All good stuff. The arcana will need a lot of work. For example, touch attacks don’t exist, so Accurate Strike should probably be changed to give flat footed to an opponent, while Arcane Accuracy shouldn’t give int as a bonus (maybe an alternative?). Which would alter the flavour of them while keeping their intent I think
Samurai wrote:
Interesting ideas, the only thing that concerns me is how powerful these abilities can be. A well built monk using ki defence could be adding +3 to ac at 1st level, on a chassis that is only just behind an optimal fighter. Add in access to the shield cantrip (from ancestry feat) and 20% miss chance from ki rush and suddenly they’re untouchable. While my concerns may turn out to be unfounded, it does seem a little op. And at this stage, the build hasn’t even used a class feat.
This is similar to what I have been advocating. Right now, Arcane sorcerers are ok, but Divine, Occult and Primal are all lacking. While returning to Arcane lists only is an option, I don't think it'll be a very popular one. If this gives options to Divine, Occult and Primal sorcerers that make them viable then I'm all for it. One of the things that concerns me is the constant demand for channel energy for divine sorcerers; I don't think this is an option (although currently some alternative to Cleric healing is desirable), for the following reasons:
Case in point: Angelic Bloodlines could possibly exude a healing aura (all within 10' heal 1hp/turn). This wouldn't do much in combat, but it would ensure that allies can heal up between encounters in a relatively short time. Thematic, solves the healing problem and doesn't step on the toes of clerics.
Another thing I thought may be a possible innovation is to allow sorcerers to recover a spell slot by spending resonance. (say 1 resonance per level of spell slot?) That would give them a resource to gain extra spells (giving them back their extra spells when compared to a wizard) without having to resort to scrolls (which should primarily be a wizard thing).
Crayon wrote:
Swinging on a chandelier is more of a trope than an actual combat tactic. What swashbuckling adventure isn't complete without the hero swinging on a chandelier (or rope, or curtain, etc.)? In the real world, doing this would mean placing yourself in an unbalanced position with little control and an inability to shift in response to your opponents moves - in other words, it's a horrible combat tactic. It is however a powerful roleplay moment and should rightfully be rewarded for getting into the spirit of the game.
Sanoskazi wrote:
What else would a sorcerer be doing in melee?
Fuzzypaws wrote: Bear in mind that even if you nerf cleric, you STILL need to give the sorcerer "more toys" to bring it up to par. The sorcerer gets less feats, less hit points, less gear proficiencies, less flexible spellcasting, less flexibility in advancement due to being locked into one bloodline, and only one power compared to the two a cleric or Bard gets. While one power is on par with wizard and druid, the powers THEY get are universally better than the bloodline power a sorcerer gets. The only class as bad as or worse than the sorcerer is the Alchemist; it needs major improvements. I agree. The only thing the sorcerer gets is more spells and bloodlines. If the spell list is unexciting, they have to rely on bloodline abilities to make an impact, and right now they don't cut it.
As I understand it, the clerics healing abilities are pretty much a must have to survive encounters. nerfing them means nerfing the chances of survival. But giving divine sorcerers equal healing power would cut in on the cleric (and they still wouldn't be as good as a cleric who gets armor proficiency, weapon proficiency and divine powers); they really need something different but cool to give them back their mojo. That's why I think some kind of advanced bloodline feat chain would work. Angel bloodlines be coming pseudo angels or demon bloodlines becoming pseudo devils would be cool and give sorcerers something to do besides just cast (lame) spells and be a poor cleric substitute.
They definitely need something. Outside of arcane casters, the spell lists aren't strong enough to support a sorcerer. Who would play a divine sorcerer when a cleric can do so much more? Ditto primal sorcerer and druid; and occult sorcerer and bard. It is obvious that the idea of different spell lists depending on bloodlines is very popular, so I would be reluctant to abandon that, but whatever is chosen to improve the sorcerer has to be both flavorful and must cost the arcane sorcerer something to implement. I suggest some kind of advanced bloodline chain of feats; taking these would eat into the arcane sorcerers metamagic feats but give other sorcerers something other than second rate spells that they can use.
