Previloc's page

… if you can just shake it with an action I'm not sure it'll be so good because they will rarely have reason to NOT do that, and thus you will likely just be spending an action (that attributes to your MAP for that round) to maybe force them to spend an action that doesn't contribute to their MAP.

Yes, that's at the balance of making a skill action too useful, versus useless. These actions (like shove and trip) need to be situational, and I liked the idea of disarm relying on a reaction to both preparation and use of the item (ignoring the opposition's success provoking a consequence). You could drop the whole 're-steady' action mechanic and make the Enfeebled 2 last until the end of your next turn.

Ironically, I don't like Aid Another being dependent on both an action and reaction. I like Aid Another as a reaction with a Skill Roll. If you spend an action to prepare and Aid, I think you should just get the +2 (and avoid that Critical Failure possibility).

I liked Enfeebled 2 leading to a Disarm because it didn't require the Break Hold action nor require a new special state - a character can be Enfeebled for other reasons and thus provoke a Disarm by using a weapon/item without a steady grip.

I was also going to object to the restrictions on disarming edged weapons ... but then I realized (that) is probably equivalent to a specific class level and/or feat. XD

You read my mind.

Do you … (have players) bring in a level 1 character if their level 6 one dies?

Yes … (as per) old school D&D'ers

First off, level gain is entirely in the DM's hand except in organized play, or if you think D&D is a boardgame and you have to follow all the book rules. So, no matter what Paizo publishes, you can do whatever you want in your own campaign. I recommend story based leveling, and awareness of (and control of) character total equipment value.

As a player since the 70's, character death and campaign continuence have always been a big issue, and typically flavors the campaign. Inheritance, start over at 1, hoarders, and gimmicks emphasize rules over story, and ruined many a player experience. I quickly learned that I didn't enjoy playing games that rewarded CYA play, and kept risk takers or the creative as second class citizens. I enjoyed games that focused on all the players having fun and contributing together on somewhat balanced resources. I disliked playing in games that kept PCs of players that couldn't make all the games (work, life, school, illness) a level or two down - and in some cases, invented mechanics that kept them there.

RPGs can easily devolve into accounting, penalyzing characters that are generous, or players that realistically have thier characters spend money like sailors on shore leave. In concert with my players, I've developed mechanics to free players from thinking they'll be penalized if they don't personally utilize everything they run across (anyone heard of "Greyhawking the bodies"?) or if they fail to spend half thier time trying to find everything. The game feels grittier if PCs are kept lean, but miserly if they don't find wealth and then feel free to share it. It doesn't have to be a boardgame, nor a computer game.

Bottom line - run the game that strikes the best balance of fun for everyone in the group, and you're most likely to have the best group experience. The rules are guidelines.

If you want more healing, play multiple Clerics tuned differently. Take Multiclass feats if you dislike the Class feats. What essential thing is any other single class bringing to the table that the party can't do without? Other classes have value too, and my point is that having all the healing focused in one class isn't good for the game. Play without a Cleric and then report on how a Cleric wouldn't've added anything.

(Heal)... propped up the rest of the class features being largely terrible.

Although I think the Cleric class feats are pretty weak, the other features are pretty good. They shouldn't have a selection of spells as good as pure casters, they get hit points, armor, skills, spell abilities, and additional max leveled spell slots with one of the best spells. For example, Serenrae provides as much blasting as a wizard - and you've still got Channels.

I'm against Clerics hoarding all the healing because then your back to the party healing slave - let Clerics use thier actions for some fun.

…(this is wrong)… When you have 3+CHA channels, you've got lots of Heal. You can use your spell slots for something else

Slots isn't the answer for Actions - If you had 100 channels and the party needs healing at range, all the Clerics actions are spent healing. You wouldn't get a chance for other 2 action spells.

Anyway, for most of the game you'll only need one or two high level slots for Heal - get a Staff of Healing and spontaneously change those cool alternatives to Heal when that's needed.

That makes the healbot problem worse, because before the healing was covered without requiring the few strong spell slots Clerics had. Now they're more likely to be Heal, leaving you less room for anything else.

The problem is if only 1 class has all the heals.

My idea of fun is an occasional attack action (or skill check, or yes, sometimes cast a different spell - not be the only one who can heal), not spending the game healing. Other characters could take an occasional action out to do a Heal. My point about Hoarding is that if the party needs 3+ channels, it's meaningless to a party that doesn't have a Cleric (doesn't show up, dies, or is in a trap). If you gave several (or all) other classes a single Channel to go with choice of deity (and guidelines, etc.), and left the Cleric at CHA, you'd end up with similar or the same number of heals (that actually scaled better with party scale). Paladin, Druid, Bard, and Divine Sorcerer are simple answers, and the others fit with characters the least devoted.

… Let alone if you wanted to actually use something like Channel Smite, which is just a flat out bad idea.

Don't disagree - most of the time. Sometimes the alternative uses come in handy, and it's a good option.

… most of the class feats are bad and spells per day was nerfed too hard. Add it all up and you had a class that was reliant on Channel to work … which then got nerfed with nothing else changing.

Still not disagreeing with class feats - I took the PFPT Cleric to be a multiclass base, after Reach and/or Healing Hands (both of which are quite good). The class has good hit points, skills (not 2/lvl), and the potential for a good weapon proficiency and/or spell point powers.

Spells: Magic Weapon? Disrupting Weapons (with Reach)? Protection? all pretty decent - Sleep/ColorSpray/True Strike/BurningHands/Magic Missile...and that's 1st level. Not up to classes without much armor proficiency, but it shouldn't be...and with a Staff of Healing, you can always change the spell into something that is useful more often than any other spell.

Everybody has the same number of spells (so Cleric isn't nerfed), and I prefer domain spells on the list rather than a single bonus. Cleric gets CHA extra max level spells of the most useful spell in the book - what other caster class gets that?

The issue here is less that Channel needed changing, because having the entire class reliant on Channel wasn't good.

I think the issue is that the party is dependent on Healing, only the Cleric has it in any quantity, and it just got reduced. If the party is reliant on channeling, that means that any party is dependent on someone in a single class - so someone has to be the cleric. If you won't go adventuring without a Cleric, how can you say that the Cleric is falling short?

I love that additional significance to UTEML, rather than attempting more proficiency levels or relying totally on skill modifier.

I'd like to simply double the original modifiers (-4, 0, +2, +4, +6) - because that can still work for saves, to hits, and skills.

For "I want to know what to do", such a scaled proficiency system gives you the ability to lower (or raise) the DC based on actor proficiency higher (or lower) than the nominal you think is right. If you have a task DC, that's a difficulty and level (table 10-2) - for PCs with greater proficiency (easy/untrained, moderate/trained, etc.), you can drop the DC a level - and visa versa. This is because the +1 (or so) for proficiency level is, by itself, virtually meaningless on a d20 roll.

And (imo) any general fix to the Skill system needs to account for Armor ACP in the language (where an Easy task for a character keeping up might not be so easy with a -5),... And (imo) table 10-2 needs to start off with a meaningful definition of the differences between difficulty levels (at least +2), apply it consistently, and grow that over total level gain.

Disarm is a low percentage shot because it can break the game (as designed) when it's just attacker dice rolls. What about an implementation that, like trip and shove, work more like an action tax/choice? Just brainstorming here...

Add to any Gauntlet entry in 6-5(pg180) the keyword "Disarm" and "Worn"
Add to any Shield entry in 6-5(pg180) the keyword "Worn"
Add to the Parry keyword description(pg182) and the new Worn keyword, that these weapons can't be successfully Disarmed.

