Angel Mask

Luceon's page

83 posts. Organized Play character for Manowar.


RSS

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Three weeks after the release of the playtest. I designed a simple progression by level, unlike +1 per level it is +1 per three levels, that is for everything, the monsters, the character, the traps, the DC charts etc. This is very simple to accomplish by the way. Now, to those who want to remove the level bonus completely, that is to say make it a flat 0+prof, that is also a poor design. I wanted the level bonus to be closer to the other bonuses you get like attributes, prof, magic/buffs. The key is to have level matter, but you do not want it to trump everything in the game, my system accomplishes the perfect progression, I will show you my table on IMGUR : https://imgur.com/mfx0vcm

Now the other flawed design is 0/+2/+4/+6/+8, good designers do not make math for the norm, that is to say proficiency should be the base +0, non proficiency which is usually used way less than proficiency should be a negative (See prof in AD&D). IMO, here is what it should have been.

UTEML: U -2 T +0 E +1 M +2 L +3

This UTEML progression worked perfectly with my bounded level bonus, and other bonuses in the game.

Also I would have maintained Touch AC, as an example It makes no sense that a incorporeal creature has to penetrate physical plate male?!?!?! And do not say it makes it simpler with out it, this is not a simple game.

One other thing, they should have avoided making a level 2 feat that reduces the cooldown of Treat Wounds to 10 minutes, i.e. Continual Recovery.

Scarab Sages

Dragonborn3 wrote:
On the other hand, the weird part is the less versatile a familiar is the better they are as a choice. Toad for instance, likely get to pick two options. Owls only get one.

No, the toad has Amphibious. So they also only get 1 other ability.

Scarab Sages

graystone wrote:

Well, that's a good start for paladins... Now we just have to work on getting rid of the 'good' requirement and we can start on what's wrong with the chassis...

We are SO close to getting rid of unneeded alignment anchors for classes. With this I might even think about playing a pathfinder paladin for the first time in a non oneshot.

Have you ever considered that your desire to have no alignment guidelines for characters, could be from your misunderstanding of what they are, what they mean, what alignment signifies?

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Dear HWalsh,
Your words are strong and passionate, I too share a similar history with D&D playing Red Box and AD&D in the 80s. My best friends favorite character was a Paladin. He still plays a weekly campaign with me to this day, and we are using PF2, I am the GM. So here is my advice to you. One old school'r to another. We have lost nothing. The Paladin is Most assuredly Lawful and absolutely Good. It would not matter if Paizo, WOTC, Donald Trump, or the TTRPG police told me otherwise. It's my game, it's my world and in my world Paladins are Holy, Warrior, they are role played as seeking holiness and truth, they serve LG Deities Period, full stop. So my point being, do not be shackled by a few rules, run your PF2 game the way you want, just make sure the players are well informed of your guidelines. My players playing a Paladin have to be LG. My monks have to be Lawful, my Barbarians cannot be Lawful. These are simple adjustments, they are essentially fluff, its the crunch that can ruin a game, the fluff can be anything you want. If your a player, tell your GM I want to play a Paladin, I want to be LG. Paizo is in no way at fault in this matter, it is impossible to make everyone happy, in fact trying to make everyone happy is a recipe for disaster. Play your game, Play PF2, play your PF2.

Scarab Sages

Zman0 wrote:
Luceon wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
Luceon wrote:
Zman0 wrote:

Why not just run it full Bounded, with +0/lvl. The scaling built into magic items, hp, and damage are enough to push the effective encounter bubble from +/-4 to +/-6 and stretches towards +/-8ish. If your goal is ~7ish level difference your math is closer to +/-(5-6)

It ends up being way less work to convert the bestiary. It just works, and will work better for your stated goals.

This has the DCs that need to change etc, and a new encounter table and xp progression supporting mixed level parties.

Hey thanks for making that varient rules PDF, it’s very well done and professional. I was wondering if we could have a discussion about it on some type of voice app?
No problem. Having a discussion is possible, I think I have PMs enabled. But via message might still be easier.
Hey Zman0, I have PMs enabled, you do not, I want to send you a discord link.
Apparently never confirmed the changes.

I sent you my Discord link. I also have several question about your PDF. Thanks

Scarab Sages

Zman0 wrote:
Luceon wrote:
Zman0 wrote:

Why not just run it full Bounded, with +0/lvl. The scaling built into magic items, hp, and damage are enough to push the effective encounter bubble from +/-4 to +/-6 and stretches towards +/-8ish. If your goal is ~7ish level difference your math is closer to +/-(5-6)

It ends up being way less work to convert the bestiary. It just works, and will work better for your stated goals.

