# Ludovicus's page

180 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

 1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

 4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I'm that kind of nerd, I ran the numbers in Excel. tl;dr is that Chain Blast is fine.

It's absolutely worth using against three or more targets, and situationally useful against two. (Against two targets, Chain Blast does provide an overall increase in expected damage if you have at least a 60% chance to hit. In most cases, however, this increase is small enough that focusing fire on a single target will usually still be a better idea.) I expect this is exactly what the devs intended.

For more detail: when you use Chain Blast, your chance to get an nth attack (not necessarily hit with it) is equal to (your chance to hit)^(n - 1). So, 100% for the first attack, since you always at least get to attack once; (your chance to hit) for a second attack, since you get it if and only if your first attack hits; (your chance to hit) squared for a third attack, and so on. Each attack you get is actually worth a number of expected hits equal to its chance to hit plus its chance to crit. So, I think this analysis is basically right:

YuriP wrote:

Now let's calculate the chances of Chain Blast hitting considering that each sequential attack had to hit the previous one to be attempted:

1st hit chance on target: 65% (15% to crit on this individual roll)
2nd hit chance on target: 42% (15% to crit on this individual roll)
3rd hit chance on target: 27% (15% to crit on this individual roll)
4th hit chance on target: 18% (15% to crit on this individual roll)
5th hit chance on target: 12% (15% to crit on this individual roll)

Thus, taking crits into account, Chain Blast with a 65% chance to hit (8 or better on the d20) gets approximately 1.32 expected hits worth of damage against two targets, 1.66 against three, 1.88 against four, and 2.02 against five. By contrast, attacking twice normally gets 1.25 expected hits (65% hit/15% crit for the first, 40% hit/5% crit for the second). Furthermore:

Quote:
And even if your Clain Blast fails on the 1st attack and you lost 2 actions, your 3rd action is still at -5 MAP, so you can try it the same way you can try a 2nd attack after a normal Impulse or...

This turns out to make a significant difference. If you're making a third attack, an 8 to hit means you have a 35% chance to make that third attack at –5 rather than –10. This turns out to be worth another 0.09 expected hits (all told, you get 1.61 expected hits compared to 1.45 for attacking normally). So, in both cases, Chain Blast is indeed better, but not by a huge amount.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:

So assuming your flurry ranger with agile melee weapons against a standard on level opponent will you end up doing more damage with two actions double slicing or attacking 3 times (hunted strike).

I was going to try and do the maths myself using a high level dc to see but suspected someone has already done it and I could reap the benefits by asking ?

The three attacks with Twin Takedown do more expected damage than Double Slice until you need a 16 or higher to hit with your best attack—something that will only happen if you're badly debuffed and fighting a significantly higher-level enemy (at which point, you shouldn't be attacking at all).

However, it's worth noting that because the difference is relatively small, the damage you would do as a precision ranger with Double Strike is very close to the damage you'd do with flurry and Twin Takedown—in fact, before you get your first striking rune, precision is definitely better.

In general, a good rule of thumb is that flurry is only better when you can spend at least three actions attacking.

richienvh wrote:
On Striking Spell, we’ll just have to wait and see. Personally, I wouldn’t mind Striking Spell having a more limited usage. Could mean we’d get some ‘lesser spellstrike abilities’ that worked similarly to it, but without the potency of carrying a big spell to give that Magus feeling. Maybe something like some have suggested in the Swordmage discussion. However, nothing seems to be set in stone and I’m sure the final version of the class will turn out great.

I agree. And though I'm probably in the minority on this, I would be very happy to see the Magus go all in on the nova playstyle, at least as far as damage is concerned. Arguably, one niche not yet represented in the PF2 classes is limited-daily-use single-target damage (a sort of dedicated-boss-killer role), which strikes me as a natural niche for the magus.

 7 people marked this as a favorite.

As one of the people pretty critical about the playtest versions, I just want to say how much I appreciate this excellent dev commentary—I found it really illuminating to hear how you guys are taking into account community feedback, what your reasons were for the original designs, and what's guiding your deliberations about how to go forward.

Bonner & Seifter wrote:
One of the major drivers for the playtest version was making it highly flexible to allow for using a wide variety of spells (compared to, say, Eldritch Shot) and let you use your stored spell with other abilities (like Flurry of Blows or Power Attack).

So that's why you guys didn't give Striking Spell the Flourish trait (in exchange for, e.g. letting you Strike as part of Casting A Spell). Makes sense!

One thing you might want to consider, if you're not already: what about letting the magus use feats or synthesis options to select optional, stronger but more restrictive ways of using Spell Striking? For instance, you might have low-level feats with a similar design function to the ranger's Twin Takedown or Hunted Shot. And for that matter, they might have similar mechanics: to nicely simulate the 1e magus, for instance, you might have a 1st-level feat that let you use a single (Flourish) action to Strike twice with a one-handed weapon, but only if it's holding a stored spell (and only if you have a free hand).

Lightdroplet wrote:
I said this before, but I feel like a simpler, more elegant way to do that without relying on ability substitutions or anything like that is to allow Stiking Spell to carry over the weapon's attack roll bonus to the spell attack roll or DC. That way, the disparity become null or only -1, but only when the magus is using their core feature, and it fits with the flavor of using your weapon as a focus for your magic.

This would be fine, too.

 8 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorignak227 wrote:
There's a minor bonus of being able to make spell attacks with the addition of your item bonus.

