Golurkcanfly's page

Organized Play Member. 589 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is NOT an error but instead just a feature. There are about a dozen examples of Unarmed Attacks that don't have a Weapon Group and from what I can tell most of these seem to be a bit stronger than most actual Weapons that have the same Damage Die... in other words, the lack of a Weapon Group seems to be intentional as a means of balancing them without having to strip away a Weapon Trait, remove some of the cool stuff that the PC is allowed to do with that Unarmed Attack, or nerf the Damage Die of it.

Several examples of this have direct comparisons that are equal (or better) but have the weapon group.

I doubt every instance of this is intentional, especially ancestry-based weapons, where an unarmed attack without a weapon group can have a direct equivalent (or better) in another ancestry that has a weapon group associated.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned is property runes that add damage and how they're taken into account when it comes to monster math to keep "strikes to kill" roughly steady in the latter half of levels.

I think those are more frustrating than the fundamental runes, since they're both immediately recognizable in their strength (since they actively add more to what you're already doing) and only come in a handful of varieties. It feels bad when you can either choose to "keep up" with your sword of shocking frost blade of fire or experiment with some of the other property runes that are less universally useful.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forgotten Adventures map assets can be pretty useful for emulating the darker sort of style Paizo uses for their official maps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magic Weapons can feel powerful and useful without being items that are flat-out required to keep up with the game math. Just how much magic items are needed is felt especially early on, where a Striking rune can double the damage output of some characters, and monster math assumes that Striking rune is there.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Time Dragons interest me mainly because I'm interested in how the BattleZoo team would handle its more narratively powerful abilities. Travelling through time is a pretty big thing for an ancestry to have as part of its lore.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
siegfriedliner wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:

I feel like any game that offers a magic item market is going to wind up having items that players tend to see as essential.

On the other hand, if the issue is simply an issue with players selecting the "plus" weapons too often, the automatic bonus progression rules forestall that easily.

Magic items could be changed so that none of them gave numbered effects, flight, endless beer, smoke bottles, invisible light (hand of glory style) and other none numbered effects could still make items great but not necessary.

Then you'll still have items that people deem necessary.

That's how a metagame works.

See: people taking Healer's Gloves even with no Medicine investment.

There's a fair bit of difference between "mathematically necessary" and "makes life easier"

The former also has the issue in that +X weapons just aren't interesting.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every now and then, I notice a player option that grants an unarmed attack, but doesn't specify what weapon group they belong to.

Now, most if not all unarmed attacks belong in one of two weapon groups: Brawling (for melee) and Sling (for ranged)

For these options that don't have a weapon group (such as the Lizardfolk's Claws), I pose two questions:

1) Do they still belong to the "default" weapon group for their unarmed attack type, or do they have no group at all?

2) if the latter, is this intentional, or is it an oversight?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, they don't even need to take away any features. Just have it as a spellcasting archetype integrated into the class. It shouldn't really need much more than the Sorcerer archetype stuff. Really, the only thing it outright *needs* is to give its spells the Rage trait.

It's significantly simpler than giving it wave casting and allows players to control just how much buy-in they want.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's definitely room for gish-y stuff for each tradition, but each one should be able to justify it's existence mechanically the same way a Magus is highly distinguishable from a Fighter w/ Wizard archetype.

The 1e Warpriest is an excellent example of this. A 2e class based off of it (and no, Warpriest Cleric does not satisfy the same fantasy) would be an excellent example of a divine gish, using the accelerated self-buffs to give it an identity separate from an archetyped character.

But we don't necessarily need gishes just to have them, nor do we need wave casting just to fill a niche. Like, the Shifter probably wouldn't benefit from wave casting, but would be a great martial with focus spells.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Kineticist is made to appeal to the blaster fantasy and allow for thematically focused casters without hamstringing them relative to generalists.

It's something the Elementalist fundamentally fails at. It becomes significantly more restrictive, but doesn't increase the strength of what it's allowed to do in a way that makes up for their overall loss of options.

That and some people (myself included) don't find Vancian to be interesting nor conducive to various narratives. Vancian is kind of the last bastion of the concept of the Adventuring Day in PF2e.

Squiggit wrote:

As far as mechanical considerations, I really liked the PF1 inquisitor but I don't really hold a strong attachment to any of its specific features.