Alignment doesn't restrict roleplay. It doesn't dictate what your character wouldn't do, only what they are unlikely to do. If the character acts outside their alignment too often, their alignment changes. For some classes (e.g. Paladin or cleric) this may have consequences, but for others it is about the growth of the character.
I've been giving this some thought while the forum has been down. While regenerative healing is an interesting idea, it doesn't solve the wider problem, which is that the non-arcane sorcerer doesn't work very well. While they get more spells than their counterparts, all of their various counterparts (Cleric, Bard or Druid) get powers and weapon/armour proficiencies which simply make them a better choice. That's why I am more than ever convinced that sorcerer needs something that will cost class feats (so it will cost arcane sorcerers something) but which is thematic and unique to sorcerers. I still think advanced bloodline Feats are the best fit for this, such that e.g. angelic bloodlines can become more like an angel or draconic bloodlines can become more draconic, but at the cost of metamagic, etc. Needless to say some thought needs to be given to when such Feats become available and what they are, but it seems like the basis of a solution.
Seems to me the divine sorcerer needs some kind of theme it can excel at when compared to a cleric. At the moment, the cleric is better at combat builds and healing, and the divine list doesn't have enough oomph to make
Arakhor wrote:
I wouldn't mind that, but powers are included too. Makes finding a relevant spell difficult. I'm also annoyed that power entries give no indication of who has access to them. I'm left wondering if it's a paladin power, a domain power, a bloodline power, a school power, an ancestry power or a bard power. Also, when I pick (say) a bloodline, I have to flip to a completely different part of the book to find out what my bloodline power does. Maybe it's because it's a playtest, but it's a bit annoying.
One of the things that I am beginning to find annoying is that many of the things we are being told do not need to be in the playtest (because they know they work) are the very things we want to use to make our concepts. I am increasingly of the opinion that the best way to test a new system is to recreate the concepts from the old (Archer-Paladins of Erastil, lightly armoured fighters, etc.) but without the archetypes we are told should be available (Hopefully there would ones to cover these builds), this becomes impossible.
Given that the only other 6 level semi caster was reincarnated as a full caster with reduced spell slots, I suspect they will do the same with Magus. It would be nice to think I'm wrong, but assuming I'm right, How would they balance spellstrike?
I would like to add: To those who keep saying that spellstrike could be used to make Warpriests, the Warpriest has never had anything remotely resembling spellstrike. You may be getting confused with spell combat, which allows a spell and an attack on the same round; but spell combat and fervour function very differently. Spell combat is any spell you can cast, at a -2 to all attacks. Fervour is any spell that only targets you but with no penalty.
I have to say, I disagree with those who say that many of the concepts from pf1 can be reduced to a multi-class in pf2 CRB.
I could go on, suffice to say that just about every other class in Pf1 has enough options that would make it difficult to boil down to an archetype or a multi-class. While the multi-class option is interesting and powerful, it is no substitute for these many brilliant innovations from Pf1, so please stop saying they can be recreated/reduced to an Archetype. Maybe some will be reduced to an archetype; maybe some can be recreated, but the fact remains that most of them use unique abilities that make them irreducible/irreplaceable.
Nathanael Love wrote:
I get that. For you, you will have to wait until they bring out some more options in an expansion book before it makes it worth your while to transfer, which will probably mean a few years from now. In the mean time, I hope you continue to enjoy playing pf1. Good luck, and see you in a few years!
MusicAddict wrote:
iirc the Adamantine Shield was hardness 18 (I could be wrong), but I seem to remember the unbreakable shield as 13, too. Looking at fight scenes in films, the hero's shield breaking early due to the bad guy's onslaught is a common trope - one I have felt was missing from d&d/Pf for some time (well, forever). I'm glad they introduced it.