Action: Break Hold (Athletics(trained) vs Reflex, targets an item held by another within your reach with either a weapon with the "Disarm" keyword, or your free hand if targeting a weapon that isn't a Knife or Sword, or a non-weapon item.
Special Circumstances: You have a penalty to Break Hold targeting and item held in both hands equal to the wielder's Strength modifier. In addition, a Break Hold action against a Worn item automatically Fails.

Description: You attempt to weaken an opponent's grasp of an item, so that you may be able to disarm them.

Success: The opponent is Enfeebled 2 using that weapon or item.

The opponent may spend an action to remove that Enfeebled 2 condition (steady grip).
Special: an Opponent with Quick Draw may steady grip as a Reaction to this effect, or any opponent may spend a Reaction to attempt an Acrobatics vs Reflex to steady grip.

Critical Success: You knock the item from the wielder's grasp, and it falls to the ground in thier space.

Critical Failure: You lose your balance and become Flat Footed until the end of your next turn. If you used a weapon with the Disarm property for this action, and it is not "Worn", you may drop the weapon immediately, instead of becoming Flat Footed.

Reaction: Disarm (Athletics(trained) vs Reflex, targets an item used with an action and held by another with the Enfeebled 2 (or higher) condition that is within your reach, with either a weapon with the "Disarm" keyword, or your free hand if targeting a weapon that isn't a Knife or Sword, or a non-weapon item.

Description: You attempt to knock an item out of the hand of a target that does not have a firm grip.

Success: You knock the item from the wielder's grasp, and if falls to the ground in that space. If you are using a Free Hand weapon or your free hand for the Disarm, you may attempt an Acrobatics vs Reflex to catch the weapon in that hand.

Critical Success: You knock the item from the wielder's grasp, and it falls to the ground in a direction of your choosing to the side or away from you, a number of squares equal to your Strength modifier, minus the Bulk of the item, a minimum of 0 squares. Alternatively, if you are using a Free Hand weapon or your free hand for the Disarm, you may catch the disarmed item in that hand.

Critical Failure: You lose your balance and become Flat Footed until the end of your next turn. If you used a weapon with the Disarm property for this action, and it is not "Worn", you may drop the weapon immediately, instead of becoming Flat Footed.

Note: The Disarm and Worn keyword modifications are simply added to avoid disarm attempts against an edged blade with a bare hand without a high level class feature/feat to accomplish that without losing fingers. It's not necessary, just flavorful.

What's even kookier is that it seems to work with reach weapons … the whip (…and…) gnome flickmace

Very good reasons, as well, for these weapons to be considered ranged instead of melee (flickmace both?). You can't use a whip 5' away, and neither can 'threaten' at distance the way a polearm can (a readied action could work though).

And yes, I agree that the one-handed thing is strange and uneccessarily limiting. A weapon that can trip should qualify as well. In either case, that tool (free hand or tripping weapon) should be 'busy' maintaining the effect until you release, or the end of your next turn.

Nobody wants something taken away, but Clerics were the only class to get 3+stat bonus max leveled spells.

I thought the class was just perfect before that god awful 1.6 nerf. but then again, I loved the gish/heal bot cleric since AD&D 2nd edition.

I think parties needed those extra 3 channels, but I think it was poor design for all that to be in one class. Clerics have a lot of options (too many for the playtest, but not every option needs to be good), and the multiclass feats are great for anyone not enthralled with the class feats (reach and healing hands are pretty good).

Give Divine Sorcerers, Druids, Paladins, and even the Ranger and Bard the odd channel or so - spread that party restorative need out a bit. I'm against Clerics hoarding all the healing because then your back to the party healing slave - let Clerics use thier actions for some fun.

Fighter - more than one AoO/r; one is insufficient to discourage most opponents and PC parties. Melee area control is a good job for a party member (Fighter, and option for Monk/Ranger/Paladin) and for some monsters (solos, in particular).

Suggestion? 1 AoO per level per round (okay, make that a feat if needed), eventually getting more than one AoO on a provocation - e.g. with 1 AoO per level, spending 5 AoOs (from that round) for another attack on a single provocation (2 attacks at 6th, 3 at 11th...)

Ditto - never felt useless playing (but then, I played a Cleric).

I felt useless during character generation and updating, as I tried to make effective character choices, due to the overwhelming penalties associated with armor but also due to the massive cross indexing and searching required for domains and spells. I really disliked the Heavy Armor enhancement prejudice (level 3 there, level 2 for any other armor) along with how ACP turns Medium (being trained, I should get this) checks into Ultimate or Incredible (once-in-a-lifetime) checks.

I would have felt marginalized as a Fighter with only 1 AoO as I expect melee area control. Several other players that created very narrowly focused characters seemed to feel useless on a regular basis - PFPT plays differently than PF1 and I think it takes time and an open mind (while I'm retired).

My cleric. On the day we were meant to play I had to cancel for reasons. Our party rule is that if one player cancels, we still play. That day, with my cleric being awol, everyone else decided to cancel too.

I'm a badass. The game goes on if anybody else cancels, but nobody wants to play unless my cleric is there.

LOL - and they say Clerics are not keeping up. I had the same experience.

The main thing that enhanced 'heroism', in my opinion and experience, is the progression and heightening on Heal, weapons, and damaging spells - all available to a Cleric.

I'm less happy with Fighters than with Clerics, and can see issues with many of the classes - but then, it's a playtest (so I can understand a lack of depth and breadth). Cleric has worked out for me - but then, I've a Human Cleric that spent all the class feats on Fighter multiclassing except the first ancestry feat (take a class feat).

… - the idea of staves to spontaneously change spell

4: I'm not sure I'm sold on this one yet, but I can see the appeal for Wizard and other prepared casters. There's just no comparable benefit for spontaneous casters...

I'd think Spontaneous Casters would be able to sacrifice a casting slot, RP, and cast a spell from the staff just like a Wizard...so they don't need to choose spells in staves. I may be wrong, but I hope not.

I initially expected 'legacy' spontaneous healing, and was sorely disappointed that it wasn't in PFPT...and then found it in staves. Spontaneity in staves is thematically limiting for Cleric and Bard, and less so for other casters who thematically do use staves (Druid, Wizard, Sorcerer). So, I'd like the Cleric's investment to change it to thier favored weapon, and Bard - not my favorite class, but I'm sure you could attach some strings to one and play it (or bore holes and play a really big flute/oboe).

So, I like the idea of staves, but not the exact execution. I think reskinning a Staff into the stereotypical implements of casting would work fine - Shillelagh as a Druid Option, Orbs and Tomes for Wizards, and specific items for Bloodlines.

… I don't like the fact that I read the name of a thing and go "Ooh..! what's this do?" look up the rules and go "UGH, why should I even bother? Does writing this down on my sheet actually give me something I can use?"

I'm right with you there! Building a Cleric was really time consuming because so many of the Domains "held nothing for me". Interesting Domain powers were hard to find. I'd've preferred more focus on developing a handful of themes. But then, if Paizo limits one thing to provide variety elsewhere, they get called on it - they just couldn't win that one. Everybody wanted full rules for thier favorite things.

Similarly, looking up spells and Feats became tiresome, as the nuggets were hard to find. I chalked all that up to 'playtest', and do fault Paizo for not including a collection of pregenerated characters (with build/leveling goals discussed), to fill out good examples of the most common characters. I'm glad they didn't build adventures on pregens (so credit them for that), and we ignored the 'experimentation goals' for the adventures, playing the same PCs throughout (with tweaking due to rule updates).