No, there isn't.

MaxAstro wrote:
You can tell the devs it's not okay without basically insulting their competence, I think.

Remember: the devs aren't our friends. Nor are they doing this for free, or in their spare time. We not only pay their salaries, but go out of our way to provide thoughtful written feedback—something on which most companies place considerable value. We don't owe them; they owe us.

The playtest magus strikes many of us, me included, as badly designed in a way that should've been obvious: it should not have been released in its current state. Maybe we are missing some important nuance, and the magus is better than we think. If so, it would be good to have that explained. Otherwise: if you are paying someone for their work, and they offer a really shoddy prototype for some product, isn't it legitimate to clearly express your disappointment?

The magus's spell attack roll and DC is more or less within sight of a caster's at low levels, but drops off precipitously later. The problem is worst at very high levels, once the caster gets their apex item. (The magus is 3 points behind then, and 4 points behind at 20th.) To mitigate this, the magus should get to use their spellcasting ability score for attacks, which can be flavored as a kind of arcane bond.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psiphyre wrote:
Ludovicus wrote:
coyotegospel wrote:
Also, it is their right to not announce a number. Even 0.5% is better than 0%
Without announcing a number, they shouldn't have said this at all. If I tell all my friends that I'm donating a portion of my income to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and that portion turns out to be \$1, all I've done is try to deceive people into thinking I'm virtuous. Expressions of commitment are only meaningful if the commitments are meaningful.

There are many for whom even \$1 is a significant donation to make from what little 'income' they may have...

(Not everyone is fortunate enough to be in a financial position where one can consider \$1 to be a pittance.)

Respectfully,

--C.

** spoiler omitted **

Thanks. I apologize for the example; I recognize that, for many people, budgeting is a nerve-racking and depressing exercise in stretching every dollar as far as it can go. However, while I get that the last thing you want is to make this thread even more fraught than it is, it may also be worth considering that (a) Paizo is not among these people, but is rather a for-profit corporation, and (b) giving for-profit corporations a pass on whether they are actually materially helping those in need in a meaningful way, as opposed to making superficial gestures at providing this help, may not be the best way to express sympathy and solidarity with the people you describe.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
coyotegospel wrote:
Also, it is their right to not announce a number. Even 0.5% is better than 0%

Without announcing a number, they shouldn't have said this at all. If I tell all my friends that I'm donating a portion of my income to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and that portion turns out to be \$1, all I've done is try to deceive people into thinking I'm virtuous. Expressions of commitment are only meaningful if the commitments are meaningful.

HammerJack wrote:
Handwraps.

Yep. Handwraps improve unarmed attacks, and wind crash strikes are unarmed attacks.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I eventually want to be able to play Champions who aren't tied to deities at all (think about people from cultures who worship something other than deities.) So making it impossible to do the neutral champions this way doesn't sit well with me.

Yes.

Look, two things are true of champions as they stand. They're (a) the only real "hard" defender in PF2, and (b) they require that one be super virtuous, according to a hard-coded prior interpretation of a good alignment, and swear obedience to a weird, super-powerful magical being.

Many players, one can only assume, would be really excited to do (a) but regard (b) as dealbreakers. One can only assume Paizo would recognize this, and want to accommodate these players! And yet instead the APG is giving us evil champions, which—being alignments many GMs and adventure paths just ban—are unlikely to see play!

Bring on the hard-bitten, cynical, atheist mercenaries, I say!

Some small notes:

--) You might state straight up that despite being so lackluster, Hunter's Aim is worth retraining to at high levels, because of the excellent feat for which it's a prerequisite.

--) I'd grade Relentless Stalker, which isn't hard to access in organized play and (apart from Hunter's Aim as a means of qualifying for Targeting Shot) may be the only 2nd level ranger feat that's worth taking instead of an archetype's dedication feat.

--) Deadly Aim is a one-star trap option. Run the numbers: you'll find it's a net loss in pretty much every realistic case (unless you're a high-level ranger inexplicably using a bow without striking runes), and indeed worse for precision rangers rather than better (since the damage bonus makes up a smaller proportion of their damage overall, the accuracy penalty hurts more). While statistically bad accuracy-for-damage trades can occasionally be useful in "go big or go home" cases where damaging but not killing a target isn't any better than missing it, even this doesn't apply because Deadly Aim is also cutting into your crit chances.

--) Second Sting should be at least 3 stars. Again, run the numbers: despite their reduced MAP, even flurry rangers will generally have at least a 50% chance to fail on their third and subsequent attacks, and close to that on their second. Especially if they can get circumstance bonuses to damage (e.g. from a sawtooth saber) this is significant addition. Look at it this way: if you need a 12 or better to hit, the Second Sting adds exactly as much expected damage as a feat that just doubled your static damage bonuses. (Counting crits, each attack has a .5 chance to fail and delivers .5 expected hits.) And anyone would jump at the chance to take a feat that doubled their static damage bonuses! To be fair, the feat's usefulness does drop off somewhat at extremely high levels because you can't combine it with Impossible Flurry, but this hardly obsoletes it since Impossible Flurry (while enabling more or less the highest DPR in the game) is by no means usable every round.

Vlorax wrote:

explain that chart on anydice to me plz, what am i lookin at I'm dumb

you mentioned it being better since crits but above somebody said +5 and you say +1?

