I honestly don't think the Samurai needs to be a class. It doesn't even need to be a Archetype. A Samurai would simply be a Fighter/Cavalier/Archer, if you wanted to do be true to what a Samurai truly was. Now I do think there could be some sort of Iaido Archetype, that would be cool.
stuff I know that I would even pay for a PDF of that subsystems rules. Maybe 5 or 10 dollars? I wouldn't mind buying it and then purchasing the AP at a later date. I hope there's something that can be done. Hope everything continues to go well for you guys!
Very good considering the system. The bonuses are small because they (Paizo) KNOW that we will find a way to stack as many as possible. I remember there was someone who was talking about that around 4th level you can get hits reliably on a 2 or 3 (I don't remember exactly). All from stacking those +/- 1's and 2's. So while a +1 all by itself might not seem super appealing you instead should be looking into how many bonuses you can be pulling overall. For instance if you have a Bard, Barbarian, and Rogue in your group. Bard casts Inspire Courage for a +1. Barbarian uses Intimidate for a -1 from demoralize. and then the Rogue flanks with the Barbarian for an additional -2 to his AC. So that's a total of +4 (relatively) on your attack roll. Now some people may argue that you need a specific party build to accomplish that but P2e has so much customization that AT LEAST one person in the party should be trying to debuff. So you can stack some stuff at least. It is a party game after all. Everyone should be working together.
Bringing up Ray of Frost actually proves my point even more so. Ray of Frost is better than Snowball as well and it does almost the same thing. Ray of Frost does the same amount of damage roughly every spell level until around 4th and by then there are MUCH better spells then Snowball. Plus Ray of Frost has 120ft range AND the Crit Success is the exact same as Snowball. And to top it all off it's a Cantrip. Snowball is def underpowered and should be fixed. I say it should do at least 2d8 and be almost comparable with Hydraulic Push, which does 3d6.
As people have mentioned above nearly half the Bestiary takes influence from someone's culture. We would have to remove half of the Bestiary to appease everyone. It's a monster from a fairy-tale. It doesn't need to be changed.
I'm glad there is a black and white one as the color one is just ugly. I really liked the playtest character sheets. Oh well.
What archetypes are in the Core book other than the multiclass archetypes? EDIT: Nvm I found the answer, should have used the search function earlier.
If something is viable then that means it is capable of working within the system. I can be almost any class and TWF and not really be worse off. Will I be optimal? No. But will I be able to kill the monsters? Yes. The Alchemist, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard don't even have access to anything other than d8 Weapons (with a few exceptions like Cleric Diety Weapon). Now is it somehow less viable for a Wizard to use two a Club and a Dagger for his backup melee weapon instead of a Staff? Or is a Druid somehow worse for using a Scimitar and a Sickle instead of just a Scimitar? No they are not. Now the only other classes are Barbarian, Monk, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. The Fighter and Ranger support TWF in their class builds and the Monk can TWF with 2 Monk weapons and is still able to use most of their Monk abilities (though I would say Weapon Monks still need a little more love). So the Barbarian and Paladin are the only classes that gain access to those hefty D10 and D12 weapons but don't get anything for TWF. So yes MAYBE it's not in their best interest to TWF but they can still get a d8 and a D6 and mix and match weapon traits for some nifty effects. That means 2 classes are actually "worse" for TWF. So no TWF isn't as bad as the people keep making it out to be.
I have a reason. Maybe I don't want to. I can do damage just fine with 2 weapons or using a 2-hander. Not everyone cares about doing max damage all the time. As long as it isn't bad it's fine. TWF is not bad by any means.
The thing is in Pathfinder/D&D there are levels of play. Most typical fantasy tropes, such as LOTR, Harry Potter or even Game of Thrones are in the 1 through 7 range. There are only a few things in those works of fiction that cannot be created by lvl 7 or so. So after that you have to start getting into beyond that fantasy. Like Eragon (toward the end anyway), Beowulf, or most superhero characters. After Lvl 13+ the characters are essentially demigods. The stories of Hercules, Achilles or Superman are those types of stories. One just simply can't expect someone who is level 15 to behave the same as someone who is lvl 4.
