Golem in Progress

Megistone's page

394 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Volley on longbows is fine for me; the name is a bit misleading anyway.
Longbows are made for long range combat. As much as you can like sniper rifles, if you insist using one in close quarters you are proably screwed.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Level 1 spells deal a lot of base damage now: Shocking Grasp is 2d12 (+1d4 persistent, if applicable), Hydraulic Push is 3d6.
Casters may have less slots, but blasts look solid.

I'm not happy about wands.
Since they are still 'spells in a stick', albeit with something extra, I would have made them require investment like permanent items, but with charges (like 5, or 10). So, consumables can only spam, but only to a degree.

Runes, I may like them instead. I still hope that what replaces the old Potency now competes with other options instead of being mandatory.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thr3adcr4p wrote:
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.
And I also think that some abilities may be appropriate for NPCs (even when they are humanoids) but not for PCs. Having to justify why they have them is just extra work.

I don't agree with the idea that a PC can duplicate any ability a similar-class NPC could possibly have.
That doesn't mean that every NPC should be wildly different: respecting a certain level of expectation is a good thing because it adds to verisimilitude. What I mean is that a fighter may have studied in a war academy, trained in a foreign army or be completely self-taught; it doesn't break immersion that some have developed abilities others can't have, or haven't even heard of. Double attack at level 2? That's ok, they probably don't have some other feat the PC possesses - or if they do, their level is simply misjudged.
A demonic bloodline NPC sorcerer may be the descendant of an ancient demon lord, giving them different and/or stronger powers. Or they may be the offspring of a fire-related entity, and thus can cast Burning Hands even though their spell list is divine. You don't need to look for some forgotten feat to achieve that, you don't have to use multiclassing: that sorcerer is just different. Is that so intolerable?

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Is there any practical difference between ability scores and modifiers?

There are when odd numbered ability scores show up.
This is true, except is there a single situation in PF2 where it will matter whether a monster has an odd or even score? The only time it mattered in PF1 was feat prereqs and ability damage, but feats seem to only use even numbered stat prereqs now and ability damage as such is gone.

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.

Aenigma wrote:
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.

thejeff wrote:
Megistone wrote:

And that makes it viable for two actions.

Casting and attacking for one action only would be absurdly good, even expending resources.

Yeah, one action would be ridiculous. Much better than it was in PF1.

Essentially in PF1 it took as long to cast and attack as it normally did to cast. It should do the same here.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And that makes it viable for two actions.
Casting and attacking for one action only would be absurdly good, even expending resources.

13 people marked this as a favorite.

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.
Having xp, which mostly come from encounters, gives the players a different goal, and that's bad. I had my good share of players who asked: "How much xp is that worth?" about almost every living (and unliving) thing they met. I didn't do that when I was playing, but it was mostly because I already knew how much xp most things were worth, and that subconsciously influenced my decisions! :)

Now, it's like fresh air. My dear xp, I was in love with you, I really was... but I got over you, forever.

Edge93 wrote:

So I feel like it's worth posting what I did with casters. I essentially made Prepared casters Arcanist-style and to balance it I allow Sorcerers to spontaneously heighten any spell. It's worked out pretty well. Though to be fair my group doesn't try to live super-exploit prepared casting or anything, if that's even a thing you can really do this edition.

I'm also considering allowing prepared casters to "undercast", that us that if they prepare a spell at a higher slot than normal then they can cast it with a lower slot (no normal than the lowest level of the spell of course). I think it would make an interesting dynamic with prepared casters being able to potentially have more options for their low level slots but Sorcerers have more options for their more powerful slots.

How many prepared spells and spell slots do your arcanist-style casters have? As many as they can prepare in vancian style?

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Chetna Wavari wrote:

A great wyrm red dragon with 39 AC fighting a hoard of 300 lvl 1 town guards.

A town guard will likely have some strength. Let's give them +4 str bonus. +1 to hit for level. +2 for being sufficiently proficient with their weapon. That's a total of +7 to hit.

They roll a natural 20 and with a +7 that's a critical miss. Except a natural 20 increases it one level, so it's just a miss. None of the lvl 1 guards would even make a dent on it.

All of that makes sense because a CR 22 dragon should roflstomp an army of lvl 1s every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The dragon would crit every one of them unless it rolled a natural 1. At that point it just hits them normally. Again, makes sense. This is an ender of worlds dragon.

They are the thing of nightmares. Now imagine how people would view the heroes who could take one down? High level players are virtually gods from the viewpoint of an average commoner.


