Greg.Everham's page

207 posts. Alias of heyyon.


RSS

1 to 50 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
Syries wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
A Wizard who combines Eschew Materials, Conceal Spell, and Silent spell plus Shrink Item to hide his spellbook. Never gives away that he's casting spells if he can help it, and if caught pretends he's a sorcerer. His friends wonder why he always spends a full hour and ten minutes in the garderobe in the mornings, though.

To be fair the sorcerer also has to spend an hour prepping in the mornings.

Which is SUPER WEIRD to me, I might add.
How they spend that hour differs depending on the Sorcerer, of course. A dragon sorcerer has got to count out and polish all her coins, an aberrant sorcerer has to do some light stretches so that his tentacular limbs don't get cramps, an undead sorcerer has to listen to their entire Linkin' Park playlist so that they can be properly edgy... you know how it is.
LOL I'd say it's a straight hour of staring in the mirror...

It's an hour of repeating "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."


ChibiNyan wrote:
Aservan wrote:

Multiclassing Champion isn't as easy as you seem to think. You're talking about some serious stat creep. You need a 14 Cha and Str to multiclass Champion. That's doable from level 1 with the expected 18 Wis, as long as you're willing to sacrifice your level 2 class feat.

But now your armor is giving you a penalty if you want heavy (16+ Str to avoid the Speed and Armor Check hit). A character who wants to melee doesn't want a speed penalty of -10 feet/action. You are also limited to being a cleric of a good deity as we only have the rules for good champions.

You can buff Str as you level, but would you rather put that increase into Dex or Str? Dex gets you Reflex save and armor class. Str gets a cloistered cleric more melee damage and less armor penalties. Only you're a cloistered cleric and want to hang back and nuke/heal. You're not supposed to be taking the hits. Better Reflex is probably the better bet.

Honestly warpriest is something you're doing because you think it'll be fun to play. Cloistered is where the munchkins will go. Skip the armor and its costs, penalties, feat taxes, bulk, etc. Put the extra stat mod into Cha and get more heals. Con might be better as well. Reading the bestiary, equal level monsters will usually hit so having a super high AC to get ahead of the curve is chasing the carrot. Just accept the damage and kill them before they kill you.

18 WIS on a warpriest? No way man. Gotta keep that stat pretty low! STR and CHA are going to do a lot more for a "normal" melee-oriented warpriest than WIS. Stick to buffs and cure spells and your spell DC is irrelevant. They can easily meet the multiclass requirements, but do agree MCing Champion it's not for every Warpriest.

Warpriest doesn't need Wisdom. It's not a limiter for its spells in any way. There's no more stat requirement of 10 + Spell Level. Wisdom is useful if you're going to use offensive spells, but as it's been said in this thread that's not the Warpriest's jam.

Instead, I'd argue that 14 Cha and 14 Str in order to get into Champion is EXACTLY what the Warpriest wants. With Channel Smite, the Warpriest wants ever more Charisma to power Healing Font. Without Channel Smite, you'll likely be acting as a frontline healer (as Shroud said). That still requires Healing Font to be your main mechanic.

That leaves us with a stat line something like...
Class Wis
Background Cha, Str
Ancestry Cha, Str (as Human)
Level 1 Cha, Str, Con, Dex

12 Wis. BUT... you get back 16 Str, 16 Charisma, 12 Con, and 12 Dex. Your AC should be on par with other tank-y types. Your to-hit at level 1 is only 1 point lower. That's corrected at level 5.

And that to-hit dip is somewhat fixed by Heroism, which is on the Divine list. +1 at 3rd, +2 at 6th, +3 at 9th. Sucks to waste your 9th level spells that way, but it is what it is.

Alternatively, you could opt to not try to hit with a 2nd attack... see: Channel Smite.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

From an educational perspective, the best way to teach is to allow for exploration of concept and support growth through questioning. These things go hand in hand. You asked about marching order; how have you supported your young/new players in gaining an understanding of what's tactically good?

Let's say your players are about to walk into an Orc warren, ready to fight. You could ask "Who's in the front?" And then fire arrows right away. What did your players learn? What did you guide them to think about? If you pause a second and say "What's good about the Champion going up front? What's bad about it?" your players might consider the value of the "tank" going in front. "Are there other players who can go in front? What could be a different approach to entering the cave?" Maybe they come up with a Stealth-y character going in first, because they can scout ahead.

Just because there's only one physical space to explore doesn't mean that there's only one chance to think about the encounter. Run the first encounter through, then reflect on it. "What went right in that fight? What went wrong? What else could have happened? What other things could we have done?"

The key is to always ask questions that are open ended and have answers that would need justifications. Yes/No questions are awful, because they don't need much thought. "Was it good that the Wizard took four arrows to the face?" Nope, it wasn't; but I learned nothing about how to prevent that or what to do instead. The same is true of objectively and definitely answered questions. "Who took four arrows to the face?" The Wizard, but why are we asking that? Ask things that can spark debate, discussion, and further exploration. Maybe you could play back the whole encounter multiple times, using different strategies. "[Not-the-Wizard] suggested that we let the Rogue use Stealth to scout ahead, let's play that out and we can see how it runs differently!" If you go that route, let players try to predict how it might play out differently and then see if their predictions were right afterward.

Just remember throughout, that their knowledge and understanding of battle tactics needs to be built by them in their own terms. Forcing ideas onto them, or arguing with them over what is good and bad, isn't going to get them there. You certainly have learned an understanding of these concepts, but transferring that to them is mostly impossible. The best you can do is creating an area where they have materials to work with (characters, maps, encounters, dice) and a framework to discuss their experimentation.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
True Strike has a duration, so no repreparation.
Can you explain what you mean by this please. It sounds important but I don’t understand it.

Reprepare Spell specifically calls out that the spell you put back into a slot cannot have a duration. ((https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=661))

I was thinking more along the lines of using it to get things like Weapon Storm, Fireball, Dim Door, etc. Those blastery spells that, if you use a Drain Bond on them, you could get them back again, so you'd not have to carry too many of that type of spell at a higher level.

The main way I was intending to "spam" True Strike was to use Bond Conservation to continually reach down to the 1st level spell, from whatever spell slot I had regained. With access to 9th level spells, when using a Drain Bond to recast one, I'd opt to cast True Target instead.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Furious Focus is a good feat (accessible on that build around 14th to 16th Level) and would be worth considering if your going for power attack. Even if you don’t want to take a second strike: True Strike, Furious Focus, Move/Shield is a good combo.

It's definitely good if you want to make that 2nd attack (which is 3rd attack MAP w/ Power Attack). And it's definitely something that can be penciled in, cause there's a lot of wiggle room in the feat selection. I was unsure how often the turns, even with Haste activated, would be using the extra action on Strike rather than Stride. Does seem like, with Haste, a turn cycle like this is possible:

First - AA Haste, Stride
Second - Drain Bond for a spell, AA Some Spell, Stride, Strike
Third - Stride, True Strike, Power Attack

Only on that 3rd turn would the build really be able to cast True Strike, Power Attack, then potentially use the extra action for a Strike.