I wasn't saying you were arguing I was saying people in general. For the record why is that you don't like it? If you can agree that higher level characters aren't normal then why is it a problem that they have all around good skills?
I think the problem a lot of people have is that they don't remember that by the time your level actually makes you good enough to do anything you aren't a normal person anymore. Like in Pathfinder 2E what lvl are "normal" people? I would think they would be lvl 3 or 4 tops. Those would be the most incredible people you ever met in real life. You know those people. The ones who have two degrees, know 5 languages, work out 2 hours a day, have traveled the world, never get sick and yada yada. Now even THESE people would only have a +3 or +4 in an untrained skill with huge natural ability modifiers (+3 or +4). By the time a character is lvl 10 they aren't by any means normal. They are practically super human. They are Captain America or Black Widow. They are Hawkeye or Ironman. People seem to try and equate regular people into a fantasy game with fantasy characters and it just doesn't work that way. Like I've heard people mention the desert witch. She's lvl 10 and she's only lived in the desert. She has 10 strength. So how does she have +6 to Athletics, so her Swim is +6. How can that be? She's never even seen a large enough body if water to swim in. How can she know how to swim? My argument is how did she get to lvl 10 and only live in a desert? What has she experienced, overcome, and learned that made her practically superhuman? Cause I guarantee that just practicing her spells in the desert isn't going to get her to level 10 by any means. It just doesn't make sense. She would just die an old lady of MAYBE level 2 or 3. Which would still make her very strong to regular people but not near the sheer awesomeness that is lvl 10. People trying to argue that someone who could literally one arm climb mountain, be able fall 50 feet taking no damage, or survive on a different plane of existence but can't swim is crazy to me.
My favorite thing from this whole post is people saying 85 F, around 30 C, is too hot. That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. 85 F is like perfect weather. When it's regularly 115F, 46 C, where I live you realize people don't know real heat. Carry on lol.
Wandering is an exploration tactic, not an activity. Well now you're connecting one thing, exploration and encounter modes (and the actions used in encounter) but not going the other way around. If Exploration Mode HAS to use the same game rules as Encounter Mode (which I would argue it doesn't but you seem to think it does) then that means everything in Exploration Mode HAS to have a corresponding action compared to Encounter Mode. So that means the Tactics take 1 or more actions. While Activities are simply things that take take more then 1 action. So it would make sense that wandering, which is about 1 1/2 stride actions would be an activity (as it's more then one action). Now, it says you can order the Animal to do an Activity that it knows. As I just explained through reasoning a tactic has to be an activity, which the animal has to know cause it can wander itself. So you can order it to do so. Now if you try and say "Well no they don't have to be the same cause they are listed differently" I would say well yes exactly. Cause they are different they don't work the same. So none of the Encounter Rules apply to Exploration because they are different modes.
It's crazy how people can be different cause I feel like this book should have about 50% more then it has now. More Ancestry, Backgrounds, Class and Skill Feats. Then it would be good.
That is also a very good point. Like it they were level 5 would the check be 24? 20+4 for group rolling? I don't really care about static DCs as much as the next guy but this was one of the exact things they said they weren't going to do. Like one of the hardest survival checks listed is level 4. So it makes sense that it could maybe be a level 5 or 6 which means the max it could be is 24 or 25. As I've mentioned before in another thread it seems every check in the book is a leveled check. I think someone screwed up lol.
Okay when I first looked at the new DC table I was like okay whatever as they were relatively the same. But then I started looking at the new skill checks for Mirrored Moon and I was like dude c'mon. Every Hex has a DC 30 Perception or DC 27 Survival base?? Why?? Only 3 classes have master perception at that level and none of them (Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue) have any reason to have more then +2 MAYBE +3 Wis. So even with a +2 Item bonus that means they would generally have a +15 or so Perception. That's only a 25% chance to find anything after 2 DAYS of searching?? Now Granted the Survival check is a little more doable but 27? Why are these checks so high? There's not a single important check that's lower than 25. That's just not okay. I mean yeah someone could roll a 20 but these just seem way to high for no reason. Was this intended?
