Megistone's page

Let me start saying that I love Focus Spells and how they are implemented in PF2: a farily powerful, character-defining power that you can use in most fights.
The thing about them that I have been asking myself many times is this: why so few options? Don't get me wrong, the actual number of different Focus Spells is quite large, but each individual character won't probably have more than a few available. In my opinion, it would really add to the game experience if, even at low level, you could spend your focus point on more than a single ability.

Let's see how the core classes fare in regard of choice breadth.
Monk, Champion and Ranger only have the option of learning Focus Spells via Class Feats; since they aren't classes based on spellcasting, I think that they are ok.
Barring multiclassing, Wizards can only ever have 2 different Focus Spells, with a single extra option gained through Feat. Sorcerers are limited at 3. Druids and Bards have a baseline of 1-2, but can get a few more with Class Feats. Clerics can actually get more Domains (and thus Focus Spells) if they keep spending Feats.
Outside of the CRB, Witches get 1 free and can get more with Feats (Lessons, but not only); Oracles get 3, with the option of learning up to 3 more.

Now, I have always felt that expecially what is given as baseline, is quite limited. For several levels, as an Angelic Sorcerer, your only Focus use is a boost to Heal spells. As a Conjurer Wizard, you can only boost a summoning spell.
When you gain levels, your options expand a little (usually at the cost of Class Feats), but I still feel that a nice game mechanic is underused: the same Wizard at level 20 is still just boosting their summons, or maybe they took the option for a short-range teleport. As a Witch, you can never have more than a single Hex Cantrip.
Compare that to the wide breadth of regular spells available, even to spontaneous casters.

Maybe gaining a single extra spell as an option is balanced against other Class Feats, but I can't stop thinking that giving at least a couple different Focus Spells (per step) to each bloodline, magic school or domain really wouldn't hurt.
What do you think?

Hello!
A few months ago I made a thread about an introductory adventure I was making for the friends I'm playing PF1 with. The objective is letting them try both PF2 and Foundry VTT.
Things have been going slowly: besides having little time, I also had to learn how to use, and design in, the new framework; but at this point I'm proceeding more steadily and I'm getting near the end.

Coming to the topic, I'm a bit concerned about balancing combat. I will have three players: I know the guidelines and how to apply them, but as you will see I'm mostly looking for advice for a specific part of the scenario I'm writing.
The three PCs will be:
- Human Angelic Sorcerer (Produce Flame as main cantrip, spells are Heal, Bless, Magic Weapon; later Burning Hands, Dispel Magic, Restoration, Spiritual Weapon).
- Half-Orc Liberator Champion (scimitar/shield, Sun domain, Blade Ally at level 3).
- Unbrakable Goblin Monk (tiger style, getting more mileage from his better Step thanks to Goblin Scuttle and the Champion's reaction).

The encounters I have designed so far are:
Level 1, first day - 5x lvl -1 assassins (I gave them low damage, but they can sneak attack. They proved quite hard when I simulated the combat, so I will play them a bit dumb, it's the first fight after all).
Level 1, second day - weak ogre warrior (lvl 3 adjusted to 2); this fight happens after a fall that should inflict some damage, though the party will have a few rounds before the ogre comes, so they can heal if they want.
Level 1, second day - 3x guard dogs (lvl -1) + their trainer (also lvl -1); they will come in a few rounds after the fight with the ogre ends. I plan to make them rise up against their trainer if the PCs scare them enough.
Level 1, second day - 2x crossbowmen (lvl 0) on a roof + horseman (lvl 1, and lvl 1 horse).
Level 2 - rat swarm (lvl 1) + 2x giant rats (lvl -1).
Level 2 - weak centipede swarm (lvl 3 adjusted to 2).
Level 2 - elite hunting spider (lvl 1 adjusted to 2) + web trap.
Level 2 - 3x giant amoeba (lvl 1).
Level 2 - ghast (lvl 2) + bear trap.

