Kerobelis's page

Alchemist is to PF2e what Ranger is to 5e.

I don't think Rangers in 5e are that bad. Maybe the 5e ranger is like the PF 2E wizard in terms of power.

Perhaps the new GM guide provides advice / guidelines on familiars and / or the exploration mode? It isn't a book I have but I think a few do?

They appear to be nonexistent at the moment, yes.

Thanks.

I guess I will make my own based off of the riding pony or previous editions.

I had a session today and my players purchased two pack animals. Lester they were attacked by a hungry river drake and I couldn't find their stats. It was mid session so I just used the stats for a riding pony. Do they have actual stats for donkey or mules in the beastiary or Core rules? I still can't find them.

By the end of the session the drake was well fed and the party had one less mule!

Familiars at least seem to have some intelligence: they are able to use quick alchemy without extra guidance so they'd have to be reasonably smart and have to have a good recall and comprehension to understand and remember alchemical formulas. So, IMO, if you can get over the logistical issues with a familiar scouting, I wouldn't give them a hard time trying to communicate ideas if they've taken speech.

Nothing in the book says that familiars are intelligent. My understanding is they are of animal intelligence and any abilities they gain are magical / alchemical in nature.

hmm, further reasons to dislike exploration mode. There is too much verisimilitude lost. I prefer the DM to handle this stuff like in previous editions.

Do people think the same thing for an animal companion? How do they act in exploration mode? Can they not be an extra set of eyes? Or is there some default action they take?

SuperBidi wrote:

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:

More than any other class, I was looking forward to making a Mutagenist.

It no more exists. In PF1, Alchemists were having a strong specialization, with Mutagenists and Bombers being built in a very different way. In PF2, all Alchemists are very similar. The specializations are just a little advantage, but nothing to specialize on. So, a Mutagenist is built with a bit of strength, but still a lot of Dexterity and Intelligence as he will also have to toss bombs, brew poisons and give elixirs.

To be fair, that mostly sounds like it calls for class archetypes like the old vivisectionist and what not. But we will get those eventually too.

I disagree. Look at the Druid or thief specializations. They were well done. Each takes the character down a different path. The alchemist specializations seems like an afterthought. Its the PF1 monk or the 5e animal companion ranger. For a class that is unique to PF, it is shocking that the ball was dropped so badly.

Riddleport before New Thassilion

I am just stating a fact, I am not crapping on PF2e. PF2e doesn't support abandoning a class well, while PF1 does. And it can do it effectively (i.e. the dipping problem of 1e) and it can be garbage (F10/W10).

PF2e is great at making a multiclassed caster compared to 1e (although people are still angry, see all the proficiency threads). Each edition has it strengths and weaknesses.

Kerobelis wrote:

The hero who ends one profession to start another (usually due to finding some old mentor or discovers she is a jedi).

It is odd that I can't stop being a wizard if I want to.

That's usually handled in background (I was a smuggler and criminal, but reformed and became a paladin), or by talking with the GM to swap around the base class.

It could be in some cases, but not all. My main point is that this is one fantasy trope that cannot be replicated in PF 2E. A caster will keep getting more spells no matter what he does (aside from stop adventuring at all or breaking your faith/anathema).

It seems to me that two of these three issues are most likely errata and/or over sites and only one is an actual change (Proficiency).

Are there any mild dislikes of how something has changed from 1e? I mean in a more general way such as (monsters using their own rules, modes of play (more specifically the new one exploration), changes in how BAB / multiple attacks work, determination of initiative, small PCs having minimal penalty's, bulk, etc, etc, etc.

The hero who ends one profession to start another (usually due to finding some old mentor or discovers she is a jedi).

It is odd that I can't stop being a wizard if I want to.

I get the status of a random humanoid and give them 1 or 2 PC class feats for them to use in battle.

Per example, get the Jinkin status and then give it Nimble Dodge and Twin Feint of Rogue to make the random bandit #4.

