While you may actually be quite correct in the greater scale of world simulation, it still is a major concern intra-player-party-wise; namely
As magic spells are fictional and can be up to any power level as the rules dev team see fit compared to skills, I'd rather have set up whatever limits personally cast spells have in the fictional world (like many books having a hard NO against resurrection, example only), then give out features for non-casters both in and out of combat so their "price" in XP versus spells available on equal levels would seem to be roughly fair.
Yeah, buffs and utility are (literally) classic domains of magic spells. Most old fairy tale wizards were helpers, not the acting hero (usually).
A personal tangent though.
Btw you forgot the third, "what do half and 2/3 casters get out of the split?" The answer to that is same as the second but to a much greater degree due to getting more spells (if such a caster is ever made).
No personal feelings nor investments on this part.
Although, if I ever made PF1 classes, I would have started with a HD d12 class with all(3) good saves and 8+Int skill points plus no spell slots, then trade off each set of HD step and 2 SP plus a good save with a step of slot growth, ending with d6 + bad saves + 2+Int SP + 9th spell progression.
But even then, considering the massively versatile spells of PF1, I think my hypothetical sunfish-fry-frail full caster would still be more potent compared to the somewhat tougher other classes...
* P.S. Occult really does have the best spells overall, which is a shame for the Wizard.
On this, I roughly guess that the 4 essence lore and spell functions map like Mind -> IndirectOffense (mind assaults), Spirit -> IndirectDefense (envigor our spirits), Life -> DirectDefense (includes Healing), and Matter -> DirectOffense (kaboom).As the player casters' main goal is to survive adventures to grow further, spending spell slots on any kind of Offensive acts should feel economically worse (especially the all out "offensive" Arcane)...
AFAIK the LFQW in D&D equivalents has always been the clash between two questions (wordings might be off due to English not being my primary lingo):
1. If spellcasting is all powerful, what use are non-spellcasters in a typical party (except cleanup duty)?
2. If non-spellcasting is capable enough, what benefit(s) did the wannabe spellcasters expect when learning how to cast in the first place?
I have no strong enmity on neither keeping nor swapping old mechanics for Kineticists.
It's just a foul way of harshly penalizing the PF1 version just because some bizarre consensus in the old design team severely overvalued the Constitution ability being a proactive stat, which it shouldn't had been (especially as CON has no other proactive function like skill bonuses, unlike the other 5).
By "pan-pseudo-signature" I mean that a sole spontaneous spellcaster's entire repertoire working almost like signature spells, except only for heightening and not "downcasting" (such limitations extant as to not completely nullify the "signature spell" rule and that Bard 20 feat in APG).
Would making this default, in tradeoff for making all prepared spellcasters getting a flexible spellcasting w/o the cantrip(s)/even level spell slot loss (spell collection size roughly the same), be fair enough?
P.S. This thought was conceived when I thought of 5E's Sorcerer known spells discrimination, and thought of having all Neo-Vancian casters prepare up to half-level + Casting mod spells per day only, in contrast to spontaneous casters getting to know spells equal to at least their current level(s)...
The point is, that I believe the # of spells a flexible caster preps each day must be lower than an equal level spontaneous caster's base repertoire in order for both types to have a niche for being selected.
1. Is this combination possible by RAW?
All other Incarnate spells (if they pass the question below) are castable, yet only Primal Summoners are screwed if they'd love to call Mogaru...
2. Is using the extra slots to cast (10th-SL heightened) Incarnate spells RAW in the first place?
The text for the feat only refers "summoning" spells, unlike Master Summoner which also calls out "incarnate" spells too. Is this an oversight?
Edit: Upon closer inspection, Summon Kaiju is a Rare spell; no wonder it worked clunky with the Summoner class. Even so, shouldn't it work well thematically, at the very least...?
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
What is the difference between houseruling a specific change and an errata making that same change?