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.
I mean, if we give echolocation to every blind PC (and there are several cases of real human people who developed that!), it could become an advantage more often than it is a liability.
Also, talking about sign language-casting, consider the case of a PC spellcaster who can speak and learns sign language anyway: should they be able to cast when silenced? Is that really balanced, or would we have ALL casters learn sign language and become immune to silencing?

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.
For example, a spellcaster could learn to make the required sounds using gestures: a free ability for PCs who start as mute, and a skill/general feat for others. You can substitute verbal components with somatic ones, but you still need sound to cast. I could support something like this.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, paying for hero points would be much better IMO if the money gets pooled until the group can use that to go out for a pizza.
That may work.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
I could see that. Adding level is just simple solution. What you are suggesting certainly works too.

I just find it annoying that weapons with smaller dices get so weak later on.

I mean a weapon with an d6 deals 17.5 damage at +4. A d10 weapon deals 27.5. I can understand it needs to have a difference but when that grows with a linear function there should be something to make that gap narrower.

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.
If you have a static +2 to damage, the ratio between 1d6+2 and 1d12+2 becomes higher (about 65%); when you up the number of dice to 3d6+2 and 3d12+2, the ratio goes down (58%) disfavoring the smaller weapon.
But there are also ways to increase static damage to an extent (raising strength score is quite easy), which should offset the disadvantage.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
It still bothers the eff outta me when people base the equality of classes solely on DPS.
When all the non-combat spells got nerfed into oblivion, what other comparison is there?

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.
What I'm reading is: "Give casters at least the same damage output of martials, without taking from them the power of battlefield control/out of combat problem solving, without imparing them with limited spell slots of course, or they will have to rest too often".

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.
Also, I don't think they they will add another special tier; a "character flaw" mechanic could be made with more specific rules, but I can't see that coming in the CRB.

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."

Nice idea, Mathmuse. I like it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess that without some kind of limit, no developer will ever print a Quick Runner Shirt again.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't get why a wizard becoming better at attacking (even physically) is ok, but a wizard becoming better at defending is absolutely not.
The only explanation I can think of is: because it used to be so.

I was figuring a spell that summoned a fortified dinosaur, so big that you could use the dino itself as a movable fort.
But the spell as portrayed is still amusing.

I really don't have any problem with calling it Thievery, but of all the other names proposed I really like Subtlety.

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.
In all other cases, I don't see why you can carry X bulk in you backpack and not be hindered at all thanks to your Strength, but if you wear a medium armor (with a lower bulk value) you suddenly get slower, heavier and clumsier.
If you are overburdened, then yes, a penalty on some skills makes sense.

Well, I picture stunned as a condition where you can't take complex actions, but can still defend yourself to an extent.
I don't know how the developers view a paralyzed person instead: it seems that you aren't completely immobile either, since the penalties given by that condition are much less severe than when the character is asleep.

There are inconsistencies, anyway.

dmerceless wrote:

Some people are probably going to get 4e PTSD just by reading this, but I do think TTRPGS can learn some things from the video-game counterparts, an one of those things that PF2 has being doing pretty well IMO is the subject of this topic.

Let's pick WoW as an example just for the extra salt. I don't think aggro as a mechanic does nor should work in a tabletop RPG, but tanks in WoW each have their unique way of "being tanky". Warriors have really high defenses and can block attacks. Paladins have a lot of mitigation and some self-healing. Druids (bear form) just have a ton of health. Monks are very evasive and can delay the damage they take. Death Knights have a lot of lifesteal and self-healing.

I honestly find something like that a lot more interesting than having different ways of stacking a lot of AC. I love the path PF2 is taking in this regard and would like to see more.

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

Maybe the kraken is a polymorphed bard?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is an interesting issue, one where balance and logic seem to go in opposite directions.
Having another 'body' on the battlefield is very important and action economy was king in PF1 and is probably even more in PF2 (it's much better to have two people attack once, than one of them attack twice); turn length is another thing to take into consideration. But an expecially gifted animal who is, in truth, less effective than a common one of its kind feels off.

Overly complicating the rules won't be a thing.
Instead, some ideas I'm getting to try and solve the issue:

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.
PROs: the companion becomes more an asset of the group than of a single player, so the time spent to make it act should be more acceptable for everyone. The group is stronger as a whole, and the GM can control tactical abuses.
CONs: the player may feel that a part of its character is taken away from them (it costs feats, after all). The group as a whole may become too strong, expecially with multiple companions. Arguments may arise between the players and the GM about how the companion is acting.

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).
PROs: more logically consistent.
CONs: less freedom of actions. Sometimes the animal would be useless (when the master doesn't attack, for example); more Work Together options could fix this problem.