Okay, I see what you are saying. As I am starting at L1 I will look through a few of the creatures in that range and "reskin" them to fit my needs.

I may make a leader up using the PC rules though. Say a cultist cleric or brigand chief a fighter.

My one concern with browsing through the new bestiary is that there is no info for the types of villians / NPCs that are class based? I am going to be starting my first session this weekend and I was hoping to have a few of these essentials as the party is starting in a town (Riddleport) and I am sure they will face a few local thugs...

Or did I miss something?

I was thinking of just finding a similar creature and then re-imagining it as the town thug or bar bouncer?

I know I can just use the PC rules, but I have a feeling that is a little overpowered, especially for the NPC's I am looking for.

I only have the core rules and the bestiary. I didn't purchase any of the starting adventures as I like to make up my own stuff.

Is there an online source (PFS - which I know little about) or website with a few PF2 essential creatures like this?

My concern would be the non casters vs. the Fighter. Do they have enough other abilities to compensate for the lower damage. I think a Champion and Rogue does. I am not sure about the Barbarian and Ranger.

I'm currently performing an incident investigation and I agree the DC gets higher with more people in the meeting....

I'd say bard is probably your best bet. Utility spells and heals don't need stats, neither do buffs. Skills with a wide array of stat spread are also usable.

Fighter next since his inherently higher proficiency will mean that even with 14 he has the same chances to hit as other martial.

Next rogue just as a skill monkey, but his debuffs come a bit late (9).

Alchemist is probably the worst since due to his inherent much lower ability you need to min max to make him do stuff and with just 14 Int you'd also starve for resources.

At least my alchemist can carry his junk ;)

For the alchemist I was thinking he wouldn't be expected to carry the team, just be a support guy. Throw the occasional bomb, brew up healing potions, make a few skill checks.

I do think a bard or cleric would be more effective, not that I would ever make such a character but it is fun thinking about it.

Joe Average is a human hero who distributes his stats as evenly as possible. I think it works out to:

14 / 14 / 14 / 14 / 12 / 12

I think an alchemist jack of all trades character could work. Or some sort of buffing caster (bard or war cleric).

If you wanted to melee, i would take a fighter but he would be a sad fighter compared to all the other characters.

Actually a skill monkey Rogue might be perfect. Get all the skills and be decent at everything!

I havn't read the book in detail, what abilities might such a character make the most out of?

One thing that is great about this edition, which was not as prominent in PF1 and which is lacking a lot in 5e, is how easy it is to buff classes on the future.

Classes are extremely modular and have a very light "chassis". Which means nobody is stuck with weak abilities as long as better ones exist. You could just publish stronger Wizard feats or stronger Arcane spells to improve them whenever, and Paizo is known for spamming splatbooks. There could later be strong class archetypes (How PF1 fixed things) and such.
I think the current Wizard is decent and fun to play, just different, but time will tell how they perform in play and whenever that happens, there will be many avenues to improve them. Not as much like 5E ranger that got a bunch of unofficial reprints and fan content because it was stuck sucking.

What you can't do is Nerf classes without erratas (Which we almost never see), so there is a strong possibility of power creep as time passes. Whoever is the strongest class right now (Fighter?) is likely to become the baseline to flatten the power curve down the line.

I have no side in this argument but I disagree with what you are saying here. Publishing more to fix problems is a terrible thing. Half the people won't even know the options and you are also admitting to their being lots a "trap" options.

With an elf I could go

STR / DEX / INT = 16
CON / CHA / WIS = 10

or as a human I could go

INT / STR = 16
DEX = 14
CON = 12
WIS / CHA = 10

Not sure which is better. Would also depend on looking at the ancestor feats (which I haven't really). I do like the idea of a half orc feral alchemist....

Mutagenist seems to me to work best as a generalist/utility person, using high Int to dabble in skills then Mutagens to be good at whichever is most useful at the moment, or loan at mutagens to improve those who already are.