Sure. You're looking at the difference you get in expected hits (with crits counting double) over three actions, between (a) casting true strike and then striking twice (at –0 and –5), versus (b) striking three times (at –0, –5, and –10). Here's another link that might make it more concrete: anydice.com/program/19aea

This gives you the number of expected hits you get in both scenarios, when you need 8 to hit with your best attack. You'll see that you get 1.6 expected hits if you start with true strike and 1.45 if you don't. Since +1 to attack adds 0.05 expected hits per attack not counting crit chances, that's a bit like getting +1 for each strike in a series of three.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

And for the record: if you're REALLY looking to have fun with true strike as a warpriest, you don't worship Shizuru. You worship Ragathiel.

That's because Ragathiel likewise grants true strike but ALSO (a) grants haste too and more importantly (b) lets you take harmful font, enabling the following sequence:

(1) cast true strike,
(2) use Channel Smite,
(3) strike at –5.

Voila: you've now used true strike to add a lot of accuracy (and usually crit chance, with the right setup) to your harm effect as well as just to your strike, and thanks to haste even done so without trading away your second-best attack.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
The value of True Strike is tied to how difficult the initial roll is to succeed at. The more difficult the attack roll, the greater a bonus it works out to be as far as changing the percentages in your favor. That is why it can’t be quantified in a single static bonus amount. The higher level you get though, the wire the war priest skews towards “less accurate” than expected attack bonuses and the more it benefits from True Strike.

That's true in 5e (up to 50% anyway, after which the marginal benefit drops off), but not really in PF2, since at higher accuracy true strike also greatly increases your chance to crit. (If you hit on a 6+ and hence crit on a 16, for instance, true strike increases your chance to crit by 75%!)

For the curious, here's a simple program that calculates how much true strike helps you (in terms of expected hits, with crits counting double) for a three-action attack sequence (i.e. you either cast true strike and strike twice, or just strike three times): anydice.com/program/19ae8

Basically, true strike is indeed quite good for warpriests, who really shouldn't be hitting the accuracy levels where true strike isn't a benefit unless they're attacking a super-low-level target—over the course of a turn, it's roughly comparable to a +1 to attack rolls that stacks with everything. Note too that this analysis doesn't account for effects like deadly (e.g. from the Shizuru warpriest's katana), which makes true strike even better.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can anyone who has the book yet tell me if you be LN while worshipping Achaekek?

masda_gib wrote:

It's a cool rune for any martial MC caster. They have high weapon hit chance and mostly low-level spells anyway.

Also a nice spell to store is Ray of Enfeeblement. When you activate it on a crit, at least enfeebled 1 is guaranteed.

Right! Though the low save DC still holds it back at higher levels. (I really think it was a bad idea to have magic item DCs not scale. While many items stay useful throughout a character's career, others—which are usually been priced as comparably powerful to them when they first appear—are only functional in tiny periods of the game. They probably shouldn't have bothered even putting the vorpal rune in the game, for instance.)

FlashRebel wrote:
Actually...
Spell-storing wrote:
A spell-storing rune creates a reservoir of eldritch energy within the etched weapon. A spellcaster can spend 1 minute to cast a spell of 3rd level or lower into the weapon.
Unless you have truly awesome low-level spells that don't need to be heightened beyond 3rd level to be worth the effort, this rune is worthless at the time it becomes available.

Did you read the examples I gave, or do you not think an automatic 8d12 electricity damage after a crit is worth the effort at 13th level?

FlashRebel wrote:
And I'm not even sure willingly lowering a focus spell's level instead of using it fully heightened is possible.

RAW, this is probably right, though.

Draco18s wrote:

Heck, why bother with crits? You could store basically any spell you want (e.g. shocking grasp) and after any successful hit you 3rd-action* spell attack that auto-hits.

Sure, the crit effect is amazing, but a nearly-free-spell-hit at the right moment can still be really strong.

*If you've only spent 1 so far, its your second, but you were going to use your second anyway, and that one's now your third.

Sure. Depending on the situation, I'd bet this is often the right idea.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.

The spell-storing rune is easy to overlook. It's kind of awkward to use and scales badly: a 3rd-level, 30 DC spell seems like a questionable use of an action at 13th level and only gets worse from there. But notice:

Spell Storing wrote:
Activate Single Action command; Requirements On your previous action this turn, you hit and damaged a creature with this weapon; Effect You unleash the stored spell, which uses the target of the triggering attack as the target of the spell. This empties the spell from the weapon and allows a spell to be cast into it again. If the spell requires a spell attack roll, the result of your attack roll with the weapon determines the degree of success of the spell, and if the spell requires a saving throw, the DC is 30.

The bolded part is bolded because it means that if you're willing to wait for a critical hit with your weapon, you can immediately follow up with a guaranteed critical with your spell. As you might expect, this has predictably cool applications. For instance, with a 3rd-level slot shocking grasp does 8d12 damage and change, which for one action is incredible at 13th level and never gets worse than pretty good. The more situational, but still good, hydraulic push is 10d6 bludgeoning damage plus knockback. Telekinetic maneuver can be used to disarm, and is probably the most reliable way to do so in the game.