So, I empathize with the disappointment I hear from so many, but rationally am happy that they didn't just leave us hanging for another year and blindside us with a new rulebook. I'm very glad Paizo decided to publish a lengthy playtest and respond with live updates - to let us help them do their job to support our favorite hobby.

By the way, from my perspective, Normalization is an analytical manipulation process to highlight significance (such as normalizing rainfall data to historical averages to show widespread increase/decrease in rainfall - removing distracting biases). In my opinion, Normalization is exactly what PFPT accomplished - enhancement bonus was normalized to retain the distinctions of the weapon chart (and class features/traits). Adding a static value (+1 or d8 per +) adds a bias to the weapon chart (although it does have a normalizing effect on weapons to thier gold piece expense).

Magical enhancement cost normalization (so a +1 GreatAxe at 2d12 costs significantly more than a +1 Dagger at 2d4, to retain the gold piece cost ratio of the nonmagical weapons), could work in a game exclusively of Fighters. Once you add in class features, the enhancement bonus to damage doesn't really keep up with the power of backstab (etc.) and damaging spells. If you remember that spellcasters get a lot of spells for free (while warriors pay for thier equipment), the extra cost for effective warrior weapons may seem unfair (Rogues don't pay for Sneak Attack either).

Some may want other features to be the most significant - such as Enhancement Bonus for a 'very high fantasy' campaign. There's nothing wrong with this, and if you want a +1 Dagger to be better than a normal GreatAxe (for example, based on theme or the out-of-scale-to-damage gold piece cost), just add d20 (or d12) to the damage for every + instead of weapon damage dice; and adjust opponent's damage accordingly. This will highlight Dexterity-based characters, rogues and monks in particular.

I am a big fan of weapon features, but also of access restriction to those features, as it adds opportunities for growth.

A bit of a side comment: But as to the whip and it having so many abilities: IMHO a lot of these abilities should have some type of skill and or level requirements …

I would like a general rule to apply in this case - getting features depends on proficiency, and some features require a feat or class feature. For example, I'd rather everyone start with Nonlethal proficiency, that Simple Weapons not provide any other features, Martial provides 'n' (good place for Intelligence Modifier), and specific weapon proficiencies (e.g. Cleric Domain) provide proficiency in one feature (such as Glaive granting Reach, Deadly, or forceful). This would be an opportunity for Skill Feats (Disarm, Finesse, etc.) and a use for Intelligence.

Or in reality; there is a very valid reason why army's did not equip their troops with whips and go to war in the past as well as today.

Agree - some weapons should require certain ability level for use, Flail group weapons being notorious for being dangerous to use without a lot of study. The whip could use an actual range, but be unusable with any cover (not just a modifier). I could easily see weapon Group proficiencies being very cool in this game, with 'number of proficiencies spent' being important (use of a Bow should require several). Again, a great use of Skill Featsand Intelligence.

Often it is the exception example that seems to provide the community with the idea that everyone can do it. The best example of this I have seen in real life is the person who shoots arrows very fast and thus people think everyone should be able to do that or that it just takes a little time to learn the skill.

Hear Hear. In many cases, this is 'saw it in fiction (movie/video)', as very few people today have seen these weapons used in actual combat conditions, much less as a sporting event. It's okay to indulge fantasy (as that's the hobby we're playing), but the occasional nod to reality can improve the experience.

Paizo, Thank You (I prefer PFPT to PF1/3.x+)

My biggest fixit request is related to others, but not stated quite this way...

DC Math. Decide what "significant" means at 1st level (+2, +3, whichever), use that to differentiate each difficulty category at 1st, keep all categories up with whatver automatic progression you have, and slowly spread to a new "significance" at 20th level (such as +5 or so) between each category. DCs shouldn't need to jump by more than +1 above automatic progression each level.

Desire? - e-publish the results of PFPT errata to a set we can continue to use, and please, slowly add hyperlinks and filterable lists what you provide for players.

I particularly agree with pleas for eliminating Armor as a huge game penalty for those that need it (classes or concepts that can't prioritize Dexterity).

I'll be playing it, so look forward to what you create...

The PFPT approach retains the damage ratios of weapons throughout the magical enhancement of the weapon. This means that your relative damage expectation, in comparison to other weapons, stays stable.

Citing absolute difference growth as damage increases ignores the proportional increase of opponent damage capacity, i.e., the meaning of damage as a % of overcoming a creature. With +5 weapons, should a dagger do a larger proportion of damage against the dragon compared to a GreatAxe, than the two did ages ago to a cow when nonmagical? If you normalize enhancement damage, the weapon balance is substantially upset, and features that make advantage lower damage weapons make them the obvious choice for all characters.

The features of weapons are magnified by the enhancement, absolutely. A higher chance to hit generates greater proportional damage. Tripping or Shoving an opponent scales, as that tactical move affects equally powerful opponents. For example, Shove/Trip causing an opponent to lose thier 3rd attack or other action each round, due to a necessity to move - and the Trip may generate AoOs.

… the question of this thread … is whether the damage gap between weapons gets too big when extra dice are applied when weapons are magical. Or should magic weapon dice be normalized to some extent?

My opinion is no, because the PFPT approach maintains stability in the damage growth ratios. In addition, there are many factors to consider.

If all characters have identical Strength/Dexterity, use the same weapon list, can't use formations, don't use stacking class abilities (Monk, Rogue) or tactics (Shove, Trip), and don't get to attack at range, and monster hit points don't increase as characters level, then yes, there's no reason for most of the weapons to exist (at least, in asymmetrically increasing damage with enchantment).

The point of these 'off topic' comments is that sometimes, d4 is better than a d12, when that d12 can't hit. The analysis would have to include hit probability, multiple attacks, and criticals at least, if not other factors.

If you need to roll a 16 to hit with a GreatAxe (25%x6.5x+), and a 12 to hit with a Rapier (45%x3.5x+) due to an 18 Dex and 10 Str, that's 1.625 expected from the GreatAxe, and 1.575 from the Rapier, multiplied by one more than the plus of the respective weapon. Using that statistic disparity, the expected damage unit value for the GreatAxe/Rapier when the GreatAxe needs a 6 through 19 to hit, goes from expected damage of 4.875/3.325 through .65/1.05. With +5 weapons, that's from 29.25/19.95 through 3.9/6.3. This doesn't account for multiple attacks or criticals (just flat %'s).

When accounting for multiple attacks in a round, the Rapier pulls forward a little because the to-hit increases. E.g. that GreatAxe needing 8, then 13, then 18 (and Rapier 4 less), for +5 weapons, is a sum of 46.8/37.8, a ratio of 123% in favor of the GreatAxe instead of 142% for the single hit at 8 to hit.

Eventually you have to start accounting for Criticals...which favors the Rapier from rolling 10+ the DC for the low to-hits when the GreatAxe is slightly outperforming the Rapier (for that 8 to hit, the GreatAxe has a 15% chance to crit for double damage (adding .15x6.5x+, +5.85 at +5), while the Rapier has a 40% chance (adding 8.4 at +5). Keeping the 5% for a 20, that adds 9.76 to the +5 sum for the Greataxe and 12.6 for the rapier, updating the ratios to 56.55/50.4, 112% in favor of the GreatAxe.

But, remember that with a Rapier, the character has a hand free for a shield, secondary weapon, class feats, climbing, or to cast spells.
With Reach, a character in the 2nd rank does damage, and none with a GreatAxe.

