I'm not happy about wands.
Runes, I may like them instead. I still hope that what replaces the old Potency now competes with other options instead of being mandatory.
Remember when this thread was about rules reveals from the Oblivion Oath and not discussions about those rules, npc creation, edition warring, etc.? I miss that day.
Just wait for some new rules to be revealed, and then enjoy the subsequent heated discussion :)
To close the argument (at least on my part): I see your points. I would love to have perfect consistency; but I think that sometimes it's not worth the effort.
I don't agree with the idea that a PC can duplicate any ability a similar-class NPC could possibly have.
I was writing encounters for a campaign I had in mind. Statting NPCs was a pain: choose feats, choose spells, choose equipment, recheck class abilities... I stopped after the 15th, and if I didn't have a computer program helping me I would surely have stopped earlier. That project is still on hold; I'll probably go back to it using PF2e when, I hope, I will be able to build my NPCs way faster. And it's a pity because I was tailoring everything to try spheres of power.
It doesn't change much, but it counted for ability drain only, while ability damage ignored the actual score.In PF2 the only situation we have with an odd score is when you increase a stat over 18, and the odd score has no effect.
So, having ability modifiers for monsters is only a little convenience; you can still calculate the ability scores using that modifier with a possible, irrelevant error of -1.
Do gods have domains and subdomains in Second Edition, or do they have domains only?
Subdomains will probably come later, as they did in PF1.
Yes, I agree.Even having a larger selection of one-action spells, I don't think the ability would be too strong because of MAP.
When I first read about ditching xp I thought: "Outrageous! Never in my life!"
But when I tried going without them, I realized that is doesn't only reduce bookkeeping and the risk of in-party unbalances: the real boon is that the game becomes much less focused on encounters, and much more goal-oriented.
What do PCs want? To get their mission done and to get out alive, possibly with some treasure. Even when they are just exploring and looking for shiny things, they (usually) don't want to hunt down every single dangerous thing they can find in the dungeon.
Now, it's like fresh air. My dear xp, I was in love with you, I really was... but I got over you, forever.
How many prepared spells and spell slots do your arcanist-style casters have? As many as they can prepare in vancian style?
Chetna Wavari wrote:
This.An army of low-level soldiers can still take down significant threats (while probably suffering many casualties); but you can't just amass more archers and kill anything: some creatures are beyond that.
I like this rule.
I don't think we should have automatic compensation for disabilities, as I don't want a game where character build guides tell you to roll a blind or mute Wizard or else you will be sub-par.
That said, it makes sense that a PC who was born without one of their senses (or who has lost it at young age) has developed something to partially make up for that. A free feat that is not as good as the real thing, but makes the PC playable; and something that other people who don't have the disability can learn too (not for free, of course) without making it a 'forced' choice.
The advantages of a weapon with a smaller dice are level-independent; it makes sense that the percentage of damage you deal with it in regard of what you would do with a bigger weapon also stays the same. You can't balance them with a static difference, or smaller weapons would become the only viable choice when the numbers get bigger.If a 1d6 weapon does about half the damage (3.5) of a 1d12 one (6.5), it still does half that damage when you are dealing 3d6 (10.5) and 3d12 (19.5).
If the smaller weapon deals an average of 16.5 damage at that point, the 3 points spread you are keeping becomes less meaningful while the weapon qualities of the d6 weapon remain just as good as they were at level 1. In this scenario, using a greataxe past level 10 is a clear suboptimal choice most of the times.
Now, when you consider any bonus to damage you may have (strength as the most common example), things may change a bit.
There's more to do in a combat than raw DPS. Casters excel at this.
But really, I'm wondering about what is the point of this thread.
I have been defending the +level to everything, but I have to acknowledge that Paizo decided to take it away from Untrained, and they surely had their reasons. I don't think that it's a thing that will be reversed again.
What I guess is that there will be something like a General Feat called Basic Competence, saying: "Choose up to X (2? 3? 4?) skills you are Untrained in. You add your level to your proficiency when making checks with those skills, but still count as Untrained to determine their possible uses. If your proficiency level in one of those skills becomes Trained or better, you may choose another skill you are Untrained with and apply this Feat to that skill, too."
IMO, ACP makes sense for stealth, but it would be better to have a more specific penalty or even an armor trait to represent that.
Well, I picture stunned as a condition where you can't take complex actions, but can still defend yourself to an extent.
There are inconsistencies, anyway.
As an anectode, towards the end of the Burning Crusade expansion Rogues could stack so much dodge to be able to ignore any melee attack coming from their front, even from endgame bosses.Having a Rogue tank Illidan in melee phases made everything easier because they wouldn't require any healing; they only needed a bit of time to build their aggro and keep the boss on themselves afterwards.
Then, diminishing returns were introduced because Rogues were not meant to tank. I did it anyway in the following expansion with a very creative build, but I could only hold the line in dungeons, not raids.