Is milking that worth the opportunity cost of something else? Who knows? Right now, it seems like there's nothing better, so the option is a good one.


I put together a not-at-all optimized build for a Wizard MC-Fighter that was based around the idea of using the True Strike + Power Attack synergy. Since you can get two d20s via True Strike your chances of rolling well, or even into crit range vs some lower-level enemies, goes way up. Power Attack is a nice 2-action attack, because it increases your damage dice. It can lead to some hefty hits and is one of the best one-strike feats.

The build is based around the Universalist Wizard, using the Spell Blending Thesis. Universalist Wizards get a significant bump in their uses of Drain Bond, once per spell level instead of 1/day. This is one extra use of True Strike at 1st level onward. At level 8, you'd open up Bond Conservation, which can be used to get further uses of True Strike.

The strategy I imagined this build employing would be something along the lines of using a powerful spell on the 1st round of combat, following that up with a use of Drain Bond to recast a spell you've used up, taking the first action to use Bond Conservation. If something has moved up to you, True Strike + Power Attack for a pretty solid hit. If nothing has moved up to you, use another buff or bast spell. On the 3rd round of combat, you can go Move - True Strike (via Bond Conservation) - Strike action. If no move is necessary, Power Attack again.

Key Feats by level:
1 - Hand of the Apprentice
2 - Fighter Dedication
4 - Basic Maneuver (Power Attack)
8 - Bond Conservation
12 - Diverse Weapon Expert
?? - Fighter Resiliency
18 - Reprepare Spell

Any thoughts on this build? Am I missing anything that would help it out?


mavbor wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:


It's a trade off of accuracy penalties. Double Slice makes both attacks at -2/-2, assuming we're not using Agile weapons. Twin Attack makes them at +0/-5. There's also Twin Feint (Rogue) that goes at +0/-3, assuming the target was not already flat-footed against you or otherwise suffering a circumstance penalty to AC.

Building my character and confused why Double Slice makes both attacks -2/-2.

Double Slice Two Actions
You lash out at your foe with both weapons. Make two Strikes, one with each of your two melee weapons, each using your current multiple attack penalty. Both Strikes must have the same target. If the second Strike is made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait, it takes a –2 penalty.

The wording of the above (copy pasted from AoN) says only if the second attack does not have agile trait it takes a -2. So it should be 0/-2 for double slice. Am I missing something?

You're right!


Edge93 wrote:
+1 to Fighter MC, though I wonder if wielding an agile weapon in one hand is worth it. Less rage damage on Strike 2, but you don't take that painful -2 to each attack either.

Making contact > milking damage totals... typically, at least.

You'll gain 10% hit on two attacks by wielding an Agile off-hand.
You'll give up 9 damage, assuming Giant instinct.

Is 9 damage so tempting that you'll give up the hits and the potential crits? No. No, it's definitely not. G'head and wield that agile off-hand if you want the math. G'head and wield whatever you want if you want the cool factor.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Another option is barbarian with Ranger Dedication and Twin Takedown. It's a little better for action economy (single action vs. two actions for Double Slice), but requires a bit more set up (must use an action to designate your prey or switch to a different target).

It's a trade off of accuracy penalties. Double Slice makes both attacks at -2/-2, assuming we're not using Agile weapons. Twin Attack makes them at +0/-5. There's also Twin Feint (Rogue) that goes at +0/-3, assuming the target was not already flat-footed against you or otherwise suffering a circumstance penalty to AC.


Ruzza wrote:

"So that's why we've decided to make an all champion team!'

GM nods, confused, and just notes down "Use spells, I guess?" in his notebook.

I got to run my Gobbo Redeemer of Sarenrae this Tuesday. I took the class feat that improves the Glimpse of Redemption to have the option of Stupefied 2. It rather nicely solves casters. That flat DC of 7 isn't huge, but a 30% chance of blowing two actions can be rather persuasive. If it affects a future spell, oh man, it's over for some type of blaster-caster. I know this option is only there for 1/3 of Champs, but it's a good one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:

Polearm Ranger, because why not?

Flurry for -3/-6 MAP
Glaive for the Forceful property
Lvl 1 Monster Hunter
Lvl 2 Quick Draw is good for action economy, multiclass is acceptable here.
Lvl 4 Disrupt Prey, this is what we want, free action AoO and Polearm extend your range.
Lvl 6 Skirmish Strike so you can always be on the maximum reach range, if the foe try to run, disrupt prey, if it try to get closer, disrupt prey.
Lvl 8 Monster Warden
Lvl 10 Master Monster Hunter
Lvl 12 Double Prey, now you can Disrupt Prey two enemies.

That's it, you only really need three feats for this build, Disrupt Prey, Skirmish Strike and Double Prey the rest is free and could be used for animal companion or multiclass feats.

Same build... but replace the "gotta take something here" feats like Quick Draw, Monster Warden, etc with Barbarian Dedication, Instinct Ability (Giant), and Giant's Stature. Now you've got a 15' reach MAP-abusing monster who can Disrupt Prey from quite a distance out.


Siro wrote:

Yeah with Telekinetic Projectile, on the one hand it would make sense it should be a Spell Attack Roll, as it would fall in line with how other spells worked/were converted from the playtest. {and settle some small debates in the process in how it suppose to would with other stuff such as Prof)

On the other hand, if it did use a Spell Attack Roll {most spellcasters would be better Spell Attack Rolls then Range Attacks} then it could become close to or become the default best damaging cantrip in the game. Other damaging cantrips generally increase there damage per level by 1d4, while TK increases by 1d6, and as the ability to change up its damage type. {Well, has a way to change up what physical damage type it deals anyways.). Making it a Range Attack could be a way to balance the cantrip.

Your second point is what lead me to the conclusion that it MUST be a "standard" attack roll (Dex + some type of weapon proficiency), not a spell attack roll. If it's a spell attack, then the damage output is a tick better than everything else.

The flip side is that B/P/S damage seems to be resisted often, but rarely see a weakness in the stat block. If you take ONLY Telekinetic Projectile, you'll do your d6s + Casting Stat Mod, and you'll typically be able to avoid those weaknesses for full damage; however, you're not going to hit many things with a weakness to your element. If I'm reduced to cantrip spam, I'd much rather hit something with a weakness to my element and only d4s for damage than go up to d6s but not have the bonus damage cause I targeted a weakness.

So... yeah... I'm right back where I started. No idea. Good arguments on both sides as to how the rule is supposed to suss out. And, it's going to really hinge on that word from above whether or not this cantrip is really good or questionable.


Ventnor wrote:

So, here's another kind of ridiculous idea I had. Start as a Scoundrel Rogue, so that you can begin the game with 18 Charisma, choose an ancestry like Elf or Gnome (I prefer Gnome myself) that will get you an innate arcane or primal cantrip, multiclass into Sorcerer to pick up even more Cantrips and to increase your proficiency with your attack cantrips, and pick up the Magical Trickster feat at level 4.