This has the DCs that need to change etc, and a new encounter table and xp progression supporting mixed level parties.

Hey thanks for making that varient rules PDF, it’s very well done and professional. I was wondering if we could have a discussion about it on some type of voice app?
No problem. Having a discussion is possible, I think I have PMs enabled. But via message might still be easier.

Hey Zman0, I have PMs enabled, you do not, I want to send you a discord link.

Scarab Sages

Zman0 wrote:

Why not just run it full Bounded, with +0/lvl. The scaling built into magic items, hp, and damage are enough to push the effective encounter bubble from +/-4 to +/-6 and stretches towards +/-8ish. If your goal is ~7ish level difference your math is closer to +/-(5-6)

It ends up being way less work to convert the bestiary. It just works, and will work better for your stated goals.

This has the DCs that need to change etc, and a new encounter table and xp progression supporting mixed level parties.

Hey thanks for making that varient rules PDF, it’s very well done and professional. I was wondering if we could have a discussion about it on some type of voice app?

Scarab Sages

John Mechalas wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
It does not look like Kyra gets to simply choose any corner of the ogre's square rather than tracing to the center of the ogre's square.

First of all, don't listen to Kyra. Kyra is nothing but trouble.

I think what's happening here is that an ogre is 10' tall, and it's implied that the huts or houses don't rise that high.

Nope, that is definitely not what is happening here and your idea is a very dubious assumption. The diagram is a top view, and there is definitely no mention of your idea anywhere in the text. I will admit that someone new to the hobby could make your assumption though. I’m guessing you aren’t new, so think back to every reference to 3.5 and PF, not that I would even need to use those to interpret the rule, it’s obvious to me that the reader is being shown those white lines for a reason. Those of you in this thread that keep saying that combatants are not cubes are missing the point, if it helps you understand this better for the purposes of targeting a target creature you can target any part of the square or squares it occupies. And obviously kyra can ‘aim’ from any corner of the square she occupies. I mean we are all PF players here, how did it come to this where you don’t understand this concept?

Scarab Sages

First of all, this is for a West Marches style campaign, basically a huge sandbox with many varying levels of creatures and challenges and varying character levels and an old school feel, with a new school rules system. This concept is not related to play testing, I don't care about strict RAW. I want the players to show up when they can, which means they will have varying levels. My current solution is this: The +1 to prof every level is going to be +0 from levels 1-3, +1 from levels 4-6, +2 7-9, and so on. This 'bounded' progression will apply to the monsters and traps as well. It should allow players to explore the entire sandbox with varying threat levels, within reason, say + or - of 7 level difference from a monster. Should allow a level 4 character to be with a level 8 character without too much pandemonium. Any fixed DC's like Battle medic for example, would be rolled as if you had the normal proficiency numbers, as far as the math is concerned its all the same % chance of success. What are your thoughts, any ideas that can help us? What are some pitfalls?

Scarab Sages

Byron Zibeck wrote:
Quick fix: divide all GP values by 10.

Trust me, I wish it were that simple, but tons of things don't even come close to that conversion rate, see for yourself e.g. Chain mail PF1 150 gp, PF2 6 gp.

Scarab Sages

Those of you saying that the monsters are to powerful, do me a favor and go play the level 7 and higher adventures, try out Somber Hall, 4 level 7 characters mopped the floor with the monsters when we played it. Our Paladin was hitting with a Nat 4 and only getting hit with a Nat 19 for most of the fighting. the immense power of that party really surprised me.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with the OP, can we please not dumb down this game anymore, there are already tons of dumb'd down RPGs. I mean I have spent the last few weeks learning this game, I guess I'm just weird, I enjoy learning games. We are playing a new version that lacks all the tools and familiarity we had before. I don't think the feats are that complicated they usually have simple rules effecting your character, and they are growing slowly through the life of your character, just like most strategy games you play, the board grows in complexity as the game goes on, but you witnessed it's evolution along the way. In the future you are not going to have to re learn a new character every few levels like in the play test. Also if you are overwhelmed by the vast complexity of this game please play a barbarian or Fighter, take feats that do not cause you to learn something new like toughness and incredible initiative, you wont even have to remember you have some of those feats. You will still be viable and powerful and wont have to reference the rules much, I'm pretty sure you can memorize the Rage power.

Scarab Sages

21 people marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
What am I missing here? How are characters not walking through walls?

Common Sense.

Scarab Sages

People who complain about the monsters stats not matching up with the numbers on their attacks and abilities, should keep in mind that the monsters have invisible traits, for example an ogre, if you do all the math it's doing an extra 2 damage. Why is this a problem, why can't that ogre have some type of effect like rage, heavy weapon, etc. Why does it all have to be put down on the stat block and explained to you. The designer had a specific reason it has that extra damage? Ogre big, ogre smash you, get over it.

