Philippe Perreault's page

Let me get this straight... you're telling us that Rogues do insane damage and then give us an example of a multiclass into two other classes.

Well... that's the same logic of saying Wizards need to be boosted because a burning hands do a pityfull amount of damage when you're level 20!

What do you guys think of granting bonus feats with bonus intelligence to boost it.

Is it overpowered?
What if we grant only bonus skill and general feats? Or only skill feats?

Philippe Perreault wrote:

I've read the new resonance rules and I'm having a question about the alchemist's Alchemy ability.

It is my understanding, after reading the rules, that the alchemist who crafts his bombs at the beginning of the day using Advanced Alchemy is loosing items slots so he can use his bombs. Am I reading correctly?

Nope. This is actually one of the changes I'm happiest about, since I agree with you about Alchemist's main problems.

In the new rules, Alchemists use their new Reagents resource for both Advanced Alchemy and Quick Alchemy.

I'm glad for that answer but, since you're contradicting me, I want to make sure about the right answer. Specifically, what does it mean when the rules for alchemy states:

Does that not mean that the items then cost some of your 10 resonance points?

I've read the new resonance rules and I'm having a question about the alchemist's Alchemy ability.

It is my understanding, after reading the rules, that the alchemist who crafts his bombs at the beginning of the day using Advanced Alchemy is loosing items slots so he can use his bombs. Am I reading correctly?

If that is so, I'm still disliking those rules because it was THE worse problem for the alchemist in this playtest. It's inconcievable that the alchemist cannot have a cloak because he looses his main ability.

And it's the main problem I see with this resonance playtest in regards to merging spell points and focus points. It's bad enought that the alchemist has been rendered obsolete as a class because of the resonance limiting two separte things and now they want to send the cleric, druid, dwarf, monk sorcered and wizard in the same Nerf-boat.

I think the bolstered mechanism would be an better fix for the 1st level wand spam than resonance.

In my opinion, put bolstered as an effect to wands and other problematic items and you can get rid of resonace and the silly nonsence it creates like bag of holding being completely unusable as it is written. (before updates, at any rate)

Yes, that was an hyperbole...

I was looking at the 6 second round / 3 action per round paradigm and it suspends my suspension of disbelief when I see the quickness wich can be achieved in a round.

You can walk - not run - walk for 3 actions for a total of 60 feet if your small and 75 feet if you're medium. It's olympics-level speed.

I challenge anyone to post a video where you:
- walk 75 feet in 6 seconds.
- walk 50 feet, assume a fighting stance and throw a punch at a dummy.
- walk 25 feet, plant your feet firmly then raise your hand above your head tehn say, clearly, "shield".

I think the only one achievable in 6 seconds is casting a spell (my last example).

6 seconds is too short a time for a round for me. I know that it doesn't matter in the mechanic of it all but a 1-minute round would be better for my sense of verisimilitude thatn a 6-second round.

Am I the only one?

Edit: I did the math: Usain Bolt's running speed is 65. It's walking speed should be half so 30-35. An elf with nimble at level 1. Any medium-sized monk at level 3.

Note that spell DC is based on the caster's primary stat, which will be probably higher than Strength/Dexterity which is used to calculate attack rolls.

That is incorrect. Both the caste's primary stat and the Strenght/Dexterity will be 18 at 1st level in the vast majority of PCs.

The only difference will be, as mentionned earlier, TAC vs regular AC.

Agreed, when the math assumes magic items are a necessary factor, the game's scope becomes narrower. GMs are forced to dole out magic items on the regular, and even if the number of uber necessary magic items has shrunk compared to PF1 (Just weapons, armor and 1 stat item now), the same is not true for someone looking to be good at skills.

I think Paizo should just remove +X bonuses from magic items altogether, cut down the number of available magic items severely and think up unique effects for the items that are available. That will make magic items feel more exciting to acquire. Of course, this implies that the bonuses granted by magic items will be baked into leveling, or the DC scaling just removes these assumed bonuses altogether. The first option requires less work to change, so I'm hoping they go with that, or at least offer an official variant where these bonuses are granted by leveling and remove the magic item dependency from the game.

Agreed. Any magic item as a necessary factor is bad. Especially in tsPaizo show with wealth by level and magic items tables. It means that nobody can have a cool cornercase item because their "level" 5 item is stuck on being a weapon.