The idea is that you are a Rogue who never attacks with a weapon. Instead, you have a cornucopia of different attacking cantrips that you can sneak attack with, which will also allow you to attack various enemy weaknesses and avoid enemy resistances that come up. Picking up Expert and Master spellcasting, in this case, is mainly to make your cantrip attacks as accurate as possible, although the extra utility and nova potential of your multiclass slots is a nice perk too.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that Arcane is probably the best spell list for this idea, since you get 6 different kinds of damaging cantrips for a variety of situations: Acid Splash, Chill Touch, Electric Arc, Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, and Telekinetic Projectile. The Primal list lacks Chill Touch and Telekinetic Projectile.

Correct me if my read of this is wrong... Telekinetic Projectile uses a standard ranged attack roll, not a spell attack roll? Which makes it quite an odd creature.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

When I first read through the PF2 book, I was disappointed in the same way you are. It felt difficult to play around and make Wizard's that hit stuff with greatswords or Bard tanks or "Bloodragers." There just wasn't enough in the book to power all these cool ideas. Why can't I two-weapon fight awesomely with my Barbarian!

What I decided to do was go back to PF1, core rulebook only, and try the same stuff. Could I make a TWF Barbarian? Could I get my Wizard to be the best melee DPR in his party? Could I make a Con-Charisma Bard tank that excelled at his job?

The answer is no. I could make a Barbarian that hit really hard with a greatsword or falchion or great axe, but not sword and board so much and definitely not two weapons. All the great feats for it were in later books. And all the great tricks to get TWF were too. And the Unchained Barbarian had the big damage and accuracy bonuses! My melee Wizard? He was aight, but nothing special. Sure, he had good strength, the stat-buff spells, Mirror Image, but the really cool tricks came later, there weren't traits, there weren't archetypes to swap out abilities.

The message here is that while we did have a robust game library and a collective system mastery with it, that was not always so. At some point, in the beginning stages, we had limited tools to work with when crafting our characters. If something isn't there yet, don't sweat it. There's going to be a decade of options coming.


Blave wrote:
Quote:

Yeah, looking deeper into the numbers shows you actually REDUCE your attack bonus with Righteous Might, making me wonder wtf that spell is supposed to do. The 8th level Heightening bumps it up by 1, but only for a level. And the 10th level spell doesn't do much either.

It's all just really bad... Why do these spells exist at all

I think it's more meant for cloistered clerics, to be honest. Just like wizards get dragon form. Those spells are a decent way to be useful during a whole battle without spending multiple spell slots.

Also, it can't actually reduce your attack bonus since it allows you to use your normal attack bonus if it's higher.

Yeah, I know it can't step you backward... but it's not just "it breaks even" but it's actually a step back. So the intuitive "This will make me hit things better" doesn't do it at all. Very frustrating.

I agree on your assessment, but it feels like there's not support for Warpriest, then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
citricking wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Blave wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
This is why I was shocked they never got Master proficiency on weapons. Up until like lvl 10-11 they do keep up really well in attack/defense, but after that they just stop getting any proficiencies and become garbage at melee. Then you'll wish you were a Cloistered Cleric.
Well, they can get Eternal Blessing at 16 which is a permanent +1 to attack. It's not as good as master proficiency and doesn't stack with most buffs of course, but at the very least it provides a bonus without costing any resources.

Righteous Might (6th level, 8th level) and Avatar (10th level) both set your attack value, to +21/+28 and +33 respectively. They're comparable, I think, to other classes that get Master proficiency. If that was the intended route for Warpriests to go, though, there needs to be 7th and 9th level options.

Using these spells has an interesting side effect. Other classes pursue their stat that is tied to accuracy, while the Warpriest would care only so far as to get to 18 Str. Up until they have 6th level spells, they'd want to bump that stat as high as they could. Once they get Righteous Might, they're casting that, or the better versions of it, to begin any encounter in order to establish their combat prowess. Since their value is set by the spell that they cast, they're free to ignore that stat bump and chase other stats. People above were discussing the value of Channel Smite and it's reasonable to build toward maximizing that at some point in the warpriest's career.

I would say those aren't very good ideas. 6th righteous might doesn't increase your to hit bonus, 8th does by 2 for 1 level only, and 10th by 1 for 1 level. Those spells unfortunately aren't very good.

Channel smite also wastes heals.

Yeah, looking deeper into the numbers shows you actually REDUCE your attack bonus with Righteous Might, making me wonder wtf that spell is supposed to do. The 8th level Heightening bumps it up by 1, but only for a level. And the 10th level spell doesn't do much either.

It's all just really bad... Why do these spells exist at all, except for a build that doesn't hit things until 12th level, then suddenly decides "You know what, I DO want to be a front line melee combatant."


Fair enough, y'all. I definitely forgot some classes don't get that 1st level class feat... which makes Natural Ambition a lil better?


Blave wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
This is why I was shocked they never got Master proficiency on weapons. Up until like lvl 10-11 they do keep up really well in attack/defense, but after that they just stop getting any proficiencies and become garbage at melee. Then you'll wish you were a Cloistered Cleric.
Well, they can get Eternal Blessing at 16 which is a permanent +1 to attack. It's not as good as master proficiency and doesn't stack with most buffs of course, but at the very least it provides a bonus without costing any resources.

Righteous Might (6th level, 8th level) and Avatar (10th level) both set your attack value, to +21/+28 and +33 respectively. They're comparable, I think, to other classes that get Master proficiency. If that was the intended route for Warpriests to go, though, there needs to be 7th and 9th level options.

Using these spells has an interesting side effect. Other classes pursue their stat that is tied to accuracy, while the Warpriest would care only so far as to get to 18 Str. Up until they have 6th level spells, they'd want to bump that stat as high as they could. Once they get Righteous Might, they're casting that, or the better versions of it, to begin any encounter in order to establish their combat prowess. Since their value is set by the spell that they cast, they're free to ignore that stat bump and chase other stats. People above were discussing the value of Channel Smite and it's reasonable to build toward maximizing that at some point in the warpriest's career.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alternative solution to these builds, and one which I am using with one of my favorite all-time characters...

Wait for the Bloodrager class. I know, I know, it's not one of the classes named to be in the Advanced Player's Guide for July 2020. Yes, it may take TWO years to get that class out. S*$&, it may never come. But you know what will? Ways to "cheat" into some spellcasting or whatever other feats. Or prestige classes that might mimic what you wanna do with that character. Both Magus and Bloodrager haven't been announced yet, but they're very well-liked classes; they're going to be represented in PF2 at some point.

You sound like you've done errything right with your characters so far. Who cares about numerical optimization? At the end of the day, it's how much you, the player, enjoyed playing those characters. If you liked them well enough to build out the first, then a wife, then a child... you done did the thing the right way.