But in a very broad sense, divine warrior/battle priest/warrior of the gods archetypes are very broad and cover a huge swathe of fictional characters across all spectrums and right now it barely exists in PF2. Champions aren't very magical, are more alignment focused and are built more around being defensive. Clerics, Oracles, Sorcerers and Witches just aren't very good at being martial even though they have options facing that way. Summoners technically fit, but have fairly specific and unique flavor and mechanics that don't make them a great fit for a broad range of concepts.

Having something in between those options just seems important to cover what feels to me like a gap in the design space of existing classes.

Isn't that the purpose of archetyping? A significant chunk of Inquisitor concepts work as X with Cleric Archetype (X being pretty much any martial) or the Thaumaturge (though that uses CHA instead of WIS, much to my chagrin).

A post-core class needs a mechanic to stand on its own two legs without feeling redundant, and the mechanic would hopefully be something other than "Roll to Rage/Hunt Prey/whatever." Unlike the core classes, something released now doesn't define the systems around it (like how the Wizard gave purpose to the Arcane list and the Monk really emphasizes the freeform action economy).

Take the Magus, for example. It isn't just "Kinda Fighter Kinda Wizard," it has a specific mechanic that it is built around.

I've always noticed that the Inquisitor has been highly requested, but never understood exactly why. The class is a variety of discrete mechanics playing to a specific theme, but never had a cohesive mechanical identity nor a single defining feature like the Magus's Spellstrike. In addition, its flavor is often hard to distinguish from the 1E Warpriest or "X but Cleric Archetype" (substitute Ranger/Rogue/Fighter/Investigator/Thaumaturge).

With that in mind, what specifics do you want out of Inquisitor in 2E? Full class with new, revamped mechanics? Focused archetype? Class hybridized with 1E Warpriest mechanics?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Temperans wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Temperans wrote:

1. The 3 action economy is a great idea, but sadly I think it is currently being underused and overly restricted. The new classes and casters are too tied up into using 2-3 action activities/routines just to keep up.

Same idea here – restricting casters is what makes martials be more powerful in 2E.

I believe there's certainly more room for feats to use actions for casters, but having martials get an economy edge vs. casters having a versatility edge is what makes the game so balanced.

* This is not me trying to start a debate but another point of criticism I have.

I think that the whole martials have better action economy thing makes the game worse.

Not only does it encourage bad game design from the devs, as seen with non-core classes all being very clunky. But it also creates an unneeded shackle that prevents more interesting feats from being created. Not to mention that as far as the new classes are concerned (including the new martials) they all have worse action economy than the core.

Overall, the whole thing just feels bad as a player when you want to do something cool but the action economy actively stops you. It feels bad as a theory crafter when your cool idea doesn't work because of the action limit. It feels bad as a game dev when the cool feat/spell/ability is impossible because its action economy is "too good" compared to current feats.

There's obviously tension, but isn't that inherent to all game design? And wouldn't it be applicable to all economies (even non-game ones), not just the 3 action economies?

And we've seen the Design team play with the economy to make unique classes, like the Summoner having effective 4 actions, Magus clumping actions into Spellstrikes, and both of them are non-Core.

Sometimes it feels bad (Thaumaturge coff coff), sometimes it just clicks (Monk <3)

Sometimes the action economy feels more like a straightjacket than something that contributes to the game. Like the Barbarian's Rage. There's very few times where you *wouldn't* want to Rage as a Barbarian, but it shaves off a third of your turn.

Other times, it's actively obstructive, like with a melee Investigator, who, to do their main thing, always has to commit to a single action in particular in addition to striding up and striking to "work as intended." Contrast to the Swashbuckler, who can get it's panache for Finisher in multiple ways, allowing for more freedom off of a similar mechanic.

Or the Magus, who always needs two actions to do their main thing, but also has to spend another action to recharge it, and then has this class-specific stance that uses an action *and* can only be used after another action or two.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

They're not wrong in that slavery has existed long before the colonial era and still exists today in numerous forms.

However, white supremacy-based slavery is the form of chattel slavery that still impacts the most people in the global west today, and that's incredibly important to this discussion.

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think not giving casters a 1st level feat like martials is not an effective balance mechanism and only works to incentivize playing as a human if going the caster route.

I also think the game needs some more quality skill and general feats that unlock outright new abilities rather than just improving proficiency. There's a world of difference between stuff like Scare to Death (combat action which defies the stated purpose of separate skill/class feats), Trick Magic Item (has use in and outside of combat, but debatably could have been a default part of the skill, with the feat instead reducing the action tax), and Improvise Tool (does nothing new and only comes up if you lose your incredibly cheap crafting and repair kits). With general feats, there's a clear issue with how the feats that grant proficiency don't really scale with your level, so they become fodder for retraining as soon as you jump a proficiency tier.