Scarab Sages

Does anyone have a simple formula yet? I just need something in the ball park. Without further guidance, I plan on going with a level 5 PF1 treasure horde of 1000 gp = a level 5 PF2 treasure horde of 1000 sp?!?!?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is one of many ways I use ability mods.

DEMONOLOGIST CREATURE 5
Skills +5; Deception +11, Intimidation +13, Religion +11
Str +1, Dex +3, Con +3, Int +2, Wis +0, Cha +4

If this Demonologist does an acrobatics check, he would get +8. +5 from the bonus to all skills and +3 from Dex. The ability mods need to be used for disparity of different skill checks that are untrained. It would be bad form to have this NPC make untrained wisdom based skill checks as the same as unskilled Intelligence based skills. I realize of course that this may not be RAW. After the playtest is over this is how I will be doing it as a GM. So that is why I am very happy the NPCs have Ability scores. I also GM in a style where sometimes I don't even use a d20, I just look at an ability score and say, yep they would succeed at this or that.

Scarab Sages

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Its not about resonance being "a little off" its about it being a bad solution to a "problem" fewer people want solved than some think. An easy solution is to scrap resonance entirely

I played a healer in the Level 4 adventure, as the two level 2 items I chose two wands of heal, I had so much healing power it was a blast. With 14 CHA I started the day with 6 Resonence, which ended up giving me at a minimum 6 more heals from the wands. Just an idea, that some people don't think of. When people say get rid of resonance, I wonder if they realize the implications, without residence I could have spammed those wands like crazy. I don't think I would like being that OP.

Scarab Sages

Each character begins with one 6th-level item, two 5th-level items, one 4th-level item, two 3rd-level items, and 125 gp to spend on any additional items. The wealth can only be used to buy additional items you are not allowed to craft anything prior to the start, you could possibly have time during the adventure to craft, ask your GM about that. The crafting section in the rule book answers everything you asked.

Scarab Sages

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Dwarves are why I feel like the floor for resonance should be 3+ChaMod+Level not 1+ChaMod+Level, that way you can only end up with 0 resonance at level 1 if you make 3 separate choices (to be a dwarf, to leave your charisma at 8, and to take ancient's blood) but it at least increases by 1 every level instead of having to first buy back a -3.

This seems like a good idea.

I think there should also be that same floor to overnight recovery for low CON characters.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
callmedoug wrote:

I roll a play test character as a Dwarf fighter. Dwarf starts with 8 Charisma. so at level 1 gets a resonance pool of 0.

First combat, gets hit hard a couple times, tried to drink potion - Nat 1. character can no longer be healed without a Cleric casting heal on him.

Ooops no Cleric in party. sorry guys, I am done as a front liner for the day, will stand in the back until we can rest.

In PFS, i can count on one hand the number of times we had a true Healer in the party. Now without one, the game becomes fight - rest for 24 hours, move on, fight - rest for 24 hours - move on. especially at low levels.

Sure at higher levels people say oh you have enough levels that you can use your items, but you can't heal - and at high level games you have to be able to heal yourself in combat. and a single dice roll can ensure you are out of the fight for a full day.

as a single rule, this is enough to not play 2.0.

Mistake #1 Dump stating CHA.

Mistake #2 Playing Dwarves. (JK)

Mistake #3 Getting hit.

Mistake #3 Rolling a 1.

Mistake #4 Joined a party with no healing, spells or otherwise.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Add the rule from Pathfinder 1E. It is found on page 152 of the core rule book.

Shield, Light, Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

I have yet to see anybody even consider a light shield, let's at least make some incentive (besides weight) for carrying a light shield.

Scarab Sages

Zman0 wrote:
Luceon wrote:
Azih wrote:

You know, this thread has made me think back on the speculative fiction I enjoy and yeah there aren't any dedicated healers along for the adventure pretty much ever.

IMO as long as we have a guaranteed 1-2 herop points after a long rest, this works. Sure, it is at DM discretion about awarding additional ones, but so it literally everything ie encounter design, if characters can rest, if their rest is interrupted, etc.

Why would you want to incentivise the 5 min work day even more?

Using hero points for staminaesque healing isn’t a 5 minutes work day. You shouldn’t redefine generally accepted terms for arguments sake.

Using a resource, with a real opportunity cost, to continue on during the day so other resources can continually be depleted is very different that indiscriminately using resources to retreat for a full reset. Saying otherwise is disengenuous.

