There should be no attack penalty for crossbows while proned. Reloading should cost one action extra as it is more difficult to do it prone. If possible at all. Bows should be impossible to shoot while prone or with -20 attack penalty atleast.
If you count calories you burn about 3600 a day as and adventurer. At least. That is 400 grams of fat. Pure fat. little less than 1 lb. If you go with 1/3 fat, 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and add little Extra for some remaining water/fibers and packaging you get to around 1kg of food per day. Or little more than 2 lb food per day. So it's 1kg(2 lb) of food per day when on adventuring and 0,5kg(1 lb) of food per day when full resting and doing nothing in town. Or secure camp. I would say that 3 days of adventuring food is Worth 1 Bulk.
I liked the mechanics where squishy classes get mauled on if they cannot keep distance. Close quarters combat was always limiting factor with ranged characters, but even then if you had 3 or 4 melee characters infront of you, enemy melee had to suck up a few AoO's to get to you, softening them in the proces.
Retraining should not be possible at all. This just give option to exchange a feature that you took because of lack of knowing how mechanics for your class Works. It is pretty generous.
There is no momentum needed for drawing two shortswords at the same time. OK, since you didn't do much swordmanship: If you attack with your right hand, you twist the torso in that direction to generate power in the swing. If you attack with left hand in the SAME time, you remove power from your left hand swing as your torso is moving against the direction of attack.
I was just being sarcastic due to the rule that grasping a 2hander with your offhand cost an action. By that same logic, you draw the sword from the scabbard with your main hand then you have to grasp it with your off hand to make a proper 2handed grip.
If a GM tells me that I cannot put poison on arrows/bots and that poison must be put on bow/crossbow and that during the attack poison transfers from bow/crossbow to it's ammunition, I would leave the table and never return :D
Legolas also clearly used a shortbowAlso most are like 6ft long, you're not gonna be very maneuverable with those.High fantasy heroes, such as Legolas, didn’t have a problem wielding longbows in close quarters... Longbow. Rohirim used shortbows.
And that is exactly my point. Better at mounted combat or climbing or cramped conditions. But nothing about longbow says that it sucks at aiming at 30ft or less. If it sucks in aiming because of some conditions in comparison to shorbows, it sucks at all ranges. If you cant get in a position to aim it does not matter if you aim at 10ft or 510ft. Base penalty for bad aim is the same.
thing were much more simpler with simple weight and carrying capacity. Well as weight goes, we write up all gear on character sheet and out own weight. Also if medium creature is lets say 5 Bulk, is every one 5 Bulk? Last time in 5E i played 20 str half orc fighter. And as str comes from BIG muscles he had 280lb. Is that same Bulk as 100bl 8 str She-Elf Sorceress?
1. Yes, maybe. If you use a bow that is to "heavy" for you then you would have problem of drawing a bow to a full draw and it would be slower. 2. No. Most of the time. If they used broadheads or hunting tips that are heavy and wide for blood vessel laceration then that extra weight could slow down an arrow.
3. Hell no!
Volley is a simplification of all that. You can have 20 rules, or just one, which isn't perfect, but get to the point: Longbows are hard to use in most short range situations. Simplification is not always good, especially if it's a nonsense. Imagine if you give a longbow, a proper 100lb english longbow with some blunt arrows and you stand 30ft away from an archer and 100ft away. Where are you going to feel safer? You can even run around at that distance as a moving target. Or take that same longbow at 4 targets 15ft, 30ft, 60ft and 120ft
I do not think that 60ft will be your best score. Ever.
I have no problem if longbow is restricted by cramped quarters or other penalties for its size. I.E. ceiling is too low and walls are too close. -2/-4 attack. or unable to attack at all You can't use longbow while mounted or with a -5 penalty. You have -2 penalty on resisting disarm as it is too large for a single hand grip.
A bow as long as you. Does not matter, draw length is to your cheek.
thing were much more simpler with simple weight and carrying capacity. And a DM with a bit of common sense to tell you that you cannot walk around like Crazy Ivan https://images.app.goo.gl/D8Bi97FBfBsyp43E7
The logic is that the longbow is large and unwieldy so it's harder to set up and aim at something that's really close. The closer something is, the more you have to move the bow to keep it aimed at a moving target. 30ft is not really close from that perspective, if they said 10ft then maybe. And it's a lot easier to "lead" a target that is closer and moving. And what if the target is not moving? We ignore the Volley trait?
Is it just me, but the more I read the rules the less sense Volley trait makes. Penalty to accuracy for closer target? How did they logic their way out of that one? If they needed to balance shortbow to longbow, then give shortbow Agile and reduce it's Deadly value to d8 or remove it. being less precise at 30ft than 100ft and having same accuracy at less that 30ft and at 200ft has no sense what-so-ever.
Yes! it's fantasy, so who cares? Racism can be a great plot device in campaign.