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.
PROs: more logically consistent. Different options could be nice to diversify companions and tactics. Animal companions in particular could use some more defense.
CONs: more complicated, as a lot of things should have one or more 'fixed actions' specified in the case they are summoned.

4) The animal/summon/familiar gets three actions, but its MAP is shared with the master's.
PROs: maybe more balanced than giving it the full turn with no drawbacks. I can see some interesting tactics arise from this rule.
CONs: could be too strong or too weak depending on what the PC does.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Having magic is considered an important asset for a character, and for good reason.
Being able to wear heavy armor is considered a strong asset too, though we could discuss the real benefit it gives in the playtest.
The point is, you can't have everything 'for free' at level 1.

You say: but that way I have to wait a lot of time to fulfill my character concept!
It's true. Tone it down, make your character grow into what you figure it to be.
What is my character concept is "a heavily-armored Wizard who rages in battle with her greataxe, and can inspire the same courage into her allies via rousing speeches"?
I'm exaggerating, but maybe not too much. There's nothing wrong in such a character concept, it's just not feasible at level 1; or else the Bard, the Barbarian and the Sorcerer in the group will give you very bad looks.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
ryric wrote:
Edge93 wrote:

Considering Paizo has said multiple times that that is ONLY to test level appropriate DCs, I think the people who have concerns about it should have a LITTLE more faith. And I don't even mean don't have any concerns, but arguments like the one you make state such an iron clad assumption that things will be used in a way contrary to how the rulebook says to use it and contrary to how Paizo has said it will be used.

Saying "This thing is bad because people will use it in a way that contradicts how it says it should be used" seems like a weak argument. You can apply that argument to a whole lot of things, since any GM can use anything outside of its intended method of use.

Every GM I ever played 4e with used the 4e equivalent table of 10-2 incorrectly. Every. Single. One. It was misunderstood years into the life of the game. When a rule is so easily and often misunderstood, I do think it's fair game to call it a poor rule.

I've never played 4e so I can only speak so much but I think we will have to agree to disagree here.

When something in the Rulebook says DON'T DO THIS and almost everyone does it anyway I can in no way call that a bad rule. It is clear and explicit and you can't ask a lot more from a rule. I call it almost everyone being kinda dumb about that particular thing (or alternatively a little lazy about not trying to figure out a proper DC for obstacles). Sorry if that's rude but that's all I can draw out of something clearly stated to be one way but almost everyone does it another way.

And the alternative is to remove what I believe to be a very valuable tool for figuring out the numbers to attach to the obstacles you are creating to challenge a party to varying degrees (Obstacles which should be thematically appropriate for their difficulty). I'm kinda sick of guessing or BSing DCs all the time. XP It's a pain.

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.

Helmic wrote:
Megistone wrote:
I can see your point, and I guess it comes down to a matter of taste.
For sure, tastes are going to vary. But the presence of dice rolling in general in PF2 doesn't mean that there has to be straight up lose conditions that can trigger before a player could possibly react. I mean, clearly it doesn't, because most of the game doesn't operate like that. There's a whole bestiary full of stuff that doesn't do that. The issue comes up when it can catch a GM by surprise, and since the rest of the game sets a very different expectation it's probably frustrating when the game breaks that expectation. I don't see many tweaks asking to make it so PC's die more to singular die rolls with no chance to act in between, so I'm more inclined to think this is a "black coffee" situation where most people don't admit their actual preferences because it's seen as less sophisticated somehow.

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.

Helmic wrote:

And yeah, just to reiterate in case I didn't phrase it clearly before, my fix isn't to just make rerolling saves cheaper but to have a way to just always, with no saves involved, get back up. The player has to tacitly admit they were just effectively killed right then and there since they're sacrificing their ability to come back from death, but they still stand up.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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).
No one is asking you to play your undead master, either.

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.
I guess I was lucky that all the necromancers, spellcasters with summons, actual Summoners, never ever used more than one minion, summon, eidolon or animal companion together.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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!
Not much, actually: it does have the highest number of skill points, but it's closely followed by others like Bard and Ranger, and a Wizard will probably come very close too because of its high Int, which gives extra skill ranks.
The ability to use magic scrolls in PF1 is not restricted to spellcasters and Rogues: it's based on a skill called Use Magic Device, that everyone has potentially access to. Since its key ability is Cha, a Rogue has to invest in that stat, and unless it takes an extra effort to boost its Use Magic Device skill further, it won't be able to use scrolls reliably until the higher levels.

And then, we get to the biggest problem: spells just do better than any skills.
Why use stealth when you have Invisbility and Silence? Why climb a wall when you can levitate or fly? Why pick a lock when you can command it open with a simple Knock?
By level 3, a Wizard will be a better rogue than a Rogue.