Paizo Forums pro life tip: Read the original post and thread title before posting. If you just want to shoot the sheet, post your own thread. z

LOL...sigh, as I've asserted, I believe that other factors are significant to the comparison of damage of weapons (magical or not). Some of the other contributors to this thread are, as well, not simply looking at the damage dice rolled, but the effectivness of those dice.

Firmly on the 'extra die size', and think that some of the comparisons are, like polling statistics, misrepresentative because they don't take into account the versatility (it's there, whether you use it or not), and class distinctions (built into warrior classes).

Here's an approximation of the damage mechanic (+0 is the first 'plus): Martial is worth +1/plus. Two-Handed is worth +2/plus (+1Bulk). Finesse/Agile is worth -1/plus. Thrown/Reach is worth -1/plus. Versatile and other traits are worth fractions each.

Some weapons break this, and there are a few other rules in there. What PFPT compensates for is that, in PF1-: Finesse was a feat; two-handed got you 150% strength and better Power Attack; Reach didn't get adjacent; Ranged got you AoOs from anybody.

...Why bother with a d4 weapon at all when it's so incredibly more effective to use a d12?...

For a Rogue, it's not. They don't get +4 (Dex) to damage/hit, nor sneak attack. Dex-based characters may want the to-hit. AC-based characters may want a shield. Casters may want to cast a M spell. Monks may want to gain thier abilities. Many characters also don't have "d12" - they may have up to d8 (LongSpear - also not agile/finesse, not throwable, not Versatile).

...Sure they have range (which if we're honest reduced the thrown weapon's effectiveness even more...

An option can't be a detriment. Don't ever throw it if you don't want to - but for some, it's valuable, particularly at higher level when 'returning' is a wicked option. Like my previous mistake of looking at a Battle Axe for damage comparison (+2 vs GreatAxe +4), and misunderstanding that 1.6 somatic spell revision applied to Arcane casters, it's a typo thought.

...discourages builds like the sword and dagger / thrown dagger, small weapon finesse person.

I disagree - that's a Rogue (with Sneak Attack). You want AC/Ref and Features, and to-hit, and Damage too? Those themes are still viable for Ranger or Bard, and even if you look at Fighter feats, most revolve around one one-handed weapon or having two weapons. They gain increasing melee control and other features, while two-handed just get the extra damage. I also firmly believe that Dex-based characters have had it all their way for too long - armor class, to hit, save, initiative, skills; and PFPT addresses only a little of that imbalance.

Thematically, large weapons where never scary at high levels before - Welcome to the Jungle (as Conan might say).

Individually I can agree with the intent behind the changes to the various spell changes:

- I like scaling cantrips
- I'm ok with the loss of bonus spells (explaining and looking them up was a pain)
- I like that the DC is no longer spell level based (the whole "anything with a save becomes useless" problem)
- I'm ok with what happened to metamagic feats (I've always hated them because it caused you to use higher level slots on what was essentially just a fancy version of a crappy low level spell)
- I like low level slots being exceptional for non-damage things (though it makes sorcerer a frigging nightmare to play across a campaign)
- I like the four degrees of success
- I like the mechanical versatility of Heightening.

I agree, and would add that I like:

However, the end result is something I detest. …(PF1) "on fail" … became "on crit-fail"…; … reduced duration …(and) Ranges … It basically made "do I spend an action to move or do I spend an action to use Reach Spell?" completely meaningless … (and both preclude 3-action spells...like AOE Heal).

I'm not so on with 'despise'. The class is different (healing and having a fistful of Burning Hands and Fireballs with Fire Rays was fun).

I agree that spells need some more muscle (Paizo adjusted damaging spells, and said they'd get to the others), and that Reach Spell can seem superfluous. I'd say Reach Spell makes Disrupting Weapons usable, and extends to many other touch spells where you can't get there with a move (or don't want to). I'd like to see Paizo's spell adjustment include more targets in spells, for the same reason.

I do dislike the AOE version of Heal being 3 actions - the drop in healing makes it worth 1 action. I also dislike that the Spontaneous Casting class feature is only available through a staff - not the deity's favored weapon. I'd also think that they could go ahead and increase the (heightened) level of the spells in the Staves, as charges are severely limited and the feature replaces the previously unrestricted spontaneous casting feature.

One unfortunate effect of PFPT spellcasting of one of the best PFPT features (3 actions) is that casters frequently end up only getting 1 action - a 3 component spell. I'd like to be able to use a reaction for one of those, so I either could get a 4 component spell off, or do something while healing. This wouldn't be so bad in PF1 (FRA), but in PFPT, spellcasters have some trouble participating in the 3 action economy that everyone else enjoys.

Clerics are the exception to the "all characters have the same stat values, rearranged" rule. A Human lets you take the Cleric Class feat at 1st level, so you're ready for MC Fighter/Ranger at 2nd, and has better multi-role ancestry feats. Earth's power is silly for a longbow deity. Magic Weapon will be your friend initially, along with a True Strike - and don't forget to use Shield if you didn't need to move.

The challenge to building a good cleric for the different deities is one of the things I've liked about PFPT. I'd love it if Paizo (or your DM) would transform an invested staff into the deity's favored weapon, allowing you to use the necessary staff functions with thier weapon in hand (for spontaneous conversion of spells to heals) - I think the deities just might demand it.

imo, PFPT is remarkably balanced in this respect (it's almost as if a spreadsheet spit this out). Weapon damage is absolutely decreased for weapons with less restrictions and/or greater utility/specials.

That dagger can be thrown (full Str bonus to damage), in melee with Str or Dex, has reduced multi-attack penalties, and is Piercing or Slashing. It's usable by almost anyone. it also does Bleed damage if you crit and you're really good at it (critical specialization).

That great axe requires 2 hands to use (no shield, no Arcane casting, no 'free hand' for feats and things), weighs as much as 20 daggers, is just Slashing, and is melee-only. Sweep is very situational (and clearly not as good as Agile), although the critical specialization effect is very good (on a 20, with training). It also requires Martial training. All this restriction for effectively +2 to damage (initial, and per plus).

The PFPT rule addresses one of the biggest problems pre-PFPT - that it didn't matter what base damage your weapon did, just the specials and modifier. The basic Magic Weapon bonus was also very weak for the expense, pretty much a tax to get a special effect...until you get to really high plusses for bypassing DR.

In my opinion.

Summary: PF1 and PFPT Clerics can be powerful if wisely built, and played as multi-role characters (great candidates for multi-class), but not if the Cleric player lets the party control thier actions (because they 'demand' healing). PFPT spontaneous Heal through Staves (and RP) is okay, but I think the game will improve if that uses the favored weapon (such as transforming the stick when Invested - cool!).

PF1 Clerics could be amazing! I played PF1 for years, and Combat Cleric builds were great - Liberating Cmd, Grace (!!!), Blessing of Fervor, plus AoE heals. More so than in PFPT, Wisdom was a 3rd tier stat (you need 10+sp lvl). Using Trade/Defense: Shield, Fly, Dimension Door, and Dimension Step (into combat with a Strike Team with an armored melee caster) - wow.

I can't see how you can play PFPT without a Cleric - and it can be a lot of fun to play the class. This is, imo, a weakness in PFPT - the party healing resource is tied too much into one class. For balance, I'd rather see unused RPs used for healing (self, or through multiple casting classes) - and while the de-channeling of the world cut this party resource, it was still something the Cleric had that others didn't (and they still have separate spell points).