Your AC is a bit low when going combat with Bestial Mutagen, certainly, but not as low as it looks past the very early levels, and if you go Human (or make it to 3rd level) you can grab Medium Armor Proficiency to manage through those if you like.

Medium armour doesn't seem to add a lot unless I dump DX. DX is such a good stat, I may as well stick with light armor (max DX +3) which I think is doable (14 or 16 starting dex) to get my max +5 to AC. Also if I take medium armour it doesn't upgrade later (although that is a long way away..)

Maybe a shield would help? Not sure how that will affect my handiness (have to look in detail if I need 2 hands all the time).

I was even thinking of dumping INT a bit as it isn't the most helpful. Surely not start with 18. 14 or 16 may be enough.

I think this is a great question as I find the mutagenist the class that seems like the biggest trap. It isn't a straight forward build and I could easily be missing something. Is it supposed to be a melee build? A mr. Hyde type of character.

I see you can also go with a more finesse build with quicksilver and use bombs but I was thinking that would be more for the bomber alchemist.

Lets say I want to go Mr. Hyde route. How do I make it work? The Bestial mutagen requires ST as the attacks are not finesse (or am I missing something)? The quick build suggests strength.

With poor armor and average dx (+ the penalty from bestial) it looks like I am going to get murdered.

Feat wise, there is minimal support until L8 (feral mutagen). I suppose I play more as Dr. Jeckyll until L8?

What advise would you give for this style of character. I like the idea of him, but I worry he may be more of a liability? Would multiclassing help?

Yes, but in 5e you don't get into this position where you have multiple possible armor types for a given character that end up with the same AC/Stealth Disadvantage result. If you're a character with DEX 14 who wants to wear medium armor you either pick a Breastplate if you care about Stealth or Half Plate if you don't. There's no reason (other than money) to ever wear Scale or a Chain Shirt. If you're a heavy armor character you never have a reason to prefer Splint to Plate. If you have a flavor preference for Splint you will always end up with a lower AC.

I don't have the 2e PF book yet, so you are saying every armor choice could be an optimal choice?

Vidmaster7 wrote:

So is their not a surprise round anymore?

How is surprise handled?

By the surprisers using their Stealth check instead of Perception for their initiative.

Basically, there's not surprise rounds anymore

I found this an odd decision in the PT that I hope was going to be changed. Being surprised is a classic in all genres.

I suppose you can give a big initiative bonus but then it just becomes a back and forth between sides (surprised team goes first, then all those who were surprised, and so on).

I guess i miss the verisimilitude. I liked small characters not being able to wield the same giant sword as the half orc. Instead they should get some other bonus (like PF 1e).

Baby Samurai wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

Third, the fact that Armor choice is now a flavor decision is amazing. To me, equipment has always been one of the stronger essences of flavor, so knowing that the Armor Specialization and balance Paizo has put in has created this feel is exciting!

Yeah, this seems another page they took from 5th Ed D&D; I also dig spellcasting modifier added to spell attacks (dropping TAC in the process), amongst other bits.

Umm, armor in 5e isn't just flavor, there's basically one optimal type of armor in 5e for any given character.

Which I believe is the same as PF 2E. Have high Dex, go light armor. Moderate dex, medium armor, no dex = heavy armour. All 3 styles add up to the ~ same AC (+6 for PF 2e I think, AC 17/18 for 5ed). Basically, whichever way you go, you have the same AC. Proficiency will be the difference.

In 3rd edition, you could get AC 18 with full plate but the best unarmored could get was 15 with DX 20. So there is a big difference.

The same is true regarding TAC. Just like 5 edition.

As this thread is in the homebrew section I guess that means the developers intended for Multi classing to be the only way for wizards (and others) to obtain higher than trained proficiency in non class weapons.

While I understand the angst, I am okay with this.

Hey there all,

Just as a heads up, we are deep into our crunch period on this game, and while we are still paying close attention to the playtest results that are still rolling in, we have to remain focused on the task at hand... revising the game.