Nathanael Love wrote:
They weren't in the CRB (though at least some will be in pf2 CRB, plus many will be replaced by class feats. Quote: Original Multiclassing (replaced by having ONLY a suped up variant multiclassing) I think the system presented is actually better, but you're entitled to your opinion. Quote: All the Occult Classes Weren't in the CRB Quote:
Wasn't in the CRB Quote:
Wasn't in the CRB Quote:
Weren't in the CRB Quote:
Weren't in the CRB Quote:
Weren't in the CRB Quote:
Wasn't in the CRB Quote:
Weren't in the CRB Quote:
Weren't in the CRB Quote:
Weren't in the CRB (except Goblin) Quote:
If none of those things were in the CRB first time around why would you expect them to be in it this time round? Do you have any conception of how huge such a monstrosity would be?
As I understand it, the retraining rules will allow you to retrain stats. So you can start with a stat of 14, retrain it to 16, get the multiclass, retrain it back to 14. This is useful if you pick a background for fluff reasons (and why wouldn't you?) but it doesn't boost the stat you need for multiclassing. I don't think it would work for
I have to say, I provisionally withdraw my objections to the multi-class/archetype clash.
Much depends on how much these are covered by class feats. If they are, it would be no problem multi-classing at 2nd. It would feel slightly unsatisfying not to be able to put a label on your character that automatically differentiated you, but it's something I could learn to live with if class feats (and skill feats, ancestry feats, etc) step up. I have to admit, the way multi-classing is implemented in and of itself is very good. Personally, I think ranger/,wizard multi-classes will become popular because of the importance of winning initiative for a caster, enabling them to e.g. buff fighters before they attack or cast fireball before the combat zone gets crowded with allies.
My only complaint is that multiclass archetypes clash with other archetypes. If they had made the dedication feat as a multiclass dedication feat instead of a multiclass, archetype dedication feat it would be possible to have the basics of a character concept by level 4 (3 if human). That would still be bad, but much better than the current system where you have to wait until level 8. Or just declare no more than 3 archetypes, though ths may see some players front loading their archetypes to maximise their power.
I think the idea is that they normally get 3 actions, but they take 1 to understand and comply with your commands. It takes 1 action for you to command them, too. Overall you get 4 actions left (2 for you, 2 for creature).
If the only requirements for multi-classing are a stat at 16 and a skill, and they don't require a dedication feat, I could live with that. I could multi-class at 1st, then get an archetype at 2nd. It would mean that I would be 4th level before I had any meaningful choice (unless I was human - they can convert an ancestry feat into a class feat), which would hurt, but it's a whole lot better than waiting until 8th to get a choice.
To me, a lot depends on how archetypes interact with multi-classing. If they are just another archetype, I will not be a happy bunny since my character concept will not come online until 8th level ( 6th if you can start at 11st level).
The main problem I have with this style of multi-classing is that it costs class feats. What if I have a cool idea for an archetype plus multi-class, that's 6 feats right there; and I haven't even got any class feats for my own class yet. The problem with hanging so much on one resource is that it gets pulled in too many directions; I'd prefer to be able to give up other resources (skill feats, ancestry feats or general feats) so that at least I could get a fair amount of class feats for my actual classes.
Ok, let's break this down. The barbarian gets +14 in law, the lawyer +10 But, the lawyer gets to turn a success into a crit and a failure into a success.
master_marshmallow wrote:
This is wrong. Analysis paralysis may have been a consideration, but the main reason the sorcerer was not able to freely heighten is that it would make it too powerful. Consider this: I am a smart player, If I have Free Heightening, here is what would happen.At first level, I get 3 spells known. I pick spells that are heightenable to all subsequent level. At 3rd level, I pick 3 New (heightenable) spells, plus I get the 3 that are freely heightened from my first level spells, for 6 spells. At 5th level, I pick 3 new spells, get the 3 heightened 2nd level spells and the 3 heightened 1st level spells for 9 spells. and so on. Now for a sorcerer, knowing a spell means being able to cast a spell - not like these wizards who have to prepare slots. So while the 5th level wizard has access to 3x4 = 12 spells (because that is the number of spell slots he has), the sorcerer has access to 3+6+9=18 spells, and the gap widens every couple of levels.