Now, for the first scene of level 3 I want to make a kind of gauntlet where the group has to advance inside a graveyard while undead rise from their graves round after round.
There will be 2x skeletal champions (lvl 2) guarding the entrance of the crypt the PCs need to get into, and a zombie brute (lvl 2) attacking them at the start to keep them engaged for a while.
The rest will be just skeletal guards and zombie shamblers (all lvl -1, probably without any special powers), but here comes the problem: how many of them should I add to the combat each round to create the right athmosphere, but without overwhelming the group?
By that point the Champion will probably have a free Disruptive Rune on their blade (since they will know they are going to fight undead), and in general, normal skeletons and zombies should go down pretty quickly.
Has anyone homebrewed something like this, and how did you balance that?

After much discussing and the math I did in the general discussion thread, I came to a new idea to manage Shield Block:

The amount of damage blocked is equal to half your level + your Strength modifier.
The shield's hardness works normally, further reducing damage to the shield itself, but not to the character.

This addresses a number of issues I have with how blocking is working:
1) The effectiveness of the block now scales with the character's skill, and not only with the shield you are using. After all, the fact that an harder shield absorbs more damage never fully convinced me, unless the item is breaking in two and letting the excess force go through.
2) The levels where your shield can't be upgraded see less of a drop in blocking effectiveness.
3) Shields become more durable, and while blocking with a non-sturdy one will probably still break it, at least you are saving yourself enough damage to make it worthwhile.

Besides that, it's another reason to encourage characters to pump Strength, a rather weak stat.

Now let's see some numbers.
At level 1, by the rules, you are blocking 3-5 damage, usually 5, and we have seen that it's a big amount. With my change you are maxed at 4, but a lower Strength build will block less.
Going up, a Strength-focused character will compare to the current rules like this:
Level 4: Sturdy Shield = 8, 1/2 level + Str = 6
Level 7: Sturdy Shield = 10, 1/2 level + Str = 7
Level 10: Sturdy Shield = 13, 1/2 level + Str = 10
Level 13: Sturdy Shield = 15, 1/2 level + Str = 11
Level 16: Sturdy Shield = 17, 1/2 level + Str = 13
Level 19: Sturdy Shield = 20, 1/2 level + Str = 16

We are close, but constantly under the expected amounts. To fix this, Sturdy Shields could give an item bonus to the amount blocked (between +2 and +4), which keeps them better than non-sturdy ones at their job.
Also, abilities like the Champion's Shield Ally should give a similar bonus instead (or together with) increasing the item's hardness.

Now, what happens when you block with an Arrow-Catching shield at level 11?
Average incoming damage is 28. You reduce it by 10 with your reaction, and take 18 damage yourself; your shield instead takes 12, just enough to break it.
In the minimum damage case (17 damage), you take 8 and the shield only 1; with max damage instead (39) you take 29 and the shield survives with 1 HP left.
Criticals are a different beast, and still destroy your shield in most cases.
Not exactly the situation I hoped for, but a still a big step forward IMO.

Do Sturdy Shield become indestructible instead? Well, mostly. Since their main function is now baseline, their bloated hardness is probably unneeded; we can reduce it to numbers that make sense and allow them to be actually damaged by average blows. But I'll come back to this later.

Hi all!
I want to introduce the three friends I'm currently playing PF1 with to the second edition. One of them has got the CRB and has quickly read part of it, while the others only know what we told them.
We will play via vtt, as we are scattered across Europe.

My goal is to show them how the new edition works, its strengths, and its main differences with PF1, without getting into things that are too complicated.
So I'm going to write a small, mostly railroaded adventure, a few sessions long, with just 2-3 encounters and probably something that involves skills before every level up. My idea is something like this:
Level 1: mostly humanoid opponents in a city setting; simple straight fights and some social interaction.
Level 2: a large, abandoned warehouse; fights against rats or insects, including swarms, maybe an ooze, and one or two hazards.
Level 3: graveyard, leading to a small dungeon; lots of undead enemies, maybe another hazard, and some skill challenge;
Level 4: final battle against the necromancer behind it all (severe or even extreme encounter, an eventual TPK is not a problem).

