Kazk's page

I agree with point 2 and parts of 3, but I think general feats are pretty important for a few reasons. They are in the perfect position to develop the aspects of a character not covered by class, especially weird ones that don't fit nicely into skill feats.

Feats like toughness and armor proficiency are pretty boring by themselves, but they make a heavily armored melee wizard/Fighter less dangerously fragile. For non cross-class characters, things like breath control and ride can help stretch a character to be capable of more than what is defined by their class, which is even more important in this edition, since classes have stronger niche protection.

And yeah, a decent number of them are kind of boring, but there are lots of great feats from 1e that wouldn't quite fit as skill feats or class feats, like drunkards recovery, the possessed hand feat line, brilliant planner, and elongated cranium. If these sort of feats had to directly compete with skill feats or class feats, then they couldn't exist without being trap options unless you find some crazy synergy that makes them more powerful than intended. That was the situation for a lot of neat feats in 1e and general feats avoids this.

In terms of combat power, I am fine with with general feats being weaker than class feats, as this prevents any crazy interactions where a general feat wildly influences the power of a given class. I am doubly ok with it if Class feats become stronger, such as through automatic scaling)

Plus, by segregating combat power and general feats, it opens up general feats to go towards developing aspects of the character that aren't about their class capabilities. Technically, some of these are small improvements to combat (Proficencies, HP, Speed), but these look more like ways to stretch your characters capabilities outside of what one's class is capable of. Or even help to make glueing together different class combinations more cleanly.)

In less words, I like comparatively weak general feats. It leaves them in a position to be able to express more character ideas without throwing balance out of whack. If characters still feel too weak, buff up class or skill feats instead.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Malthraz wrote:

I think balance is important in so far as unbalanced game system can be very hard to run for the GM, and not fun for people playing characters that get eclipsed by the super characters.

...insert the usual "some of us love playing sidekicks and want that option available" rant here..

I mean. I don't mind. Really depends on the character. I'm playing second fiddle now to 2-3 characters depending on instances. I still like my character as she still gets skill checks often enough, I'm not fully worthless in combat, and when battle ends 2 of those characters can't do much to patch up or get around some issues.

THAT said, I do agree that being overshadowed is an issue and being blown out of the water is a problem. My first character for this group was basically replaced when someone switched to Sorcerer and got a few wands to the point I was basically just an Adept. Meh.

...

The issue comes in, from what I've seen, when you get different players and expectations at the same table.

Hope that wasn't too ranty.

I feel like this is starting to get to the heart of the problem. Balance (usually) requires tradeoffs. Due to all sorts of factors one table may have more fun with a more balanced game. Another table may not enjoy the game as much because of the tradeoffs that had to be made to achieve a higher level of balance.

Just to complicate things even more, there is the fact that there are lots of different things that could be called balance.
*equal contributions to combat
*Each class having at least one thing it can do best
*no class being strictly worse than another
*no class being strictly worse than another given certain common conditions
*not so out of whack that the player that only finds fun is creating strong characters can have fun alongside the player that just wants to not be completely overshadowed.
*few bad/trap options
*the classes all contribute in the specific kinds of campaigns that the GM runs.

To complicate things more the variations in the kinds of challenges/encounters/situations/whatever that the GM uses, and in what proportion they are used changes what options/tactics could be strong or weak.

If the question this thread was asking was "What kind of balance is important to your table?" the question is fairly easy for me to answer. In trying to answer it, the above factors started coming up and it became more difficult.

Because of the level of system mastery I have, the time I have to to work on campaigns, and how my players get along and how my more experienced players help my less experienced players make the cool character concepts they want, its ok that some classes can overshadow others because it never happens anyway and I can use my system knowledge to help even weaker characters contribute because I enjoy designing situations like that and have the time.

I am curious to see not just what people think about how much balance matters, but what the conditions are at their table(s) that have contributed to that stance. It may be appropriate to create a separate thread for that though.

