I have to disagree here. With AoO you control the situation, you make sure that the enemy either doesn't move/cast/etc. or gets a wallop. Not reactive at all.
That's a good point, and I think a portion of what annoys is that the reactions are all so... well.. reactive, like you said further down. That said, it being what I consider a main class feature (being one of the two things you get at level 1), cementing it as a reaction cement the paladin as a reactor instead of a proactor (is that a word?), and lay on hands also works in that direction a bit. I mean, it's a valid design choice, just not what I typically think of as a paladin. Tomato tomahto.
Thoughts on the suggested alignment feats?
Edit: just thought that with a change of name and removing the resistance, retributive strike works really well as a proactive evil reaction ><
My problem isn't the lack of smite (well, not my main problem), it's that all paladins have a reactive main class feature. Why limit the design space?
As for the paladin being the complementary defending class to the fighter, I don't see where you're coming from; the fighter can defend just fine, and the paladin has magical powers and entirely different fluff.
As for the alignment feats, I'm not saying all feats should be alignment feats, I'm saying that once all alignments are available it's a good method to distinguish and associate between the different alignments. And I'm only talking about having alignment components as prerequisites, that's only four different types. Much better than different feats for each paladin type (which is what we've seen in 1.6).
So with the 1.6 Paladin we were given conformation of non-LG Paladins, and what those look like. I have some thoughts and opinions I'd like to share.
First of all, I am really happy the alignment has been opened up, and I am especially excited at the prospect of more then 9 Paladins, since more can be created with the same alignments but different value systems, or even independent of alignment.
What I dislike is that it seems that all of the Paladins will have a reaction as their main class feature; just within the domain of LG I want a sword of Right and Justice, that gets basically smite evil instead. This seems overly restrictive, and dismisses many loved and cherished tropes for no reason.
What I suggest (besides opening up the above restriction) is to have class feats with alignment prerequisites (single element only). This will help both to differentiate the different the different Paladins and emphasize the common ground between some of them, all with lower page count than many feats with the various reactions as prerequisites.
What do you folk think?
All in all, great work done, and hopefully great work ahead!
I'm all about choices myself, so I would like something that always allows another round of rage, but doesn't make the choice one sided. Maybe something like a constant benefit but growing cost.
Guys come on, the core rule book hasn’t even come out and you’re talking about lack of additional classes? There has always been niche overlap in classes and that never stopped the publication of the classes you like (Eldritch Knight and Magus anyone?). I get having a discussion about whether 6th level should come back (I’m cool either way), but I think we can be certain that there will be more classes with unique features in the future.
I think the deal with the lower proficiency is a narrative one: barbarians are unsophisticated unlearned beasts of damage, so they they don’t have any of “thos phansy teknics” with weapons or armor (the proficiencies) but they do hit harder and take more punishment.
Wow, that’s some strong necro. Nice to see I’ve been here for so long.
Your post isn’t related to the topic of the OP, so you should open a new thread. That being said, I think using an implement with the returning quality and throwing it at a party member with Snatch Arrow works by RAW, though no GM should play it that way.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Another example of the awesome responsiveness of the team, and one of the many reasons I love PF
So you calculate the percentage only in relation to playtest players? Or do you also try to get a picture of which parts of the general PF community participate? You obviously can’t measure the response of people who haven’t read the playtest to it, but it’s likely that those who have are more system savvy than the general public (as they are willing to learn a new, transitory, changing system).
In other words, are you also addressing the selection bias of the pool from which you are gathering, with selection bias, from?
Thanks to you as well, both for making us a new fun game and for listening and interacting with our feedback (even though a lot of it is toxic).
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I get why you won’t share survey results, but could you share your analysis of this? I can think of a great many issues (and a few solutions) to this problem, and as a statistics enthusiast I’d like to hear your approach to it (not to mention seeing a high level thorough analysis will raise my already high confidence in the team)
Produce flame is far better than the hand crossbow. You need to load your crossbow, so it also takes 2 actions, hit AC instead of TAC, and you do less damage on a hit. Not to mention you need to spend loads of money on the crossbow for it to keep up.
Cantrips do okay amounts of damage; they’re there in order to make sure you don’t wast turns or spell slots inbetween uses of your real spells.
This would make sorcerers MUCH stronger than other casters, more than tripling the number of heighest level slots they have.