About the characters, I'm thinking about pregens so I can keep things simple, show my friends what has changed and some new mechanics of the game, and not force them to learn anything beforehand.
Considering that there are three players, I was thinking:
- Angelic sorcerer: my friends are well used to vancian casting, but this has the advantage of showing how the Sorcerer has changed, including Focus spells, while keeping things rather simple, and covers healing both inside and outside of combat (I would prefer having Medicine on another character, actually, but I can settle for this).
I could give them human ancestry to grab a decent attack cantrip (probably Produce Flame); at level 2 they will get Divine Blood and add Burning Hands (Sarenrae) to their repertoire, for an offensive AoE option.
- Champion, Liberator of Sarenrae: a sword and board frontliner that will allow my players to try a bunch of new mechanics (shields, weapon traits, reactions, Focus spells again).
- Monk, probably Halfling or Goblin. Another melee character, but with a very different combat style, based on dexterity and mobility. The sneaky one of the group. Will probably have Wolf Stance so they can play with flanking, the flat-footed condition and the Backstabber trait of their attack.

I've got a lot of ideas, but nothing really settled; so I would really like to listen to some suggestions about the adventure or the PCs. Remember my goal: showing as much as possible, but keeping thigs simple.
Thank you in advance!

Hello everyone!
I made a little math to see how long it takes to patch up wounded comrades with the use of Treat Wounds.
I assumed 16 HP at level 1, +8 per level, plus a +2 CON bonus going up with every stat bump; I also assumed a constant 60% success for Treat Wounds, with no criticals.

The average time needed to bring an ally from 0 HP to full is two hours and a half at level 1; it gets cut abruptly to just under two hours at level 2 and then goes quickly down, passing the one hour mark at level 10; the reduction slows down so that by level 20 it's about three quarters of an hour.

Just wanted to share!

I played last night in a PF2 pre-playtest with theorycrafted rules, and my character was a Paladin of Shelyn.

So, the group went to play bowling in the secret room inside the Core Goblin tavern.
At my very first throw I rolled a 20, and I was so excited that my critical success had fell all the pins! But my GM said that I was going to fall, because I striked first.
We spent the rest of the evening arguing. I said that I didn't have any control on the result of the dice, but he was adamant. I think he didn't like my character because she is not LG, and he only allowed it because I had brought pizza.

What do you think? I don't want to fall, the bowling alley is rather hard!

Hello everyone!
I'll make a personal review of the main aspects of the new edition, saying what I like and what I don't, as they have been revealed so far.

Gameplay: 3 actions system - 5/5
I'm excited at the new system (not totally new, actually): it looks easy to understand, but very flexible.
It should allow players to differentiate what they do each turn, making combat more dynamic but still tactical enough.
I also love having different kind of reactions. I'm only concerned about the -10 third iterative attack being something that is only worth doing against very weak opponents, given the risk of a critical miss. I know that a critical miss won't mean anything against most enemies, but when it does, the idea that I'm not only wasting an action but getting retaliated in return is one I don't like much.
It has been pointed that having different actions for different kinds of movement can bring problems when you have to combine them. I'm sure a workaround can be found.
Overall, 5/5 because the system looks very very good, and possible balance problems will likely be addressed during the playtest.

Gameplay: gameplay modes - 5/5
I feel that maybe this wasn't really needed, but it's still nice to have actual rules for exploration and downtime; of course we still don't know much about them, but I'm positive.
There are some cool ideas, like the new initiative thing, and crafting both magic and mundane items seems to have been reviewed. For the better, I'm sure!
I'd like to see how the encumbrance system is going to work, but I'm happy that it's going to be addressed somehow.
I give 5/5 because all changes I see here are probably for good.