The reason I brought this up, is that if this guy was GMing and giving the party 2 hero points after a long rest, I would long rest every chance I got I would long rest after every fight, so that I started every fight with 2 hero points. Take doomsday level 1 dungeon for example. I would rest between every combat and get 2 hero points for each fight. The adventure allows you that much time. I realize that some adventures would not allow this but many of them do. Don’t we get enough perks resting overnight already, why add even more to that like 2 hero points.

Scarab Sages

Please don't speak for others. You can give us feedback for your gaming group, but talking like you're speaking for all the gamers in your college is obviously not so, and renders everything you have to say suspect.

Scarab Sages

Zman0 wrote:
Azih wrote:

You know, this thread has made me think back on the speculative fiction I enjoy and yeah there aren't any dedicated healers along for the adventure pretty much ever.

IMO as long as we have a guaranteed 1-2 herop points after a long rest, this works. Sure, it is at DM discretion about awarding additional ones, but so it literally everything ie encounter design, if characters can rest, if their rest is interrupted, etc.

Why would you want to incentivise the 5 min work day even more?

Scarab Sages

Singularity wrote:

No!!!! Please don't add Stamina to Pathfinder 2nd Ed (PF2e).

I'm a Starfinder GM, and have been totally frustrated by not being able to significantly hurt any of the PCs during Dead Suns. (PCs need to be hurt sometimes, in order to give them a sense of mortality.) I can usually get a couple of them to lose some or most of their Stamina in a single combat, but as soon as the combat is over they rest for 10 minutes, spend a resolve point, and viola! back to full health.

Our Mystic was totally frustrated. She had nothing to do. Medpatches? Who needs them? Medicine skill rolls? Only for diseases... I finally homebrewed a rule that the Mystic could "cure" Stamina instead of HP on a case by case basis.

I don't think that was a good solution, but at least it gave the Mystic something to do, at least until we made it to Eox. (But that's another story.)

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE... No Stamina in PF2e.

This is the reason I also hate Stamina systems, it's as if the party gets a long rest between challenges. The stamina system is just a disingenuous way of letting the party have 5 min work days. It becomes extremely difficult to have attrition in your game with stamina systems, which in turn guts the game of a very strategic and gratifying part of the challenges, many traps and hazards will become meaningless, imagine trying to GM a Dark Sun game. Also there is a reason why hit points alone have been the way 95% of RPGs have handled the game, Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, stamina, the skill to turn a powerful strike into a lesser powerful strike, the will to live, and luck. So yes hit points are abstract, they have served the hobby well for many years, we also have temp hp, that can simulate stamina also. I was in a 5ed campaign, where the GM switched to a stamina rule, it made an already relatively safe game (5ed has tons of healing BTW) into a situation I felt had 0 chance of death. Starfinder stuff is already inserted into PF2, and I don’t see any of them as improvements, an artificial flat footed rule to name one off the top of my head, like how can flat footed be totally divorced from losing your dodge abilities? And adding TAC to bonuses to armor? Which was taken from the EAC mechanic. How does chainmail block an incorporeal touch?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Luceon wrote:
Oh look its another Acrobatic, Athletic, Deceptive, Nature, Religious, Diplomatic, Society, Stealthy, Survivalist, Thieving Rogue. Yep just like all the other rogues. I am surprised no one has mentioned that since the skills got consolidated from PF1, now it's as if starting out the Rogue is trained in basically everything. # just feels wrong. My recommendation to the design team is just knock it down to 8 skills, and instead let them make any 2 of their other skills start as expert. Ya let them be better at two of their choice, more interesting decisions.

Being trained doesn't provide anymore benefit than losing a -2 at the moment and rogues can only advance 6 total skills to legendary if they forsake every other skill to trained or untrained.

So quite literally your example would have a rogue be legendary (and reminder bad at everything else) at 6 of those, not all ten, trained in 4 and untrained in 7

With the state of proficiency and skill feats as they are now, I don't see how the above is anything outside a relatively trivial benefit in niche moments outside combat. Narratively it means they have more opportunities to make an attempt, but only 50% more often are those attempts going to be +3 better, and they are not going to align with everyone else's Skill choices in a semi filled out party composition.

It may be annecdotal but what are people seeing in their playtest that merits a nerf?

I think you may be misunderstanding me. If I was A Rogue I would rather have my designed option. I am saying instead of the way it is now with 10 trained skills, instead you get 8 trained skills, then choose two of those and they go to expert proficiency. In Summary, a level 1 rogue starting out would get 6+INT mod trained proficiency skills, and 2 Expert proficiency skills of their choice.

Scarab Sages

Lucas Yew wrote:
It's not heretical, it's revolutionary. And I feel dumbstruck on why I've never thought up of this...