Thanks everyone! I think I will probably have an NPC or tag along to help with the party, and I will control them as npcs, but perhaps not altogether that bright, or at least not take initiative in decision-making, and just note that I did so within the survey.

Either way, I will try and take good notes so I can have more insightful things to add to the forum discussion once I have analyzed the sessions.

Would it be possible to accommodate both more realistic martials and more ridiculous martials if the way to be one or the either was to just pick different options at high level that are all powerful but vary wildly in flashiness?

Putting balance aside, consider if rangers had high level feats like the ability to shoot accurately over a few miles with a bit of time to focus, but at the same tier was something like an additional reduction to hunted targets (1,2, removed completely, something). The first option would be flashy and cool and could be used creatively to deliver messages or pick of officers in a battlefield. The second option is mechanically powerful and would lead to much higher damage output, and isn't anything even impossible, its just uncanny accuracy with consecutive shots.

I know these are't necessarily well designed feats, but I wanted to illustrate an example of at least an attempt to accommodate both playstyles.

20 hours of testing in a week as a teacher/PhD student?! Legendary Playtester Skill Feat, maybe? :)

For the PROs and CONs, was anything surprising?
Put another way, How did your expectations about how the game would feel compare to how playing it actually felt?

Kazk wrote:

Substituting it would probably have less drastic of an impact, unless the new thing interacted with the games other systems in a strange way.

that's basically the reason I asked. If I theoretically substitute the current system with old system of ranks, it probably wouldn't change anythinig for a char with ranks in Athletics for the aforementioned Athletics vs. Reflex check and a Char without ranks in Athletics would be considerably worth, as it should be.

But outside of skill checks what would be affected? Is the ALP for skills too integral to the system to take it out without starting from scratch or is it something that might potentially be dropped between today and the finished product?

Hmmm. One effect that I would really like about doing that is preventing automatic increases to skills that one does not want the character to be good in. For example one of my favorite characters was a total high level boss, but had 1 rank in perform(comedy) to show that they actively spent some time trying to be funny. They had a high charisma, but were still able to tell awful jokes on a bad roll, something very endearing to me.

Mechanically, it is an exception to the +level to everything rule, and add one more system to the game. That means I dont think Paizo probably will, but I do think(or at least hope) that skills will become more granular. Perhaps a change to how proficency bonuses work?

A consequence of Signature Skills, is who can be a primary-caster in rituals. Everything we heard about rituals leading up to the release, is how they can be for any class. But it turns out most of the base skills required for rituals are those baked into the casting classes's signature skills. There are so many cool character concepts for characters like martials who learn to fight, so they can explore and get their hands on these rituals. A character like that should not have to rely on getting a caster to lead the ritual for them.

I hadn't considered that. If a fighter is willing to invest the feats into the proper skills, I see no reason not to let them try out rituals. It adds a cool mystical vibe to ritual magic that makes it feel powerful and special. And the rituals tend to be difficult enough that a caster who doesnt focus on rituals would at least still feel helpful as a secondary caster.

Tithron wrote:

... I get really bummed when something new comes out and the existing fanbase starts a pool on how long it is till the publisher goes broke. ...

I suppose you have a point. After all, gambling is not mentioned a single time in the playtest.

and if it was, I'd be afraid it would take a feat to do instead of just being able to gamble, like pickpocketing.

I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.

Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.

Certainly not alone on that one! I'd like to see some unarmored proficency + some feats that benefit unarmored barbarians in more interesting ways. (intimidation? seduction?)

I have a question: how big of a deal are signature skills? On its own, you only get +2 from being legendary over being expert. Some of the feats require master or legendary level, but I'm not sold on how key this is for a combat- or spell-focused character.

I wouldn't say no to a feat that allows you to get an extra signature skill, though. Granted, my first priority would be to push for ways for martials to get extra damage from proficiency as well (i.e. master/legendary increasing weapon dice or just getting a flat damage bonus).

