I was thinking about this myself, and ran a few examples. I found the current system actually played out a bit better.
I found that adding 3-4 numbers together twice and comparing them, was easier than adding and subtracting 7-8 numbers and comparing them to one number.
Additionally, some things really seemed like that only should be added to one side (defence of offence) rather than subtracted from the other side.
We should definitely be thinking about these types of things, and it is a good suggestion, but certainly from my experience with the current complexity, modifying defence and offence I found easier.
Run a game so that it is fun for people? What trickery is this?
I think balance is important in so far as unbalanced game system can be very hard to run for the GM, and not fun for people playing characters that get eclipsed by the super characters.
On the flip side, games that sacrificed fun options for balance, are also making a substantial trade off.
My experience is that PFe1 with all of the additional material was so unbalanced that it caused problems. Whereas PFe2 has stripped out so many options as to become dull and boring for players. It does seem really good for GMs though.
I think more interesting options can be put back into PFe2 without compromising balance. However, this is not a trivial task.
Maximising fun is obviously the most important thing for a system. Game balance is part of this equation, and for some people it has a higher priority than others. Good game design is about balancing mechanical game balance against the other factors that make the game fun.
What kind of poorly optimised PFe1 characters are you playing?
From about level 10 onwards crit chance is close to 30 percent. Reduces a bit for later attacks, but there are also a lot more attacks in a round as you level up further.
Good to see some analysis, albeit applicable in only a very limited circumstance.
I am not really sure why you decided to go with +3 damage at level 1, when 4 would be the usual. Also, likely to pick up a +2 to stat item before level 20, so likely to have +7 to damage.
The analysis does show that you do not lose much damage when going from a 1d12 weapon to a d10 reach weapon. I definitely think it is worth it.
Also, exploiting a vulnerability seems to add considerable damage. Example: a cold iron, holy weapon gets you 30 damage against high level demons (with an extra 2d6 coming from the unholy itself), which is a nice big chunk.
It would be interesting to see how much things change when up against weak enemies. Maybe 15% crit chance.
I do not think there is any argument from a game balance perspective.
It might be some sort of: it is bigger, therefore it requires more "etching". But I think it adds needless complexity and should be done away with.
There might be an argument to be made for making armour and weapon potency runes interchangeable. Got a +3 dagger, rather have +3 armour? Change it over.
Maybe even allow potency runes to add to hardness of shields.
As an experienced GM with great game knowledge PFe1 is very hard to run. There are plenty of ways too improve it, n but it is a huge overhead to enjoying.
PFe2 has made a lot of changes to address this. However, I think it had also sacrificed a lot of player fun. I think a lot of the negative reviews are coming from the players rather than the GMs. It is great to have a game that is easy to run, but it is hard to run a game without players.
So I think there is a decent amount of work to be done to put back characters customisation and abilities and systems that feel enjoyable.
Doing an analysis of PFe2 compared to PFe2 spells is pretty pointless.
If you actually want to make a convincing argument you need to do a comparison between the capabilities of the different classes of PFe2.
I also think your are totally wrong about blasting. But I have not had the time to do a detailed analysis.
I have noticed something strange:
Sneak in the book:
"If you speak or make a deliberate loud noise, you become sensed. If you do anything else, you become seen just before you act. For instance, if you attack a creature you’re unseen by, that creature is not flatfooted against that attack."
Sneak in the tool:
"If you speak or make a deliberate loud noise, you become sensed. If you succeed at your Stealth check and then attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains flat-footed against that attack, and then you become seen."
Why are these different?
The advantage of being able to hit only 40-60% of the time is that it means that defensive and offensive tactics become viable.
If you hit 95% of the time on your first strike, then actions like raise shield drop this to 85%. That only mitigates 11% of the damage for the first. Totally not worth it.
But if you have a only 50% chance to hit, then it will drop that to 40%.
Similarly, you really want to be getting into position to flank to boost it up again. Or getting that bless or bard song.