I think the problem lies in the magic item have level concept that needs to be brought along a dark alley and shot in the head repeatedly, it's ashes scattered to the end of the earth.

I'd go one step further and ask why is healing only accessible to divine or primal caster? Thematically, anyone who can harness the power of the universe should be able to mend tendons and stich veins.

Give access to healing to every caster. There's no logical reason to deny wizard and sorcerer healing except game-balance and legacy reason.

Heck, every class should have an healing ability.

So no reason then...

I'm glad the forum could help me with my inquiries.

Is there a myth-related reason why blue dragons breathe electricity, are lawful evil and specialize in illusions?

That comment would be pertinent if elves had always been faster.

Since they're not, my question remains.

Well there must be a myth-related reason to say elves are fast.

And I'm trying to find a reason other than Tolkien who saw elves as "bigger, better, faster, more".

Can someone point me to stories or myths to explain why Elves are faster than everyone else?

I'm genuinely baffled.

It looks like it's just a bonus given to them to separate them from, say, human. I'd think it was just a bonus but given that D&D 4th ed gave the same bonus, I'M thinking there's a real-life reason for it.

Can someone explain it to me?

Heck, that chapter should be called "Spells and Powers" as it stands.

Philippe Perreault wrote:

18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

As someone who actually played a fair bit of 4th Ed., I need to call out this hyperbole. Gamers tend to exaggerate the effect of character building decisions, but there were many character builds that involved unique race/class combinations that didn't have perfect offensive attributes (the old Eladrin Barbarian Fey Charger comes to mind). Being at a -1 on everything was an annoyance, but in 4e what mattered most was your feat/power/gear choices, not your initial attributes, as long as you were playing to win (i.e., not building a 10 Str. Fighter).

Pathfinder 2E seems to be doing something similar. Want an optimal offensive attribute? Here. It's easy. Want to be more well-rounded? Also easy. We're seeing, with all the math tightening, that level, item, power, and circumstance bonuses matter more than having an optimized offensive stat array, which is a good thing. Time will tell if that +1 really matters at high levels, but IF the difference between having an 18 and a 16 (or a 22 and a 20) at high levels is the difference between a playable and unplayable character, then PF2 would really be a failed system.

While I'm on the subject, that specific Eladrin Fey Charger build was a perfect example of what character customization should feel like. You took a race/class combination that didn't seem effective, along with an under-utilized weapon set, and gave them all combined a really cool synergy that played to their unique strengths in a way that produced a viable character that actually seemed like a unique entity. I wish we could see more elements of that kind of design in PF2.

I didn't play a lot of 4E and I was going by what I was told so i'm going to take your word for it.

Anybody who just read the character creation rules can understand how to get 18 in their primary stat.

I was wondering if this was a design choice? Because I think it's a poor choice overall.

You have to wait 10 whole levels before stats boost does something relevant and even then, it gives you a measly +1 bonus. You don't have a sense of progression that you get everywhere else on your character.

18 in a stat used to represent something great and rare. Not anymore. Not since D&D 4th where you HAD to have 18 in your stat or else you would be crippled for your entire career.

Nowadays, every fighter and their uncle have 18 in strenght. 18 is the the new normal?

I'm wondering if it's really what we want for the game.

I suggest that 18 should be something to strive for. If you want 18 at the get-go it should cost you. I'm thinking it should cost you a general feat or an ancestry feat. The time it took you to develop those muscles (or brain or charm) in your youth is the time that you didn't spend on something else like weapon training or train your keen eyes.

And if you don't have 18? Well, stats boost will give you a direct benefit until you reach 18. You have 5 level tops where you are 1 point behind the better a humanoid can achieve. Best of all, it gives you a sense of advancement.

Am I the only one who think that 18 is too easily achievable?

I feel like people are overestimating most ancestry feats. Sure, they can pretty well round up your character concept. But they seem pretty low in power compared to class feats, so "missing" one ancestry feat doesn't seem very harsh to me.

I agree with this.

Which is why I feel that gaining one of those lackluster feats at level 13 and 17 is just depressing.