However, you do even better with focus spells. Since in many cases it's possible to refocus right after casting your spell into the weapon, using them is often free (and so your caster friends should be easier to talk in to doing it for you), and many have great effects when unleashed on crits:

--) Moonbeam dazzles its target for the rest of the encounter, giving its targets concealment against it if it relies on sight.
--) Call of the grave prevents at least two actions.
--) Finally, the unassuming hand of the apprentice just gives you another, non-MAP-increasing crit with the same weapon you just attacked with. The damage is comparable to or better than shocking grasp at 13th level--and unlike every other spell you can store in the weapon, it actually scales.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
georgedoors wrote:
This is something I thought of while reading through the playtest document. The swashbuckler can use acrobatics and one other skill to gain panache, with the second skill based on their swashbuckler's style. This feels quite limiting, since you can easily imagine a character that's good at both athletics and intimidation, and who uses both skills with flair and aplomb. But if you build that character, you'll only ever use of those skills in combat, since the other won't give you panache. I think it makes sense to scrap the three styles and let the swashbuckler use any of the listed skills be default.

I think this is a great point. The point of the swashbuckler is ostensibly to encourage creative use of non-Strike actions in combat, but this limitation hampers creativity rather than facilitates it. Swashbucklers would feel more spontaneous, and be more interesting, if players were free to figure out whichever skill worked best for a situation. (Players who wanted to specialize in one of these tactics would of course still be free to do so, by taking skills and feats that made them especially good at one.)

BellyBeard wrote:
It's to encourage build and action diversity among different swashbucklers. You can also easily imagine a Druid capable of doing all the druidic things a PF1 Druid could do, but a PF2 Druid now has to choose which of those things they want to focus in (or they can be a generalist, and not be as strong in a given specialty). I would be fine with a feat for a swashbuckler who wants to dip into another style for more versatile panache gain though, but I'd rather it not be the default.

That a given rule is one way to mechanically distinguish characters within a class doesn't entail that it's the only possible way, or a good way. The devs can find something else.

Mark Seifter wrote:

To add to Vlorax, if you trip someone so that they are only next to you when you have both Riposte and AoO available, you are giving them a really nasty tactical fork. Either they stand up and take a whack from you, or they stay down, they have to attack you at a -2 (and you may have better HP than some of the squishier targets they'd rather attack), and you have a better chance to Riposte.

While the third action is by no means the only way to get a critical failure, if a monster has an action left to make a third or later attack and it has few other options for that action, it'll usually attempt it rather than end its turn barring something like a Riposte reaction threatening it; and if a monster is worried about a Riposte and ends its turn instead of attacking, the Riposte has acted as a deterrent, which can be useful as well.

How often will a swashbuckler want to do this, though? I'd have thought that the swashbuckler's optimal last action against an enemy who's not adjacent to an ally is usually Tumble Through, since that way you simultaneously (a) have a good chance to regain your panache, and (b) force your enemy to waste an action closing the distance.

This actually relates to something else I've been wondering that I'd love to hear your take on. The swashbuckler seems designed to encourage moving around a lot—which I think is a neat idea! The problem is that moving around a lot seems like it would make Opportune Riposte less effective, since non-minions will only be likely to critically fail on their later attacks in a turn, and the more everyone's moving, the fewer of those later attacks will be made.

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

Pathfinder, with it's inherent imbalance, requires a social contract between the GM and the players - the GM to use levers to maintain balance between PCs and their challenges, and the players to show a certain amount of maturity to ensure that they do not exceed the expected power levels of each other (and of the challenges the GM provides).
Thank you; that cogently expresses much of what about I valued about PF1 that feels not to be so present in PF2. Except that the buy-in I look for from my players isn't "keeping their power levels similar and appropriate" but "getting into the wider range of roleplaying options available with more randomised power levels."
That's basically a byproduct of the system's imbalance: when players realise that they shouldn't min-max everything, it opens up many combinations where suboptimal choices (both in character building, and roleplaying) are enabled by the presence of powerful options.

This is a really insightful exchange, I think.

 10 people marked this as a favorite.
Nighthorror888 wrote:
Unfortunately 2nd Edition is just not for my group and I. It feels hauntingly similar to when D&D 4E tried to reinvent itself and lost its roots. I absolutely love my legacy Pathfinder books, and my group enjoys Starfinder. Good luck.

It really does feel hauntingly similar, but also tellingly different.

The key, I think, is that both PF2 and 4e freely and unapologetically sacrifice verisimilitude and internal logic for system math. Why can combat techniques for exploiting an opponent's fear make it harder to benefit from a scimitar's construction? Why does wearing magic bracers on your wrists limit you in using using your full natural agility to dodge? Why can't you demoralize someone more than once every ten minutes? The only explanations take you out of the game and into the metagame: it would (supposedly) be OP otherwise.

But here's the difference. When 4e takes you out of the game and into the metagame, you feel like it's doing this because 4e is your friend and wants you to be awesome. When PF2 takes you out of the game and into the metagame, you feel like it's doing this because PF2 is your elementary school teacher and wants to make sure you're being a good, manageable little kid at recess.

 5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Everything in PF2's Playtest is pretty underwhelming individually; it's an inevitable result of combining tight-math with choice-glut.

This is one of the sharpest one-sentence diagnoses I've seen.

It looks like vanguards can use polarity gauntlets to add additional shock damage to their entropic strikes. This would be an unusually efficient way for them to increase damage, and I wonder whether it's intentional.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Gilver wrote:
These look sweet! Any chance of getting a Gunslinger style class in the future? Maybe something more space cowboy esque?
We try to never say never! But for the moment, we are definitely focusing on these new playtest classes.

see you space cowboy ...