Edit: As for paladins and deities, well, I'm generally a fan of divine classes having to have a divine patron by default. My interpretation is that they wanted to have deity-specific codes by default, rather than having a generic "one size fits all" code and then having to clarify it when aspects of the code seem to clash with the deity's dogma.

I was initially going to say that the feats that it locks players out of are the most cool/powerful/interesting feats related to a given skill, but I am starting to think the dislike for signature skills (my own included) is because it's a restriction on skills that didn't exist before, and skills are an important part of giving characters of the same race and class personality, let alone mechanical differences.

in PF1e, class didn't restrict what skill related feats you could take. Sure there were skill unlocks, but even then you could at least get one.

Witch of Miracles wrote:

...I feel like --on a larger scale -- the two significant changes are really proficiency and class feature acquisition/progression rates, ...

And these two things are the main problem. The proficiency system completely changes the feel of the game. It removes the flexibility of the old skill system and leads to really weird effects.

I'm not so sure that the strangeness is from the proficiency so much as it it the +level to all skills system. Flesh out the old skill unlock system and give it to everybody, and they are pretty similar. I do think it needs changes though.

For example, I had a high level character known to sometimes tell bad jokes, despite their natural charm. Now with +level to all checks, they would be incapable of telling anything other than a really good joke! its a little jarring. I would like to see some kind of change. Something like making skills more granular, or at least avoiding automatic +level to everything for things the character has no right to be good at.

There is a lot to go through in one post, but one thing I certainly agree with is having more general feats that martials can use to differentiate themselves in terms of combat styles, and maybe allow the use of class feats to get them, since general feats are less common now.

a mount specialization might be the way to go. it would still take some investment on the players part, but it would still be an option. heck, maybe a specialization is too costly. A general feat that lets you add the mount ability to creatures of proper size/intellect/demeanor.

On one hand, I imagine that this will be less of a problem once more feats become available.

On the other hand. I am not happy with how signature skills work at all. They seem to exist to hold the place of class skills, but the difference between access to the most interesting uses of a skill including the associated ways to customize use of that skill, and a +3 bonus seem very different.

Fifthed? Now I want to go home and pick appart all the fluff like a dog with a new stuffed toy.

Oh man! someone beat me to making this post! Actually, thank you for doing so.

I am also very disappointed with the current design of the paladin. Most of my complaints come from the paladin being build around retributive strike, but I didn't even think about how it puts the paladin in a reactive position. That is one more reason I dislike it now though. I have a few smaller gripes about other aspects of the class, but retributive strike seems to be the core of the problem.

It is a huge limit on the character concepts that can be done with a paladin. It is powerful, but narrow, so trying to make a paladin that doesn't use it will be weak. The paladin's ability to smite, Aura of Justice, and most of the benefits of the oaths are tied to it. It is also a way to use your reaction to get more strikes in. A paladin who doesn't use Retributive Strike is a weak paladin.

Any paladin who's fighting style/tactics that don't revolve around being a bodyguard has so much of their power invested into Retributive Strike that playing anything else would be incredibly weak. A lone paladin, or a paladin that focuses on ranged weapons, or even just a paladin that charges into battle, eager to smite evil wont be getting much use out of what seems to be the CORE feature of the class.

Honestly there is a lot I really like about the ability, but I don't think that justifies defining it as an ability all paladins have that is core to how they face evil in combat.

1. For a character that it doesn't conflict with, it creates interesting gameplay choices mid-combat. you can spend more actions using your defensive abilities and healing and whatnot, while having a good chance to get to still hit stuff because you can use your reaction to strike. you can try and predict whether it would be better to start adjacent to an enemy or stand next to an ally who may get melee'd.

2. It mechanically encourages enemies to focus on the paladin, which gives it this cool, bravely self-sacrificing vibe, which is perfect for paladins.