As a PFPT class, Clerics have more options (their domains) than any other, although that can make the build time consuming and too complex for many to yield a satisfactory character. If you're picky, you have to cross-reference and optimize (for your goal) weapon, alignment, domain powers, and domain spells. This is a great opportunity for other worlds, in which you build your own pantheon (or better, allow the Cleric to pick and choose to build their own).

Using PFPT Serenrae, you can back-up the Wizard with Burning Hands and Fireball (and instead of PF1 'you get 1', you can fill every slot), and FireRay isn't a slouch option. Several other deities are interesting, providing arcane spells in armor, hit points, and better weapons.

There are good PFPT Cleric options for nearly any backup role. Instead of Channeling feats, take multi-class feats (e.g. Fighter) but while Healing Hands makes Heals better, Reach Spell takes a lot of so-so spells and ramps them up. PFPT Clerics get good skill participation (and Perception/Initiative), which was one of the challenges for the class in PF1.

The challenge of the Cleric class in PF1 and PFPT is that you don't get the bang for the buck with one-dimensional tactics or choices - you need almost every stat (PF1 Clerics had it better from stat point builds than the flat system in PFPT). Clerics do best thinking strategically with a large diversity of weapons (Reach, Ranged, Melee, silver, cold iron, BPS...), as Clerics are good back-ups for everyone else, who are usually specialists, and may not be able to power through DR. There is also a tendency for others to expect control of your PC (healing), and it's crucial to the Cleric player's enjoyment to control that, and allow foolish tactics to sometimes put PCs down. At some point, you're going to be the party IV, but you tell 'em you got what you got, and that you get to play too. Another advantage of this approach is that you normally get to contribute/play more often...perhaps not the most (except healing), but meaningfully.

More in PFPT, the Cleric has the reason to drive group expenses through scrolls. Other players/PCs may expect a healing slave (and be aggressive about it), but there's no reason to enable that kind of selfishness. Even with the worldwide channeling drain, Clerics still have the largest number of max level spells (and PFPT Heal is the best of the bunch). With Spontaneous Casting from a staff, you have the best of both worlds.

That brings up one limitation that I think Clerics need addressed - the ability to have a 'Staff of Healing' in the form of a magical weapon matching their deity's favored weapon. Otherwise, the Cleric is really forced to wield the staff as thier weapon (and Shifting is too action intensive). I would even favor a rule that when Invested, staves transform to the favored weapon, so Clerics really will wield that weapon. A lack of choice becomes greater flavor.

This seems to be, to me, the way it should be, for several reasons:
1) Power Creep - inevitable as a game ages, and PCs are at the forefront.
2) Strategy and Tactics - higher level fights should be more difficult, demanding more from the players.
3) The contributions of artillery become greater, and more significant - while they (spellcasters) fall behind the HP curve (more vulnerable).

One thing that may make up for it is spell casters increasing in power.

This is classic D&D (tabletop RPG) behavior.

Also, spellcasters gain more powerful non-damaging spells as they level up. A powerful debuff can help the Fighter hit & crit more, or just make a foe leave combat altogether.

...making combat analysis even harder, agreed, because it should become more and more about teamwork. Remember 1 spell per day?

This is completely correct. It feels a bit weird to me that some character styles (weapon users) will contribute less and less while other character styles contribute more and more (spell users).

Not sure how to model a spell casters contribution other than heroism, but I should put heroism at least into this graph.

I think Fighter's contributions grow in melee control and soak, outpacing thier damage contribution, as a design goal. At least in PFPT, magic weapons add dice instead of damage modifier (big fan, here).

I think it's less about making fewer stats required and more about making more stats valuable...

Bravo.

On the flip side, I think the Rogue ability to add DexMod to damage should be limited at least to being "precision", instead of negating the value of StrMod. I didn't like the Alchemist using Int instead of Cha for Resonnance, either.

Once all the stats are generally useful to any PC, then work on bringing value to each class from each ability (possibly something beyond the scope of a playtest). Archetypes are a wonderful idea for this.

...My complaint...can be remedied...simply by introducing more feats...

This is a playtest. Before going whole hog on another edition, Paizo wanted feedback on mechanics. The basic mechanic is that every level, a character picks some kind of feat. That mechanic seems sound, and I'm in favor of subdividing feats (skill, general, class, ancestry), though I would like 'general' to mean 'any'.

Depending on your game, magic items might be a choice (I never liked 'random' treasure). In that, there's lots to choose for weapons. Admittedly, there isn't much choice in armor, and this is the one 'lack of choice' that I think merits feedback.

The primary lack of choice I felt (attempting a armored character) was accellerated skill proficiency rank in Acrobatics with Assurance to counteract armor, so my character can do simple tasks. Here, I'd rather see keeping DexModCap and eliminating ACP, so that the game doesn't solely pick out armored characters for skill penalties due to essential role equipment.

Greater distinction is a great idea, I'm in favor of UTEML -4, 0, +2, +4, +6. This is close enough to work for skills, saves, armor, and weapons. Beefs up the fighter a little, but then...

While 5 proficiency ranks (UTEML) may seem small, it's a good start and I'd rather see it fleshed out better with broad capability for each level. Similarly, proficiency rank achievement needs to be spread out a bit over the level range of play - so I think current rules are a good start (I would like to see signature skills return and modify ranking rules, but as skills unrestrictedly chosen by the player).

NPC Blacksmith having problems? An Expert class could easily bypass such a restriction (can anybody say "class feature"?).

I like flavor, such as the incompetent idea, but in practice, I've seen it powergamed too often (perk/flaw analysis). The problem with such tradeoffs is that it assumes all skills are equal. Also, incompetent (as a flaw) shouldn't include level.

1.6 removes most available combat healing, and applied retroactively, would increase TPKs significantly. A party needs a significant pool of combat healing if you want lots of combat - just decide how it gets it and discuss it in the rules. If it's a magic item tax, fine. If it's a character tax (Cleric), fine...just decide and discuss the solutions to healing in the rules.

It's a design vulnerability for such a valuable party resource to be focused in one class, but currently, it is. Out of combat healing is...out of combat. Paizo introduced, in Pathfinder1, Clerics that didn't need to spend spell slots on healing, but they could when it was needed. Want a return to the 'party healing slave'? Here are some options:

The 1.6 approach does balance the cleric better (imo), but the class needs good class feats for other roles. I think it's a poor design to put all the party healing in one class, but the 1.6 update just eliminates too much party combat healing that the playtest encounters require.

You forgot to list that you also pay Bulk, and (uniquely in the game) limit the utility of a Stat (even if the Armor isn't Clumsy). The price/item level penalty of Heavy armor has resulted in some interesting choices in our game as we've played different levels.

I'm okay with Dex Mod Cap, even if you make all armor Clumsy (it's just easier that way) - if you adjust the Cap with armor quality. That's a better limit than the hefty ACP cost, which isn't accounted for in all the Skill/Hazard table math. Despite the legacy heritage, having any ACP ruins the skill system they are trying to have.

I would prefer a -5' speed penalty for shields and 1 more bulk, if, when raised, they provide ranged cover...and reduce the speed penaty stat for armors by 5'. "Take Cover" is much of what a shield is about. Then, we'd understand the "come back with your shield, or on it" admonition. Shield Block can make the shield a valid melee target, and on the hit, can allow the weilder a choice to just have it absorb its hardness in damage (no dent by taking a glancing blow), or up to double (until dented, by taking it in full).