Gameplay: degrees of success - 4/5
This is something I've always been thinking about. A paralyzing spell or effect that is partially resisted and results in a simple slowing down? Yes, please!
Rewriting spells to limit the power of 'save or suck' is very welcome, and this system seems like a perfect solution.
The fact that the +10/-10 rule is applied everywhere (attacks, saves and skills), is a good thing too.
Personally, I would have gone even further. I dream of a more dynamic system where every +5 allows to add something to the success (more damage on a hit, an aid to allies on a save, etc.) and every -5 makes the failure worse (the opponent can add such effects, for example, but you could even have the option to 'eat' one more negative extra thing to be allowed to reroll for success on the main task). I recon that it may be very complicated to have options like this for every kind of situation.
The only thing that really concerns me is the automatic successes or failures on naturals 20s and 1s. I think that they somehow break a good, consistent system, but we need to see how often they lead to inconsistent results in actual play. So, 4/5.

Gameplay: proficiencies and skill feats - 4/5
While in general the proficiences/skill feats system looks very nice, we don't really know to what extent it will alleviate the infamous martial/caster disparity problem.
What can a legendary axeman do with its weapon? Can a master stealther actually become invisible? How late will these potentally cool abilites be available, compared to spells?
Issues that have been highlighted are the need to reference the rules to know what a certain proficiency level can and cannot do (and it may slow down the game a bit), and expecially the fact that a +5 difference between untrained and legendary proficiency may be too small when you add character level to everything.
About this, I think that the playtest will prove if it is too small or not; I'm not worried about math, and I like the design goal behind it instead: not having tasks that are auto-success for a competent character and utterly impossible for the others, at any given level. Comparing a lvl 1 character with a lvl 20 one is a nonsense.
So, proficiencies and skill feats look good but we don't have enough informations about what they will make possible, thus 4/5.

Gameplay: death rules - 1/5
I don't think that death rules needed a revision, and I don't like how it has been done. At all. I find it both complicated and not realistic: if HPs are an abstraction for how hard it is to kill a character, why ignore them as soon as they go to zero? I really don't get why going into the negatives was so wrong.
Getting rid of non-lethal damage may be a good thing, but I'd like to see more details about that. Overall, 1/5.

Magic - 3/5
We still don't know much about how spellcasting will work, but we have received some indiscretions:
-we still have a Vancian system (no change, it seems);
-spells now span 10 levels (not a big difference);
-we have cantrips but they are not lvl 0 spells (does it only matter for metamagic?);
-many spells have been rewrote (good thing);
-effects now scale with spell level, while the DC goes up with the character.
The last one is the biggest change we know of: how will it impact the game? It's been said already that blasts will be stronger, but more limited as you have to upcast them; I find it a good thing. Control spells, instead, keep their utility even if cast from lower-level slots, and as they were already the stronger ones this could mean that casters are still the gods of the battlefield.
We don't know anything about the gamebreaking spells, but they will probably still be around.
In general, I don't see anything particularly good, except for the fact that each spell is going to be reviewed in consideration of the new action system and the multiple degrees of success. 3/5.

Resonance - 2/5
I don't like the concept. Tracking a single resource for different uses/day items has its merit, but having to realy on resonance for a healing potion scares me, and I also never felt the 'christmas tree' thing was a really big problem.
The CLW wand is an ugly thing, but it serves it purpose to prolong the adventuring day very well. I'm happy to see that groups can still use wands, but have to take ones that are closer to their power level; but resonance can become another reason to stop the adventuring and make camp.
I hope that it will play better than it sounds. Maybe a guaranteed minimum-effect when out of resonance could help with that; I give 2/5.