A lot of these options are useless if you have a 95% chance to hit with your first attack. It also means that crits become very common. I think crits are more exciting if they only happen 5-15% of the time.
Randomness also makes the game more exciting. With unexpected rolls, a straightforward encounter can turn into edge of your seat action.
Most things (saves, AC, skills, attack bonus) get a +1 bonus every level.
These things have an associated proficiency which gives you a small bonus to the roll and is relevant for unlocking some feats and other perks.
A lot of master and legendary proficiency is lock to particular classes.
You have fewer bonuses you can stack, so the difference in competency between a character that has super specialised in a particular thing compared to someone that is essentially untrained in that thing has been greatly reduced.
Someone talk about 4 degrees of success.
The spell lists have been divided into four: cleric, wizard, druid, bard.
Sorcerers pick a blood line which is tired to one of the four spell lists. They are then that type of caster.
Sorcerers and bards now get spells at the same level as the prepared casters.
Spell DCs for your various spells now are all identical. Still based off your main caster state, but now it includes your level and your proficiency.
Paladins and Rangers do not have spells in the traditional sense.
Paladins use spell points to cast "spells". The other casters also get spell points.
Generally when you are casting a spell from a magic item it requires an additional resource cost called "resonance". Few people like it as it is currently implemented.
You can make 3 attacks at level 1, but it takes all your actions and you get -5 on the 2nd attack and -10 on the 3rd.
There are some class feats/abilities and weapons that can reduce this penalty.
Haste grants 1 extra action that you can only use for some specific actions.
Nah, this kind of rubbish player activity happens a lot. A LOT.
Also, at times there were a lot of things to add up. Here is what I kept track of on my level 14 Paladin for +hit.
This is not including flanking or other circumstance bonuses/penalties.
Wow, look at that 27 point swing.
I believe you have to touch as you cast it, as touching is part of the somatic action.
Also, I think it specifically says that if you miss with your attack roll the spell is wasted. "On a successful attack, your spell affects the target, and on a failure the spell is lost unless otherwise noted." Page 197.
However, since only about 25% of creatures get an AoO, I would say overall there has been a buff to melee casting.
Just get them to flat roll. Highest goes first.
PvP? Why? Does this happen often in your experience? I've found PvP experiences tend to undermine the game.
Also a good point.
The layout of the rules is my second biggest issue with the playtest. I think dispelling is fairly straight forward, but figuring this out is not.
My interpretation is that you determine:
If spell level of dispel magic > spell level of magic item; then you automatically dispel it.
If magic item level > spell level of dispel magic > magic item level -4; then you make your spell roll (1d20 + caster stat + proficiency (level + 0/1/2/3) + spell level of dispel magic - spell level of magic item) against DC.
Slightly complicated, but easy enough.
If spell level of dispel magic < spell level -4; then you fail at dispelling automatically.
Level 4 dispel magic, level 8 sorcerer, cha 19, trained proficiency.
Because the spell level of dispel magic is not higher than the magic item. You need to make a roll.
Spell roll is:
1d20 + 4 + 8 + 4 - 5 = 1d20+11 against DC 25. So, you have 35% chance of dispelling.
Rules as written Lay on Hands requires a free hand, even with Warden Touch. There are some rumours going around that this has been an errata clarifying that Warded Touch removes the free-hand requirement. Not that I can find it.
I think this change is needed. Multiclassing into Cleric to get Emblazon Symbol is slightly mad.
That is exactly my interpretation of the rules from reading every possible applicable rule about 3 times, and trying to inject common sense and guessing at what Paizo are trying to covey.
Good to see it might be correct.
More thinking: If your shield received an 42 dents at once, can it go from undented to destroyed?
I think I am going with you cannot 1 shot a shield to destroyed. Who knows?
Strachan Fireblade wrote:
On a side note, is it stated anywhere how AoEs damage dice work? As in roll once and apply to all targets? Can't seem to find it.