And how long did it take you to get all three characters rolled out? To play them through? A few years, right? Why try to jam all that character building into the instant that PF2 releases? You get a rare chance to play the growth of your characters all over again. Take the slow road, man. It's about the ride, not the destination.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm prone to calling Natural Ambition a top tier ancestry feat, as well.

Looking at 1st level class feats, I don't find many classes that wouldn't want to double up. Alchemist bombers want Far Lobber and Quick Bomber. Barbarians are going to be likely to take Sudden Charge, but Raging Intimidation is also very strong, giving the Barb a much-needed 3rd action. Champion has to choose between the 1st tier Domain or buffing their reaction; why make that choice? Clerics are, like Barbarians likely to take a certain 1st level feat, this time Healing Hands. But, like Champs, they might also want a Domain spell. Fighter has a series of feats that all open up the combat style a character will be, but Exacting Strike and Sudden Charge are both waiting there to complement them. Monk will open with their stance, but that leaves off Ki Rush and Ki Strike off the build. Ranger will take either Twin Takedown for 2-Weapon Fighting or Hunted Shot for Bows, but Monster Hunter is great for opening round damage and Animal Companions are always welcomed. Sorcs are likely to take Dangerous Sorcery to buff their blasting. Wizards could load up on 1st level feats by complementing their thesis. Both spell casters would love to add a Familiar or another Metamagic or one of their other 1st level feats.

All in all, I can only find a limited number of classes that'd not want an extra 1st level feat. Bard, Druid, and Rogue seem to have limited options. Bard and Druid also get gifted the feat for their Muse/Order and can take the feat of their choice immediately. They've got no use for a THIRD 1st level class feat.

That said, we should consider the future with regards to Natural Ambition. If more class feats are printed for existing classes (and we can assume that there will be), then Natural Ambition can only get more powerful and important.

A final point would be that growth in PF2 isn't vertical, but horizontal. That is, build concepts don't have to really struggle to get more powerful as you level; that just happens. Instead, builds get more capabilities as they level and grow. This means that equipping an extra potential action is pretty significant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:

I've been kicking around a Barbarian w/ MC Bard. The build aims to be a buff bot and a tank-ish character. Shield Block is taken as a General Feat, but it's not a spam tactic per se. Grab the Barbarian Intimidation feat at 1; be Human and take an extra 1st level feat for Moment of Clarity. Get Bard MC and then Bard spell casting at 2 and 4. Take Bless 1/day. At 8, Shared Rage and at 10 Inspire Courage. From then on, your turn is basically an action to Demoralize, an action to Inspire, and then one attack. With the potential to swing the whole party's hit chance by 10%, you're a walking problem for a baddy.

The idea is far from optimized, though... and I suspect that Bard w/ MC Fighter/Champ might do this shtick better (but without the massive damage bonus from Share Rage).

For your instrument, I suggest you take a tamburin or a kazoo. Imagine how glorious you'd be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCP0NbqTKfw

Magnificent.


I've been kicking around a Barbarian w/ MC Bard. The build aims to be a buff bot and a tank-ish character. Shield Block is taken as a General Feat, but it's not a spam tactic per se. Grab the Barbarian Intimidation feat at 1; be Human and take an extra 1st level feat for Moment of Clarity. Get Bard MC and then Bard spell casting at 2 and 4. Take Bless 1/day. At 8, Shared Rage and at 10 Inspire Courage. From then on, your turn is basically an action to Demoralize, an action to Inspire, and then one attack. With the potential to swing the whole party's hit chance by 10%, you're a walking problem for a baddy.

The idea is far from optimized, though... and I suspect that Bard w/ MC Fighter/Champ might do this shtick better (but without the massive damage bonus from Share Rage).


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Instinct Ability will not get you the Barbarian's Instinct Specialization Ability.

A Raging Giant Instinct Barbarian has a static damage bonus of +24 by 20th level from Class and Rage alone, and you can get almost as high (at +22) with Dragon, and +18 even with Fury or Animal Instincts.

A Fighter maxes out at +8. +10 with Barbarian Multiclass, +14 if you get Giant Instinct's ability (or +12 with Dragon's).

+10 or so damage may not make up for the Fighter's increased accuracy, but it's sure not nothing.

In fact, let's look at maximal level DPR with a Greatsword. A 20th level Fighter with the aforementioned Giant Instinct stuff will have +38 to attack for 4d12+21 while an equivalent Barbarian will have +36 to hit for 4d12+31.

Versus AC 46, the DPR on those is 35.25 on one attack for the Fighter, 34.2 for the Barbarian. Which favors the Fighter, but not too much. Without Giant Instinct and the multiclass, the Fighter would be behind on a single attack.

There are also several other areas where the Barbarian is superior, HP being the most obvious (a 20th level Barbarian has 40 HP on a Fighter of the same level), but Resistance to damage equal to their Con Mod is probably at least as relevant. They have only one less AC (2 when raging, but you're asking for them to be compared to a Fighter who is also raging), but much better damage resistance in some other ways.

Your Saves are also notably better. Fighters max out at Master Fortitude, Master Reflex, Expert Will. Barbarians get Legendary Fortitude, Expert Reflex, Master Will. +2 to a Save and an enhanced evasion style effect with it is a very solid defensive advantage, and combined with Will likely being a better Save to be good at than Reflex, possibly a better one than the Fighter's slight offensive edge.

Class Feats are also an obvious area where this is relevant. A lot of Barbarian Class Feats are very good and you don't want to wait for.

First, this post is excellent and I love the use of actual DPR statistics to measure and compare.

Second, you've not even gotten into the one amazing part of playing the Giant Barbarian, his incredible reach. Fighter has to get all up in something's grill. The Barbarian stands quite a distance away and swats. This means that something will likely have to not just take an action to get to the Barbarian, but likely will have to use that action for a Move, not a Step. This is a multi-player cooperative game, afterall, and we can be somewhat certain that a class with an Attack of Opportunity is all up in that bad boy's face already. If, and it's a big if, that baddy wanted to come to you, the Barbarian, he's going to have to incur one and maybe multiple AoOs. That could dissuade them from taking that approach at all.


Malk_Content wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Just standing there with whatever AC your armor gives you is enough Vs lower level opponents. Wasting an action on your turn to raise a shield just seems worthless Vs mooks

A bold statement, but one not borne out by the math.

Say a bunch (4) of lower level enemies each have a 20% chance to hit you (hits on 17-20). Raising your shield (for a heavy shield) lowers that to a 10% chance, reducing your expected damage input by ~50% (neglecting crits). The ability to shave damage off of one of their attacks makes that even better.

Additionally, some classes (Fighter) have feats that allow you to reactively Shield Block. Thus, you can spend all of your actions on offense and save defense for a reaction (granted, this can compete with other uses of your reaction). Furthermore, since the trigger to that feat is "an enemy succeeds or critically succeeds against you with a melee Strike," you don't have to use it if the enemy would have missed you.