Revolutionary? I hate to rain on your parade, but this actually snowballs one of the problems that the designers were addressing. Buying low level healing consumables like a Cure Lt Wounds stick. This idea makes it even heal more now. Or am I misunderstanding his theory?

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.

You lost me at

John Lynch 106 wrote:

because my group hasn't playtested, although at this point it's looking like they won't playtest at all.

You got to play the game, or your opinion is greatly devalued, you can read the book till your blue in the face, trust me I did, I nearly memorized it, but then I played it, and that's when I started understanding the design. I think this is true of PF2 more than any other version of D&D to date.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I kind of bugs me that they seem to be on every media platform except their own website. If it wasn't for kind forum users, I wouldn't find out about 90% of the things the dev's think it's important for us to know about the playtest... :P

This Game needs to be on all media platforms, we need to get the word out there, more players makes a better playtest environment. Im in a FB group that now has 2,119 Members we are constantly discussing PF2. It's quick and easy and not nearly as hard to ask a rules question and get a quick response. I get alerts anytime someone posts on it. I love it, https://www.facebook.com/groups/2ndEdPFPlaytest/

Scarab Sages

NorthernDruid wrote:

removing bonus types is basically what they did anyway.

It would certainly be better for the game if it was balanced around a max cap (maybe based off you level/proficiency?).

Like, what if the max bonus you could have after your proficiency bonus was based on 1/3 of your level + your proficiency rating (0-4). That caps out at 11 which is about the same max cap as we have now, but it's gated in a different way which makes a lot of abilities more useful but has a reduced capacity overall. Might be a bit artificial, but not any more so than "item bonus".

Because really, anything would be better than the meaningless bonus types we have now anyway, if you're gonna butcher the bonuses from 3.5, at least take it away and don't let it lay out in the sun to rot.

Wow that is a huge advantage!, see what I did there? On a serious note, 2 and even 3 d20s take the highest is just going to throw the math way off, even in the current rules there exist this mechanic, and in those cases it cost you a resource, like True strike, for example. I can't imagine having a static bonus like you suggest. This whole thread to me seems like your all barking up the wrong tree. Why are we so opposed to characters failing rolls, I mean why should characters somehow cheat physics and be like demigods? You don't even need a house rule to do what you guys want. Just find the right group and GM and make all your monsters and challenges five levels lower than the party, there you go problem solved, you already have a way to feel epic. As a little side note, I am in a PF1 game where one of the players is super optimal, he basically hits most things with a 3 or more, and only gets hit with 19 and 20s, I'm just going to say it how it is, that campaign is no longer any fun, I want to be challenged.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh look its another Acrobatic, Athletic, Deceptive, Nature, Religious, Diplomatic, Society, Stealthy, Survivalist, Thieving Rogue. Yep just like all the other rogues. I am surprised no one has mentioned that since the skills got consolidated from PF1, now it's as if starting out the Rogue is trained in basically everything. # just feels wrong. My recommendation to the design team is just knock it down to 8 skills, and instead let them make any 2 of their other skills start as expert. Ya let them be better at two of their choice, more interesting decisions.

Scarab Sages

A party of four Giths, I am so stoked that this is going to work can't wait. Here is what you need to keep in mind. Everything you explained, took up resource(spells), and actions. Also that its an action to re grip a d12 weapon after casting as somatic or material casting action. Also the party does have some weaknesses, they seem strong to you now, they lack shield usage, and they also rely a lot on melee prowess, I understand that one of them used a bow, but its pretty much a d6 damage weapon, because I doubt any of them picked up point blank to overcome the longbow volley penalty. You think the healing is overpowered, think in terms of how much damage creatures do now in a short amount a time, the other day in a game I was in the Manticore crit a character at knocked him down to 0. If the Gm wanted to he could have had the Manticore kill the character with its other attacks, but he pulled punches, that means if no one heals that character he dies when he rolls a crit fail on his recovery roll. And the recovery roll is a pretty difficult save, don't think of the healing in a vacuum, or in the lens of PF1. Those two divine giths are going to need those healing spells desperately. Have the intelligent monster focus the healers. Now you have a gith with an archer build in melee and thats never good, yes I realize that you can do archery in melee with no penalty, but that is going to get house ruled out my games as soon as this play test is over. Firing off bows in the middle of a melee skirmish with no drawbacks doesn't even make sense. I degress.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanmei Long wrote:
From what I've heard, it isn't what people do or don't do that kills them, it's the fact that monsters have a relatively high chance of hitting, critting, and sometimes even killing the PC in one blow

With the current rules and adventures this is impossible. So you must mean knocking someone to 0? people keep calling this killing, or dead it is not.