Character creation and levelling: in general - 4/5
I love options. So, I'm happy that the developers promised us that they are not cutting down the complexity of character creation, while trying to make it easier rules-wise.
When I read about ancestry-background-class I thought it was a perfect system: you can choose your 'race' with more details then before, get proficiencies and/or feats thanks to your background, and then set your further progression by choosing a class. I really hope that backgrounds will grant enough so that, together will the first level class feats, you can have a character that is 'unique' and at least basically competent in its field; at the same time, since you get as much from your background as you do from the first level in your class, multiclassing wouldn't let you abuse the system by dipping a single level for powerful class feats.
We still don't know much about backgrounds. There's some speculation about archetypes and multiclassing. The modular system they are building with feats allow for interesting ideas, we'll see.
I say 4/5 for potential. Judging by what I have seen about the other stuff, I fear that I will be disappointed by how backgrounds will be implemented, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Character creation and levelling: ancestries - 2/5
While I don't care about the word used, if they mean 'more than a race' (Varisian Human, Wood Elf...) I'm happy with that. If they give feats throughout all the character progression, that's good too.
But so far, I must say that I don't see much of this. Dwarves are just Dwarves, with the usual ability score bonuses and penalties, slow speed and some feats that can be chosen instead of others. Do they scale with level? Can I take more powerful ones when I'm a level 15 Dwarf?
It seems like they took the PF 1e racial abilities, made them into options and spread them over the 20 levels. How does this make me feel 'more dwarfy' when in the current edition I already have all of that by level 1?
About goblins, I'd rather have something different in core, but I don't mind too much. I don't play PFS, after all.
I really hope I'm wrong on this and that there is much more they haven't still told us, but it's 2/5 for me.

Character creation and levelling: classes - 3/5
Classes should give you some basic abilities that scale with your level, along with a choice of progressively stronger feats. Feats (expecially general feats) should be options, not flat bonuses lest they become a tax to keep being competent at what you already can do.
Has this been fulfilled by what they have previewed? It seems so.
We don't have the full progression, but the Rogue's sneak attack hints at an increasing number of damage dice, and they say that the Alchemists will do increasing damage with their 'bombs'.
The previewed class feats all look like nice options.
I share the general concern that characters may be a bit weak and uninteresting at low levels, but again it depends on how backgrounds will be implemented.
What I'm baffled at are the level requirements to take some class feats that are hardly gamebreaking. I hope to see some adjustments to them, and the introduction of REALLY powerful feats at higher levels. Things that can be compared with spells.
I mean, at level 14 a Fighter can become so skilled with her shield that she can use that against AoE attacks. Wow. By that level, a Wizard can probably cast Disintegrate a few times per day.
A disintegrating melee attack may be a bit too much, unless you limit its usage somehow, but that's the kind of feats I'd like to see.
So far, thus, I like the design basics but not much how classes have been implemented: 3/5.

Did I forget something? I may add more later.

EDIT: some typos.

Hi all,
I doubt that this could be implemented in PF 2e, but it's something I have often been thinking about.

I find rather strange that an attacker has the same chance of hitting a living god of war (lvl 20 Fighter) and a lowly commoner wearing the same equipment, barring the little difference that Dexterity and feats like Dodge may bring.
I think that the first defense against melee attacks is the skill of the combatant: dodging, parrying, blocking with a shield; armor is a second line of defense that works when you didn't avoid that swing in the first place.
Fighting a much better swordsman than you should mean that you can't land any blow at all, whether he is wearing a full plate or no armor: he won't offer you any opening in his defense, and your attemps at hitting him will probably open you to an easy counterattack instead (and that fail-by-10=fumble rule is perfect in this sense).

My suggestion is: AC should go up along with your fighting skill (BaB, or however it will be called). How much? I guess +1 every two points of attack, roughly.
This would help a lot with touch AC, too.
I wouldn't even make ranged attacks an exception, because a skilled combatant will probably make aiming at him more difficult and can still block better if he has a shield, and why not, even deflect the projectile with his weapon.

Being flat-footed (=flanked) would negate this AC bonus, instead: if you are not aware, you can't actively defend yourself. This is huge, but it makes sense to me that a Rogue surprising said super-skilled Fighter has a much higher chance of succesfully backstabbing him.

What do you think?

I've been thinking about this alternative initiative system for years now, and the other thread convinced me to make a post about it and let the discussion start.

My idea is handling combat time as a continuum instead of splitting it into rounds.
So, let me introduce you to 'time units', each 0.3 seconds long (so that a round equals 20 time units).

During combat there is a time count, starting at zero (or -10, or something like that in case of surprise). Everyone rolls initiative, and writes down theirs. Low is good!
Time starts flowing: the time count goes up until it matches the lowest current initiative; that player - or monster - plays his turn, then he increases his initiative by a number that depends on the actions he took; rinse and repeat.