You've got to compare that to using an action to just capping the mook. Like... the mook at 0 HP gets no actions. It's dead. It stops doing stuff. You can hit them easily with your attack.

The other thing is that the damage output scales by level, and lower level monsters might have a 10% chance of hit, but they hit for a number that's less significant than an equal level monster.

Mooks, as conceived in the PF2 Playtest, end up being more or less just fun toys to move about the board. They're not real threats to anything.

At -10 even if something is 2 or 3 levels below you isn't a guaranteed hit. And even level 1 things can have HP in the realms easily past one shottable by a level 4 character. We also get lots of fairly common scenarios where there isn't a creature within range to hit. Like if I spend two actions killing something next to me and there is nothing close I might as well raise my shield and force the next enemy to waste actions walking to me rather than do...

For sure, there's corner cases like that. Not walking to an enemy is the key tactical decision, though, not raising the shield.

When an enemy already has little ability to hit you (maybe a 25% chance with it's first attack and 5% with a 2nd and 3rd), there's really no point in raising the shield. You get a very marginal benefit. Instead, you'd be better off with whatever other tactics your character is prepared to use. Maybe you 2-action something like a spell and then attack. Maybe you, as you point out, use that action to just create more distance or move to cover. The 10% hit chance reduction on the 1st attack just isn't worthwhile here.

That's really why shields aren't worth much Vs mooks. Mooks ALREADY aren't going to be threatening you with their 2nd and 3rd attacks. Your best bet is to use something more offensive.


Cheburn wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Just standing there with whatever AC your armor gives you is enough Vs lower level opponents. Wasting an action on your turn to raise a shield just seems worthless Vs mooks

A bold statement, but one not borne out by the math.

Say a bunch (4) of lower level enemies each have a 20% chance to hit you (hits on 17-20). Raising your shield (for a heavy shield) lowers that to a 10% chance, reducing your expected damage input by ~50% (neglecting crits). The ability to shave damage off of one of their attacks makes that even better.

Additionally, some classes (Fighter) have feats that allow you to reactively Shield Block. Thus, you can spend all of your actions on offense and save defense for a reaction (granted, this can compete with other uses of your reaction). Furthermore, since the trigger to that feat is "an enemy succeeds or critically succeeds against you with a melee Strike," you don't have to use it if the enemy would have missed you.

You've got to compare that to using an action to just capping the mook. Like... the mook at 0 HP gets no actions. It's dead. It stops doing stuff. You can hit them easily with your attack.

The other thing is that the damage output scales by level, and lower level monsters might have a 10% chance of hit, but they hit for a number that's less significant than an equal level monster.

Mooks, as conceived in the PF2 Playtest, end up being more or less just fun toys to move about the board. They're not real threats to anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
The progression of Hardness over level (when using the sturdy shields and upgrading regularly) follows damage increase with the same proportion
What? No they don't. At least, not based on what I was looking at. Care to explain?
I can agree with that. I mean shields absorve a lot of damage but 18 late game is much less than 4 early game...

Ediwir's right, with maybe a smidge of an outlier around 1st level (where a lot of things are a bit special due to being the very beginning of the game), the top sturdy shield can block around half an on-level critter's hit (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less).

But the cool thing is, even without the maximum progession, you can get extremely increased durability over time with a shield build. For simplicity of the situation, consider a level 18 fighter with ~300 HP, taking damage roughly 40 per hit, twice per round, with a regenerate active to regen 20 per round. Keeping it easy to handle, we have the low-hardness-but-eminently-reusable invulnerable shield (13 hardness) and Quick Shield Block. Without the shield block, the fighter can last 5 rounds before finally falling (net 60 damage per round x 5 = 300). With it, she lasts 9. Not too shabby. Of course, most fights don't last 9 rounds, but it's still a cool durability stat.

"Follows scaling damage progression" sounds a lot like "isn't getting better at what they do."

No, it does get better. A shield block on an enemy of lower level or of less damaging capability will be much more effective compared to a higher level or more damaging enemy.

You just should likewise expect creature/enemy damage to similarly scale to compensate.

Just standing there with whatever AC your armor gives you is enough Vs lower level opponents. Wasting an action on your turn to raise a shield just seems worthless Vs mooks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
The progression of Hardness over level (when using the sturdy shields and upgrading regularly) follows damage increase with the same proportion
What? No they don't. At least, not based on what I was looking at. Care to explain?
I can agree with that. I mean shields absorve a lot of damage but 18 late game is much less than 4 early game...

Ediwir's right, with maybe a smidge of an outlier around 1st level (where a lot of things are a bit special due to being the very beginning of the game), the top sturdy shield can block around half an on-level critter's hit (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less).

But the cool thing is, even without the maximum progession, you can get extremely increased durability over time with a shield build. For simplicity of the situation, consider a level 18 fighter with ~300 HP, taking damage roughly 40 per hit, twice per round, with a regenerate active to regen 20 per round. Keeping it easy to handle, we have the low-hardness-but-eminently-reusable invulnerable shield (13 hardness) and Quick Shield Block. Without the shield block, the fighter can last 5 rounds before finally falling (net 60 damage per round x 5 = 300). With it, she lasts 9. Not too shabby. Of course, most fights don't last 9 rounds, but it's still a cool durability stat.

"Follows scaling damage progression" sounds a lot like "isn't getting better at what they do."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Create Pit. Just drop it down a big hole and calmly solve it in the next few rounds while it struggles to do anything more than climb up high enough to take more falling damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

Can I abuse magic items by having a ring on all ten fingers?

This one keeps getting brought up, how unlimited rings would automatically break the game. I'm going to try it right now with a mindset of being reasonable, not having unlimited resources.

You're not wrong in so far as *right now* there's not a ring that if stacked up 10 times would break the game. However, it does limit design space for future rings or other items to be designed. The counter to this line of logic, though, is that the design team has already prevented this by having only 2 types of bonuses that do not stack. That future-problem shall remain ignored for now, and the whole "10 rings" argument really does fall apart. Gold, as it has always been, is a severe limiter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Greg.Everham wrote:
Gold cost has always been the most effective way of limiting the power of magical items. Body slot designations are also a great way to do it. There was never a reason to reinvent the wheel with PF2.

Personally I just like the simplicity of 10 items you can be invested in rather than using body slots, but for a lot of tables it might boil down to one and the same.

I do however think a limit is needed to not let any item simply be valued as benefit/gold alone, but rather come with an opportunity cost as well. Otherwise stacking tons of low-cost high value items would always be used. Like getting 5 different rings of lesser resistance before upgrading one to a standard version.

"Low cost, high value." You mean priced incorrectly.