3. It is mechanically different than anything I see coming from the other martial classes, both in its trigger and its effect, and giving the martials unique abilities like this seem like a great way to differentiate them in a way that gives them something to think about during combat.

I have some other complaints about the paladin, but retributive strike being central to all paladins is my biggest complaint. It makes the class less expressive than 1e core-only paladins, which is terrible! Generally, I find 2e to be more expressive in terms of characters one can make with it, at least compared to just the 1e CRB. So the fact that there seem to be many FEWER ways to play a paladin in 2e strikes me as a sign that it could use some major changes.

I'm generally concerned about how class choice locks you into specific play styles. Want a Paladin who *doesn't* go for heavy armor and a shield? Congrats, you're wasting a big chunk of your class features. (This one inspired by my desire to create a spear-wielding fighter and trying to think about how each martial class would handle it.)

Especially since you can't swap out core class features with archetypes, and can't multiclass away from or retrain out of your initial class choice, the spine of your character is completely fixed, and has built in some pretty specific choices. And this is everywhere! Key ability score, signature skills, class features. It feels pretty restrictive coming from PF1.

I am glad someone else noticed this as well. Specific to the Paladin, the design seems very restrictive, such that the range of paladins one could make is much much less than what would have been possible with the 1e handbook. Many of my friends complaints have come from comparing what 2e has now (a fraction of a book) to all the options available in 1e. However, I can't defend the paladin class in the same way.

The core of 2e generally seems very capable of expressing unique character ideas, more so than 1e, but that makes the paladin example all the more glaring. An archery focused paladin, or a skirmisher, or switch hitter or a more supportive paladin all function using the 1e core rulebook. With 2e, designing the paladin around retributive strike seems to not only not allow these options, but prevent future books from allowing such options unless we get the ability to trade out core features of a class. That could be neat, but I would rather not have to rely on that for 90% of my paladin character concepts.

Change is scary and I hope that a lot of the less constructive criticism fades with time, especially considering the current state that the playtest seems to be in.

By that, I mean the new systems seem really great and look like they address a lot of the issues I had with how things played out in pf1, but that these new systems bring with them a lot of new issues that I think can be ironed out while fixing to what they are meant to fix.

Negativity that drives players away is very bad for the health of the game. I am not even talking about pushing people away from pathfinder. I specifically mean that the players who are upset about the changes are a precious asset in that they have a strong feel for what things Paizo may have accidentally broke when fixing something else.

That being said, It is much more helpful to try things out and get a good feel for why it feels bad and arguing your case as well and as politely as one can with the devs. Negativity that lets fear or disappointment get in the way of testing though, is hardly useful.

I will have to think deeper on your points in your first post, but I definitely agree that the Signature Skills system needs some change, specifically, to address the problem you pointed out: Your skilled abilities being almost wholly determined by your class.

Currently, the impact class now has on skills is really big in a bad way. Compare the difference between the +3 from a class skill in 1e vs being locked out of all the functionality that comes with being Master or Legendary in a skill.

This is especially unfortunate because being very amazing in a skill that is unrelated to the class's main functionality is one of my favorite ways to make a character more interesting.

My only gripe about this is that Half-elves, half-orcs, and any other- halves are missing out on other potentially interesting level-1 only feats that could fit the character just as well. I see a lot of people proposing a second ancestry feat and that was my first thought as well.

However, adding in another feat at level 1, and a potentially very powerful one at that seems like it could unbalance a lot of the game.

A compromise I would be happy to see is these heritage feats allowing characters to take one of the level 1 only feats in place of their level general feat. If it is still too strong, the option to do so could be a new option in the heritage feat. Sure it delays the general feat that they will eventually get, but it seems like a good way to open up the option without being so strong that one has to take it.

Bardarok wrote:

Certain classes hybrid classes could be replicated using just the multiclass archetype and maybe a few custom feats. Something that lets you cast spells through weapons, something that lets you perform while you rage (and/or give rage through your performance), something that lets you cast blasting spells more easily while raging.