What doesn't change from PF standard initiative system:
- Combatants can still take a full round worth of actions altogether, and choose their actions when their turn is up.
- Tracking the durations of spells and other effects - actually, I think it's easier and more accurate: expiration is set at current time count + (rounds * 20).

Pros (mostly added options):
- Combatants have the option to split their actions, taking only a standard or a move... or a swift. This should cost more time than taking a full turn, but it gives a chance to implement different tactics, and removes sillinesses like 'no sorry, you can't use a standard actions in place of a swift'.
- The move + full attack option many people seem to like may become an option: you can do it, but you also spend more time doing that (unless you can Pounce).
- If you want to add some randomness, you can add a die roll to the initiative count each time you act, on top of the normal action time cost.
- One could develop a system where the time it takes to swing a weapon depens on the kind of weapon used.

Cons:
- A little more bookkeeping, but I believe it's not really much when you get used to the system.
- Initiative bonuses may have to be reworked a bit: you could just subtract them from the initial roll, but I think some problems may arise. On the other hand, one could decide to consider those bonuses (or part of them) every time a combatant takes its turn, making swift characters act more often, instead of just going first when the combat starts.

Questions? Ideas? Critiques?

Hello everyone!
A thing I read on another thread spun an idea in my head... villain points!

It's true that lone enemies in Pathfinder are generally not a big threat due to action economy, and it's a pity because the idea of the "final boss" fight is very cinematic.
In D&D 5e they try to fix this with legendary actions (and the likes): I find that a very cool idea, though I don't know if it really works or not.
So, I thought about a way to introduce a similar thing in Pathfinder: giving some special enemies their own Hero Points - Villain Points!
The rules would be similar to the PC counterpart; in particular:

Act Out of Turn: ok, helps with action economy.
Bonus: ok, should help the villain making his escape or passing save-or-suck checks, giving him survaivability.
Extra Action: ok, helps with action economy.
Inspiration: doesn't make sense, removed.
Recall: ok, gives one more trick to the villains, though they usually don't fight more than once during the day.
Reroll: ok, helps survaivability.
Special: being total GM fiat, I'm wary about this. I'd say this kind of usage is removed.
Cheat Death: this one works differently. Cheating death but falling unconscious is useless to the lone NPC, so I'm inclined towards toning up this option: the villain can ignore and remove all hostile conditions, or heal up to half his maximum HP.

The number of Villain Points available would depend on the importance of the enemy: a mini-boss will probably have 1 (thus denying him the Cheat Death ability), while the campaign final boss ultra-BBEG could have 3, or even more.

As a GM, I would be careful about using rerolls and bonuses offensively, as the problem with lone bosses is that they are usually lethal enough on their own, but could miss the opportunity to much due to lack of actions and/or a poorly rolled save. On the other hand, succesfully landing their signature ability on a particularly resilient PC, or making an expecially deadly attack just before falling, could be interesting options.

What do you think about it?

I say hello to this awesome community, and go straight to the point.
I'm thinking about a way to give a value to stats, abilities, skills, basically evertyting possible.
There are already plenty of "point-buy class" threads, but while my idea could be helpful to give some balance to homebrew classes (and by the way I'm trying to make some, I'll post about them sooner or later), I'm trying to start from a different point of view.

My foundation will be feats. Why? Because there are a lot, doing many different things other abilities can somehow be related to, and they basically all have the same cost. In general, I'll try to assume that even choices given by Paizo will be balanced (though we all know they are not, at least not always), so I'll start by saying that every feat is worth is worth 60 points (I chose this number because of divisibility matters).
Consequently, a trait is worth 30 points.

Let's come to the first question. How much are skill points and HP worth? They are worth the same because of favoured class bonus.
One HP per level is worth 60 because it's similar to the Toughness feat (besides the fact that Toughness is better at levels 1 and 2), but how much should be a flat max HP bonus be valued? How many HP would be enough to spend a feat for?
It varies with level, so let's say at level 1 (to give a price to the starting full hit die). I think I could spend a feat for 5 or 6 HP. What do you think?