Lightning Raven wrote:
I would rather have new names that are clear and very distinct. As some people already said in other treads, things like Feat Bonus, Alchemy Bonus, Spell Bonus, Class Bonus, Item Bonus, etc, would make it clearer and would allow for instantly recognizing if something does stack or not. Keeping the amount of bonuses is paramount, but having only two types is counterproductive for the developer's intentions of incentivizing teamwork over hyper specialization that trivializes a set of challenges while rendering others useless.

I'm certainly all in favor of relaxing the stacking limitations, though in this thread I just wanted to make the case for a small (but maybe not unimportant) stylistic point.

(My sense is that the devs are pretty committed to the two bonus types, and trying to talk them out of it is futile.)

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Condition" can refer either to (a) a state some entity is in (as in "I stepped right in to see what condition my condition was in"), or to (b) a possibility that may or may not obtain (as in "under no condition whatever shall I marry you").

Crucially, note that in the (b) sense "condition" is largely synonymous with "circumstance." In PF2, however, "conditional" is used in contrast to "circumstance"—it is meant emphatically to connote the (a) sense. The problem is that in English, the word does the opposite. Rather than "of or relating to a state some entity is in," it almost always means "of or relating to a possibility that may or may not obtain" (as in "the terms of our agreement were conditional on your cooperation").

Because of this, the phrase "conditional" modifier is both confusing and vacuous. It just sounds like an arbitrary synonym for "circumstance modifier." To solve this problem, "conditional modifier" should simply become "condition modifier."

As a bonus, this will give the names matching grammars: either both names should be nouns ("condition" and "circumstance") or both adjectives ("conditional" and "circumstantial"). As any good editor will tell you, the mismatched language is sloppy.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Take a hard look at the types of bonuses. They're conflicting directly with what seems like the game is pushing through, which is teamwork. But the severe lack of different bonuses, along with the current terrible names, just hinder everything.

You want the PC's to rely more on teamwork and strategy. Then allow them to do so. No point in making every buff overlap with each other, specially with CORE CLASS FEATURES (Rage + Inspire Courage comes to mind instantly).

I was actually really on the fence about whether to pick this as my plea!

 15 people marked this as a favorite.

Have players choose fewer but better feats.

Class feats should feel meaty and exciting. Small situational bonuses should be the exception, not the rule. Selecting the right feat for a given build should not require algebra. A feat every level is too much; four feat categories is too much. There is no excuse for having even a single trap or dominant option in the core rules.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

tl; dr: PF2's much-maligned low success rate for level-appropriate challenges is a direct consequence of the action economy as it applies to multiple attacks. Therefore, raising success rates to a healthy 75-80% would require extensively reworking fundamental aspects of the system. This is an important conversation, because player success rates are crucial to the experience of this kind of game. As they revise PF2 after the playtest, the devs need to know what we as players want, and what's required to give us what we want.

--

Most special combat options in the playtest rules are balanced around the assumption that in challenging encounters, the player's third and subsequent attacks will not have more than a 10-15% chance to hit in the absence of special circumstances. This is why it makes sense to spend actions on activating Rage or Hunt Target, raising a shield (or why it would make sense to do this, if shields were better), or multiple-action attacks. Otherwise, the opportunity cost of using these options would be too high. It would be better to ignore them and spend the actions you save just making more attacks.

However, if the player's third and subsequent attacks can't have more than a 10-15% success rate, and the multiple attack penalty is –5, then their best attacks can't have more than a 60-65% success rate. As many people have observed (and complained about), this is indeed how things are. And since PF2 is designed for attacks, defenses, saving throws, and skills to all use the same scale (so that it's possible to make a skill check against a target's AC or Will save, for instance), this requires defenses, saving throws, and skills to optimally succeed at the same rate. And again, as many people have observed (and complained about), this is indeed how things are.

Like the many people who complain about this, I think this is too low. Speaking for myself, I think it's too low by about 15%. In challenging encounters, I like to have a 75-80% chance of hitting with my best attack or making my best save. This hits the sweet spot for me. If the odds were better, challenging encounters wouldn't feel risky or therefore exciting enough. But if the odds were worse, I would too often feel like I didn't get to do anything with my turn, or that my choice to emphasize one type of saving throw over another wasn't meaningful. Plus, I wouldn't feel like the character I was playing was a gifted and heroic person, which is key for me in this kind of game. Frankly, my experiences with PF2 thus far confirms this to me. For the success rates to stay where they are would be a dealbreaker. If I wanted to feel like I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle, I'd just play Warhammer FRP or the like. That way, my frequent failures and ostensibly superior opponents would at least feel thematic.

The many, many forum posts about overturned monsters, excessive skill check DCs, etc., strongly suggest my preferences are common. My point in this post is just that because low player success rates are tightly intertwined with basic features of the game, the devs will not be able to fix this problem simply by tweaking some numbers. Again, because most special combat options always trade off against extra attacks, the player's extra attacks need to be relatively ineffective for these special options to be worth using. And because other abilities are designed to interact with attacks in a way that requires them to have similar numbers, the resulting low success rates for attacks extends to and infects the whole system.

So, raising success rates in combat would require either (a) significantly improving most special combat options (so that they were worth using even if you had a substantial chance to hit when attacking at a –10 MAP), (b) substantially increasing the MAP, or (c) fundamentally reworking the action economy (perhaps by capping the number of attacks players could normally make in a round). Personally, I think (c) is probably going to be the best bet, but I care more about getting clear about the problem than about pushing any given solution.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:
You have three Proficiencies: Proficiency A means a 5 or higher on the d20 is a success, Proficiency B means a 10 or higher on the d20 is a success, and Proficiency C means a 15 or higher is a success.