Talonhawke wrote:

That's the thing though under this system not every elf is trained in those weapons. Not every single elf no matter who or where they were in the world learned to use bows. Now it's player choice on those parts. Not simply dictated as the CRB did for 1E that all elves even those who are blind from birth and those who never grew up around and elf genetically could use them.

Well, I really like "you only have the ancestry features you want" as an idea, since I spent a lot of time trying to get rid of Greedy and Hatred on my more enlightened Dwarves without giving up Hardy.

It just feels weird how staggered they are throughout your career, which may be exacerbated by virtually all of the options in the playtest CRB being level 1. Perhaps if there were some actual "this makes sense for a Dwarf to get at level 9 but not earlier" options it'd be easier.

I think ancestry could be cool if it was the done way ultimate race handled the racial traits of mix-and-match.

I think everybody would love having 4-5 ancestral feats at level 1 to select what they want their dwarf to be like with a plethora of feats to choose from.

5th-7th-13th and 17th feat choice could be for improvement on those base feats like the various 5th level weapon feats are now.

It gets even more weird when you consider retraining during downtime.

"I used to be able to see clearly in the dark but now I can't.
But those orcs won't stand a chance now!"

From what i'm reading in the ancestry section, I can't find a single reason why anyone would play a halfling. They have nothing going for them.

Dwarves have HP.
Elves have speed.
Humans have customisations and great ancestry feats.

when you look at the "small races",
Gnomes have more HP and low-light vision than halfling for a reduced speed.
Goblins are exactly like halflings but have darkvison on top of that.

while halfling have... nothing.

What I propose is to give the halfling 2 more HP. They are the "humans" of small races. No special vision but decent base HP and moves.

As it stands, I see no reason except roleplay to pick halfling as my ancestry.

Please discuss ways to help them feel somethin other than "humans, but small"

Respectfully, I disagree with OP.

I've seen and ran about 2 dozens RPG systems. I can get the jist of a system in one read-thru. I'm not claiming system mastery yet but I can see some things at first glance like:

- half-elf and half-orc look like a feat tax.
- +level bonus on every roll are totally cancelled by +level bonus on every roll of monsters and/or NPCs. It just help to give impressive numbers (my 19th level paladin rolled a 45 on his to hit!.. it missed because that was actually a 7 on the d20)

and so I think constructive criticism can be given within 24 hours of the launch.

and so far, I'm seeing the D&D 4th debacle looming.

But I haven't read everything yet. I'm still in the classes chapter.

OP is completely wrong... this is a carbon copy of D&D 4th edition.
Items levels... check.
Monster levels ... check.
Bonus of your level on every roll... check.

at least the actions you can do are not divided in "encounter" and "daily"... yet.

I think it's ridiculous for a character that decides to attack another to be totally unprepared to defend himself for the better part of 6 seconds just because he lost the initiative roll. He's ready for a fight since he just declared to the DM he's attacking.

Just like I think it's ridiculous for someone who just saw his opponent vanish in mid-combat because he drank a potion to stand still, totally defenseless and unprepared to defend himself for as long as the invisible guy wants before attacking. You know he's there. You know the blow is coming. But you just stand there, slack-jawed, because the rules say that you are flat footed against invisible characters.

I also think it's ridiculous that flat footedness proportionnaly affect more the dex guy that the dumb brute who rely on his armor and couldn't get away from a dagger flying at his head if he was moving in slow-motion matrix-style.

Flat foot should be a flat negative to AC.

a short list of essential spells would be 4 spell long for every level since this is what you get for free upon leveling.

Looking at the 1st level, I seem to always pick:
Magic Missile
Shield OR Mage armor, usually shield
Protection from Evil
Feather fall

the rest is just bonus.

On second level:
Invisibility
Knock
See invisibility

On third level, I have a harder time picking because there's so many good choices...
Fly
Fireball (can be substituted with lightning bolt)
Haste
Protection from energy
Tongue
Dispel Magic
and I usually get many more in scroll/potion/spellbook.

Philippe Perreault wrote:

4e tells you how many magic item of what level the Dm should give between level. It also tells you you should have X encounter of CR equal to level-2, Y of level-1,Z of level, etc.

It tells you that by X level, all the players should have +Y armor, weapons, stat boost, etc.

