multiclass Fighter, at some point, maybe.)
"Wizard" was just what the folk of Middle-earth called him - he's really more equivalent to an angel or divine spirit. Aasimar Warpriest Cleric of Manwë or Ilúvatar would be my build, eventually.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
It picks up right after the end of Tyrant's Grasp.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Or the enemy moves past the Champion and attacks an ally 30 ft. away from said Champion. Or backs up out of your reach and shoots the ally. Or does... a whole lot of other things that aren't going to get Retributive Strike, or attacking the Champion.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Correct! You just can't rage for 1 minute, which is fine. The only fatigue with rage is if you have the Second Wind feat, which lets you rage without waiting the 1 minute, but then you're fatigued.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
More or less, yeah. I'm playing an Ulfen Fighter with Barbarian Dedication for a 'viking berserker' feel and I've basically achieved that at level 2, which is awesome.
No, abilities base is 10 - and then you apply any boosts to that. And since flaws are voluntary - and a GM might not allow them, anyway - someone taking a voluntary flaw to Int as a Wizard is either fulfilling a very specific concept that requires that for some reason or are trying some weird out of the box math weirdness.
Since I wager we're talking about the baseline 'default' Wizard here - as we should anyway when it comes to broad class discussions, since all of these would be better off that way and not have to try and debate around niche concepts the Core rulebook isn't assuming - and no Core Ancestry has a penalty to Int, you will get a 12 at minimum, since the Wizard boost is to Int.
Only if you are an Ancestry that has a penalty to Int (which is none as of this moment), or you take a voluntary flaw to it. All Abilities start at 10 - assuming you're using the default method - and Wizards bump Intelligence, so yeah, 12.
Game also just have limitations. With what it seems like Paizo was going for in PF2E - classes being a much, much greater part of a character's identity than before - such a limitation comes into effect where certain classes just can't do something or use something without significant investment elsewhere.
Thus, wizards at baseline aren't meant to be running around in heavy armor. This is not "all wizards ever in 2E" cannot use heavy armor heavy, but right now, with only Core out and the 'basic' wizard is not a heavy armor user. The general feat might be there as Unicore said to just be like "yeah, you can do it, but it's not as good as a class archetype would be, or a MC archetype".
PF1E had limitations, too, just different ones. Frankly a lot more limitations in some places. Yeah, it sucks you may not be able to fully realize a very specific concept from just Core, but that's fine. The concept is, after all, very specific and may not be all that common to the general playerbase - which the vast majority of I'd wager is not on the forums.
N N 959 wrote:
One of the biggest hurdles as a game designer - whether it be video games, board games, or tabletop games - is trying to parse out feedback from players. Often times, it's super broad and general and hard to get to the meat of the issue, so designers will correct for one thing when the players actually meant something else.
Being as specific as possible and trying to really widdle down to the root of the issue is way more helpful. It's why playtests will often go "Okay, in this round, we're only testing spells" or "We want to see how this one change works with everything else".
Specificity breeds better innovation, and its helpful for us as players to do that, too.
Not when specifically talking about game design, no. Player agency is agnostic to character concept. It's directly relating to the impact the player has on the story/play through the game design or gameplay.
Uncharted, for example, offers no ability to realize a concept because everyone plays Nathan Drake, but it has loads of player agency.
The player can impact the story of a PF2E game in many different ways regardless of their concept, so it's not related.
Terminology is important when we're discussing concepts of design.
"Has the ability to realize your concept to the fullest extent taken a hit?" would be a better title for this thread.
It's no problem, really. Industry concepts and terms are really obfuscated from the general populace, and it's not often easy to find what one term means vs. another. You can find it, of course, but it requires a heavy interest in the nitty gritty of system design, and reading designer blogs and such.
Tabletops are actually some of the most player agency filled games - it's when we get to video games where that can become limited, because tech and such.
Something like 'character diversity' would be more accurate in this discussion, I think, and even then it's more of a subjective thing, since people view that differently.
That's not what player agency is, though. Player agency is (broadly speaking) the ability to impact the story through game design or gameplay.
Now, games often allow player agency in different ways, so it's hard to nail down like one specific thing that defines it, but that's what we use in my line of work, and is usually the common definition.
You can still do that wholeheartedly in 2E - in just a different way. Games which don't let you customize at all still have player agency.
Player agency has nothing to do with hyper-specialization, customization, or anything like that.
My dude, I'm not worrying about it. I was simply stating that the setting likely influences Paizo's design of the base system, and in their setting if wizards and sorcerers aren't running around wearing heavy armor on the regular outside of a very specific group in a very specific circumstance, then it's not something they want to make the way some people want it.
I was just responding to another poster. Relax.
I think the issue with that would be that the narrative conceits around the classes in Golarion mean that casters generally don't wear heavy armor - that is, we don't really have things like Arcane Warriors from Dragon Age when it comes to the 'baseline' casters like Sorcerers and Wizards.
PCs end up being the exception, not the rule, so they might do some wacky stuff with feats/archetypes, but generally, "Wizards and sorcerers don't wear heavy armor" is baseline true to the narrative of the world.
Except, proficiencies and how they scale in both of these classes are part of their progression and its base chassis. For Fighters and Champions, yeah, they are part of the identity of the class, and how they function and why their feats work the way they do.
It's a plain fact that those proficiencies matter a lot to them, and isn't reductionist at all.
I don't think little about any of the classes. I just don't agree with the other side of the debate, and think it's perfectly fine if sometimes things are just not the way you might want in a system.
You can house rule things to make them that way, but the designers clearly had an intent and that intent was "this feat only lets you go up to this level of proficiency".