I do not believe that it is stated anywhere, which leads me to believe that you roll once and apply it to all targets.
What kind of sick bastard would make you roll 6d6 for every target?
You are probably right that people are not going to listen to us. But it is definitely a finesse strike, so Str or Dex. I took me about 20 minutes to work it out, but it is spelled out in the rules over about 3 sections.
Also this is what the iconic cleric had on their sheet +2 (1 lvl, 1 dex) for their fire power.
Either familiars are rubbish for Sorcerers or this is typo:
Familiar and Master Abilities (page 287)
• You can prepare one additional cantrip. You must be able to
• You can prepare one additional spell at least 3 levels lower
COUNTERACTING CONDITIONS (page 319)
If your ability’s counteract level is the same as the
How can you take a -4 or -5 if you automatically fail?!
TELEKINETIC PROJECTILE (page 263)
Heightened (3rd) The damage increases to 1d8 + your
Should be 1d10 (I think).
Just saying: Select "nimble" from the Elf ancestry feat.
Half elf gives you access to a lot of feats. A lot.
1. Do you currently like pathfinder 1e? (I know it sounds loaded, but please bare with me.)
I definitely like PFe1, but...
It is definitely troublesome. It is so thoroughly unbalanced it is difficult to run at times. Especially at high levels.
With a few house rules, I ran a really good campaign last year and the year before.
I think some elements of 4th were good, but it was a miniatures combat game, not a RP game. I never played a game of it, I never wanted to run it.
Never played 5th. Sounds very simplified, but better than 4th.
I am keen on balance, since unbalanced causes a lot of problems. Fun is more important than balance, but it is hard to have fun without a decent amount of balance.
High level play should be playable. Unlike in PFe1, which in my experience is very, very poor. Does it need to be smooth? Smoothness is not the issue really. The issue is that it is terrible in PFe1.
I like options.
Fun is the most important. All these things can lead to fun. Options and balance can take away from fun if done poorly.
I am not that concerned with this. A good system that has a steep learning curve is fine by me. It could be good to have more players playing Pathfinder, but I have a stable group of people to play with.
Sure. If it is an improvement.
-Resonance is a good idea. The current implementation needs some work.
-Signature skills is a good idea. I would like to see a little more freedom with picking signature skills.
-Class feats seems fairly restrictive at times. I am pleased that the power level has been toned down, but I think maybe class options are a bit too limited now. With some classes, you tend to pick a specialisation and then you are going to use at least half of your feats to pursue that specialisation, which neglects some other cool options.
-I think ancestries needs a balance pass.
-I am not 100% sold on the animal companion and mounted combat implementation. But I need to do some more reading. One concern is that reach weapons appear not to have reach when you mounted on a large mount.
It's because level 1 characters are no very good at things. Orc weapons are hard.
You think being a half orc teaches sorcerers how to use falchions from level 1? 100% don't agree.
I too think it is very strange to give Paladins Lay on Hands and then make it very difficult to use.
This looks like a good combo, but it is no good for sword and board.
Unarmed and board looks like it might be possible, although this seems weird to me.
Finally, multiclassing to Cleric for EMBLAZON SYMBOL is an option as well. Actually not a bad option for 2 feats and wis 16, you get 2 cleric cantrips: Sheild and Stabilise; as well as access to wands, scrolls etc.
In any case, this whole design seems awkward.
At least you can buff it to d6 with a feat and then it heightens very well.
Ogres were specifically designed not to have riders. They are a big lump of HP that can hit stuff.
The redcap actually does have quite a bit going on in it's start block, maybe not in terms of attack effects, but certainly other abilities.
It seems highly likely that other creatures will have attack riders. If for some bizarre reason they do not, then just put your own in.
For the first time ever, I agree with Voss.
At least in the blog it says explicitly that you cannot multiclass into you in class. Hopefully things are clear in the book as well.
Multiclass ability score prerequisites should be lowered, and level advancement should raise all ability scores