So, to limit it they decided that only 2 could be hightened. This still gives the sorcerer 5 new spells/level (except 1st), making it very powerful if used wisely, and the consensus among the devs is that sorcerer may well be more powerful than the wizard because of it. Oh, and it only costs a couple of 1st level spells known slots not a great sacrifice for a high level sorcerer.
houser2112 wrote:
What you have to remember is that both classes come with a bottleneck in their ability to cast spells freely; for wizards it is their spells prepared - it doesn't matter how many spells they know, it only matters how many they prepare (given some time, they can get round this, but in the heat of battle that's what they are stuck with). For the sorcerer, it is their spells known. Anything they know, they can cast (assuming they still have spell slots available, that is); anything they don't know, they can't (outside of scrolls). If you allow them to heighten everything freely, the number of spells known rises exponentially (3 at 1st, 6x 2nd, 9x3rd, 12x4th, etc; of course this assumes that they pick spells that are heightenable to each of the following levels, but you get the picture). Before long, they have access at any time to pretty much every spell there is of their level or lower and the bottleneck is gone.So that's why the devs limited it. It's just too powerful and unbalances the sorcerer. As is, the consensus among the devs is that they now think sorcerer is more powerful than wizard.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Not all class features are now class feats - spellcastng, and attack/armour proficiencies, for example. Since these are one of the main reasons people multiclass, they would have to be converted to feats. As well as making things complex (much against the stated aim of the devs), it would mean spending class feats to get what pure gets for free. While they are spending class feats to improve their features, you are spending class feats just to get them! I for one would be very disappointed in this. If I multi-class out of a class, it's because I no longer want anything out of it. I don't want to be locked in to that classes proficiency progression while I pick up some of the basic features of another class. What I really want is to be able to pick up some of the class feats of the new class, but without the basic features, that's not going to be possible. Besides, they have fixed pretty much all the problems with multi-classing in the new system (as far as we can tell). Everyone knows how it works, and it's very flexible. Why opt for a clunky system that was pretty much universally hated in unchained when the existing system has been fixed?
The Raven Black wrote:
This is true, but pf2 seems to have fixed all this with the proficiency system.
So, what are the problems with multi-classing in pf1 that need to be addressed in pf2? a) spellcasters. In pf1, spellcasters, lose out dcs, meaning they fall too far behind the curve versus their pure brethren. If only dcs didn't scale so fast, then we could have spellcaster multi-classing. Well, now they don't. b) dipping. Because class features were front loaded, dipping a class could get you a load of class features. You lost out on the capstone, but since people hardly ever got to level 20, that didn't matter. You could also repeatedly dip, getting loads of front loaded abilities.
Dire Ursus wrote:
If I were a fighter multi-classing into wizard, I would expect to get spells - otherwise what's the point? and If I'm a wizard multi-classing into Fighter, what do I lose compared to a pure Wizard? Seems to me I only gain.
Dire Ursus wrote: You gain proficiencies from the dedication feats. Not as fast as a full spellcaster I'm sure, but you can still get them. And they aren't just getting "wizard feats". These are specific dedication feats that give you abilities that the wizard has. Like spellcasting levels, and spellcasting proficiencies. The first dedication feat probably gives you something like this: You gain a spellbook and a few cantrips, and you are trained in spellcasting. In other words, you get everything a 1st level wizard gets - so why not simplify things and say that you are taking a level of wizard, which gives you everything a wizard gets. That way you don't have to write out a dedication feat.
Milo v3 wrote:
I agree. It also means you won't really be progressing in the new class.
Arachnofiend wrote:
So in a counterspell battle, it would go SLOW, SLOW, QUICK, QUICK, SLOW...
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
There are a couple of reasons why we have classes: (1) tradition. While this is not a good reason per se, there is a large fan base that would be upset if they went, and that would mean loss of sales.(2) direction. If I take fighter, I know I'm going to be a martial character. If I take wizard, I know I'm going to be a spellcaster. It's easy to underestimate how helpful that is to new players (and some experienced ones). There are already a lot of choices, they don't need more.