The only problem is that the differences are too noticeable, and it doesn't account for the all-important treadmill.

Switch the numbers to 9/11/13, plus or minus level difference if you're dealing with other creatures, and you've got an accurate sans-pretense translation of the math.

Mathmuse wrote:
As for The FlyingPhoton's system, +1 does not make a difference in that. It is purely by class. Paladins could dump strength and dexterity and still get the same rate of hitting.

Easy. Cut ability scores. After all, the design strongly encourages, and largely assumes, very little ability score variation where it matters.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Colette Brunel wrote:
I have thought about this long and hard. I just do not have any motivation to write up session reports. They are long, boring to type up, and generally useless due to all of the updates this game has received so far. The playtest has been moving far too swiftly, and it has been overwhelming.

Thanks for this post. You're doing valuable uncompensated work for Paizo, for which they should be grateful.

One question, though: do you think your players' tactics have, consistently, been informed and efficient? If not, your results may reflect a mismatch between the GM and the players more than a problem with the rules.

Frankly, this wouldn't surprise me. In a turn-based game, it's much easier for a group to function cohesively if it's controlled by one person than four or five, and there are so many natural sources for player error that don't generalize to a smart, prepared GM. In the last PF game I was in (wherein all but one of us had or were pursuing PhDs) our tactics were incredibly sloppy, and had our GM wanted to she could easily have ended most encounters in TPKs.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:
double slice plus two weapon flurry and agile grace to get a second strike with each shortsword at MAP -6

Two-weapon flurry and agile grace? But:

Two-Weapon Flurry wrote:
Requirements You are wielding two weapons, each in a different hand. Your multiple attack penalty with both weapons is –8 or worse.

Has this been changed?

 4 people marked this as a favorite.

Swashbuckler. It's 2018. Dex fighter support from Day One should be obligatory.

Apart from this, it's a little surprising how much the existing rules should cover. A fighter with Monk Dedication makes a great brawler; a wizard with Magical Striker makes a tolerable magus. Most of the largest omissions remaining (for me, the investigator and the witch) clearly need to be their own classes.

 6 people marked this as a favorite.

Soliciting these is a great idea. Making mine reminded me how many of PF2's fundamental ideas are really good. The devs could certainly fix everything on my hate list; the question is whether they want to.

Love
1. Streamlined, more transparent, and less abusable math.
2. Multiclassing as class feats.
3. Action economy.

Hate
1. The hyper-situational, arbitrarily restrictive, and often punitive feel of much of the design.
2. The lack of space for player characters to feel varied, exceptional, and organic.
3. The pervasive and jarringly gamist treadmills.

Houserule
1. +level/2 replaces +level.
2. The stacking limitations are slightly relaxed. Numerous class-based conditional bonuses (e.g. the barbarian's and paladin's damage bonuses, the monk's speed bonus) become "class" bonuses. The "shield" bonus type is reintroduced, to cover parrying and the like as well as shields. Some circumstance bonuses (like the damage bonuses from certain weapon traits) become untyped.
3. Expert, master, and legendary proficiency ranks have double the effect on skills (nothing else).

Here's a simple way of providing built-in additional weapon damage dice that, as a bonus, makes proficiency matter without substantially changing the math (and hence, I hope, without unbalancing the game):

If you're at least 3rd level, you can deal extra dice of damage with that weapon on a hit. You get +1 die at 3rd, and an additional die at 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th levels. (This matches the expected magic item progression. Magic weapons would still provide item bonuses to attack rolls and support property runes, and hence remain important to character progression.)

However, in order to get the extra damage dice, you need meet certain skill or item requirements, as follows:

--) You don't get any extra damage dice if you're untrained in the weapon, regardless of its quality.
--) In order to get +1 damage die (3rd level), you need to either have expert proficiency or be wielding an expert-quality weapon.
--) In order to get +2 damage dice (7th level), you need to either have master proficiency or be wielding a master-quality weapon.
--) In order to get +4 damage dice (15th level), you need to you need to either have legendary proficiency or be wielding a legendary-quality weapon.

The intent of this restriction is prevent the IMO unrealistic consequence of characters with middling combat training doing increasingly massive damage with their attacks as they become more experienced. Normally, extraordinary effectiveness requires extraordinary gear. However, unusually high proficiency lets you override this restriction. Apart from special cases in which the party loses access to their equipment, this should have the effect of underwriting the fighter's fantasy as the master of weapons: fighters can pick up a fallen enemy's weapon after being disarmed, or carry a small armory of inexpensive weapons suited to different situations, without losing virtually the entirety of their combat effectiveness.

Dire Ursus wrote:
I'm still unsure if Double Slice works with Natural Attacks. Paizo should really state outright if Natural Attacks/fists can count as "weapons".

I'd also add that if Double Slice DOES only work with manufactured weapons, you can still exploit Perfected Form with Flurry of Blows -> Strike -> Ghost Strike, usually yielding three guaranteed hits against equal-level opponents. The Void property rune can also work well for this purpose.

Note that one reason why this is interesting, apart seeing how high the numbers can get, is that it's yet another indicator of how tight PF2's design assumes the math to be.