So.. if we are a bit quiet right now.. that is why.

Thanks for understanding. There will be occasional posts and announcements from us in the coming weeks, but we are playing it light to get work done.

Thanks for the update!! Hopefully we will get some blogs in January?

It has been mostly silent with just a few developer posts here and there. The last blog was Nov 19 (Thanks). I think the developers are back from Thanksgiving and are hopefully rested up.

Has there been an update anywhere else? I only lurk in the forums. Maybe I missed something?

I am not looking for anything specific, even some general feedback.

Just a curious adventurer....

While more feats can be a good thing, more feats can cause other problems though. The game becomes more complicated which is often not new player friendly.

I also worry about power creep with more and more feats, but I guess we have to first worry about a good core book! I may be getting ahead of things. Make the core book the best it can be with feats that are not traps (perhaps the opposite of meaningful choices).

I think the alchemist should be reserved for an Advanced players guide sort of book and not the core book. It is fairly confusing and not new player friendly. The entire alchemical items section is a lot of space to use for just one class. Classes that require their own subsystem should come later as they can get their own play tests on their unique new systems (I.e. Guns for gunslingers, summoner eidolon, etc.).

Anyway, probably way too late for this comment. I just think the oracle or witch would be better for a core rule book as they use the same casting system as other core classes.

My other thought is you make an ability called Powerful blow #. The # is the # of dice you add when using a weapon. This could then be tweaked for each class. Then you don't need to tie weapon dice to proficiency or level. It would give the developers more control and it makes sense that a fighter should do more damage than a wizard with a weapon.

So Powerful Blow 3 would add 3 more dice to the damage (same dice as weapon used). Maybe a wizard gets this at 20th level while a fighter gets this at 10th or 12th level. Just examples to show how it works...

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Well, a +5 whip averages 16 damage and a +5 greatsword averages 39, so even if we're adding +20 from level, the greatsword is still way ahead (just by a smaller amount). If PF1 taught me anything it's that people are going to work for every numerical bonus no matter how minor.

But this might be a place where half level could be more appropriate.

You're right, but he was talking about using +level to damage INSTEAD of more damage dice, not both. In this case the difference between a greatsword and a whip at higher levels would be like 29 vs 24.

Yes, this is what i proposed. Instead of growing dice via magic weapons, just add + level to damage. So a characters skill/training (i.e. level) and not his weapon is the main source of damage. I suppose you could add a bonus to this if it is a two handed weapon.

My main question is more about why + level is not added to damage when it is added to most other things. It does solve the pick up any weapon and still be decent with it issue.

I'm curious. Why did the developers not use +level to damage instead of more dice? + level is an established mechanic in PF2 and seems like a natural fit. Then have weapons just add the normal + to hit and damage. At least if you are disarmed you can still do some good damage (if you hit). I believe this is used in Starfinder as well.

Other advantages of + level to damage vs. more dice is:

quicker game play
viability of low dice weapons (i.e. a dagger fighter)

I think the only one that really needs a buff is intelligence. Strength has uses for a decent amount of characters (most melee fighters) and for bulk/heavy armor. CHA has the resonance thing to help it out but I am not sure what is happening to resonance in the final book but I am sure it will still be based on CHA.

Intelligence is only useful to the classes that have INT as a core requirement (Alchemist and wizard). Having one high INT player in the party meets all your needs (int skills). Everyone else should dump it. Even letting INT give more skills is not such a big perk as everyone has a decent number now.

I saw someone mention you could have initiative be based off on INT. Just a flat check modified by INT. Fluff wise that is a bit difficult to explain (compared to Dex like in PF1). I do think it would help balance the ability scores though.

When my Str bonus is increasing on a linear growth pattern while my damage dice increase exponentially, I still maintain it's worthless mid game and beyond. Add to that many ranged combatants and nearly all casters who won't even use it for damage... It's marginally helpful at low levels for around 60% of builds. That's it.