But I think there is still a lot of design space even for classes that look like they could be done via multiclassing.

Magus in particular you could just do a wizard/figher but you could make it more interesting if it was its own class. I'm thinking similar to how a bard is a full caster which has fewer spell slots than all the others but gets bonus skills and special performance can trips, what if a magus could be a full caster who gets the same number of spells as a bard but gets better martial abilities and special spell strike cantrips, like [A] add elemental damage to your next weapon attack and at higher levels [A] your next weapon attack targets TAC instead of AC. something like that.

Multiclass-only feats would be really cool. Like a very niche Spellstrike that had the requirements of Wizard dedication + proficiency in martial weapons. Not a copy-paste of an ability the classes already get, but something that would require multiclassing to achieve and be unique to those combinations.

They actually had these in AD&D2E in the form of Multiclass kits. To get Bladesinging you needed to pick it up as an Elf Fighter/Mage.

One aspect that I like about this idea is that it could be introduced later after the community has a good idea of what multiclass combinations struggle to keep up, let alone ones that integrate the abilities of the classes together in flavorful ways that couldn't otherwise be done.

I'll probably come up with a few variations on "hit it very hard in melee" since that's generally the kind of character I like to play. The two main things I want to see if they work are a Cleric that prioritizes STR>CHA>WIS and the Superstition Totem Barbarian.

I may be doing something similar, assuming that I'm not the DM. For the 3-parter, the analytical side of me wants to do a Fighter/Barbarian or Barbarian/Fighter multiclass to see if that ends up being more powerful than either of its components. I normally prefer more Gish-y cross-class characters but I am mostly worried about the new multiclassing creating combinations that do the jobs of single-classes better than the single-class.

I am of course looking at this class combo because they have a lot of overlap in what they do. (hit stuff)

Raynulf wrote:

And Paizo continues to impress.

One of the big changes from PF1 to PF2 is that a lot of what were baked in class features are now class feats. So in essence, PF2 multiclassing means literally swapping out some class features of your main class for those of another class, much like archetypes worked in PF1... only less adhoc and more deliberate.

As someone who has multiclassed a lot over the years and juggled a lot of silly numbers, I have to say this is a much more elegant approach.

For example: If you want a spellcasting paladin, you can swap out your 2nd and 4th level class feats for cleric spellcasting of up to 3rd level spells by level 8. Sure, you only get 1 slot of each level without further feats, but you get access to spells while they're still relevant - unlike in PF1 where you didn't see 3rd level spells until 13th level. A few more feats and a paladin can cast up to 8th level divine spells... while still being a smiting, armoured, martial juggernaut.

That is awesome

Cool.

Question. Is Paladin/Cleric better than Paladin? Will I be punished by the game and the community for going Pure Paladin instead of being assumed to Multiclass because it's that bloody good now? Why wouldn't I mutliclass because it's so good and no down side?

I can give any number of reasons. The blunt answer is "Math". The math is easier for new players and the math is better for power gamers.

All abroad the no downside at all multiclassing.

It could very well turn out too strong, but I have also heard a lot of complaints that many class features are backloaded, level-wise. So not only are characters not able to access feats past level 10, but to continue cross classing at high levels means a high opportunity cost of class feats balanced for double the level of what one could grab from their cross-class.

I'm sure this will get lost in the comments, but I just wanted to tell Mark that I'm very grateful to all the attention he's given the playtest forums.

I'm sure the team's worked on the Playtest a whole lot, and if I were him, I'd have much less patience towards people who are so dismissive of the new systems before even giving them a shot.
I wouldn't mind criticism or reluctance, but some people here are acting like the sky is falling just because things won't be exactly the same as before.

So anyway, thanks for trudging on, boss.

...just make sure that the Bard dedication feat is the equivalent of Bardic Knowledge so I can make my Monk + Bard/Ranger light-footed detective and chronicler.