On its own, Perfected Form is neat-but-not-incredible capstone. But if you can push it past the narrow boundaries of its expected functionality, it blows the roof right open, damage-wise.

Ludovicus wrote:

Unassisted, this sequence averages 135.3 DPR. But with flanking, the number jumps to 213.5; buffed with a critically successful Inspire Heroics, it becomes 308.4. A pit fiend has 300 hit points.

I'm now very curious if there's a way to top this.

update: There is.

Xenocrat wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Hmm... If this is correct it's a fair bit lower than expected. Though Part of the plan was to benefit from having a more magical weapon than normally possible with magical striker, but since +5 is what we have we lose out on that.
Is there a reason to think that Magical Striker can't push a weapon to be an effective +6?

By RAW, none that I can see.

I've been playing around with melee theorycrafting lately. In general, the highest DPR build that's actually practical seems to be a fighter who uses Certain Strike and Desperate Finisher to make lots of attacks with a forceful weapon. However, I am pretty sure the highest DPR available in the Pathfinder Playtest is via a 20th-level monk who's flanking.

Perfected Form opens interesting possibilities. While it's normally only possible to hit level-appropriate enemies on a 10 when you're not suffering from the MAP, the fighter's Agile Grace feat and other conditional or circumstance modifiers can combine to make guaranteed hits on multiple attacks viable in the right situation. This can yield Kenshiro-level fun. Here's a sample build.

The Build
Necessary Feats: Wolf Stance, Ki Strike, Fighter Dedication, Basic Maneuvers (Double Slice), Stance Savant, Diamond Fists, Advanced Maneuvers (agile grace)
Important Assumptions: Diamond Mind's circumstance bonus for already-forceful weapons stacks with forceful's (inconsistent with RAW, obviously RAI); Double Slice can be used with unarmed attacks (debatable for both RAW and RAI).

Assume a hasted 20th level monk optimized for damage: 24 Str, +5 handwraps of mighty fists with keen and 2d6 energy damage worth of property runes. This monk is attacking with wolf jaw, a 1d8 agile piercing unarmed attack that gets forceful if they're flanking. Assuming they are, that's 6d8+2d6+7 damage on the first attack, with a +9 circumstance bonus to damage on their second and a +17 on their third, for averages of 41, 50, and 58 respectively.

Unassisted, they hit AC 44 on a 10 or better with their best attack, down to 14/18 from the MAP on agile unarmed attacks. Agile Grace takes this to 13/16. But let's assume the monk is indeed flanking, taking this down to 11/14, and--finally--that they're willing to blow through their SP for a ki strike nova, the +1 conditional bonus takes you to 10/13: enough to guarantee a hit on their second attack! They thus do the following:

--) Strike (extra action from quick): 49.2 (1.3 x 41) expected damage.
--) Double Slice (attacking twice at -3): 118.8 (1.15 x 50 + 1.15 x 58) expected damage.
--) Flurry of Blows (attacking twice at -6): 61 (0.5 x 58 + 0.5 x 58, plus 0.25 x 12 from the chance at extra damage from the monk's Fierce Flurry) expected damage.

In total, that's 229 DPR: more than a fighter can do with Desperate Finisher, and unlike with Desperate Finisher, it doesn't eat up your reaction.

However, it's possible to do better. An 8th-level Heroism replaces your one-round ki strike nova with a nice steady 10-minute +3 conditional bonus, bringing you just one measly point away from guaranteed hits on ALL your attacks. And there are lots of ways to make up that deficit: one of your allies can assist you or make your target sluggish. If you can do that, the same sequence reaches an eye-watering 325.85 DPR. Since that's around the maximum hit points that 20th-level enemies have, and every attack is an automatic hit, this will virtually guarantee a kill.

(For even more damage, you could take Ranger Dedication, Basic Hunter's Trick (Twin Takedown), and Targeted Hunter to get six hits after the first round. However, this is probably useless in practice: no target with an AC low enough for this tactic to work will have enough HP to survive more than one round of it.)

Ludovicus wrote:
For the record, however, I should note that were I a GM, I would rule that unarmed strikes definitely do not count as wielded weapons for purposes of Two-Weapon Flurry, since the above build uses Two-Weapon Flurry essentially as a loophole to get around Flurry of Blow's once-per-round limitation. Presumably, that limitation was intended precisely to preclude shenanigans like this.

Finally, note that even without Two-Weapon Flurry, Wolf Jaw still appears to be the best melee attack available if you're flanking.

As far as I can tell, the next-best alternative is a build that takes Certain Strike and Agile Grace in place of Two-Weapon Flurry, for:

Flurry of Blows -> Certain Strike -> Certain Strike -> Strike -> Certain Strike

For this, I'm getting 205.85 damage if you're flanking, and 297.4 for a critically successful inspire heroics.

Upshot: damagewise, the fighter/monk is the build to beat in PF2.

Okay, the OP was wrong.

Or at least, it was wrong if unarmed strikes count as wielded weapons.* Wolf Jaw is a d8 agile attack that gets forceful when you're flanking the target, which makes multiple attacks with it extremely powerful at relatively high accuracy (which the fighter provides). Thus, take an optimized fighter with Monk Dedication, Basic Kata (wolf stance), Desperate Finisher, Monk's Flurry, Stance Savant, and Two-Weapon Flurry. (If you really wanted to, you could eke out a bit more damage by taking Rogue Dedication and Sneak Attacker, but I haven't included this in the numbers.) This enables:

Flurry of Blows -> Two-Weapon Flurry -> Two-Weapon Flurry -> Strike -> Two-Weapon Flurry

Unassisted, this sequence averages 135.3 DPR. But with flanking, the number jumps to 213.5; buffed with a critically successful Inspire Heroics, it becomes 308.4. A pit fiend has 300 hit points.