Finally, I think the separation of simple vs martial vs advanced weapons ultimately does less for the game than a singular, internally balanced weapon pool would. Everyone that particularly wants to use a weapon generally has access to martial weapons, an ability that upgrades a simple weapon to martial quality, or already has another limit on what weapons they can use (such as only being able to use Precise Strike with finesse/agile weapons). Advanced Weapons are also awkward because they have the same issues as Exotic Weapons in 1e, but accessing them requires more specific setups, leading to a weirdly high number of humans raised in gnomish orphanages.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it was confirmed to be a typo in one of the original G&G errata/FAQ threads. It's supposed to be Master Proficiency at 13th level.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

1. Kineticist not butchered, by using spell slots.

2. Kineticist not butchered, by making their utility talents compete with infusions.

3. Kineticist not butchered, by

4. More cool caster/Alchemist feats.

5. A lot more cool items that auto scale. Or that at least don't care about level.

Bonus Did I mentioned Kineticist not getting butchered?

Just let their feats have both a utility talent *and* an infusion in singular feats

There's a design space for feats that do multiple things that sadly isn't used. Stuff like the Tongue of Sun and Moon could have really used a second ability.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Longer playtest periods with a slower release pace. This should give the designers more time to breathe as well as tweak class designs. Ideally, there'd be two or more public playtests per class at a slower development pace.

2) Simple Casters + Complex Martials. Right now, the casters are balanced around being able to have a variety of tricks they can regularly change out, while Martials pick and choose stuff to keep for their entire career. There's a design space for casters that remain focused, but at a higher power (Kineticist as an example) as well as martials who can more freely branch out (ToB style initiators or a Combat Flexibility Specialist for examples). It's a bit rough when there's still quite a few situational feats.

3) More martials that aren't just damage-based. There's a trend in the post-core martials that they're all strikers first, but with options to branch out (like All-for-One Swashbuckler). This focus on damage has left some of the classes feeling like other classes, but with extra steps (Inventor is Roll to Rage, Playtest Thaum was Roll to Hunt Prey). It also means there aren't enough options for non-Striker playstyles.

4) More errata/Errata playtest. Balance errata is always a tough sell to some, but previews of errata rulesets allows for solutions to be found for issues still present in the CRB, such as STR Animal Companions falling behind on AC to a punishing degree or the Alchemist still having issues as an "active support" rather than a "pre-fight support" due to a poor action economy.

5) More optional rulesets. More alternate rules like ABP or PWL could allow for experimentation in the system for future improvements. While these will clearly change the balance of the game, as long as alterations are not hugely math-altering like PWL, it shouldn't be too much of a concern.

RAW, no, you don't.

RAI? Probably. Most other things that grant bonus feats or training tend to have a clause that lets you choose an alternate option if you already have the feat/training.

That's just smart design. It's rather poor to punish someone for already having something because they're going for a specific theme.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kendaan wrote:

Variable defense modifier would not be balanced in PF2.

I'll take Champion as an example, with that they only need Strength (cover their attack, Fort, and AC/Ref with heavy armor and Bulwark), and Charisma (Will saves, all their Champions abilities, social skills, rad skill feats, innate magic, powerful MC feats).

Wisdom lose almost all interest as an attribute vs Charisma.

Int/Dex won't change much, but we might see more intelligent medium/heavy armor wearers.

Strength just become OP, so per the champion example.

Any melee STR character will still want CON for HP

And they wouldn't pump STR any higher than they already do (since they literally can't)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Errant Mercenary wrote:

Slighty tangential to Pathfinder 2:

They should have made the Wrath of the Righetous computer game in Pathfinder 2 rues. A waste to not have a bunch of players learn the system through crpgs (as many might have done with dnd/Baldurs Gate/NWN). Hope the next is.

While I agree that a 2e CRPG would have been most preferable, it is a bit awkward to use WOTR for it because there's no basis for how Mythic is supposed to work in PF2e. Would it be improved Hero Point options + Mythic Archetypes (my homebrew solution), fast XP gain + epic levels, a secondary level track that increases numbers alongside the main level track, or something else entirely?

Also Owlcat seems dead set on RTwP gameplay, which might be a little awkward for 2e. Not sure why they choose to prioritize it, but that's how it is.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Using additional tools is a requirement of almost any TTRPG. PF2e practically requires battlemaps, for instance, and the grand majority of systems use some kind of dice.