Athletics is the general physical skill, Acrobatics a specialized one (Stealth more so). Similarly, Diplomacy is the general interaction skill, Deception/Intimidation are specialized. Most adventurers should be proficient in basic physical tasks (Athletics) and interaction (Diplomacy). Expecting the names to be perfect, and perfectly reflect balance or real jobs, is unrealistic. I think the division of labor on skills has purpose and potential - general skills that almost every character will have (ie., the majority of the party), and specialized skills that only a few, if any, will have. It's a good mechanic and model, in my opinion.

I am a little tired of RPGs making Dexterity the super do-anything skill, just because highly skilled non-musclebound real people seem to be able to do amazing things - expertise (muscle memory) is what they are leveraging, not superior agility/reflexes!

A welcome change (Perception/Spot/Listen/Initiative) that encourages selecting a wider breadth of skills, and creativity (in justifying other skills for Initiative, if your game allows). If you play Legendary levels without a by-the-book tuned party, roll with it and have fun. You have choice and imagination on your side.

The reaction to Aid Another is one of the subtle things that I like best about PFPT. However, I would suggest Paizo listen, hard, to this...

The worst thing to hear at a table of players is "don't help me!".

Occasionally and with the right combination of personalities and history, an aiding another fail is funny. With Paizo's "Gaming is for All" on page 5, critical failure on a DC-10 result causing distrust is a Critical Fail of intent.

Having Aid Another as a reaction is a great PFPT idea, but all that potential good will is ruined by too-frequent penalties.

Elsewhere, it's been suggested to move Critical Fail to DC-15. That's a pretty easy houserule, particularly if you add DC+15 as the Critical Success threshold - letting hazards and boss monsters that are supposed to be 'a little tough' have a substantially greater chance of a critical hit, discourages heroic roleplay even if it doesn't kill characters. Hazards start out far too damaging to ever crit (the level 1 Average of 9 with a +10 to hit, is 75% of a responsible but low hit point 6+6 build).

Tuning monsters and characters to succeed a little more often than half the time, and taking a step back on Skills for some standardization would be a good idea.

Moving the goal posts to between a 60% and 75% success rate for a level-appropriate challenge would work … highly specialized should be able to succeed at such a task 3/4 of the time.

… critical failures … need(s) to be lowered to DC-15. And a natural 1 needs to stop being an auto-failure. The idea that someone who is skilled at their job outright fails 5% of the time on easy tasks is absolutely ludicrous …

Agree. Some seem to have forgotten that the balance in an encounter is how often each side succeeds and to what effect, not just how often the characters succeed. In skills, sometimes there are severe consequences of failing, or a whole series of rolls that must succeed. It's a d20 - it's very random. If actions fail ~half the time, and when they succeed, do incremental damage, the game drags. A look at hazards and many monsters is all it takes to realize they are geared to succeed more than half the time. As one of my friends is fond of saying - just one of the monsters needs to defeat a character once, while the PCs have to defeat all of them, every day.

I believe that the problem with skills is that they just haven't been thoroughly rung out the way combat has over the past nearly 40 years. They need a lot more paper and text, because it's not just a damage result against hit points. d20 skills are a relatively recent addition, particularly, when the goal is to get each player participating (not simply the rogue). That's why I agree with the suggestions to double or triple the proficiency bonus, and cut the level bonus substantially (quarter or one-fifth) - so that the game can gain some bulk to support skill challenges. There were some really good ones in 4th edition (and some really bad ones)...and I prefer the PFPT skill distribution to classes even better, and the focus on chosen expertise.

Suggestion: Starting Gold at 3+Intellgence Modifier; free starting weapons, armor, and class kits.

Okay, it's a playtest - but outfitting a combat cleric and warrior, while my friends make Wizard, Rogue, and Monk, convinced me that monasteries, universities, and city streets are just handing out the cash - while the militia starves (that's why they need adventurers?).

If you let everyone pick armor, weapons, and their class kit (alchemists, thieves,...) that they're proficient with, then give everyone 3+IntMod gold, you'd be set. That gets the smart guys outfitted with some adventuring gear, while the less-inspired are less prepared.

Why? That wizard/sorcerer/cleric/... has expensive spells, but he paid nothing for them. Essentially, characters that need armor and weapons to fulfill their role need much more money to pay for their primary equipment. Spell Components? That familiar used to cost 200gp. That's why D&D starting funds tables have always been skewed, and actually, why almost all the original magic weapons were longswords - it was a class feature, only the Fighter could use 'em.

The "Adjusting the Chance for Success" descriptions of challenge levels in the 1.3 update is significantly lacking in two respects:
1) It ignores Armor Check Penalty - Drop ACP
2) Table 10-2's math doesn't reflect the words - Try New Math

Is any other table filled with penalties as 6-3(Armor)? Remove ACP, and everything would still work fine. Make all armor Clumsy - and allow higher quality (and materials) to increase the cap. Then, a single 10-2 will work for all skills. ACP would make a great ANP (armor non-proficiency penalty), though -4 AC is pretty good by itself.

Table 10-2 Math could be fixed easily, by focusing on the words. Decide what 'significant' means. If it means +3 (15%), okay, Easy to Medium to Hard, etc. should start at +3 differences - because +1 (5%) is not what anyone thinks differentiates "most common in the game...attempt frequently" from "requiring exceptional effort and luck...don't encounter that often". Then, the +3 can be expanded at higher levels (I suggest +5 at 20th). I sent in a version of this, that also made Assurance a useful feat (lower Medium difficulty DCs).

The design favorite that needs to be killed is that Skills are the same as Saves and Combat Bonuses. They are related, but not the same.

… So I say the best solution is to buckle down and make the experience satisfying from both angles … The spread should be … -4/0/+3/+6/+9 … and … Level bonus should be level/4 …

Agree, and well, reluctantly agree.

I'd suggested merely doubling the proficiency bonus, but I like triple as well, although I'd suggest no penalty and just bonuses (0/3/6/9/12). I also like special uses or expanded abilities, although it takes a lot of work to generate that meaningfully for each skill. Skills are generally used differently than Saves and BAB, and expertise is more focused (in skills), so a higher bonus makes sense (imo). To even out the 'choice' playing field, I think it's important to allow General Feat selections to be used for any type of Feat (General, Skill, Class, Ancestry).

I reluctantly agree with quartering level bonus for Skills, because it is too hard for Paizo and DMs to come up with meaningful DCs for 20 levels for reasonable situations for skills. If the numbers are more limited, it's easier to detail a useful system. The only aspect of Skills that is detailed is Hazards, and I think that's not clean yet.

Bottom Line, Skills are different than Saves and attack bonuses.

in◆⃟ wrote:

House rules are good for the game...bad for the playtest.

They are bad for the published playtest adventures and survey results. But I think there's room for personal experimentation with house rules in homebrew games...It gives insight into what actually works - proposing changes that have been "field tested" is better than just theorizing...

...there's nothing wrong with participating in the playtest using original adventures.

WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

...the thought that it's easier to hit beyond fifty feet is absurd...

...but the concept that it's easier to bring a smaller bow to bear on a mobile target that's close, because...a pistol could still be useful, but a rifle mostly useless...

Good points. Drawn bows are harder to aim and require more expertise than either a crossbow or civilian firearms. In addition, drawn bows are extraordinary vulnerable to melee combatant interference (and breakage). You grow into a short bow, then a long bow, while almost anyone can hit something with a crossbow. That's why the church outlawed crossbows (except v infidels), and it was only the English longbow trained-from-birth tradition that yielded longbowmen (in Europe). I would rather see a to-hit penalty and higher damage for drawn bows, and ability to attack wielded weapons (sunder vs wood or string), than 'volley'.