It so mindnumbingly removes the feel of a RPG and brings (in me) the feel of a board game that I stopped playing 4e fast. WBL does the same thing to me.

Pathfinder makes the same assumptions: that by certain levels, characters will have magic items of a certain level, etc. Except Pathfinder doesn't bother to make clear to the GM exactly what those assumptions are, which can make keeping things balanced difficult for some. 4E at least gives DMs the information to make adjusting things easier if they DON'T adhere to the games assumptions.

Yes and that's what bothers me. As per my answer to the original post question.

Philippe Perreault wrote:

Wealth by level. I've yet to play in a game that adhere to this rules (thank god!). Also, CR and EL guidelines.

You want to play a story, not a board game. Let the DM find his own pace and let the story dictate whether they should have a keep by 11th level or merely having a +2 armor.

If I wanted to play that way, I'd play 4th edition.

That's...not how 4e works at all.

4e tells you what +X's the PCs need to keep the game running smoothly. Essentially it's 3.x's WBL guidelines -- except that the 4e guidelines tell you which particular items the game assumes that the PCs have. (+X by Y level.) And 4e provides an official variant (inherent bonuses) for groups who don't want to 'play a board game' as you say.

Oh, and while I'm debunking 4e myths, wish listing is 100% optional!

4e tells you how many magic item of what level the Dm should give between level. It also tells you you should have X encounter of CR equal to level-2, Y of level-1,Z of level, etc.

It tells you that by X level, all the players should have +Y armor, weapons, stat boost, etc.

It so mindnumbingly removes the feel of a RPG and brings (in me) the feel of a board game that I stopped playing 4e fast. WBL does the same thing to me.

While the proponent of having the AoO before the target is prone may have the correct interpretation of the rule, that interpretation opens a chain-trip trigger that lets people abuse the rule by doing between 2 to 10 attack of opportunity depending on how many people are near the target.

And the problem is aggravated when you count on a druid wildshaped on an animal with the trip ability with, say, a tripping wolf companion.

As such, I vastly prefer granting a +4 on ONE AoO than letting one foe suffer 100+ damage because of one trip attempt.

Otherwise, I'd have to disallow many trip builds and that's just not fun for the PC who wanted to play that.

Also i will ask again if i can take 2 swifts around why did the call out that you cant quicken 2 spells around? I just seems redundent.

Copy-paste from 3.0 edition that has never been reworded even with the advent of swift action.

Philippe Perreault wrote:

WBL is only a suggestion and the DM is under no obligation to follow those guidelines. The DM is certainly under no obligation to add loot to make up for a cohort's equipment.

the player has NO right to complain to the GM that his "character is low on gear and that he needs to make with the loot".

That's an obtuse statement if I've ever heard one. Of course a player has a right to complain. If the situation merits it.

Also to help you:

Table: Character Wealth by Level lists the amount of treasure each PC is expected to have at a specific level. Note that this table assumes a standard fantasy game. Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value. It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased.

oh, the player can complain all he wants... it won't change the fact that the DM decides. It's not like he can wave a contract around and demand WBL. It's the DM who doles out the loot and there's nothing a player can do but try to influence the DM's decision.

Like I said, the player has no RIGHT to loot.

And I don't know you quote WBL to me... It's not like it's a rule like AC that is immuable. It's merely a guideline to be followed or ignored as the DM and the story warrants.

WBL is only a suggestion and the DM is under no obligation to follow those guidelines. The DM is certainly under no obligation to add loot to make up for a cohort's equipment.

the player has NO right to complain to the GM that his "character is low on gear and that he needs to make with the loot".

WBL is an artificial construct who should be ignored thouroughly. It's not a rule, just a guideline. It's only usefull in convention so that a character is not wholly underpowered when he switches group. Even then, in 5 minutes, the party ca be balanced by giving away stuff or taking away stuff.

But the OP is asking an interesting question. Why half price? Why not 1/5th? 4th edition (boo! hiss!) was selling stuff for 1/5 of it's price. It got you thinkingabout "do I want to sell this or can it be usefull?" far more than selling for half.

And the answer is simple: Original D&D was selling stuff for half price. The rule was never revisited until 4th.

But feel free to change your game as you see fit, since WBL is an artificial construct who need to be shot in the dark and sent down to the bottom of the river for all the trouble it gave us.