Then you've got systems which use lookup tables or have lots of book-keeping, so you want a GM screen.

Or systems with proprietary dice.

Or systems with dice that aren't just d6s (seriously, who outside of the TTRPG sphere owns d12s?)

Or systems that require entire *other* systems for reference.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cylar Nann wrote:

I am not sure about others but I find the 4 stats per level helps. In other games you just go main stat and that was it.

I have never felt the need to go
18 Int
14 Dex
14 Wis
14 Con
On a Wizard for example and level those stats only.

Unless your GM is spamming wisdom saves on your specifically every fight having a low Wisdom has never felt horrible to me.

Most my experience is in the 1-8 range though. Have people played low WIS characters and felt that useless having 18 INT/CHA over WIS?

At least Charisma is kind of useful in this edition.

I feel most people use quite a varied stat array overall.

It gets rough at high levels because it scales on two axes:

1) Monster DC math roughly follows the specialists in a given save, so the gap widens as you level up
2) More importantly, spells and penalties as a result of failed saves get significantly nastier, so failing a save can mean being a non-contributor for the entire combat. That always feels pretty bad from a player perspective.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I don't think it would be unbalancing to allow all the saves to use the higher of two stats by default.

Fort is STR/CON (doesn't buff STR much since everyone with STR wants CON for HP anyways)
Reflex is INT/DEX
Will is WIS/CHA

This just makes not pumping the 3 save stats each Ability Boost feel significantly worse at upper levels when it means crit failing nasty save or suck spells on a 7 or 8.

How do you even message them to sign up for the playtest?

Don't use KS much so no clue if there's a way to do it there.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:

I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's a combination of things that make characters in 2e feel really un-heroic. There's the normal math, as others have stated, but there's more to it. Items having so much power is one (especially magic weapons), nearly every class needs some sort of item(s) to work (aforementioned weapons, spell book, alchemist kit, their invention, etc), spells last very short amounts of time compared to other d20 games I've played, the rarity system making a lot of powerful stuff gated behind gm approval (or flat out unable to get in things like pfs)... I feel 2e looks at opportunities for GM's to put story hooks in, more than for players to feel strong.

I can second this, at least for item dependency. Item dependency for system math and the most prevalent items being primarily math boosters makes for uninteresting heroics, and items that are based on activated abilities tend to be actively worse due to having non-scaling DCs.

It's most noticeable early on, too, where getting that first Striking rune is an enormous upgrade for your damage, especially for DEX martials.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:

If it were for me, they would release what is equivalent to Unchained in PF1. There they would effectively redo most of the classes and rules and effectively make a PF2.5.

Heck maybe making it into something like the Ultimate series. Releasing 6 books that complete rework how the system functions. While providing new options and examples.

* P.S. Why 6 books? Well: Campaign, Wilderness, Combat, Magic, Intrigue, Equipment. The 6 core aspects of a pathfinder game, and the same 6 books that were released for PF1. So, yay parity.

This could definitely fix some of the underlying issues with the new system that took a while to crop up, though I don't imagine they'll ever do that given how much pushback there is against any system level update. Just look at how much pushback there is when you ask SF players about Starfinder 2e.

pixierose wrote:

I truly loved the crusader from 3.5 and would love to see something similar to it mechanically.

It was also my first class ever.

Mechanics that play with "front-ended randomness" are one of my favorite types in RPGs. Instead of saying you want to do X and then being sad when the dice fail you, you instead roll and get to choose from XYZ. The Crusader and Path of War's Mystic are both examples of doing something like this in a d20 system with the card mechanic, and it lets them be versatile while both avoiding analysis paralysis as well as letting them be more powerful (since you can't count on being able to do the optimal thing despite your breadth of options overall).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would want a book that defies certain design paradigms of PF2e with many optional rules and classes that don't fit the "specialist martial vs generalist caster" situation that currently exists.

So, classes would be something like Kineticist (blaster specialist magic user) and something like a Crusader from Tome of Battle (has many martial maneuvers, but the maneuvers available on any given turn are semi-randomly determined via cards). The first satisfies the blaster fantasy by being a powerful damage dealer at the cost of versatility, while the latter brings moment to moment versatility to martials.