The meaning is that if you learn fireball for the first time at character level 7, meaning as a level 4 spell, you could still cast it using a level 3 slot.
I specifically didn’t mention lowering in my post since I’m still going back and forth between auto lowering and only being able to learn spells at their lowest level.
It’s also important to remember the bard when discussing these things, as any structural changes to spontaneous casting will affect them too. I’d say any change to heightening and number of spells known will have to apply to both classes.
A heighten metamagic feat is an option that’ll sidestep the resource problem while remaining balanced.
- Free heightening and lowering, and reducing the spells known by one per level. [1,2,3?,4]
- Change bloodlines so you can only choose spells with the appropriate traits (from all lists), with complement powers. [1,2,3?,4?]
I personally think low number of themed spells known with a bunch of metamagic and free heightening is the best option (and one that can fill loads of splat books), but it might be a bit out there for others.
First of all great thread. It’s always nice to see polite, constructive, data driven threads, and this is a good one to boot.
I think the highest level slot precentage needs to be broken up to single target and multiple targets, with single being 200% and multiple being around 60-80%, with the goal being 300% in total. I completely agree with OP about casters.
I have to say one of the things that I liked in PF1 is that spell levels had two strokes of life: when a spell level is your highest and used in combat, and when you have spells three or so slots higher and can use the spells for utility and prebuffs (like unseen servent and mage armor). If the second type is still alive and well in PF2 then it isn’t a problem that those spells don’t take part in damage output calculations (though they still need to be taken account of because of spells like the excellent true strike).
Edit:fixed some grammar.
I think I saw this suggestion on the other thread, and I liked it. The DC should be based on the level of the creature you're healing, rather than your own level. For most cases this would be the same thing, but it would allow for high-level NPCs being able to easily heal the party, or low-level PCs struggling to save a high-level creature. That seems more interesting to me.
The problem with this Idea is that it penalizes characters in need of healing for being higher level, leading to the kinda absurd “Frank died becuase he leveled after that fight!”.
I'd like it if the amount healed would simply go off the number rolled. It probably means giving up on the four tiers of success here, but I don’t mind it not applying to everything.
I get the power issues with having automatic heighten, but I think they aren’t as drastic as the confusion from having a spell but not being able to cast it at all levels. I’m not talking about things like invisibility, that basically have a greater version, but about things like fireball or heal, that just have an “add this many dice when cast at this slot”. It also feels wrong to have heal at level 1, being able to cast it using a level 5 slot, but still getting the level 1 benefit.
First off I’d like to say that I really enjoyed this blog, and most of the others, and am excited and grateful by being able to play PF2 soon. I like the bloodline change in particular.
That being said, the way spontaneous casting deals with heightening is concerning to me. It feels like solving a physics problem (I’m a physicist) and getting a solution that lacks some symmetry or aesthetic property. When that happens it not only feels icky and gives me a headache, it almost always means the solution is wrong. I believe this is the case here.
I understand and agree with all points made against automatically upcasting or downcasting, how they eat up time or may be stronger than prepared casters etc. But, I believe they are an order of magnitude less disrupting than the confusion from not being able to cast spells that you have and get the appropriate effect. A sorcerer with heal can now cast it at 5th level but not get the effect that it says it has at 5th level.
I think the issue with spontaneous casting has to do with how spells behave in general now; with spells being unaffected by caster level, collapsing spell chains into the heightened mechanic that affects both the magnitude and the scope of spells, having opposing effects being resolved through spell level, and so on, spontaneous casting needs to jump through too many hoops.
Maybe you should re-split some of the spells? Keep heightened effects like additional damage/healing and the opposing effects resolution , but re-split things like invisibility where the effect of the spell changes. This means that auto upcasting will involve a lot less bookkeeping (just the number of dice or the rare level comparison), be less confusing, and give what I think is the right sort of flexibility for this type of casting: that of magnitude, not scope.
Another option is to give heightening through spell points, though this doesn’t resolve the confusion of not having a spell you know, and will need to be done on a class by class basis.
As a last note, I’d like to thank you all for being so responsive. These blogs, your continued commenting in them, and of course the various faqs, errata and support in general are a huge part in why PF is my RPG of choice, and the main reason I’ve been excited by PF2 even before any details were announced.