I can see your point, and I guess it comes down to a matter of taste.
You say that we can't compare a 30 years old game with PF2, because they are very different; while true, the stories these games are telling are more or less the same: adventurers going against perilous situations, fighting monsters who can do a vast array of very nasty things to them, for the sake of riches, experience, and sometimes saving the world.
Those adventurers can be killed, eaten alive, disintegrated, turned into frogs or statues or shadows... that's part of the risk, and part of the fun.
I know, you are talking about player agency in trying to avoid these bad outcomes. It's a very good point, but since we are rolling dice for most decisions, a random factor will always be in the game. How big an impact this randomness should have is, as I said above, a matter of taste.
In my previous post I wrote about the direction this series of games is going. Maybe we will get to the point where death (actual or effective) only comes as a result of bad player choices and no random factor; right now, for me, it would be too much.

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.
On this topic I'm on your side. Spending an hero point on your turn to shrug off any single condition is a good thing to have, IMO, when the same hero point can save you from death by HP.
Using that on a reroll may be ok because you take the risk but, if successful, you can also act on your next turn instead of spending that time getting rid of the negative effect.
For sure, it shouldn't cost MORE than ignoring a fatal wound.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of a PC felling a colossal opponent with a blow of their hammer.
It just shouldn't be as easy as doing the same with a medium sized one.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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).
That system was less nasty, and less likely to kill a character on a single, failed save; abilities like poison and level draining were toned down, they were resistable, curable, and generally much less scary. Honestly, I breathed a sigh of relief.

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.
As for permanent effects, we had them. Blindness/Deafness is one: fail the save and you can't see/hear anymore until the spell is cancelled somehow.
Now, we should discriminate between players and enemies. While a blind NPC or monster will probably stay like that for a single round anyway, many consider such an outcome anticlimatic when it happens to important/boss type enemies. A PC suffering long-term consequences on a single failed roll, or even just sucking and getting bored for the duration of the fight (which could mean a few hours in real-time), are a bane for other people like Ninja.
Personally, I think it's part of the risk of adventuring, so I'm mostly ok with that as a consequence of bad luck and/or bad planning interacting with scary monsters.

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).
Save-or-suck abilities are redesigned so that their full effect only takes place on a critically failed save, and balances that with a little temporary debuff on a success. I think the OP should be very happy about this direction, but he is of the idea that it's still too little a step and asks for the complete removal of such effects (unless coming from multiple stacking failures) instead. I think it's just too much.
By the way, I'm baffled at Power Word-like spells, which trump everything and just kill/stun/whatever without a save. Why??

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?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Corwin Icewolf wrote:

Other people in this thread have convinced me there are other possible solutions to that than Dex to damage. Fine. But they should do something to make it a valid concept, agile rapier master guy shouldn't be less valid than big stompy vein asplody greatsword guy.

No, it shouldn't.

The agile rapier master guy does less damage per hit, but has advantages in other areas.

I'm not sure his current advantages allow him to contribute as much to combat as the damage from strength, though. I mean...

So he's better with his backup ranged weapon than greatsword guy, but the amount anyone cares about this advantage is proportional to the amount they care how good they are with their back up ranged weapon, which is probably not a lot. They won't have a back up ranged weapon worth speaking of at higher levels anyway.

His AC and reflex saves are better, so more survivability, yeah but if he's not damaging things that won't help him much if the rest of the party goes down.

K so the next is mobility, well he wouldn't have such a big advantage in mobility is the heavy Armor penalties were reasonable.

Genuine question: Is that all of them or did I forget some?

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Denyar wrote:

It's clear that every alignment has in itself a certain amount of "extremism", and following this type of reasoning also the pure N alignment is extreme, but a N paladin which superior aim should pursue? Pure neutrality? Probably if that were so, that paladin should not even leave his house ... unless he pursues a religious doctrine, and so it would be nothing more than the "armed arm" of a church. But at this point would a paladin class still make sense? Would it not become rather a sort of "prestige class" for the cleric? He follows the doctrine of a deity, as a cleric, has limitations dictated by the doctrine, as a cleric, prays the deities, as a cleric, receives his powers/spells from deities, as a cleric ... he would have different abilities from a cleric, but it would still be a cleric.

In conclusion, what differences make a paladin what he is, and not simply a "fighter for his deity"?
That's what I mean when I talk about "extreme alignments", the need for a paladin to respond to something superior, to a "call" of Justice/Destruction/Freedom/etc and not just to a deity.

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:

Other people in this thread have convinced me there are other possible solutions to that than Dex to damage. Fine. But they should do something to make it a valid concept, agile rapier master guy shouldn't be less valid than big stompy vein asplody greatsword guy.