People are in a hurry to defend this right up until racial Int modifiers exist. It's racist, and I like your easy fix, OP. well, it isn't racist if it's true. In most fantasy Elves, are described far superior to Men. It is same thing to give elves bonus to intelligence or give humans penalty to intelligence, but it looks nicer to give bonuses rather to give penalties. but in a system that gives only bonuses to various things, not having a bonus IS a penalty that is very nicely packed into not having a bonus.
In my expirience 4E runs better without +1/2/lvl than with it. So for me PF2 will also run better without it. I would just like for bestiary to have parentheses for bonuses without the threadmill. I.E. some random 6th level orc attack: +13(+7)
5E did pretty good job in balancing "stiff" Vancian casting and "free flow" mana point usage. While I would prefer full mana point system with fixed number of prepared/known spells(depending on class), it has only problem of forcing 5min work day even more as you can burn ALL mana on highest level spells, so instead of having 30 or so spells across 10 levels(PF2 current) you would just have 3-5 10th level spells to cast. That is why I like 5E casting, it gives lots of freedom of multiple variations of spells in the same level and across different spell levels by means of auto-hightening.
This is all problem of d20, it's very existance. Having a tool(d20) that gives same chance for best/worst(20/1) performance and an average one(10) is a bad tool. As that is not how things work. If we have 3d6 instead of d20 +1/level or lack of it, and proficiency going from +0 to +3 would have some meaning.
Pillars of Eternity has Mechanics. It is used for picking locks, making and disablind traps and also findig traps So it could be; Mechanics:
Gating proves how dumb +1/level is. it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.
A rogue, who survived on being a pickpocket all his life, and received formal training from the local Thieves Guild, is worse at picking pockets than a level 10 cleric who hasn't stolen anything since before he became a cleric. Or remove passive or "welfare" bonus to EVERYTHING so bonuses has to be earned. Payed with general feats, or racial feats, or skill feats, or class feats, or just by having one class be better at attack by levels with cost to defese or spell DC, or better at will at cost of perception. Numbers should rise with levels, but at a slower rate and at a different rate depending on class and on resources spent while leveling. Also AC should rise slower than attack as damage progresses more slowly than HPs
Meanwhile, Rogues have trouble picking locks in hide armor because of... reasons? Does hide armor not feature fingerless gloves or something? Can it not be assumed that it's trivial for a rogue to take off their gloves for a second to do something that requires fine motor skills? What? So in winter, istead of removing one of your gloves to open your house or car, you strip butt naked so you can pull out keys from your pocket and unlock a lock?
One problem is that skill feats are terrible and 99% of them should be in core mechanics of the skills. Also difference in +0 to +3 would mean a lot in 3d6 system but in d20 it is terrible to describe difference in training. Also as mentioned ACP is too high,
@Helmic; true, Heavy armor needs less or no speed penalty, and reduced ACP, But I would add more effect to damage from abilities. 1Handed weapons: +2×str mod for damage 1H finesse weapons: str+dex mod for damage 2Handed weapons: +3×str mod for damage 2H finesse weapons: str+2×dex for damage Thrown weapons: str+dex for damage Bows: str+dex+wis
Basically, attacks should scale faster than AC, skills should scale faster than skill DCs(but only for skills you want), and saves should scale faster than save DCs. What number constitutes an successful roll on the d20 should get lower as levels increase. Skill DCs should NOT SCALE AT ALL. A legendary lock has the same DC no matter who picks it. But, I do agree that AC should scale much slower, if at all. HPs are your virtual scaling AC
making all weapons have minimum strength and having either str or dex for attack and damage would be far better. and no weapon categories(simple, martial, exotic) I.E. Dagger, 1d4, no min str,
2handers. spear, no min str, 1d8
bows
now if you have 22 str and manage to have even more dex than that, then be my guest and finesse the hell out of that huge ### sword.
That is mainly the problem of d20. Run the math in 3d6 and you will have better consistency, even with only +1 difference. d20 is Legacy and I understand that, but ironically, d20 is biggest "ball and chain" on d20 system. We invent advantage/disadvantage, assurance feats, minimum d20 effective rolls, anything to tame the d20, but in the end all those are makeshift band-aids trying to fix what is unfixable.
That's where I disagree completely. High level characters shouldn't have any problem dealing with low level orcs. Like at all. The fighter should laugh at them as he easily deflects all their blows and then slice through them like butter.Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle? 10th level fighter already has 10×HPs or similar over 1st level orc and 2 or 3 times more damage, and without +1/lvl +2 or +3 in attack and AC. Do you really need 10 more attack or AC over them? If you could beat 1 at 1st level, now you can 15 or 20, without any +level bonuses, if you are careful not to be cornered/flanked/grappled. beating 100 seems dumb. But to each his own. Everyone of us has different view how fantasy should work.
Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle? My only issue is that it trivializes CRs below your level really fast 2 or 3 levels max, and makes higher level CRs completely out of reach not matter how much preparation, tactics, or numbers you put in the fight. A 20 str Orc with a huge ax, even if he is CR1 encounter should be a threat somewhat to higher level character, especially if he brings few friends along you you don't have any AoE or you are ambushed by them.
Yes but you aren't going to fight something of equal level over and over. At level 4 you might fight a large group of goblins of varying levels. The lowest ones should be easy cannon fodder, the specialists should be fairly easy, but still a slight challenge, the captains should be equal level challenges, and then the big boss should be higher level than you guys. Without + to level then how would these goblins be differentiated?and monsters are defined by the same +1 per level.Because the characters are not fighting each other. THey fight enemies of many different levels. I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge. If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.
Because the characters are not fighting each other. THey fight enemies of many different levels. and monsters are defined by the same +1 per level.
Problem is in the number bloat that serves nothing. If every class gets +1 to everything then what is the point? If all the difference is in -4/0/+1/+2/+3, then just work with that and item quality bonuses.
Also, Remove constitution and merge it's mechanics to strength. Let's see how many are willing to dump str then.
I am all for dex to damage, being able to aim better with high dex and ranged/finesse weapons does not mean just hitting the target wherever, it means also hitting more precise into more vulnerable areas. Personally I would get rid of weapon categories and give each weapon minimum str to use. And made all melee weapons dex or str for attack and damage. With minimum str score required str could not be a dump stat unless you want to be sentenced to eternity for 1d4 dagger damage.
Also for removal of ability scores. They serve nothing in the game except "legacy". And if you only care about legacy, there is PF1 and 5 editions of D&D to have ability scores.
Life of an adventurer is cheap and seldom long. Have 2 or 3 back-up character sheets. DM should be the one that imports new character as soon as possible. Later on, if reversal of condition is possible, player can return(if he wishes) to old character.
So basically it's there to punish newbie players and/or veterans who don't metagame and make the game less fun for them? Yes, if you are unpreparad and without any info of what you are fighting, you should be killed/permanently disabled. And it is not "permanent" as there is a cure for any condition. Even death. Also lvl12 characters, if there is 4 to 6 of them in a group should between themselves have atleast one copy of any antidote available from lvl1 to atleast lvl7 spell levels. In any game that I played at around that level I had 100 or so potions/scrolls on me.
Strength: Remove weapon and armor proficiency categories. Every melee weapon can have str or dex as attack and damage stat.
Add minimum str for every weapon. Without it you are unproficient with weapon(-4) and deal minimum damage. Add minimum str for armor. Without it you are unproficient(-4 AC) and take extra 5ft speed penalty.
Intelligence should add both skills and extra language on one-on-one basis(like 1e). Add option for perception to be either int or wis.
why complicate as 1:100:10000 in nice, metric and intuitive? And easy to calculate back and forth between copper:silver:gold.
They should kill the sacred cow of 6 abilities and go with 4. Str: current str+con, fort saves, melee&thrown attack and damage, HPs, carry capacity, str skills, Dex: dex, reflex saves, AC, +init, range/finesse attack and damage, dex skills, Will: will saves, magic attack, damage and DCs, channel energy etc... Cunning: bonus skills and languages, +init, int,wis and cha skills,
Good solution would similar to attunement form 5e but with charisma added. I.E. you can attune to 1+cha mod items. Min 2. And every item that is more powerful than simple +X to something would require attunement. Also some feats could "key" from charisma, leadership like: providing bonuses to attack, temp HPs, bonus damage, vs. fear/mind control rolls, etc...
Please no AoO. We finally have gameplay where people aren't just five foot stepping every single turn. It's vastly superior to pf1 in that regard. Yes, and now that everyone ignores melee and just waltz through is sooo much better. AoO makes closing in with melee more rewarding as it punishes ranged attackers for bad positioning.
They strive to get as far away from D&D 5E,I think that is intentional, and smart in some ways, but trying too hard not to be like it, could be a detriment. I find 5th Ed closer to PF, than the Playtest, so far. Problem is that PF2 playtest does not know what it want's to be, that is devs, do not know how to proceed? Little like PF1? Little like 5E? Something new? They took spell scaling from 5E but kept PF1/3.5e slot preparation, They took 4E "level gives bonus to everything" and then tackled on pretty badly 5E proficiency progress -4 to +3 in comparison to 0 to +6(+12 in some cases). They took multiclassing via feats, atleast they did it better than 4E tried that subject, so one plus there. They don't want to be 5.5e but 5E mechanics creep in the back door. Either do PF2 like PF1 and do a nice upgrade and pay respect to the source or do your own thing right.
So the issue is that biggest flaw of any d20 system is in the d20. 3d6 describes thing 10× more real, just like arm wrestling match you described.
Sorcerers should get autohightening by default for all spells. It should be their strength due to lack of flexibility in spells known. 
|