You need STR to hit for most melee characters and every plus to hit is essential. Of course it isn’t to useful for casters and bowmen

It also helps bulk.

hyphz wrote:

PF2PT giving everything a DC and a modifier is just screaming they they wanted to offer this kind of streamlining and then backed out of it to satisfy old saws who would bin the system rather than lose the principle of "martials have attack rolls, casters force saves".

I'd be pretty happy if they rethinked that. When the Fighter does a big attack, she gets to roll. When my Cleric does a big spell... the DM gets to roll and I sit there waiting to see what happened.

Lets standardize that and let the attacker roll all the time.

The current system is nice as it gives players the choice. Not all people like rolling. And if casters want to roll, they can play blasters or touch attack casters or Gish. You have classes for each style of play.

Now a lot of the area control / god wizard style casters has suffered as everyone gets good saves but there is hope that will be tweaked based on the blogs.

I've always felt 5e has really good feats, with the major failing being how high the opportunity cost is for taking feats resulting in often getting very few of them. (Or at the very least, not getting them until high levels.) I think having 5e level feats delivered on a pathfinder feat budget would be really fun.

There is a big difference though. 5th edition D&D feats are rare and come at a cost of sacrificing your ability score advancement. Due to these two reasons, they need to be great. I also do not consider this a failure, i think it is a very meaningful decision in the development of a 5th edition D&D character. One of the few that gets made as 5th edition doesn't have a lot of character decision points as they level.

With all the feats in PF2, i cannot see how you could make that many that all have such a high power level as 5th edition.

Another main goal of 5th edition feats was to make them so all encompassing so you wouldn't need so many feats. It makes the game free from a lot of clutter.

In some ways i find the feat system for PF2 to be like magic the gathering deck building. Only a few of the many feats are viable. Only a few magic cards are tournament viable. So you need to pick those feats / magic cards to make that Character / deck work.

What about just sticking with 1E PF?

I have to say yes but it has been so long so it is hard to say why. The main thing for me with the PF2 playtest book is that it actually made me angry. I didn't feel that way reading PF1.

So what do i mean be feeling angry? I was angry as it wasn't fun to read. It didn't feel like a fantasy game, it felt like I was reading some sort of technical manual.

It needs more stories, examples, and plain language. The technical language was very off putting to me (especially modes of game play, and the condition followed by a number).

I also didn't like all the subsytems (alchemy, snares, poisons, powers merged with spells) that makes it difficult to grok some of the classes. I've played quite a bit of various versions of D&D and the alchemist is very confusing. So much page flipping to understand one class. To me, I think it may be better for a supplement. Lots of pages dedicated to one class.

Anyway, just some thoughts on my reading of the PF2 manuals. I do believe it can be improved and I am sure it is high on the list of the developers to improve.

I would say the Alchemist needs the most help.

The former is that issue where fighters are the only class where the class abilities are insufficient to fill their role. Fighters are supposed to be weapon masters, and yet they need to rely on wizards to actually deal large amounts of damage. If you make damage runes less common, though, and grant bonus damage dice for higher proficiency levels, they would be self-sufficient. Granted, that would lead to the interesting mental image of a fighter being able to pick a branch up off the ground and murder people to death with it, dealing more damage than a greatsword could in other people's hands. But to be honest, I don't have a problem with that. As an example of that trope in fiction, it would let you build Jason Bourne. Meanwhile, if damage runes still existed, they would let other people upgrade one weapon to be as good as the fighter, or let the fighter go from massive damage to obscene amounts of damage.

It isn't just fighters. Its Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues. All need magic weapons of the appropriate plus or are next to useless in combat.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.

I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?

Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.

5ed D&D doesn't have more character choice options than PF2. But I also do not think having a ton of options is necessary. The main thing about 5 edition D&D is its simplicity, focus on role playing, and elegance. Being super crunchy is not for everyone. Especially new players.