No, it shouldn't.

The agile rapier master guy does less damage per hit, but has advantages in other areas.

Malk_Content wrote:
Claxon wrote:

The point system is to kind of put a total limit on the adventuring day, so that you can't just go on forever.

Perhaps you should just be limited to a number of rests based on the expected number of encounters per day (which was 4 in PF1, but I'm not sure if they held in Starfinder or PF2).

You could tie it to Con mod. That way your barbarian who is in front getting battered around a lot can also recouperate more times naturally than the wizard who is hopefully avoiding taking much damage. Although this would possibly make Con too good.

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.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If a feat allows Dex to damage, there must be another feat that makes you use Str for AC, Reflex saves and ranged hits.
How's that?

Leather armor requires proficiency (or you get a -4), and can get in the way of some class abilities (like for Monks, as you said).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm totally against dex to damage, without enough investment.
"Being a rogue" is enough; I'm still not sure if anything less than that, like a "Finesse Fighting Dedication", would be.

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.
Legolas uses a shortbow. Robin Hood does, too.
Volley is there because longbows are not "like shortbows, but better in any circumstance", they are a different thing, made for a different purpouse: warfare.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The World's Most Interesting GM wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:

I'd say it is still mostly INT.

CHA has it's uses in that Spell Point/Resonance/whatever it is called now pool and STR as stated above still increases your damage somewhat.
INT is now the only ability score that doesn't do anything useful, especially with the way the Skill system "works" now.
So...expect a lot of really stupid characters in your games now
At least better than in PF1 since it won't go down to 8 this time.

I'm not exactly sure how that's "better" and 10 still isn't exactly stupid. Half the fun of playing a role-playing game is to play something you are not, and playing a scrawny, clumsy, anemic, dim, rash, or unlikable character is half the fun for those of us who started life with 18s in every stat (before racial and class bonuses). ;)

All of PF1's iconics and even many of the developers' own personal characters had weak stats of 7 or 8. The new game though seems determined to keep people average or better for their level (the new setting must be Lake Wobegon) and sprinkled with abilities that help mitigate mildly bad luck at dice rolls. It seems to me that being a little subpar in something often helps to build character--in every sense of the word.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.
As a DM or as a player, the occasional 14d6 fireball means that I roll 14 times my green cube and add up; I'm really fast at math (well, a bit less nowadays), but the time to roll is still not negligible and it has been ok only because it was just that, occasional.
In the last few years I have only been playing online (unfortunately), so again it's mostly not a problem; but I guess I would really have to buy some more dice if I ever play PF2 live.
Will I like it? Probably not much, but I guess I will get used to it. The time lost may be a problem; on the other hand, having rolls become a bit more important than in PF1 shouldn't be a bad thing: 1d8 is meaningless when you add 37 to it.

Some middle ground would be the best, to me.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, the time when every kind of giant spider had a: "save versus poison or die"...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Giving a damage progression to the character themselves is a must, IMO.
You don't have to tie it to proficiency only, or to level only: you can easily make a different progression for each class.

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.
General feats could increase the damage dice up to a certain number, requiring some proficiency.

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.

Grindness/Beafness: a spell that enormously bloats the HP of the target, making it very tiring to kill.

EDIT: ouch, I realized I changed too much of the original. Well, I still like it :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree on Quick Preparation: it's a perfect Wizard baseline ability.
I also think that the combination of spell slots belongs more to the Sorcerer.
I'm against your proposal of making the Wizard learn spells at each heightened level. First, it increases bookkeeping; second, we are not looking at a way to complicate a Wizard's life, I would rather make the Sorcerer's one a bit easier.
About spontaneous heightening, can't Sorcerers already do it on the fly (twice a day)? I don't have the playtest pdf here, if they really don't they should just be allowed to.
Having some choice on bloodline spells would be good, but not strictly necessary (domains should have the same treatment, in case).
I'm against giving Sorcerers more spells known; I would rather give them more slots instead.
Of course bloodline powers (and school powers, and domain powers too) should be rebalanced.

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.

Ediwir wrote:

I think that the spell merge ability they gave wizards in 1.6 fits much better with Sorcerers and would represent better the flexibility of natural power, especially if it was a way to organically manipulate spell slots (two lower for one higher. Spending a higher level slot to get two lower slots while spontaneously casting makes no sense mechanically).

It would make the wizard the most flexible in terms of variety, and sorcerer the most flexible in terms of magical power.

This is exactly what I'm thinking too.

You are assuming that weapons have 100% accuracy even on third attacks.

1 to 50 of 394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>