Then you have more gamist stuff like creature role templates (the game does not support minion monsters at high levels that well due to HP bloat) and extra Hero Point uses (could be tied to Mythic rules)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and some more that I forgot

8) Lurch Levels

Levels where you increase your proficiency matter waaaay more than others, but proficiency increases don't actually change how you play. In addition, balance gets funky when proficiency increases are staggered. Clerics hit just as well as Rogues for about a third of the game, for example. This could be solved by abolishing the current system and just having "class proficiency" that doesn't increase and just sets your "proficiency tier" at the start and adds your levels (for weapons, Casters would start Level - 2, Martials at Level +/- 0, Fighter at Level + 2). This also lets you differentiate between casters more, so someone like the Bard who has powerful utility Cantrips and really good feats would be a proficiency tier below a Wizard or Witch.

9) Weapon Tiers

Simple vs Martial vs Advanced Weapons are generally an uninteresting mechanic. Simple weapons exist to be "strictly worse," but everyone who wants to use a weapon has access to martial weapons anyways (discounting bespoke proficiencies which shouldn't exist). Advanced Weapons have the same problem as Exotic Weapons in 1e, but many could have also been slightly weaker (or in some cases, unchanged) and just be Uncommon Martial weapons. While there could eventually be something interesting with the Simple vs Martial dichotomy in the future, the current system options for Simple Weapons simply make them up to par to Martial Weapons with a feat tax.

10) Null Turns

Due to the underutilization of degrees of success, "null turns" (turns where the game state did not reasonably change) are still a little too common. It feels really bad to miss a full turn of Strikes, and that's not terribly uncommon. If martials had more effects on a Failure, this could change.

11) Healing Out of Combat

Right now, the system math wants both parties to be fully healed between combats, but player healing is still rather slow which can make certain narratives within the system's own suggested framework (dungeon crawling) not play nice with the math. HP could reasonably regenerate between combats automatically. After all, it's supposed to represent a combination of stress, luck, and "meat points" (though in practice and application of other system options, it defaults to meat points)

5 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Vancian Casting

Vancian as a system introduces numerous issues (such as casters scaling on extra axes compared to martials), can make specialization problematic, and is really the only "complete" magic system

2) Focus Spell Imbalance

There's just a lot of really bad, situational focus spells, which means that they don't really shore up the limited Vancian slots at low levels for a lot of characters

3) 1st Level Feat Options

This is two different, but connected issues. Casters don't get 1st level class feats (this isn't an effective balance mechanism) and Archetypes aren't available at 1st level (sudden character shifts at 2nd level feel like a strange choice compared to just starting out with the Archetype)

4) Skill Feat Chaff

There's too many skill feats that could have been baked into the skills to begin with and just don't compare to the skill feats that actively improve how a character functions

5) Low Level Imbalance
Low levels, due to the less stable statistics (ability scores matter a lot more, weapon damage is more swingy, HP is quite low compared to damage, jumping from one weapon die to two is enormous, etc.) as well as highly limited spell slots, have notably more awkward balance than mid or high levels which can put new players off of the game.

6) Versatility vs Power Balance

PF2e's design approach to classes leaves certain fantasies rather unsatisfied. Martials are powerful, but they can still struggle to have meaningful moment-to-moment decision making. This is nowhere near as problematic as it was in 1e, but can still cause issues. Casters have the opposite issue. Since caster strength was built around versatility, casters that aren't branching out are suffering comparatively, as there aren't good options for specialist casters.

One way to go about allowing fantasies that are both powerful and versatile without overshadowing others is to let characters be versatile, but not have all their options at the same time. This can be done with a sort of "charge" system like the Solarian or can be done with things such as cards (you build a deck of powerful cards, but can only choose from a small number of them on a given turn).

This allows for classes that can be both broad and powerful as well as allowing specialists to be more capable in their field of expertise (with the card system, a Fire Wizard can fireball round after round compared to a Wizard who just took a single fireball in their deck)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
Temperans wrote:
...they should had gotten from the start...

This is the foundation of it all. The assumption that the stat to damage is assumed and that to not get it is to fall behind.

I disagree.

Not having stat to damage is the standard and getting stat to damage is a bonus.

What? Most characters will have stat-to-damage built in, and monster design reflects this.

This is such a backwards take given the actual mechanical structure of the game where stat bonuses to damage are assumed by comparing creature and player statistics.

Not to mention how most sustained options have a "stat-to-damage" attachment.

Unicore wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
Unicore wrote:
10 wisdom wizards are a common occurrence at start, but never boosting wisdom is a strange choice for a player who plays the game and starts to feel like they are failing a lot of will saves. Rogues get some ways around the problem too. The 10 CHA Druid is only an issue because the player has a thing they want to do, that they are not building for or boosting. This is a strong argument against over optimizing your character for being able to do only one thing.
Yeah. Actually, this is an important thing to say. I don't think starting with 10 Wisdom is a huge issue. Even 10 Con can be manageable. The issue is that if you don't keep boosting those stats as you level, you get to the point where you crit fail saves on 6s or 7s. Those four boosts per 5 levels look a lot less freeing when you take that into account.