The latter is considered more "official" and "default"; which means the majority of anonymous GMs will accept it way easier than an unreliable homebrew.
To be blunt, a sizeable number of players have this mental hierarchy of rules acceptance; starting with the printed default rules on the top, official variants (some of them like Free Archetypes considered good enough to be almost treated as default for some groups), 3rd party splat, then finally plain homebrew on the bedrock...
Specifically, one who rolls to hit with Dex (as fists are finesse), not caring about Str damage that much, while only taking "passive" class feats and no stances which modify AC, that is.
I just want to know if a Str 14 -> 20 & Dex 18 -> 22 stat spread is not awfully crippled compared to the contrary...
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Is there somewhere where just the errata is listed? So we can see what all changed.
The new FAQs page now lists all errata for PF2, wih a caveat: it does not distinguish which errata is applicable for whatevereth printing. This could be a real problem if a 3rd or later printing happens later on...
As a supporter of the "RPG Mechanics Verse" trope, I do agree wih your (supposed) opposition to the arbitrary level treadmill syndrome.
Although, while I enjoy the idea of randomly progresed heroes and vilains dotted around within a sandbox world influencing its course greatly, some others might detest it for various reasons;
I cannot agree more!
Happy Lunar New Year (of the black tiger)!
An explanation: in European calendar terms, (usually) if you divide a year's one digit by 2 rounding down, 0 is white/west, 1 is black/north (hence 2022 -> 2 -> 1), 2 is blue/east, 3 is red/south, and 4 is yellow/center. The Chinese five cardinal direction colors, they are.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
If my memory is correct, for 4E it was something like a hit for on level targets on a natural 8, so 65% success / 35% failure. BTW, said edition lets you only make 1 weapon swing per turn, AFAICR.
Whether that ratio is acceptable or not is up to each player, though. For me, it seems OK, as it lines up with the current meta in which only the first two attack actions are expected to score a realistic hit.
This quip runs on the assumption that if you go Dual Class...,
1. You get 1 key ability boost if the only choice(s) for your two classes are one and the same (so no free replacements). This has the benefits of milking the value of your intended Apex item to the maximum.
2. You get 2 key ability boosts if the scores in question are different. This nets you with a higher ability score total in the end, not mentioning various skill bonuses spread doubly. BTW I think this interpretation is also close to officially intended rulings, as since you still only end up with only a single Apex item, starting with two 18's will still end up with a 24 and a 22 by the end of your career.
Given this choice, would you choose a Dual Class combination with only a single ability boost (like Investigator//Wizard), or two (like STR-Fighter//DEX-Monk)?
Probably the side effect of PF2's greatest achevement, of making Levels actually meaning something accurate (in this case, the performance ceiling of an individual).
I'll most likely never understand those "majority" in that awful poll, who thought crippling martial (or any PF2 character) performance in general by making their expected math dependent on external equipment so badly was a good thing, for the rest of my life (especially when your on-level NPC adversaries blatantly enjoy those expected bonuses as essentially ABP for free)...
As 2 of my 3 greatest RPG pick checklist was passed (#1 via OGL, and #3 via actually broadly competent martials), most of my dislikes within PF2 has to do with (#2) Verisimilitude, plus some Lost Omens lore stuff.
- I don't like PC-NPC Symmetry no longer being default just for the sake of ease of gameplay.
-- A direct tangent of the former, it's especially jarring when PCs require fundamental runes in order to "catch up" to the hit/dodge numbers for NPCs of playable ancestries.
- I don't like how Sorcerers (and other innate spellcasting monsters) still need to vocalize and wiggle elaborate digits to cast spells, when they're supposed to be a natural function of their beings.
- I don't like the "official" interpretation of the Timeless Body/Nature feats prohibiting the feats' taker from enjoying "immortality until slain or succumbing to various affilctions".