...and on all the rest, mostly agree as well. (BTW - Dex Mod Limit and Clumsy are real problems at high levels, when you've added +4 to your Dex, and have no way to adjust that armor statistic).

I prefer separate feat slots and think the current quantity over levels is fine - everybody will always want more feats (and GMs often give them away, diluting the Human advantage), but could see allowing any (Class, Skill, Heritage, General) for a General Feat Slot...might be a compromise.

If being Human makes certain tactics more viable, I think that'd be a good balance point for the game (I'd put the 'French' polearms aside as Human weapons).

On the quality of feats - hey, it's a playtest; though, I really liked the weapon trait feats that I think Ediwir proposed (more Martial weapon-based distinction! - take weapon traits out of simple weapon proficiency).

I'd: (-forgot to add the reasons)
* increase RP and allow 10min healing (Class hp) - I like self healing
* modify table 10-2, 4-3/4 and Hazards slightly for math and integrated use for challenges - if the tables perform smoothly and predictably for me, it make my job easier
* make Languages Lore(Race) - I make use of culture and racial knowledge
* modify Exploration to a 3 action system and halve movement, and use accumulating Sluggish in place of Fatigued (when using all 3 actions to do something) - I think it needs some development
* freeform Backgrounds and associated skill feat to whatever the players wanted, instead of the list - I like player flexibility
* experiment with 2 ability picks being Fort(Str&Con), Ref(Dex), or Will(Int,Wis&Cha) - 2 instead of 4 free, and 1 for Background - I think this might balance better, and end up with some mental capacity
* experiment with growing Bulk capacity (as RP), and allow use of spare capacity for additional melee weapon damage - I dislike mechanics that just limit/restrict and don't offer advantages

* (various setting modifications) - I like being creative

I like the idea of making weapons more distinctive to martial characters. To me, the Simple Weapon Table should be very simple - streamline out most of the special traits, particularly Trip and Shove, and put inexpensive weapons on the Martial table. Does the Simple table need much more than base types? Knife, Club, Spear, Brawling? Should it really have Versatile and Reach? (I don't mean Daggers aren't accessible, but perhaps Simple weapons doesn't teach effective piercing versatility - it's all slash and jab).

If everybody gets Ag/Finesse, Trip, Shove, and Reach - it takes some of the distinction out of the martial classes (it's not all about +1 to +2 damage - melee control is supposed to be thier thing). Now, the Deity's weapon (that has such traits) may be a stronger option. The Rogue's list has more meat...

Perhaps the problem is that specific expertise is more gate than modifier. That requires a lot of rules bulk to make expertise worthwhile overall, and for a fresh start, simpler is better.

I'd prefer that expertise work better that a Guidance cantrip.

Skills don't have to work identically to weapon use and saves, but making it similar has merits. What if you just double the specific expertise modifier, for skills (-4 to +6)? Would Triple upset the game balance all that much?

consider this:

if you fired an arrow you already had your bow in the right direction, have the right body posture and can easily repeat what you done before

while when in the middle of a melee you have to readjust you stance, grip and balance while at the same time looking out for enemies who want to punch your beautiful face

it is not just the action that is executed at core but also the sorrounding scenario

The original Conan movie (I think that's the right one - with the rogue archer) portrayed an adventuring archer well. Plant arrows ahead of time, run away from melee weapons, sneak and take potshots.

Shooting arrows around melee weapons is for high fantasy movies (and Fantasy RPG), not attempting reality (that's what guns are for), but anyway...Your delicate real shortbow (longbow is too big for this kind of thing) is pointed at the target (assuming you don't shift target), you reach behind you to draw a 2' arrow out of a 2' quiver on your back (3' each for longbow, and with a backpack there too) - which is why bowmen planted arrows in the ground pre-battle (and put up large wooden stakes to slow down approach), and place it carefully to land on both that 1/8th inch bowstring and guide (which might just be your index finger). Reloading a bow in under 2 seconds in combat conditions takes a LOT of practice (more for a longbow), so balancing a 2 handed weapon in one hand for a couple seconds spellcasting isn't that far-fetched. A dart (lawn dart), and other small throwing weapons should be reload 0 before a bow gets it.

Just once, I would like the RPG to let my fighter AoO that bowstring, or even bowstaff (wood, under a lot of strain) with a nice edged weapon.

The bow is Reload 0 and usable in the midst of melee because of fantasy precedent (and Paizo wants to stay in business). The damage is so low because it balances out to a fun game.

Power Attack is more versatile (it and Sudden Charge are the only lvl1 Fighter Feats usable with Polearms - both are usable with any melee loadout), and might not do the DR niche better than Double Slice (depends on AC). Perhaps simply dropping the 'counts as 2 attacks for MAP' would be enough.

A healing ritual (or other non-spell healing) could save Resonance Points - for one RP, you heal equal to your class HP.

Like Bulk, Resonance Points are presented as capacities that only create bookkeeping, impose limits, and when unused, the spare doesn't do anything for you. With just a simple twist, both could be viewed more favorably. With Resonance Points for self healing, adventuring doesn't stop if the healer couldn't make the game (and it would be nice if both Bulk and Resonance Points were 4+Stat+Level, or something like that to have spare capacity). What could you do with spare Bulk? Move faster, hit harder, whatever. Then, both have similar mechanics (you use them for capacity, or for something else...).

The Skill system in playtest has some rough edges, but offers opportunities as well. Table 4-4 (particularly if modified to scale-in the upper right corner values) provides results for any skill, while Table 10-2 can provide matching DCs. Yes, Table 4-4 is listed in silver pieces, but stretch for a moment and consider it to be a measure of progress.

Example Challenge: A journey for 19th level PCs, with various choices of route. It could take 1 day through extreme hazards, or much longer with less. (the only reason I'm using 19th level is that 4-4 isn't scaled quite right all the way through until you pass the level for legendary proficiency).

Table 4-4 lists 1500 for 19th level Legendary, so take that as what they need - the possibility of a single day's journey. If they ask about the easy road (Trivial DC28), a 4-4 Trivial/Failure nets 60, so will take 1500/60= 25 days. If they choose a little risk (Trained/Low DC37), that will get them there in 1500/300=5 days. If they choose higher risk (Expert/High DC 40, 4-4 result of 600), they'll get there in 2.5 days. With greater risk (Master/Severe DC 42, result 1200), they'd have a relatively easy trip left after the first day, and at Legendary, a single day.

Essentially, 10-2 and 4-4 outline four options to scale progress.

Sometimes, expertise in an appropriate skill is required for higher DC/rewards, but sometimes not. The players can 'bid' for an option and get nothing (or little) if they fail. Sometimes, have 1 roll resolve that stage of progress (what DC does it beat - they get that result).

Failure may result in no progress, negative progress, or Trivial/Fail progress. Risk can be represented by Hazards - a Perception check and hit by the Hazard on each PC, appropriate to the risk taken. The GM could require that one character lead, but that half of the party need to make the check at the next lower difficulty.

While this works better with a smoother/wider distribution of 10-2 and population of 4-4, and works better with Hazards scaled so the GM can judge lethality better, the potential is there for a relatively easy system for a GM for resolving any number of challenges creatively, and allowing players space to guide the story of how they do, or don't, succeed this time.

For armwrestling, you can still used opposed strength checks. For busting down a door, you could use hardness/dents (body slam damage + strength modifier - anyone can probably jury rig how much more blunt damage a solid shoulder would do than a fist). Skills are for abstractly achieving a goal in which expertise plays a big part.