I like what I see with the structure of the archetypes, though my Spidey sense is tingling as to the power level. Just using the pirate dedication as an example, what if I already have acrobatics as a signature skill and am already trained with those weapon? Both of those seem like things easily gained through class (especially ones chosen for a pirate character) and greatly reduce the appeal of the dedication feat.
Toughness is never a bad choice, but you have con to spare, so no priority there. If you like cornugoun smash then I highly recommend you get riving strike, intimidating prowess and a cruel weapon. This way in two attacks you can give a whopping -6 to saves and -4 to attacks, making you an amazing debuffer on top of your damage skills.
Oh, and it seems you wrote improved critical twice.
The way I read the feat (which you should feel free to disregard with if that’s fine with your GM), is that the exceptions given in each individual style are exceptions to the prerequisites given in the style itself, not to the actual feat, Only clerics, inquisitors and warpriests don’t need the actual feat (as per the general special text).
A big part of your choices is what levels you’re expecting to play at. I mostly play PFS, which gets up to 11, so I don’t take more than 4 levels of DD, since you lose spellcasting and a bab point. But if you get to higher levels advancing your bloodline powers becomes way more important.
Some other points to keep in mind:
I wouldn’t advise taking both bloodrager and skald, since their rage abilities don’t work together. Better to pick one or the other;
Everyone in this thread have offered you a lot of great, complicated ideas and options. This is just your second character, in a home game. You probably don’t need to be 100% optimized and preplanned. Feel free to do something simple with just a base class and DD, instead of a 4/5 multiclass monstrosity, and take the advancements one level at a time (or not; I like monstrosities).
The most important thing to remember is that a good DD is (usually) a melee build, so your ability scores, feats, class, and spell choices should all go towards that goal.
The easiest advice I have is to focus on strength (which both bloodrager and DD help with), choose a two handed weapon (great sword is the best damage-wise, but the choice isn’t too important), and take the power attack feat. I would also advise against taking more than 4 levels of DD.
Another good choice for dragon disciple is to add in a few levels of paladin. This takes a higher level of system know how than sorcerer or bloodrager (because now you have to have at least three different classes - paladin, spontaneous caster and DD), but the payoff can be great. It also opens up some nice RP opportunities; I have a friend who built such a character, and its whole deal was the struggle between its evil dragon ancestry and its faith.
Hi Mark, super excited about the second edition! I agree that now is the exact right time to do it, and am excited to see how PF will look with the rigor and expertise that I see in the later products.
Until then, do you have any input about how overrun works as part of a charge? It’s explicitly allowed, but I’ve seen wildly different interpretations of how it works.
It really isn’t clear, at least for me. The additional resources state:
additional resources wrote:
the use of Arinna's Wagon...are not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play unless they appear on a Chronicle sheet
The way the book is set up I’m not sure whether this includes the tattoo or not, not to mention the additional resources entry only states which items are not legal to buy, and at no point explicitly states that anything can be purchased.
I’d really appreciate it if someone with access to the book could give their take.
I’m going to have to say the shaman doesn’t count, due to the slippery slope argument. To my knowledge every prepared caster has some access to spontaneous casting: cure spells, arcane bond, summon nature’s ally. If the shaman counts as a spontaneous caster, then the distinction is moot.
Just some options that weren't given above:
A rod of intensify or intensify spell and blood intensity become more and more crucial the more of these options you choose, so watch out.
All of the restriction, except for the simatic one, can be sidestepped with the methods I pointed out in one of the previous posts on this thread.
Brawler's Flurry + Greater Trip + Vicious Stomp + Pummeling Charge + Elephant Stomp + Fortuitous + Spiked Destroyer. Help?
Thing is that "single spell" can refer to a single spell casting or to a single spell.
I also think the first interpretation makes more balancing sense, but I think it makes less rhetoric sense.
So one of the benefits of the feat are as follows:
Equipment Trick wrote:
Aura Mastery (Use Magic Device 1 rank): Once per day, you can choose a single school of magic represented by one of your wondrous items’ auras; you treat your caster level as 1 higher when casting a single spell of that school. You can make this choice at any time during the day, but you must choose the item (and school) before casting the spell.
Does this mean that you add the bonus once per day or that you choose the spell that gets the bonus one per day, and get the bonus to all castings?