Same. I always love hearing more about the thought processes and decision making of professional designers. Additionally, having designers here who are intimately familiar with the rules helps prevent people like me with poor reading comprehension from accidentally spreading misinformation.

Mark Seifter wrote:

(Fighter Dedication would take 5 feats to replicate for a wizard, and an average of around 3 feats for most other characters)

Hopefully this is hypothetical feats and not actual feats? I would hate for the list of feats to get so large in 2nd that someone who's new to the system would pick their feats, only to have another player more experienced make the same exact character but using the 'more powerful' feats and having a better character only because they knew which feats provided more/better benefits than others.

I just don't the amount of feats cause problems for players. Say for example you wanted a wizard who has Armor proficiency, so you take the Armor proficiency feat.. but wait, they could have just multi-classed into Fighter as you said and get that and then some. Why would a Wizard (Who didn't intend to multiclass into other classes) ever take any weapon or armor Prof. feats? They should always take Fighter Multiclass? and if you pick the weapon/Armor feats then you're making a bad/wrong choice. I hope I'm conveying this right

That is actually a good point.

My first instinct is to say "A more experienced player or GM could point that out and help the new player," but I am a bit iffy on that as that feels a bit like saying "systematic flaws are ok as long as you help people avoid them."

Still, stretching for counter-arguments, that does come at the cost of locking the chatacter out of non-multiclass archetypes. Additionally, those sound like general feats the wizard could grab, vs having to spend a class feat to crossclass with fighter. Still, that does seem like quite a gap in power, especially between two CRB feats.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hey everyone, it seems like the discussion on healing is a sharp tangent from a multiclassing blog (especially since many of the posts have moved on to explicitly not count multiclassing) and is also laser-focused on the mummy rot affliction (which incidentally doesn't do anything resembling 6 Constitution damage in this playtest anyway). Maybe move to the healing thread from before that already had a big mummy rot discussion or make a new thread?

All right. Should we talk about how this system massively favors casters who want to steal martial stuff over martials who want to steal caster stuff (or worse, martials who don't want to cast spells at all)? The Wizard/Fighter gets full plate and the martial weapon of his choice out of a single feat while the Fighter/Wizard gets... a few cantrips.

I have the same concern. It does seem like those dedications are a little imbalanced.

It is difficult to say without having a better idea of how much power these classes will be getting from their class feats. counting only half ones character level for qualifying significantly slows access to the other's class feats and eliminates access to any feats with a level requirement of 11 or higher. Not to mention the HP that the Wizard/Fighter looses compared to the Fighter/Wizard.

I suppose the counter argument to the above is that, if a class derives much of its power from feats, that makes crossclassing to take those feats more valuable as well.

Unless it fundamentally unbalances things, I would like to see multiclass archetypes and general archetypes not count against each other for the purposes of needing enough feats to select a new archetype. For example a rogue with the pirate archetype still being able to multiclass into something without first having to wait to pick up two more pirate feats. Otherwise, I see a lot of cool character concepts being totally unavailable until higher levels.

If a player were to take a multiclass and a non-multiclass archetype quickly, it would be fairly expressive even at low levels while still taking just as high of a level to take a 3rd archetype of any kind.

This would certainly grant more versatility, but would there be a problem with 2 early dedication feats being to powerful? Or just over complicating the rules?

Something I think i like about this is that there is some seperation of what a class grants you from being that class vs cross classing into it. I see two big advantages to this.

1.Classes can be allowed to have cool powerful stuff without as much worry that another class would become too powerful with access to it, since it can only be obtained by being that class, or accessung it through the cross class archetype. I cant speak for the designers, but i imagine this opens up a lot of design space.

2. This alows for more fine tuned balancing of cross class combinations. If particular combinations or types of combinations turn out weak, feats can be added to address these issues without adding more power to combinations that are already powerful!