I'm now very curious if there's a way to top this.

____
* I take the rules to be ambiguous on this point. For the record, however, I should note that were I a GM, I would rule that unarmed strikes definitely do not count as wielded weapons for purposes of Two-Weapon Flurry, since the above build uses Two-Weapon Flurry essentially as a loophole to get around Flurry of Blow's once-per-round limitation. Presumably, that limitation was intended precisely to preclude shenanigans like this.

Pramxnim wrote:
There are several nitpicks I have with the calculations, but I think the idea is sound.

I'm somehow getting slightly lower numbers: the vanilla fighter averages 138.05 DPR unassisted against AC 44. I think my math is consistent with everything you point out about certain strike and crit percentages; hmm.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Ludovicus wrote:
Your falchion averages 61 expected damage on a hit (6d10 + 2d6 + 7 str + 14 conditional),
How are you getting 14 conditional damage? the rage is only giving you 8 conditional. And the non-giant would only have a +4 conditional.

Ack, because I don't read carefully enough! I totally missed this:

Barbarian Dedication wrote:
For the purposes of the temporary Hit Points and damage bonus from Rage, your barbarian level is equal to half your level.

This lowers the non-giant-totem fighter/barbarian's mean DPR to 149.72. NemisCassander was right; giant totem remains a trap option. (Its mean DPR is 139.18, below the vanilla fighter.)

This also means that barbarian dedication is not worth it in practice, unless you are taking it for the feats. There are other things you can do with the feats, and the combined AC penalties from rage itself and the inability to take advantage of the fighter's master heavy armor proficiency are not justified by the marginal DPR increase.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Fighter with rogue dedication going Dread Striker -> double slice.

Max bluff, hope for the best. Having a 15-20 crit chance is the best you'll get on an appropriate challenge.

I'm curious. Run some numbers?

NemisCassander wrote:

I'd have to see some _very_ detailed math regarding the OP before I believe that this is optimal. I'm pretty sure that Giant Totem barbarian is a complete trap, so it's a bit odd to see it in an optimal DPR build.

My simulation models show that -1 to hit is certainly not worth the damage increase of even Giant Totem. I haven't updated those in a while, though.

I haven't run the math myself, but as a general point I'd bet you're right. But to paraphrase George Lucas, Certain Strike is the key to all of this.

Though your question was already answered, here's the detailed math. (Actually I did oversell it a bit: the OP numbers mistakenly ran the calculations against AC 43, not 44.)

Start with the assumptions in the OP: optimized 20th level fighter attacking AC 44. Your falchion averages 61 expected damage on a hit (6d10 + 2d6 + 7 str + 14 conditional), increasing to 67 on the second attack and 73 afterwards. On a failure, you do 35 damage from Certain Strike (6 + 2 + 7 + 14 + 6) on your second attack and 41 afterward.

So, here's the routine ([Q] abbreviates the extra action from quick):

Round One
[A] Rage
[Q] Strike at -0: 0.65 expected hits (0.55 hit, 0.1 crit) for 39.65 expected damage.
[A] Certain Strike at -5: 0.4 expected hits (0.3 hit, 0.4 crit) + 0.5 expected failures for a total of 44.3 expected damage (26.8 + 17.5).
[A] Certain Strike at -10: 0.1 expected hits (0.05 hit, 0.05 crit) + 0.5 expected failures for a total of 27.8 expected damage (7.3 + 20.5).
[R] Certain Strike at -10: 0.1 expected hits (0.05 hit, 0.05 crit) + 0.5 expected failures for a total of 27.8 expected damage (7.3 + 20.5).

total: 139.55 expected damage

Rounds Two & Three
[Q] Strike at -0: 0.65 expected hits (0.55 hit, 0.1 crit) for 39.65 expected damage.
[A] Certain Strike at -5: 0.4 expected hits (0.3 hit, 0.4 crit) + 0.5 expected failures for a total of 44.3 expected damage (26.8 + 17.5).
[A] Certain Strike at -10: 0.1 expected hits (0.05 hit, 0.05 crit) + 0.5 expected failures for a total of 27.8 expected damage (7.3 + 20.5).
[A] Certain Strike at -10: 0.1 expected hits (0.05 hit, 0.05 crit) + 0.5 expected failures for a total of 27.8 expected damage (7.3 + 20.5).
[R] Certain Strike at -10: 0.1 expected hits (0.05 hit, 0.05 crit) + 0.5 expected failures for a total of 27.8 expected damage (7.3 + 20.5).

total: 167.35 expected damage

Over the three rounds, the mean DPR is thus 158.08. By comparison, a vanilla fighter has a DPR of 143.15 when attacking this way; a fighter/barbarian without giant totem has a mean DPR of 151.75. In fact this scenario is actually abnormally bad for the giant totem barbarian, since sluggish 1 means they'll only hit on a natural 20 on their MAP - 10 attacks, negating the benefit of an expanded threat range. With a higher or lower baseline chance to hit, the giant totem's marginal advantage will be greater.

edit: this raises interesting issues that deserve its own post. In this one, I'm more interested in DPR theorycrafting.

 1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>