Then, years later, I joined a raid where both tanks were... not much competent. There was one boss where avoiding special attacks was mandatory, and when they both failed and ended up dead, I picked it up and with an incredible work from the healers I stood against it until victory. I really felt like a boss that time.
Then, there were those occasional times when in the final phase of a boss fight your tanks are overwhelmed and go down when you just need another 10-15 seconds to finish off the enemy. I loved popping Evasion and dodging everything as long as I could.
Yeah, I love WoW Rogue!
Sorry for the OT :D
This is an interesting issue, one where balance and logic seem to go in opposite directions.
Overly complicating the rules won't be a thing.
1) The animal/summon/familiar is effectively an NPC, controlled by the GM. It acts on its own initiative. The PC can still spend actions to direct it, but the final choice about what exactly it does is a prerogative of the GM.
2) The animal companion defaults to Work Together when it's fighting along its master, but gets all its actions when it's not (like when the PC is down, or is chasing an opponent).
3) The animal/summon/familiar gets three actions, but one is always spent on a less efficient activity. For example, preparing to Strike anyone who attacks its master, or defending itself somehow.
4) The animal/summon/familiar gets three actions, but its MAP is shared with the master's.
Having magic is considered an important asset for a character, and for good reason.
You say: but that way I have to wait a lot of time to fulfill my character concept!
While I have never played 4E, many people are saying that such a rule was largely misinterpreted, so I believe that something should be done in this regard.Instead of scrapping an otherwise good tool, I would add a nice, comprehensive list of static DCs for most skills. Even if it only covers the lower levels (so that every group is free to decide what higher levels characters can really accomplish), it would be helpful in many ways.
First, it's a clear example that shows how the 10-2 should be used, and how it should not: even if I misunderstand the intent of the table, reading the specific DCs page would probably make me reconsider my interpretation of the rule.
Second, it gives GMs a pattern to design their own challenges for a given level of difficulty: what should that wall look like, if I want my level 8 group have some trouble climbing it?
Third, it can set a consistent standard for adventure design: if a moss-covered rock is level 1 hard in one adventure, it shouldn't be level 7 in another unless the moss is exceptionally slippery (and knowing that, I can think of a reason why it is, and keep the consistency).
It would be not even strictly necessary to have it in the core rulebook, but I think it would be a very useful read for everyone.
And what about enemies? Is it ok that they can be oneshotted before they can react, due to luck, good planning or sheer PC badassery?While it can be anticlimatic in certain cases, I'm pretty sure that most players will say that aye, it's ok.
Well, I'm also sure that at least a part of those players would hate having different treatment for PCs in respect to NPCs, because there was a thread about that some time ago on these boards (PF1 area). They want to advantage, no bias, no fudging, because it would kill their fun.
Of course, they still have to rely on the adventure writer and the GM to not make the BBEG show up 4-5 levels earlier to deal personally with those pesky adventurers the first time they mess with his plans; but I don't want to digress.
My point is, you can't make everyone happy.
It was probably me who wasn't totally clear. Just like you, I was trying to say that in addition to making this option cheaper, players should be able to spend an hero point to shake off any single condition affecting them, just like they shake off death.I added the reroll part because I would also keep that option: my idea is that you can either reroll and try to avoid the condition entirely before it affects you, or get hit by that and then spend your turn in the heroic effort to shrug it off. In the first case you are taking a risk by rolling again, in the second one you remove the condition with certainty, but not before you suffer some consequences from it.
It's really too soon to complain about that, as we know for sure that raising undeads will be in the final game but we still know nothing of how it will work.
Also, Neutral_Lich, while you have every right to play the kind of character you like, you can't blame the setting because there's a god who hates undeads and their raisers, nor PFS for having rules that don't allow evil PCs to screw up their groups (I'm not talking about you, but it's a fact that mixing good and evil characters in the same group can very easily become a problem unless the players really want to cooperate, and you can't guarantee that if you don't know who will show up for the session).
Please consider another point. The problem behind the limit of 4 minions and the harsh rules to command them that you can find in the playtest is simple: playing your turn when you are moving multiple minions typically takes a lot of time, and that can be unfair/boring to the other players.
In Pathfinder 1st edition the Rogue is considered one of the worst classes, so much that an "unchained" version has been released later to fix some of its issues.
Why doesn't it work? Well, first of all its combat capability is limited due to an unoptimal hit chance and to the fact that its sneak attack is often tricky to trigger, it puts the Rogue in a risky battlefield position (and it's not a tanky class), and many enemies are just immune to precision damage anyway.
But, you say, the Rogue is a king of skills: that's where it shines!
And then, we get to the biggest problem: spells just do better than any skills.
Now, hero points. I have already criticized how this the playtest is treating them, both in how they are awarded and how they are used.