At the same time, there is no reason to boost a save stat not tied to a major attack above 18. Having a 10 in a save stat by the end of the game is an active choice to leave yourself a vulnerability, especially since saves are a proficiency you can boost to keep off the absolute floor of level+trained.

There are a lot of choices the developers could have made differently. I think they got the general balance of on level creatures exactly right. I think the issue is the general expectation of too many games that high level solo monsters are not going to be that difficult of a fight. To me and my tables, this was a broken feature of PF1 and most other RPGs for way too long.

The semi lich has brutally high spell DCs for sure. They also have 2 low saves that can be brutally abused as undead creatures. Seriously, a level 13 cloistered cleric should have a spell DC of 31 or 32. That means a level +2 enemy, and thus one likely to be caught alone has to roll a 9 to succeed against heal and with only a minor amount of debuffing might have a 10% chance of crit failing. I agree that it is possible to cherry pick bad match ups and for parties to...

Part of the issue with these encounters isn't that they're overtly lethal, but that they can really mess with player enjoyment as both bosses and as mooks. Caster enemies with save or suck spells plus inflated DCs can easily turn one or more players into non-contributors for a fight, either through weight of modifiers (as bosses) or just through quantity (but while also having higher DCs than APL players) as mooks.

This is also exacerbated by Vancian casting trying to limit caster power via a daily resource which only happens at the player end. Creatures, by default, get all of their spells for the day for the combat, and for the narrative default (players are active, enemies are reactive), they don't necessarily need to worry about rationing spells out the same way players do.

Secret Wizard wrote:
Honestly I would prefer the attribute-less approach Paizo was toying with.

I also would not mind this, seeing as how PF2e is more of a tactical roleplaying game than other systems.

The idea provided above is just a quick and easy solution to make the DEX/CON/WIS priorities less "required"

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

I think it's more of a spectrum. Teamwork helps a lot in mitigating weird stats, but it's simply a true statement that a lot of enemies have very high DCs designed to make them reasonable threats against optimizers and that can make them feel pretty bad if you aren' that.

There's some real asymmetry in how vulnerable a Str/Int/Cha + X character can feel compared to a Dex/Con/Wis + X character and it's not an asymmetry that I feel is compensated really by... anything. It's just kind of bad balance.

This is why I suggested having saving throws key off the highest of two stats.

Fort is STR/CON, as both are bolstering your body

Reflex is DEX/INT, representing physical movement as well as mental reflex

Will is WIS/CHA, which represents both the current form of Will saves as well as how CHA represents force of personality (or sometimes will itself) since CHA is kind of a grab bag of ideas compared to the other five.

This should allow players to be more expressive with their character building without worry of gimping themselves and bolsters the two common dump stats (INT/CHA).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps they'll tie it to something other than class DC, such as a defined Esoteric Lore skill in the base class (should they keep some of the same flavor) or Perception (using CHA instead of WIS) since that also scales with classes naturally.

Class DCs just scale very awkwardly since they're both slow to progress and don't get item bonuses, so when targeted against the same DCs or statistics as other abilities, they fall behind.

A good comparison for this is just Demoralize/StD vs Spell DC vs Class DC all against a creature's Will save. That range, especially at higher levels, is enormous. At 15th level you can have Legendary + Item bonuses vs Master vs Expert against the same defense, which makes those rather tricky to balance.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's other elements that come with PF2e's monster design that underestimate the challenge provided by certain monsters, especially casters.

Caster-type enemies tend to have inflated DCs, with notable examples being the Lich and Demilich, who have caster DCs of an optimized PC several levels higher than them.

Even when you are equal in level to them, unless you're pumping your saves, you are going to be critically failing against them by quite a bit. And if they're a boss? That's when you're more likely to crit fail than to succeed.

Normally the justification for these sorts of creatures is that they have fewer tricks than PCs (not necessarily the case, as they always have their full spell slots and have numerous abilities on top of them) and caster enemies have thematic spells (which shouldn't be considered because many have very strong spells that happen to be thematic).

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The flavor definitely needs to change for CHA to make sense. Everything about the playtest flavor text leaned heavily towards INT/WIS, which was also supported by the mechanics. Knowing things, seeing connections, understanding the esoteric, etc.