There are already checks against that cheese. Bonuses don't stack. Opportunity costs exist in the form of how an item is activated. There's all this work put into making Resonance not suck, when the simple fact was that it was unnecessary.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Gold cost has always been the most effective way of limiting the power of magical items. Body slot designations are also a great way to do it. There was never a reason to reinvent the wheel with PF2.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Lets look at the actions the skill allows you to take: PALM AN OBJECT, STEAL AN OBJECT, DISABLE A DEVICE, PICK A LOCK... So take an item unnoticed, take an item from a person without notice, bypass a trap and open a lock. SO shoplifting, pick pocketing and breaking and entering... My vote is to keep the name as/is. The name doesn't matter as it's a meta issue: only the DM and player hear the name, the paladin never has to hear the name. IMO the bigger issue is why is your paladin is learning to pick pockets and snatch items unseen and not the skill name. If you can rationalize IN CHARACTER why you pick up thieving skills, it should be no problem for the actual player to rationalize a skills name.

It's kinda funny that Houdini or Ricky Jay used all those same skills to entertain, and police use all those same skills to enforce the law... but, sure, let's just call them all thieves. OP has a damn'd good point that the collection of things put under the skill have wider berth than just "stealing stuff."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

Exactly this. If the argument against a "taunt" mechanic is that "Well, thinking people don't make mistakes," I dunno what to tell you. If that's your view, Bluff shouldn't exist either cause "intelligent opponent" will see your ruse. Like, sure, it's easier to get my dog with some sleight of hand trick like pretending to throw a baseball, but illusionists have existed for millennia and fooled even the fastest eyes.

There's really nothing wrong with an ability that says "If you fail this save, your next turn is spent trying your best to kill me."


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Tezmick wrote:

The tight math in short just made all of us go the hell with it lets all roll for everything it doesn’t matter anyway.

In short we never felt awesome at best we felt mediocre at worst we would of rather played as monsters or NPC’s since they aren’t trash.

These two sentences are exactly the feeling of PF2. You never really feel "great" at the thing you do. The character that is "trained" and the character that has "master" rank feel about even. 60% Vs 50% chance of success both feel like you're rolling dice to check on outcome, so the investment isn't effective. If you specialize, but only push that 10%, you're better off spreading wide. You'll still need to spend resources on failure because that's coming up an awful lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
Helmic wrote:

The idea of tanking, then, isn't necessarily to soak up damage, but to rather f+#$ with your enemy's target prioritization such that they're missing more often or dealing ineffective damage. All Fighters have the unique Attack of Opportunity, which makes them "sticky" in that the enemy has to basically burn an action just to get away safely. If a Fighter, starting out near their allies Sudden Charges into an enemy in the first round, that enemy will have to burn one action to Step and then two actions to reach the Fighter's allies in melee, preventing it from dealing damage. That's not even a dedicated tanking build, that's just something Fighters do to prevent damage, they force enemies to waste an action if they want to switch targets.

Paladins notably have exclusive access to Retributive Strike, which is again just a form of blackmail tanking. It doesn't make your character any tougher, but instead so long your ally and the enemy are both within 15 feet of you you instead just automatically give your ally resistance to all damage. They get tanky, and then you might also be able to hit the enemy if you happen to be within reach. If you're the the GM controlling an intelligent enemy, you're going to catch on really quick that attacking anyone but the Paladin is going to be a waste of time, the Paladin is now the squishiest target even though their AC is sky high. Blade of Justice combined with extra Shield Block Reactions combined with turning every Shield Block additionally into a Retributive Strike can threaten to straight up kill many enemies daring to ignore the paladin. It's a pretty powerful bargaining chip, but paladins have to stay close to those they want to protect rather than rush in alone like fighters would prefer.

And to an extent, Retributive Strike is a cool idea for that. It just feels lackluster because your ability to "draw aggro" is dependent on having other people with you. Contrast with the Sentinel from Spheres of Power. A challenged enemy gets a...

This seems to be the key thing. Retributive Strike is a reactive method that is more of a "Gotcha!" for enemies than it is an active strategy to employ. What most defensively minded players are wanting from their "tank" is an active method of aggro-draw. Even if I have to spend actions on my turn to create that disincentive to attack my allies, that's better than Retributive Strike could ever hope to be. "Tank" character concepts should be designed around being able to do minimal offense (all abilities are attacks with really low damage output), while using actions to both actively mitigate incoming damage (Raise a Shield, though this method needs tuning as it's too weak to be significant) and actively drawing the aggression of enemies (through creating a disincentive to attack elsewhere). To its credit, 4E had this concept done pretty well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Do monsters really need the generic "Skills: +x" in the bestiary?

It feels like we could just print the skills it is willing/able to use and just not have it roll anything else ever. If a GM is interested in having a marilith cook a soufflé or have a sewer ooze play the harpsichord, they can just work backwards and figure out the modifier.

If the argument is that PCs gain in skills by way of adventuring, what is the argument for +1/level for monsters? I get it that it's to maintain the rule of "neither auto-fail nor auto-success" but it does leave a rather comical issue with regards to Performace (and some other skill uses).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
Part of the problem is that TWF no longer gives extra attacks. A greatsword doing 2d6/strike was balanced against a longsword and a shortsword doing 1d8+1d6 together, but at a -2 penalty.

It's worth noting that because of the Multi-Attack Penalty, those two-weapon Rangers with their daggers are putting down lots of contact that the greatsword swinging Barbarians can't. Reducing MAP with agile weapons or a Ranger's class feats can lead to positive outcomes. It's not necessarily about what you do it one HIT, but one ROUND. Consider that two-weapon specialists can have a much higher hit chance on their 2nd and 3rd attacks in a round and that will have an effect on the final damage per round math.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole thread is a great argument for things that people have called for in other threads.

When one feat dictates what other feats you'll take, there's no "tree" effect. Right now, with so few feats, it feels like you're choosing a sub-path within your class and most of your future feats are "locked in."

A great example is, as the OP says, the Fighter's feat "tree." At level 1, you can choose Combat Grab (for 1h and an open hand), Double Slice (for 2-weapon), Point Blank Shot (for ranged), Reactive Shield (for sword and board), or Furious Focus/Power Attack (for big weapons). Sudden Charge is available if you want mobility as your focus. As you level up, you'll choose feats at each level that match.

What's missing is the issue. If I choose to be a sword and board style Fighter, are there multiple ways to build that concept out? Not really. At 1st level, Reactive Shield is prohibitively good over Sudden Charge. At 2nd level, you've got to take Aggressive Shield, making it so that your shield block can either prevent more damage or give you a no-roll debuff against larger enemies (which is huge). 4th level is a choice, huzzah! But then we're back to mandated feats. Shield Warden at 6th level, Quick Shield Block at 8th, Mirror Shield at 10th, Shield Paragon at 12th, Reflexive Shield at 14th, Improved Reflexive Shield at 16th. Only at 6th level, there's a second shield option in Shielded Stride, but with AoO not being on every enemy, and mobility not really being the shield-fighter's shtick, this seems weak.