If you've ever sparred with a really old martial arts instructor, you can appreciate what practice and experience can do.

I like the magnitudes of proficiency stacked with level. We always had Feats, Features, and Gear to modify skills, and this system is just different - a high level adventuring character is gaining very wide-spread experience that applies to many tasks. Sometime though, specific knowledge is irreplaceable, so specific Lore, Feat, or Feature is required. I think that the system will work best if NPCs are not locked to follow PC rules for advancement, that a every-day-job life is different, focusing skills in only certain areas.

However, these aren't answering the post's question - what is the goal? The goal appears to be to emphasize character level, and in special circumstances, use character choice (proficiency magnitude or feats). Having specific Skill Feats is a great idea - every character picks some things to get better at, and doesn't do so at the loss of a class feat (or general feat). The goal, in streamlining, appears to be to avoid the book-keeping of skill points, and add another dimension - proficiency magnitude.

Tables 4-3 and 4-4 are very similar, and can be combined to provide results for attempting the various DCs in Table 10-2. While such a table is a good idea (whether based on character or task level), I would suggest that the table be populated with scaled values for all magnitudes of proficiency and difficulty at each level (0-20+). If the GM determines that there is a cap (or a combination is n/a), they can do that much easier than generating a scaled value.

The table values can be based on anything, and I would suggest they be evaluated based on the resulting days it takes to create an applicable item for half price (or of generating sp relative to the level's gp expectation) - on making that a relatively smooth function. The following table is an example of that, modified to provide more evenly distributed results (with decimals used for cp) for crafting an item 2 levels lower than the 'level', which are tied to the expected adventuring gains by level (Table 11-1).

Such a table creates the possibility of using it in concert with 10-2 to measure progress on any multi-check task (which would be useful for many exploration tasks as well).

Level Ordinary(Trivial/Fail) Trained(Moderate) Expert(High) Master(Severe) Legendary(Extreme)
0 0.1 0.5 1 2 4
1 0.2 1 2 3.5 7
2 0.4 2 3.5 6 12
3 0.7 3.5 6 10 20
4 1.2 6 9 15 30
5 1.8 9 15 25 50
6 2.5 12 20 35 70
7 3.4 16 25 45 90
8 4 20 32 60 120
9 5 25 40 75 150
10 6 30 50 90 180
11 8 37 60 105 210
12 10 45 70 125 250
13 12 55 85 155 300
14 15 70 110 200 400
15 20 95 150 270 540
16 25 120 190 340 680
17 35 150 240 430 860
18 45 200 320 575 1150
19 60 285 456 820 1640
20 75 375 600 1080 2160
(crt) n/a 450 720 1300 2600

This table does result from altering the base permanant item price for a 17th level item to 160,000 (and thus suggesting an 8,000 cost for 17th level formula and expected level gain currency), instead of 150,000 and 7,500.

Agree - this is also discussed in another thread (so the topic has plenty of love elsewhere, if this doesn't return much). I think PA is good at 1st level, but is not worth the 2 actions for long. I would accelerate the additional damage (1/5 levels, say), and allow it to use two actions, or an action and reaction (for the next turn). There are other good suggestions there as well.

Table 2 presents average hazard hardness, dents, and damage by level. At 1st level, the average hazard will kill a low hp character class, but at high levels, is less of a threat. In addition, hazard hardness progresses so quickly that by the time a character can get Adamantine weapons, they aren't any good. To modify that, I would suggest that Hazard damage be scaled to a percentage of a (6+6) character's hit points, assuming Con increases each 5 levels. The following table is built to half a (6+6) character's hit points at each level, attempting to keep half of the average in bonus, and half in dice. It also lists hardness/dents to maintain hit points with lower hardnesses to let those expensive weapons do something for a little while.

Lvl H(Dents) Simple Damage
0 3(1) 1d3+1
1 4(2) 1d4+3
2 5(2) 1d8+4
3 5(3) 2d6+5
4 6(4) 2d8+6
5 7(5) 3d6+10
6 8(5) 3d6+13
7 8(6) 3d8+14
8 9(6) 3d10+14
9 10(6) 4d8+16
10 11(7) 4d10+21
11 11(8) 4d12+21
12 12(8) 4d12+25
13 13(8) 5d10+27
14 14(8) 5d10+31
15 14(9) 6d10+37
16 15(9) 7d10+36
17 16(9) 6d12+40
18 17(9) 8d10+40
19 17(10) 8d10+44
20 18(10) 8d12+51
21 19(10) 10d10+53
22 20(11) 9d12+54
23 20(12) 9d12+59

Examining Table 10-2 and reviewing Tables 10-3 through 10-6, and character advancement, I would suggest that Table 10-2 be smoother and include meaningful differences between difficulty levels (e.g., include the definition of Trivial). Here is an example.

Lvl Trivial Modrate High Severe Extreme
0 5 8 11 14 17
1 6 9 12 15 18
2 7 10 13 16 19
3 8 11 15 18 21
4 9 12 16 19 22
5 10 14 18 21 24
6 11 15 19 23 26
7 12 16 20 24 27
8 13 17 21 25 29
9 14 18 22 26 30
10 16 20 24 28 32
11 17 21 25 29 33
12 18 22 26 30 34
13 19 23 28 32 36
14 20 24 29 33 37
15 21 26 31 35 39
16 22 27 32 37 41
17 23 28 33 38 42
18 24 29 34 39 44
19 25 30 35 40 45
20 27 32 37 42 47
21 29 34 39 44 49
22 31 36 41 46 51
23 33 38 43 48 53

In addition to the /lvl +1, this table adds a extra +1 (that carries to higher difficulties) at points where characters are expected to have increased stats, acquired items, leveled skills, and have access to magic. In addition, I bumped Trivial for every 20+ level because it seemed in the spirit of the playtest table. Starting the difficulties at +3 per difficulty, up to +5 per difficulty (at 20th), puts some expected difference in the DCs.

The Lore skill appears to be intended for Role-playing purposes, not tactical roll-play - a slot to put personality, and I agree with those that suggest it be removed from the regular skill list (like Perception, but for the opposite reason). In general, Arcana, Nature... work for tactical information.

IMO, after character creation, Lore can be doled out after sufficient time (years) spent for job/life skills, and have little to nothing to do with killing monsters. A character that decides to have a sudden interest in mixed drinks is not a Bartender.

The example of Hardness on pg 175 - 10 damage to a wooden shield, does not seem to apply to Shield Block in any form.

For Raise Shield, the Shield takes up to its Hardness in Damage. Since the Shield reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness, it is not dented. The fighter can spam Shield Block (once per round, eating up their Reaction for a little DR). To modify the rules, a fighter could be allowed to take an entire hit on the shield, and would likely take the damage remaining after it was destroyed (but this would not work with an indestructible shield - can't have both).

The rules, except by implication in the pg175 example, do not speak directly to attacking wielded items (Sunder), but it makes sense. Correctly used, a warrior's Shield Block deflects some damage from the wielder onto the Shield (which can take it). The attacker gets tired of this, and then pounds on the shield (which should probably use TAC?).

Weapons and Armor don't take damage in regular action fantasy combat because the bearers are assumed to do so as to not damage them.

Dents brings a hint of realistic action into the combat (although shields were pretty tough, and much more effective than as portrayed in Fantasy RPGs - +5%?). If the warrior guesses that the Shield is going to be attacked, they can opt not to use it that round (thrust out chest and take the hit), removing the Shield as a target. We don't want people attacking scabbards, quivers, or other slung weapons - or their fragile bows or Rapiers either.