Scarab Sages

Captain Morgan wrote:
Renchard wrote:


Plus, getting rid of the requirement to explain why the 20th level character is a better farmer than the 1st level farmer, despite never having farmed, is certainly a bonus. (Yes, I know about trained/untrained uses of skills and skill feats. But isn't it better to just have a system where a 20th level character doesn't have a +20 bonus to untrained skills?)

Not really. First of all, as the rules currently exist, "Practicing a Trade" is a trained only skill. So the Barbarian can't effectively farm at all. He MIGHT be able to win a trivia contest about exotic crops, If the GM allows for it untrained (I am pretty sure the GM can gate what you get from such checks regardless of being trained or not) but that's because he's seen more of the world and been exposed to more things, where the 1st level farmer has only known about whatever group of crops he's raised on the small plot of land he's never left in his life. (Keep in mind that most NPCs that have actually traveled or done anything with their life aren't 1st level anymore.)

Also, farming, practicing law, making delicious baked goods, or whatever other example people point to these discussions? They are pretty much irrelevant to adventuring and therefore the game at large. How often do you actually see the 20th level Barbarian wanting to prove he knows more about farming than a 1st level farmer? Why is the Barbarian talking to 1st level farmers and trying to outdo them? The 20th level Barbarian can literally scare people to death by growling at them. What's he got to prove exactly.

Basically, I feel like these examples are like the peasant rail gun. I don't care if you can push the system to an extreme situation that will never come up in an actual game that manages to break immersion. I care how the actual game plays, and whether I feel immersed while I play it.

You sound wise, do you have any justification for the +1 to everything / level, as opposed to a more bounded system like +1 every 2 or 3 levels?

Scarab Sages

17 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m at my wit’s end. I can’t find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything / level. Wise players please help me. Is there a way to play this cool game without having Useless bloated numbers. Go look at at a level 20 character, it looks stupid. Seriously make a level 20 character. It looks utterly silly.

Scarab Sages

Marvin the Marvellous wrote:

I generally like the 2e ruleset, but I have to ask...

Does +3 feel very legendary to anyone?

This is as compared to 0 for Trained.

I know that character level will factor in as well, but the scale seems too slight to me especially given the costs involved, and I wonder if anyone else thinks the same...

I was thinking using -2/0/+2/+4/+6 would be a better scale to use.

In a Vacuum yes. In the context of PF2 Ruleset, no.

Scarab Sages

Amalie Grisae wrote:
Luceon wrote:
Ikusias wrote:

Honestly at this point i don't see the use of the ranger class anymore, it's only a bastardized fighter with a single trick based on studying the target and forgoing one attack each round...

Also what's the idiocy of short range penalties on bows?!
between these issues and the stripping of casting from the ranger I've lost already 2 playtesters before even starting...
Yes, this is a good point. I am actually an archer, I hunt Elk in the Cascades in WA state with a bow. The closer that elk is the better.
I practiced archery and went bow hunting with my grandfather for a few years, so you are quite correct, but the distinction is about movement and quick rate firing, but not slow steady accuracy. Remember, these are roughly 2 second draws with a classic recurve bow of oak or yew. Anachronistic issues occur as a result, as most modern bows are both compound structure (pulley based) and composite material to allow for a nitch guide (The divot where you nock the bow) instead of the wave firing around a single arch pulled recurve, and these heavily impact the distinctions here. To clarify though, I am only noting there are severe differences, but not sure why they chose accuracy as the penalty and not damage or fire rate.

I must admit that you are correct. I hunt elk with what would be considered a shortbow (more or less). I have no experience hunting with the Type of Longbow described in Pathfinder. There is talk that they may remove volley, and then add agile to the shortbow, this seems like a good adjustment. After listening to Pathfinder Friday Jason made a good point about the Longbow.

Scarab Sages

You could never multi class at level 1 before. Why all the sudden are you saying it should start now? You all say you want it at level 1, but never explain a logical reason why someone should start with two classes.
Personally I don't care when it starts, I do think you are all barking up the wrong tree. There will be supplement material with classes. Those books will have other classes that essentially do what you are asking for, hybrid classes, like Magus, Inquisitor, Arcane Trickster, ad infinitum. It just looks like you guys are seeking more power creep.

Scarab Sages

Paizo designers,
Awesome work you have done on PF2. One of my favorite character designs in PF1 was a Retiarius, a traditional Roman style Net and Trident Gladiator.
Please, add a net to the current rules, there is no net. And make the net either target Touch Armor Class, or Reflex saves.
Also please make the Trident two hand-able, so after I pitch my net I can two hand it with a small bonus, like one die type. Have it keep the thrown property :)
Here is an example Trident from D&D 5ed.
Trident 5 gp d6 piercing 4 lb. Thrown (range 20/60), versatile (1d8)
The Net in D&D 5ed is garbage you have to hit AC(they have no TAC). And you always have disadvantage with it.
If you fulfill this request, I will buy your game.
If you don't I will buy your game anyway :)
Thank You.