Gavmania wrote:
Who was the idiot that suggested Material/spiritual is technology! Of course it's not. Spiritual is all about alignments, and material is about the shape of things, what's representative of alignment and has a shape? Demon's/devils/angels, etc. (including the denizens of Mechanus, ironically) and also deities. It is the source of domain magic.
Cat-thulhu wrote:
I would also go spellcaster, then martial; but really i don't want to have to choose between spellcaster with a flavour of martial and martial with a flavour of spellcaster. The way I see it, we know that everyone gets class feats at the same time, skill feats at the same time, ancestry feats and general feats at the same time, it's no great leap to assume it's all tied to one table that you refer to even for multi-classing. Spells would be a class feature gained at first level that scales with class level.
I can't see them denying spellcasting if you multi-class. What would be the point in multi-classing into a cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer or wizard if you can't get spells? It's the main class feature, not to mention the source of too many tropes.
This means dcs will be the same or slightly less for most of the time; the only thing separating pure from multiclass is what level they can cast spells up to. a 5th level x/5th level sorcerer will have 3rd level spells; a 10th level sorcerer will have 5th level spells. Proficiency level will be the same, so dcs (all else being the same) will also be the same.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
No, you don't. You just designate it as uncommon, which in this case is "something I haven't got round to dealing with yet". Once you get round to dealing with it, you can designate it "common" (or "rare", or whatever). You can justify it by saying that a local retired hero has begun giving tuition, spreading it (so it is now common) or local retired hero moves away (or dies), so it is now rare.
I know my brother's gaming group would like this. To use pf2 parlance in pf1: Core is common, Magus is common, Gunslinger is rare, anything else is uncommon. It's easy to understand. And if the GM allows one of the uncommon options, then finds he likes it, it can be changed to common. If he doesn't like it, he can change it to rare. Simple, really.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote: Which is worse, not only because it messes up multiclassing, but also it denies dabbling. Oh sure, you could still dabble, but the granularity level really works against it. Additionally, it really begs the question of why they even have skills in the first place, instead of minor feat trees. Not really sure what you mean by dabbling. Do you mean dipping a few levels of another class to get their class abilities? Characters that did that excessively could easily become overpowered, since most classes in pf1 front loaded their class abilities. This has been heavily reduced to prevent that, but if you are dedicated you can pick up a meaningful number of class abilities. Not sure what you mean by granularity level, either. Do you mean having to take entire levels in one class or another, without being able to mix bits of the same class in one level?Quote: Really, they are moving away from numbers having any meaning, towards simple pass/fail. The latter has the advantage of allowing lots of leveling without impacting the flavor or narrative, it makes level itself lose meaning, which allows everyone to level up more often. Yes they are moving away from simple numbers, but not towards pass/fail. They are moving towards Crit pass/pass/fail/crit fail, which is a much more complex system than simple numbers, and those simple numbers do affect the outcome, but so does proficiency (especially Master/legendary). And I find crit fails can impact the narrative/flavour more than crit successes. When I talk about old times with old friends I used to play with, more often than not it's "Do you remember the time yu failed to do this..." And levelling is part of the narrative. You have become a greater warrior/ more astute caster/ More mystical priest because of your many adventures...it's basic to most stories. It doesn't matter f it means you level up more often - if it bothers you level up by milestone. Quote:
In the end, that was a problem. At High level, a Cleric's will save had such a high number that any will save that was a reasonable challenge for them was an automatic fail for anyone else. Ditto Reflex saves and Rogues/MonksDitto Fortitude saves and Fighters/Rangers/Paladins/barbarians Ditto Armour class against Martials attacks etc., etc. (I exaggerate a little, but you get the picture) Quote:
If it's that bad, they'll find out in the playtest. Mostly from what I've seen I'd say it won't be that bad. Much of it will be rather good.
Well, I love it! Creating New worlds is a breeze. Steampunk: Common Technology, Common Magic
Special Settings: Legendary cities may have rare items as uncommon? and/or uncommon as common? Rare organizations:
etc., etc. All set just by declaring it so.
|