Even if you go the "Force of Will" angle, CHA isn't even the ability score used for the stat called "Will"

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the game default is balanced around "maximum values," then that just means the default guidelines only work for experienced groups, which are the groups that need the guidelines the least.

A new GM will first need to hit a point where they understand that the guidelines overestimate the strength of average characters, because let's face it: PF2e does not attract the same build optimization crowd as 3.x of PF1e. More players will build towards flavor rather than pushing all their key stats. This is especially true of new players who don't understand the breadth of the system's math expectations.

Now, this issue could be lessened by any number of means including, but not limited to:

A) Standardizing defensive proficiency increases (alternatively, rework proficiency altogether since it's current form creates "lurch levels" where APL+/- balance gets a little funky)
B) Having saving throws key off of multiple stats (Fort takes highest of STR/CON, Ref highest of INT/DEX, Will highest of WIS/CHA)
C) Removing/reducing factors that contribute to the bonus range that widens as you level (ability scores don't increase as you level and DCs are adjusted to match)

But, as-is, the guidelines mislead the ones who need them most and are less necessary for groups they're actually "keyed to".

5 people marked this as a favorite.

By more Subconscious Minds, is it just INT/CHA ones or will there be a WIS one for the classic "mystic sage" trope?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I prefer dex-to-damage was the exclusive province of the thief rogue. To turn the argument on its head, if other people could get dex-to-damage easily, why would you bother playing a Thief Rogue?

I personally think the tradeoff between the two is actually fairly close when you look at things other than damage.

The Rogue deals more average damage, has an easier time setting it up, and is better at skills.
The Swashbuckler is significantly tankier, much more mobile, and has a higher damage ceiling and floor.

I don't think we can mandate "X class should do as much damage as Y class" as a point of comparison, since we know that Giant Barbs and Melee Fighters are the kings of damage but the Champion class is still very useful.

The point of comparison I think is interesting about the Swashbuckler is the Swash vs. the Ranger.

The tankiness of the Swashbuckler is not that much more significant, as Rogue still has some of the best defensive abilities of any martial. Mobility, on the other hand, is definitely an advantage in the Swashbuckler's favor, but it falls short of the Monk, who gets significant boosts in other areas to compensate.

Giant Barbs and Fighters are not only kings of damage, but also get excellent abilities to keep up in other aspects (mobility, utility, battlefield control), and there's very little keeping one from being just as good at various skill-based support options that the Swashbuckler gets with the exception of One for All, as universal Aid abilities are rather rare.

In addition, unlike the Swashbuckler or the other Rogue rackets, the Thief Rogue's DEX to damage doesn't actually change how you play. Its perhaps the most boring subclass option of any of them, and exists solely to sequester DEX-to-damage as an exclusive ability.

Though Rogue Rackets have issues in general, with Scoundrel and Mastermind being the only things that solidly change active gameplay in ways that aren't easily replicated, and the latter subclass is frankly terrible due to the issues with Recall Knowledge (needs five skills and enemy rarity scaling, especially in APs, renders it less effective as you level up).

Tender Tendrils wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:

On what Ways I would like to see;

Dragoon A way focused on using firearms in tandem with a mount.

Grenadier A way where you combine using firearms with the use of alchemical bombs.

Rifleman? a 2h firearm way that is focused more on shooting at medium ranges, maybe with a focus on teamwork or mobility or something.

Some kind of acrobatics focused way, like how the swashbuckler works with doing fancy acrobatic stuff combined with their attacks. (John Woo style stuff).

Some kind of way focused on laying down heavy amounts of fire with big weapons at range, flushing enemies out of cover by shredding it, or forcing them to hide in cover.

Firearms from a mount is cool and probably historically accurate, but it's doubling up on things that don't work in a dungeon. Probably very niche.

Grenadier seems obvious. There's already some feats that push that style.

I have mixed feelings about Rifleman. I think it's exactly what people are looking for, but it's a miss for the lore. Firearm users are a solidary bunch in Golarion. A group of trained riflemen would be a powerhouse.

I honestly think mounts are massively underused in TTRPGs - there are plenty of outdoors environments they can shine in, and a lot of indoors ones that are large enough to accommodate them. It's like people's suspension of disbelief just evaporates as soon as a horse is involved.

Also, having a party member who had a horse gave me a lot of opportunities to make jokes about the horse in neverending story, which was really fun.

The default assumption of the d20 TTRPG is the dungeon crawl, where mounts are certainly at their worst.