Scarab Sages

JW Carroll wrote:

Forgive me if this has been covered already but based on my reading of the RAW the proficiency modifier for untrained traits makes very little sense.

From p 15 under Step 7 "...subtract the proficiency modifier (your level-2) from the relevant ability modifier..."

As written a level 1 character would use the following equation to determine their skill modifier with a relevant ability modifier of 0: 0-(1-2) or 0-(-1) or 1. This is the same modifier as a proficient character. Following through on this a 20th level character would have a skill modifier of 0-(20-2) or -18 making a 20th level character worse at an untrained action than he was at first level.

As this makes almost no sense (I suppose you could justify it as higher level characters being more hyper specialized) I have to assume that an untrained character is supposed to have a proficiency modifer of their level-2 instead of their level so a first level character has a proficiency modifier of -1 and a 20th of +18. This is logical but it seems to me that without some serious DC inflation you are going to have PCs of even moderate level that will be able to crush almost any skill challenge presented to them and that PCs that rely heavily on skills (namely rogues) are going to become largely redundant.

As a possible fix I'm considering for my own game adding level/2 as the proficiency modifier for untrained skills...though I'm waiting to see how much things like class features add as I read more of the rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

For the record - your post was easy to read and well structure. So no stress on the language! :)

SteelGuts wrote:
In 5e you have an immersion game, easy to grasp, where acaster can cast three spells in one round with his bonus action, his action and his reaction.

I'm afraid I don't have my playtest book yet, so I can't comment on the rest. I did want to single this out (not really to pick on details, but I think it illustrates an issue some people are experiencing in evaluating the PF2 playtest).

The quote is expressly ruled out in the 5E rules. You can never do that. The most you can do is a cantrip with your action and a bonus-action spell (which is a very limited selection).

The overarching point is that sometimes when people post comparisons with other games they are either comparing the PF2-Playtest with a houseruled game (almost by definition, a houseruled game will likely be closer to your tastes than any published game).

Similarly, I feel there's a tendency to compare a complete game with "a set of subsystems we'd like you to test" - I think this is at the heart of the experience for those who feel there aren't a lot of options.

We're not really going to be able to evaluate whether PF2 has fewer, the same or more options than other games (including PF1) until it is released since there's no way the playtest includes every option that will be in the PF2 corebook.

It was my mistake, when I say « spells » I was not referring only to spells but also to racial and class abilities. So sometime you really got the feeling that you are doing three magical things in only one round. Even a cantrip, a bonus action class ability and a reaction spell feel amazing and strong! Just as doing the perfect build for your idea in Pathfinder. And i really don’t find any of these feelings in PF2.

But you make a good point. This is just playtest. But still we expect more of Paizo. They can do really better in terms of what the game make you feel and the...

With all due respect, I recently did in PF2, what you just described, I cast a spell,used a class feature, used a reaction, AND moved. all in 1 round. The 3 actions system just seems really well designed in our group, the characters feel free to do many different things, and the tempo of the game flows, once you learn the rules.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does anyone like resonance and why?

I like it.

It's abstractly the new UMD. It causes munchkins to get upset. They are so use to dump stating Charisma, now you can't just throw away charisma so easily. The designers made it so every ability is pretty well balanced and sacrificing certain abilities has interesting repercussions.

Scarab Sages

We just use PF1 rule: You can’t move diagonally past a corner. You can move diagonally past a creature, even an opponent. You can also move diagonally past other impassable obstacles, such as pits.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.

Don't care so much about this.

2. Resonance solves a problem that never had to exist.

Disagree

3. Proficiencies in skills & saves are silly.

Disagree

4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.

Go watch the GEN CON Q&A, they explain why it is this way.

5. You can't do traditional multiclassing at all, ever.

I won't miss it. Too many exploits in older multiclass systems.

Scarab Sages

technarken wrote:
Luceon wrote:
technarken wrote:


The first encounter I created was 2 Clerics of Calistria. While admittedly a severe level encounter, What did happen, however was I learned one very crucial thing about how 2e works: In-Combat Healing is way to strong. These clerics had 7 4th level Heal spells per day, and with only one player able to make attacks of opportunity, they were able to heal with impunity. Each heal healed 7d8+4 hp with 1 action. Then they'd whip to chip down the party. Only the party had a Paladin with Channeled Life and was able to counter with his own healing to counter the chips. The fight (that would have probably taken half an hour or so in 1e) took 90+ minutes to resolve. The Clerics had an AC so high...