What would need to happen, and most likely will happen with future releases of splat books, is that if I choose 'sword and board' as a fighting style, there ought to be multiple possible builds and a slew of quality and usable shield-related feats at every level. It may be even more worthwhile to make many of these feats into options you select at 1st level and are granted them as you level through Fighter, then have open class feat slots to augment your build. As in, Quick Shield Block is something that a fighting style choice requires, so just give it to the character, but let the player choose between other viable feats at 8th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lightning Raven wrote:
They went a little too far with it. They just needed to get hid of the Dmg die reduction and kept everything else, maybe making somethings worse in the process to offset the dmg buff.

The multiplicative bonus was too much. That is, that each size gave 1.5x bonus, which when taken to extremes caused trivializing levels of damage. The solution is well within hand in this system though. Push upward toward 1d12, then simply add a +2 dmg bonus to the "die." I put quote there because the +2 dmg would be multiplied by runes. Done and done, you've got large size being fun and it won't blow the game open.


Gorum for Zeal domain's Weapon Surge power + going into Wiz/Sorc for Magical Striker will keep you competitive with the Fighter for accuracy, but crush them on damage.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
You are *not* your own ally, but there are probably a few places, such as paranoia noted by Fuzzypaws, that do 1E style and weren't caught.

Is there any chance that "ally" makes it into the glossary in the final release? This debate was hot within PF1 and the conclusion was opposite of PF2's usage of the term. Being as though "ally" will be used in feat and spell descriptions often, it seems like a necessity to define exactly what it is in game terms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WizardoftheNorth wrote:

Well, ally is defined(Webster/Merriam) as a person or group that gives help to another person or group.

So no, you are not your only ally.

Dictionary definitions have no use here. For instance, enervate is defined by Meriam-Webster as "to reduce the mental or moral vigor of." PF2 defines it entirely differently. Simply put, general language dictionaries are really awful things to bring to a more specific field. You would argue the definition of chemistry terms using the general language dictionary, you'd use a record of word usage pertinent to chemistry. Same as here; you don't use general language, you'd use Pathfinder 2's vernacular. As it currently sits, the word "ally" doesn't have a formal definition provided by the people who dictate what the word will mean. It's very valid to ask them to do so, because it does and will affect a legalistic (aka "RAW") understanding of gameplay.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Loreguard wrote:
While I liked how some feats such as the skill feat seemed to automatically scale based on their proficiency, and like to see feats that get a bit better as you level. I certainly don't want it to be pushed to the point where you pick your ancestry, your background, your class, your path, and your feat (defining the chain) and voila all your choices are now made... watch as your character levels up to 20 based on those choices.
I don't think anyone wants things to go that extreme...but I'd greatly prefer selecting a feat that scales with level/proficiency to a chain of feats that accomplish the same goal. That leaves later feats for new abilities and multiclassing. As noted, I also want proficiency divorce from feats entirely into it's own progress.

We could frame an example of something that would be a positive usage of feat scaling on things that are not level directly. I would suggest things be built to take proficiency into account, but not necessarily the same proficiency that keys the class (so not always spell casting proficiency for a caster, weapon proficiency with a Fighter, or armor proficiency on a Paladin).

What example would I give? A level 2 Fighter class feat, Intimidating Strike. In it's current form, on a hit, it applies Frightened 1 and Flat-footed. That's it. It doesn't scale, it doesn't do anything better. Just apply two small debuffs. What the feat SHOULD read is that it would apply Frightened 1, and add your proficiency in Intimidate (-4 for untrained, +0 for trained, +1 for expert, +2 for master, +3 for legendary) to that debuff. So, at untrained in Intimidate, you'd be unable to use this class feat, but at Legendary, you're applying a Frightened 4. Obviously, the "until end of turn" would have to be removed, such that the penalty would tick down like normal for the Frightened condition.

Why is this better? Well, it allows interactions between your skill proficiency and a class feat. It creates synergy in character creation, which is mostly lacking within PF2. It creates one feat that you get early on that scales up as you level. If you choose, you could, theoretically, continue to push your ability to be truly scary on the battlefield, taking feats that might send things running with a second Demoralize check, things that might take advantage of a target being Frightened, or so on. In a different angle, you could take a feat to gain a debuff that applies a circumstance penalty to an enemy, thus applying both of the possible penalties in one round. Or, you could eschew all of that and simply run the Intimidate skill upward and be happy to have a non-combat skill that is useful in combat, using Intimidating Strike to open a combat and moving on to a different tactic later. Because the feat scales, it frees opens it to be a core mechanic to multiple builds while also being a side benefit of almost any Fighter.

I get it that this example isn't one of the feats that has a "bigger" version of itself later, but this is the type of thing that, IMO, PF2 would benefit from having.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lyee wrote:

Okay, so, it's fun to say that everything's a coinflip and investment doesn't matter.

But if you're expert, +5 attribute, and +3 item to a skill, you're at +10 compared to someone with just +3 in the attribute, no training, no item. That's a big difference (and they could be as low as -1 in the attribute, you could be legendary with a +5 item and +7 attribute, etc). This very-achivable +10 changes results by an entire category: their failures are your successes, their successes your critical successes, etc. This is noticable and not an issue.

The issue comes from published numbers. Notably, the bestiary and 10-2. They give invested characters a 50/50 chance, or close to it, for on-level challenges, often impossible for uninvested characters.

So yeah, investing matters and affects the math. Unfortunately, investing brings you up to baseline competence for your level, and everyone else is a complete failure at it. The math works very well for under-leveled challenges. The on-level numbers are the issue. They've acknowledged this already for the bestiary, and I wouldn't be surprised to see 10-2 numbers lower in the final print.

That's not really a fair comparison. You're talking about two optimizers here: one that tries to be good, and one that actively tries to be bad. But... players who see issue with the system aren't commenting on the gap between Untrained and Expert. They're commenting on the gap between fully optimized and casually doing the thing.

Let's look at a fair comparison, and do it at a few levels.

Level 1. Checking into an unnamed skill. The best character will be Trained and have an 18. That's a +5. The "not really trying at all" character will have a 14 in a stat and also be trained. They're at +3. 10% better success rate isn't "no difference," but in gameplay both characters will be rolling and hoping for the die to favor them.

Level 5. The best character still only has a 19, but he's now bumped up to Expert. He has a +10. The "not really trying at all" hasn't pushed proficiency, but did take a stat bump. They're riding at +8. So... still 10% difference.

Level 10. The best character finally gets to 20 and he gets the +1 item. He's also pushed to Master proficiency. They've got a +18. Meanwhile the "not really trying at all" character pushed their stat to an 18. They're running in with a +14. Now a 20% difference in success rates.

Level 15. Best goes to 21 in a stat and Legendary proficiency. They have +24. "Not trying" goes to 19 in stat, remains at only Trained. They've got a 19. 25% difference.

Level 20. Best gets that 22 base and a stat bumping item. They've reached +31. "Not trying" goes to 20 in the stat, and clocks in at +25. 30% difference.