Outdoor adventures just aren't as common since they necessitate larger maps and are harder to make adventures for, while a dungeon not only adheres to table restrictions, but organically creatures individual "encounter rooms."

Ventnor wrote:
There aren't any "generic" subclasses for the Champion, Druid, Sorcerer, Oracle, Witch, or Summoner.

Tbf, two of those have heavily prescribed flavor as part of the class itself (Champion and Druid, the latter of which lets you dip into other subclasses) while the latter two have a boatload of subclasses to choose from.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What weapon niches, both thematic and mechanical, do you believe are still missing from PF2e? Could be weapons that have underutilized traits (Grapple), weapons that fulfill missing stat combinations (Slashing Shield Attachment), or weapons that don't really exist at all (double weapons that qualify for dual-wield abilities).

For me, one weapon that seems to be sorely missing is some sort of Martial equivalent to the Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet. d6, Agile, Freehand. This opens up thematic combinations that had damage issues before.

I can definitely see the feedback writeup taking a bit longer with both recent events and how contentious the Thaumaturge seems to be.

Though maybe if the Psychic feedback was more unified (seems to generally be "solid skeleton, but too weak compared to other casters") it won't take as long as efforts are more focused on the Thaumaturge.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As for Thaumaturgy in specific, its also a blanket term for any "miracle work" in the real world. The noun forms exist as Thaumaturge, Thaumaturgist, or Thaumaturgus.

Also the term was apparently introduced in the English language by John Dee, the famed 16th century occultist and antiquarian.

Turns out religions, especially large, organized religions, tend to use terms that are just normal nouns. Priest has a specific definition in Catholicism, but for everyone else it's just a religious figure that assists or performs ceremony.

It eventually becomes impossible to find a name that isn't used for something already, and from a designer perspective it's best to use a name that effectively communicates the idea you want to get across.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Nomenclature in fantasy is always going to be weird and generally pull from terms that already exist, be it from other media or from real life.

There's not a single class in PF2e that doesn't pull from this sort of thing, and many of them don't follow their nomenclature.

Wizards aren't wise men (term literally means Wise Man, similar to Drunkard), Druids carry real-world religious connotations that aren't followed in PF, Barbarians meant non-Latin speakers (and no one speaks Latin in Golarion), not all Rogues are actually roguish, Swashbucklers don't all use bucklers, Paladins aren't knights of Charlemagne, etc.

Rather than looking at real-world uses of these terms, fantasy genre conventions should be looked at. After all, the whole point of these names is to give players a general idea of what the class is about. That's the whole point of the class system (and many other sacred cows of the d20 fantasy TTRPG sphere).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadamReshi wrote:

Unsure about Magus, but for me for Gunslinger and very specifically anyone who wants to dual wield, it does feel awkward being unable to use your Way reload while having the Dual Wield feat from the Gunslinger itself. IMO, it'd make sense to mek to errata the Gunslinger version of that feat so that you can use it to reload a weapon without having to have a hand free, so that you can at-least use it when required. That doesn't save on action economy necessarily, but it would at-least make Pistolero or Sniper as safe paths for anyone who's going down that class fantasy.

Granted, I'm saying this without playing - it might be a different situation in actual play.

The Dual Wield Reload is a trap feat that they should have reworked if they were going to include it.

Capacity weapons work with the Way Reloads die to a FAQ, and will be errata'd to reflect that.

After looking through various Rogue feats for some homebrew stuff, I noticed Battle Assessment Rogue Feat.

This gives similar information to Find Flaws, is significantly easier to utilize, and isn't attached to any of the other baggage that Recall Knowledge uses (such as Rarity).

Given that there's already precedent, I think it's reasonable for the Thaumaturge to utilize Perception for a Battle Assessment-like ability, but substituting WIS with whatever its KAS is going to end up being.

Gortle wrote:
Golurkcanfly wrote:

Any argument that involves "realistic medieval feel" and Pathfinder together is hilariously invalid.

Heroic Fantasy is literally about taking mundane elements and making them fantastic and grand.

Your comment is invalid. Everyone is playing their own game. Everyone has a different level of fantasy. Not everyone wants to play a game where the major villain is a stuffed toy. That something Pathfinder encourages not restricts.

You're complaining about realistic medieval feel using a discussion about a character that literally grows in size because they get angry.

The levels of cognitive dissonance required for that is unfathomable.

The game strictly *isn't trying* to be "medieval fantasy," so when you force a round peg into a square hole, things don't work as intended.

1 to 50 of 589 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>