How are they healing 7d8+4 with a 4th level slot? And if they were healing at range its 2 actions, so they were adjacent to each other right?
2E Playtest Rules wrote:

Heightened (+1) The amount of healing or damage increases by 1d8,

or by 2d8 if you’re using the 1- or 2-action version to heal the living.
If I heighten the spell to level 4 I've heightened it 3 times, which adds 6d8 to the 1d8+4 it would have as a level 1. They targeted themselves with the spells, as they were willing living targets.

Oh, you are right, I was thinking that heightened was 1d8 per level, like D&D 5e. This actually makes heal worth heightening now.

Scarab Sages

technarken wrote:


The first encounter I created was 2 Clerics of Calistria. While admittedly a severe level encounter, What did happen, however was I learned one very crucial thing about how 2e works: In-Combat Healing is way to strong. These clerics had 7 4th level Heal spells per day, and with only one player able to make attacks of opportunity, they were able to heal with impunity. Each heal healed 7d8+4 hp with 1 action. Then they'd whip to chip down the party. Only the party had a Paladin with Channeled Life and was able to counter with his own healing to counter the chips. The fight (that would have probably taken half an hour or so in 1e) took 90+ minutes to resolve. The Clerics had an AC so high...

How are they healing 7d8+4 with a 4th level slot? And if they were healing at range its 2 actions, so they were adjacent to each other right?

Scarab Sages

Dante Doom wrote:

I see that there is no more this action. So a unconouscious person have a -4 conditional AC, -2 circunstance AC (for the flat-flooded) for a total of -6 AC from melee attacks and -5 AC from ranged attacks (since prone grants a +1 AC circunstance).

So you dont lose your Dexterity to AC?

An attacker can miss a lot of attacks in this circunstance... Like a normal person trying to attack someone unconcious but with more levels will miss and frequently critical miss...

Am I missing something?

Yes get to dodge attacks when unconscious. You do have a penalty but you do get to dodge.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is an analogy, of someone defending the +1 to EVERYTHING per level mechanic.

"That building shouldn't changed because it perfectly fits that foundation it's built on."

Most of the people who have opposed the +1 to EVERYTHING per level, understand this. We are saying to change the foundation and the building both.

Most or your arguments in this post are a non sequitur.

They are just comparing two different degrees of a scale. PF2 is one scale, D&D 5ed would be an example of a different scale.

So everything you say is meaningless TBH.

"I want the party be able to obliterate low level creatures."
You can do it in both systems. Now reverse that. you are also saying
"I want the party to be obliterated by high level creatures."

"A hired NPC is useful for a longer time"
You forgot to mention.
"A higher level henchman is going to make your party look pitiful, because that NPC will have +1/ level to every skill."

I could go on and on. My main point being, that both systems are valid, in one of them you get to roll x and add x to it targeting a DC 43. In the other you roll a x and add x vs a 23. The question becomes which system has a more elegant mechanic one where you add double digits a lot, or one where you add double digits much less. Which system makes you go change a ton of numbers on your character sheet every time you level? We all agree, that new capability, feats, spells, and occasionally numeric benefits, are good for leveling.

The best advantage that I have found for +1 to EVERYTHING per level, I discovered by re-visiting D&D 4ed design(although it was +1/2 levels and went to max Char lvl 30). Here is what I discovered, they were able to publish way more monsters, because they could take one monster and make several different levels of them. Compare that to D&D 5e where you only really need a few monster books. So, it comes down to economics, and selling more page count. Those of you who support the current system have been duped, your character may appear to be gods to you, but D&D 5ed has godlike characters too.

Scarab Sages

Zman0 wrote:


Now, that fighter likely has a 20Str, so the longsword is d8+5, vs 5d8+5. The actual damage dealt is 9.5 vs 23.5. The Fighter will definitely feel gimped for quite a while until he gets a replacement.

Your math is off, because you are not factoring critical hit damage increase, and critical hit chance increase. Also factor that it’s. A d12 weapon like a great sword. The fighter would most likely choose a heavier weapon from an armory. Your example with STR 20, A +4 greatsword crit = 10d12+18, and the crit chance is increased by 20%. And factor in multi attack.

Scarab Sages

Your high level fighter escapes from captivity. Finds an armory with a non magic weapon, due to the scaling, he won’t be able to defeat any level appropriate challenge, but if he finds his +4 weapon, he’s a god again.

Elephant in the room: get Starfinder out of Pathfinder 2. Starfinder wow’d a lot of people not my group, we made characters, played one session, and all said “NOPE.”

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>