The Mad Comrade wrote:
Yes I agree, that's what a good Gm would do to help balance play. Kind of like a good game system will try to balance play among character creation so that everybody starts off on the same footing. To be fair I have only ever used point buy for character creation so I am baised in this.
I'm just curious. what if you have three players that didn't roll above a 12 and one character that rolled 18's across the board? Do you just let that player dominate the game because he rolled well at character creation?
THis is only for 1st level but Core Rulebook pg 15, 2nd column, 4th paragraph starting with Purchase. "No score can be reduced below 7 or raised above 18 using this method" might be what is being referred to.
Now see that example makes way more sense. But if you have two characters exactly the same shouldn't the one with the superior gear win? And don't forget the math architecture behind this system is much tighter and is designed so that a +1 makes that kind of difference. It is designed to do exactly that. It may mean the your style of play won't mesh well with how the new system works, and that kinda sucks if that turns out to be true. I suspect my gamer's will not like the new system because it requires way more in dice rolling which they are terrible at. I mean TERRIBLE AT. I hope we both get what we want out of the new system.
What in the playtest is the mechanic reason you need start with a stat higher than an 18? Just curious....
I was just trying to point out to RafaelBraga that his complaint about game balance has more to do with his gm's play style rather than the rule set we are seeing in the Playtest. I would be fascinated to see how that would actually pan out though considering that a paladin of that level would be a master in heavy armor and shields with the ability to heal herself. would the 4th level fighter be able to hit often enough to even make a difference in the overall fight? Especially considering the paladin would have over 140 HP and the fighter would probably only have 50ish HP.
My question then becomes why hasn't the 14th level paladin purchased a magic weapon to wield? Even with tithing and giving to the poor he could still certainly afford one.
Roleplaying is such a quirky thing that varies greatly table to table. my friends and often don't even write down alignment because sometimes you just don't know until you start playing that character to get a feel for where you land on the spectrum. And considering how they have gotten rid of so many other alignment restrictions from other classes, well it could seem like an odd change. But I have have seen some very liberal cleric choices that I wouldn't allow in a game i run. Still it does make it easier for a GM to say hey if that's what you want to play even though its not quite what the rules allow, go ahead, rather than saying no you can't do that.
Why does a lvl 4 fighter have a legendary weapon? in order for it to be +4 to damage it has to be enchanted by a legendary enchanter and also has to be crafted as +4 to hit by a legendary crafter which is 65,000 silver plus 65,000 silver, so how did a 4th level character get such an item? That is bad adventure or treasure design not bad game design.
graeme mcdougall wrote:
There has been some rumors around a 4+ change as something they are looking at hard and strongly leaning towards.
So uh, what in your mind is the Fighters role in a party exactly?
Just occured to me that CG warriors would probably gravitate more towards Caiden Caylien generally.
The alignment choices for all the gods feel more constrained than before. I believe this was a design choice to motivate roleplaying of clerics to be more diety based than before. Just my sense of how things feel. I mean ONLY LE for asmodeus? I know you could be LN or NE before. As I said I think the tightening up of alignment choices are there to help impress upon the roleplaying aspect of your choice of Deity
The Sideromancer wrote:
I'm uncertain as to how Dread Striker would hold up. PF1 Shatter defences allowed for flat-footed on any fear status with not unreasonable investment, but most importantly, the rogue (via the rake and scout archetypes) had a reasonably reliable way of inflicting said status on the first round. Dread Striker currently seems like half of a good option, without the part that actually gets it to work.
Brawler has a free intimidate linked one their strikes maybe rogues will have something similiar.
Don't forget downtime rules as well, wouldn't item creation fall more into that?
Could just be for language precision, could be a setup for something else to be dropped in later.
A concern of mine...well not a concern more of a curiosity, with the AP's that I have played/run there is an ingrained sense of urgency in the adventures usually designed to keep the characters (or players) focused on the main plot. With downtime now being in the core rule set and therefore becoming more a part of the game as a whole I will be interested to see how they handle that change in the coming AP'S
One of the DM's in our circle of gamers solved the problem by completely removing the spells from his game. Anything that is magical flight and anything that is magical invisibility do not exist in his Birthright campaign world. The rest of us just strategize fight sequences with dead magic zones or lots of dispel magical targeting flyers.
Meta magic. I give players that take meta magic feats a pool of their casting stat modifier that they can use on the fly perday to cast a spell with that feat. They still need to be able to legally cast that spell with the feat adjustment. So no quickened spells at first level even if they have +4 mod or higher. More people have used meta magics in my games that way, where without it they usually don't bother.