Now, that's not insignificant at all. The try-hard character is working their way up to being 30% better over the not-trying character. That 30% difference through keeps both characters in the same "I gotta roll high" feeling for much of their career. The try-hard player never gets to take the die roll out of it, never gets failure prevention, and never really scales into checking to see if his skill checks would crit when it matters (equal or higher level challenges). So... the FEELING of being great at something isn't delivered. And if that feeling can't be obtained, it's reasonable to say 'Why invest in this stuff at all?' For the most part, the reason you invest in skills at all is that you're forced to take skill feats and buy that skill item. But it still feels... not enough.


Might I suggest a very far outside the box build for a Battle Herald?

One of the Inspiring Command options is Teamwork, where you add your bonus to Aid Another checks and bonuses given. This means that your piddling bonus of +2 AC goes to +3. Rawr.

Okay, that still sounds awful, right? How about if we make you a Halfling and it's not a base +4 going to +5?

Order of the Dragon Cavalier and it goes up by +3? Total of +8?

Ring of Tactical Precision and it goes up another +1?

Gloves of Arcane Striking to milk a few more points?

Benevolent Armor for a few more points?

So... you can Aid Another for a pretty fun maybe dozen points of AC bonus. Why not make it crazier? Bodyguard feat lets you dump AoOs to do it as an off-turn free action. Vanguard Style is a long, long feat chain to the payoff... but the payoff is basically you roving the battle field creating a map-sized zone of "nope" in which your allies cannot be hit. I hear that's good.

You can also dip into Divine Strategist Cleric to give an Aid Another bonus to your allies' caster level and concentration checks. Depending on how free wheeling your GM is, you could argue that some of those bonuses above ought to apply to it. I hear casting things at +4 CL is good. Not quite sure.

There's also sorts of fun you can have with an Aid Another build. I've put together a few of them and they're all pretty hilarious and fun to play at any table. Get all your skills to +9 and never fail an Aid check (DC 10). You won't ever be the star with that low a bonus, but when you're handing out big and sexy bonuses to just about every check your allies make, they absolutely love you. Big guy is trying to Intimidate? You're the dude that stands behind him and says "yeah!" Rogue is trying to unlock a door? You bark in her ear about how it ought be done. Wizard is about to get hit? You stand next Old Moons-and-Stars and make the arcanist shine. It's. Super. Fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
I mostly agree, but with the addendum that multiple classes should be able to fulfill the role of "dedicated healer" more or less equally well, though ideally in different ways (perhaps clerics being best at direct healing, bards at some healing + temporary hp and/or AOE healing, and druids at regeneration). The cleric should not be the only go-to class when it comes to healing.
Absolutely. Alchemists, Bards, Druids, etc should all have Healer specializations. I don't like that Cleric, out of the box, is the best Healer in the game...healing outpacing damage should require taking the Healing Domain.

Healers using different spells and abilities to provide back HP!? What is this!? An MMORPG!?

Okay, sarcasm over, but this is something that a game like WoW did really well and PF2 (and D&D as a whole) could really take note of. Creating a different healing mechanic or focus or "style" for each of the classes would be an outstanding upgrade to the current mechanic of "Can this class get the Cure spells (PF1) or the Heal spell (PF2)?"

The question might be what types of spells or effects would players want and what can fit easily within this system to be core?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I feel like it should definitely allow you to take a Step as part of the action, with a feat upgrade to allow you to Stride instead. Allowing a full Stride as part of the base effect is too good, but a Step would be just right.

Without something like this, Retributive Strike doesn't work. Things can just move away so that they're not in a position for you to strike and the whole effect falls apart. It's bad design for a key ability of a class to be so easily ignored.


Just pack the spell Shared Sacrifice. You'll be taking lots of damage with Life Link, so why not halve it and get your opponent to eat the other half? Later on, just actively try to take damage once you get the spell to land. Game, set, and match.


The method I've advocated for is to make critical rolls, at least on weapon attacks and cantrip "attacks," be maximized damage, rather than double damage. I think I'm okay with 2x damage on critical failures of blaster spells (those that require a save, rather than an attack roll), but with the increased damage dice to them I'd want to base my opinions off of update 1.5.

Regardless, maximizing damage is slightly less on average than the 2x critical would be. The big sell here is that it's not going to spike upward into the very high damage range. Imagine rolling 4d12 as a mid-level Cleric w/ MC Wizard could do (crazy that you can do this at 8th level). You roll a Nat20 on the boss, and get lucky on your damage rolls. That 8d12 has a maximal damage of 96 and that'd be almost half the HP bar of the very tough 11th level boss fight, or a one shot on a creature of 7th level. Oof. Now, we know that the maximal damage is incredibly rare, but something like 70 damage isn't out of the realm of likelihood on that 8d12. And that can mean that, as damage dice get really big, the spike damage potential of even more damage dice on a crit gets out of hand.

"But maximized damage dice is a total nerf! Boo this man!" I can hear the crowd jeering me already. And you'd be right to boo if there wasn't a 2nd piece to my suggestion. Because maximized dice is much weak, and because it is very much more controllable from the game design perspective, you can now allow for more crits and better crit effects.

There would still need be a re-balancing effort, though. Fighters with increased crit range would see their damage-per-round figures go upward. To compensate, there'd need to be other bumps to other classes, like Barbarian or Rogue, who specialize in DPR through other means. Their damage comes from sources that aren't tied directly to weapon damage dice, though, so it seems easily enough achieved. Ranger and Monk would be harder. This rebalancing leads to an extra bonus of making niche and kinda wonky gish-style builds a bit less powerful. Right now Magical Striker on the Wiz/Sorc and the Zeal Domain's Weapon Surge power are prohibitively powerful. Look at the example above! Letting them get increased damage dice (even higher than the Fighter's total number of dice rolled) but reducing their crit potential (lower attack bonuses) would be a nice balance point. If Fighter is allowed to have attack bonuses that have a higher chance at crit and the Cleric or Wizard would be held at or near the Nat20 only for crit, there'd be a fun "maybe I high-roll damage" effect Vs a Fighter rolling very consistently but lacking the upper-end damage spikes.

Anyways, just a thought. Sorry to post such a long wall of text!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

In the department of "managing expectations", the updates are focused purely on what we need to get out there for more playtest data. Many of the points made here do not fall into that category.

So, by all means, be excited for the next update, but do not expect the updates to solve every problem you are seeing with the game.

Knowing what is on the radar would certainly be a boost in confidence in the production of PF2 for myself, and I am sure I am not alone there. It's reasonable that only a select few changes are made each update, because too many moving parts makes any change hard to examine in detail. That said, an understanding of how these projects work would suggest that you're not making these updates every 2 weeks and shooting from the hip. Giving players a heads up on what the short-term and long-term roadmaps are can help to defray many of the concerns. It would likely also reduce many of the negative comments and threads, as we'd get to see what it is that is already planned. If I knew that there was a plan to rework Expert through Legendary proficiency tiers to make them have greater impact, I'd probably not start a thread asking for that change; I'd just get excited to see it rise up on the list of concerns and know the update was coming.

1 to 50 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>