I have played most versions of D&D and Pathfinder, and I prefer 5 edition D&D. A lot of people say it captures the feel of D&D and I agree it does, especially after the failure of 4th edition. The book is a pleasure to read and the art is very inclusive. Its fun!

I am hopeful the 2ed PF will also be a good game. I have faith still.

The difference between a normal sword and a supremely expensive magical weapon of great power is... 3.

1d8+25 vs 1d8+22

you are missing the bonus to hit and ability to bypass DR (for the PF1 case and to hit does effect dps, but not as severly as in PF2).

My problem with the PF2 magic weapons is if the 15th level paladin loses his sword he now cannot compete against level appropriate foes if he picks up a basic sword. His to hit goes down by 3 (which is everything in PF2) and even if he hits, his damage is now a fraction of what it was (1d8 + bonuses vs. 4d8 + bonuses)

If PF1, the paladin would have a chance unless the target required a magic weapon due to DR. The loss to hit is not as big a deal being a Full BAB class.

I think they meant level +0, level +1, level +5, level +10. At least I hope that is what they meant.

Kerobelis wrote:

you had

All attack lines:
Paladin: +19, 3d8+4+d6+d6 (+10 or +12 dmg from weakness)
Cleric: +19, 4d8+4
Ranger: +21, 4d8+2 (temporarily had +12 from weakness)
Barbarian: +22, 4d12+5+d6, +10 dmg when raging (+10 or +12 dmg from weakness)

I calculate the to hits as (making a few assumptions about attack stats):

Paladin: +20 (+12 level, +2 Weapon, +5 STR, +1 Proficiency)
Cleric: +19 (+12 level, +3 weapon, +4 STR, +0 proficiency)
Ranger: +21 (+12 level, +3 weapon, +5 DX, +1 proficiency)
Barbarian: +19 (+12 level, +3 weapon, +5 ST, +0 proficiency, -1 due to giant totem).

This doesn't take into account any buffs or feats or other magic items you may have. Perhaps the Barbrian added an extra +3 due to have the +3 handwraps (which do not help him in any way). These new to hits would make a major difference, especially for the Barbarian.

To make your Paladin even better, I would take that +3 weapon instead of +2 flaming. As per what Edge posted, each +1 means a lot.

Those numbers sound about right, though he stated somewhere that the Paladin has 18 Str, hence the 19 instead of 20. Ironically this is the same Str that the Elf Paladin in my current party has.

Hmm, I see that now in the damage modifier. Well, that is another lost bonus to hit. I do feel it sucks how PF2 severely punishes you if you do not max out on your to hit (crit wise, accuracy on secondary attacks, etc.).

you had

All attack lines:
Paladin: +19, 3d8+4+d6+d6 (+10 or +12 dmg from weakness)
Cleric: +19, 4d8+4
Ranger: +21, 4d8+2 (temporarily had +12 from weakness)
Barbarian: +22, 4d12+5+d6, +10 dmg when raging (+10 or +12 dmg from weakness)

I calculate the to hits as (making a few assumptions about attack stats):

Paladin: +20 (+12 level, +2 Weapon, +5 STR, +1 Proficiency)
Cleric: +19 (+12 level, +3 weapon, +4 STR, +0 proficiency)
Ranger: +21 (+12 level, +3 weapon, +5 DX, +1 proficiency)
Barbarian: +19 (+12 level, +3 weapon, +5 ST, +0 proficiency, -1 due to giant totem).

This doesn't take into account any buffs or feats or other magic items you may have. Perhaps the Barbrian added an extra +3 due to have the +3 handwraps (which do not help him in any way). These new to hits would make a major difference, especially for the Barbarian.

To make your Paladin even better, I would take that +3 weapon instead of +2 flaming. As per what Edge posted, each +1 means a lot.

The to hit seems wrong if the barbarian is the highest? How did he get +22? Paladin is an expert, while Barbarian is only trained. Barb also gets a -1 from using the big weapon. Something seems off...

just try posting here, people are usually happy to help. And if there is a disagreement, then it may alert the developers