Back when we had the BECMI sets, most monsters special abilities were a brutal "save or die". A simple 2 HD giant spider, as I said earlier in this thread, could kill a lvl 36 character outright on a hit + natural 1, and had much, much higher chances of killing a lower level character with a single bite. A wraith's touch drained levels permanently with no save. Gygaxians thought all of this was FUN; I did too. Though scared of those effects, I never thought about removing them.
I missed most of AD&D, switching directly to the 3.0 edition (which I didn't have the chance to actually play, unfortunately, though between my brother and me we had the basic manuals and several other books).
Pathfinder ironed out some of the worst offenders that were left (giving an additional save to Phantasmal Killer, or allowing a save every round to shrug off an Hold Person, for example). Save-or-suck spells and other abilities (Black Tentacles and Slumber Hex are the first that come to my mind), anyway, were still very powerful, and an optimized caster could dominate encounters. In most cases this had a simple reason: even a single round of forced inactivity was usually enough to let the martial allies slaughter the enemy with impunity.
Incidentally, just yesterday my PF1 Witch sat in a very wrong position at a dinner table with people we suspected as enemies: a closed door behind her, and one enemy directly in front of her. Her much beefier allies sat in more defendable places.
Of course the surprise attack happened with the other suspect coming through the door, and of course both opponent had sneak attack, and of course I rolled 1 for initiative. My Witch went from full HP to -1 before she could react, and they didn't even roll too well.
PF2 takes ability damage away, so that poisons now do HP damage (and they seem deadlier than before, but still no instant death unless you are already wounded).
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
If I remove paralyzed forever from monsters/spells then I have to figure out something to replace it with. Removing an ability from a creature/spell throws off the balance of that creature/spell so you still have to do the work of adding something in to the game.
What about just granting a new save every round, like Hold Person does? Could it work for you?
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't agree at all.You are saying that nothing is comparable to damage, not even survivability...
Then defensive spells make no sense, you should never take them.
Then sword and board style, and all shield feats, are utter garbage.
Then any kind of defensive feat is a trap, you should only ever choose offensive ones.
This wasn't even entirely true in PF1, I think it's much less true in PF2.
There can be some ideals that are true N.Balance comes to my mind: don't let one side get too strong, or the multiverse will be ruined!
For a Paladin of Gozreh, it could be nature over civilization.
For a Paladin of Nethys, you could have the proliferation of magic in every form.
I'm sure that someone more creative than me could come up with a consistent set of tenets for any of them.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
No, it shouldn't.The agile rapier master guy does less damage per hit, but has advantages in other areas.
You don't have to tie it to a stat; you can tie it to class.Like, give 2/day to non-martials, 3 to martials, and 4 to Barbarians to make them feel special.
Then, feats can increase them: a general feat to get one more, Barbarian dedication give one more too, and some classes may have their own feats to play with them.
I'm totally against dex to damage, without enough investment.
Using the same stat for everything is not only powerful, it's ugly. And luckily in PF2 we won't have that "killer house cat" madness, anyway.
Volley is there because longbows are big and awkward. They are built to throw powerful shots at long distances, not for direct shots.
The World's Most Interesting GM wrote:
The problem is that counter-balancing the dump stat with an advantage in another makes dumping mandatory for everyone who is trying to min-max their character a little bit, as there will always be one stat that is more useful than another.So you have a rather stupid character not because you want to roleplay that, but because that +1 in Constitution you got as a trade-off is much more useful in combat.
In the playtest rules you CAN dump a stat, you just don't get anything back for that.
In 30 years of D&D and PF I have never bought any more dice than the ones I found in my basic set, except for another d10 with double digits for percentile rolls.
Some middle ground would be the best, to me.
Giving a damage progression to the character themselves is a must, IMO.
Like, Fighter: at level 5 you get 1 extra damage die on weapons you are a Master with. A Barbarian will require Trained proficiency only, or even get it one level earlier. A Wizard will have it later, and won't progress as high as the martials unless multiclassing. A Ranger may get the dice increase a bit later, but as soon as a Fighter (or earlier) on their hunted target. Alchemists could have bonus die baked into their mutagens.
Of course it shouldn't stack with Potency, if that stays up to +5. This way, a character with a magical weapon has an advantage (with to-hit expecially!), but they can still decide to spend their money in a different way without losing that much efficiency, and will still be relevant when using a backup, less-magical weapon.
Another option would be limiting Potency to lesser (+1) and greater (+2) runes which stack with the character's own dice progression, and have them compete with Property runes; accuracy could be detached from Potency and added as its own kind of rune to cover the missing +2 to hit.
I agree on Quick Preparation: it's a perfect Wizard baseline ability.
If Focus makes it to the final rules, instead of the 2 free heightenings a Sorcerer has got, I would give it a baseline +2 Focus and let they use Focus to auto-highten a spell: with their high CHA it gives them much more versatility, but since that competes with other abilities it doesn't force them to choose any heighten-able spells.
The sorcerer is a good opportunity to make a spell point caster in contrast to Wizard / Cleric / Druid Arcanist casting
This is exactly what I'm thinking too.