- I really don't like that in the Lost Omens setting, trying to extend your presence (and self consciousness) post-mortem to prevent being turned into cosmic building blocks, then unto nothingness after the current universe dies, is nigh impossible as of now (unless you're the very last being and the very first being for the next universe, just like Pharasma).
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
The problem is that you sometimes can't reconcile the desires of people who want a game that's fun to play and don't care about the numbers under the hood and people who want a game that's a orderly simulation where every duck is in its properly shaped box but don't really care much for how it plays out in practice - cue all the folks who will discuss the game's mechanics to death and bemoan the lack of symmetry and consistency but have never played the game a single time, ever.
Fair enough. A staunch "natural simulationist" (so much that despite entering the TTRPG world with 4E (Essentials) was quickly swayed towards PF1 and GURPS of all things due to their heavy(? consistent might be a better term) world simulating) like me is a rarity among actual players, yes...
In stark contrast to the post right above, my biggest gripe about PF2 (to be fair, all "modern" RPGs in genera including 5E) is that they moved towards PC-NPC Asymmetry a bit too much for my sensitive intestines.
It's especially jarring to see NPCs of playable ancestries having unexplained statistic bonuses despite the lack of a (loot-able) magic weapon/armor. Although, if the ABP OPTIONAL rules were the standard (as someone someone implied it was to be if not for the final survey before launch going wrong) for players too, this one could be handwaved easily.
And at least it's not like Starfinder, where NPCs don't even have Stamina Points (my #0 gripe with THAT system), absolutely crushing any hope for a faithful cosmic simulation (most visible when healing spells treat PCs and NPCs like either party were carbon based life and the other silicon based) unto oblivion...
Realistically (or verisimilitude-wise, or whatever that means), all non-firearm weapons and unarmed strikes should have been DEX to hit and STR to damage.
Anyway, despite the default Initiative assumed as Perception(WIS) in PF2, DEX is still a STRonger stat compared to STR, so I see no harm in stacking some bonuses for the latter.
Yeah, crunch is always good, but for true simulationists like me common trinkets like this listed in the game data are an immense help in creating a believable world worth playing inside.
Why more necessary stuff like the price of Golarian toilets and the like are still missing is beyond me, though... (does it exist, BTW?)
Well, I get that the 2nd point stayed for balancing purposes (grumbling of acceptance), hence the 3rd point.
Can a limbless person ever become a Psychic? The playtest text seems to suggest that as long as you can at least move your head around you're cool (which makes sense, brain power and all that), so is this RAW intended?
I'm fine (even enjoy) with what you described as Macro, which probably maps well to others like "Combat as War", "Simulationism", "PC-NPC Symmetry" and other themes if I understood correctly.
Though my biggest gripe on the older d20 systems was that to enjoy these "Macro" abilities, you must be able to cast mid~high level Spells without outside help. Non-casters might be able to oneshot equal CR foes if optimized correctly, but they were still deprived of surefire ways to circumvent the "Mother May I" situation (OTOH the casters were enjoying Macro by default with the GM having to intervene to stop spiraling out of control).
So it seems that PF2 made an incredibly well done balance between players mostly by hammering down such world-defining spells, and other "definitive abilities" (like Monks losing their total immunity to all poison which let them freely inhabit radioactive wastelands in PF1). As such, no Tippyverse in canon Golarion, nil.
Well, at least the "price/budget" of Level means something predictable in PF2...
Is it that anathema to start play on a Level higher than 1?
What kind of class(or character archetype) fantasy would(/not) be eligible right from the lowest Level(s)?
Thus rewriting the actual current Alchemist chapter of the CRB in a near future new printing. If the core RAW text is permanently replaced, what could they do but grumble on?
If Alchemist ever gets an overhaul intra-edition, it must be done as a CRB full text replacement, not an Unchained version. So many GMs out there who only acknowledge the authority of "core only"...
Oh, and the fact it has less mechanical support as of now also works as a last chance to shake up its order of class features before it becomes too tangled to fix later on.