What about making Proficiency AND Magic items increase damage but they don't stack? It would take some tweaking but if you make +1 Prof and a +1 Weapon give +1 to hit and +1d but not stack then you don't have this issue of a level 20 Fighter doing a d8 with a non magic sword but still making the strongest of swords relevant, as you can't get that extra +2/+2d anywhere else.
If the expectation is that the PCs will fight multiple enemies, multiple times a day, and that all enemies will try to mercilessly kill PCs at all costs, then the end result is going to be a lot of dead PCs. Being expected to fight 25 enemies over the course of a level and fight 25 enemies that are dead set on murdering you with no regard of their own lives as soon as they see you over the course of a level are two very different things.
This is true RIGHT NOW but in a month? Who knows. If you want to make the playtest better PLAY IT and TAKE THE SURVEYS. They've already changed (and are going to change) 3-4 major things in the game. They are obviously listening and changing things to make a game that people want to play. Many people have already talked about Ancestry and how it was underwhelming, or just plain bad, compared to last edition. They will make changes. If you were planning on PLAYTESTING don't run away at the first sign of trouble. That doesn't help anyone.
I would just like to take the opportunity to say that I both HATE and LOVE the Monk class. As Martial Artist for 9 years (and counting) and having played 3.x for over 17 years I used to love the Monk class (I still enjoy it but not as much as I used to). The problem with the Monk class is it assumes that only these mystical Monks are good at punching people (ha!). It assumes Stances are something that enhances you (like an anime power up, "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!") which is stupid and has nothing to do with what Stances are used for. It also assumes that Monks (Martial Artists) don't use weapons, or that only a few do. ALL old martial artists used weapons. ALL of them. Not using weapons is a modern thing (within the last 100 years or so). So after getting that off my chest (lol) what exactly is the Monk going for? It seems to me to be a mix of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon & Iron Fist. It does well to give this sort of feel I think but I've yet to see a good Monk played in my games as the the one Monk I saw played had a 12 Str so his damage was garbage. I really think they dropped the ball on the Monk. They should have done it like the Druid and given them different options. Like Mystic, Brawler and Weapon Expert. Let all of the options be available but you get bonuses within your chosen discipline. Like toward the end the Brawler is Legendary in Unarmed only, Weapon Expert is Legendary in his chosen weapon, and Mystic stays lower but gains access to a cool Ki power.
My whole problem with playing them like they're *insert whatever* is as soon as you say anything except "realistically" I immediately become un-immersed and lose interest. Because that person is now playing it like it's a game. Like it's chess or checkers. It loses the Role aspect of the game. If I wanted to play a game where none of that matters I would play a console game. I play TRPGs to become immersed. For instance imagine the most hectic time of your life. Remember the fear? The confusion? Anger? Remember possibly not (re)acting within the best of your ability? Now do you remember every detail of that situation? Do you remember the color of the other cars around you? Or do you remember what that random street witness was wearing? No. You don't. Now that is exactly what the PCs and NPCs are going through every battle they get in. Realistically they would barely know what was happening 10 feet away from them, let alone whether someone was waving their hands around to heal or kill them or if the person who fell down is actually dead or not. Now if they had a leader who watched from afar, giving orders and advice that's a different story. I regularly have my threats make mistakes, run away or make suboptimal decisions. Thatales it so when someone actually does do that the PCs are like "Damn, these guys know what's up. We better not screw around" Plus there are also very easy ways to "defeat" a group without killing them. That Manticore drops your party? Well it takes one of your group away as a snack, letting the other ones wake up and regroup, not knowing they are still alive. On the way you say the snatched player wakes up and stabs the Manticore, he drops into a river and floats away. The broken and ragged party now need to find a way to regroup all the while avoiding the Manticore, which after losing its snack is still probably hungry and goes and searches for a new one, giving them some time. Party gets dropped by a bunch of Goblins? The Goblins don't kill them, they instead think it would be fun to torture them or present them to their leader, only he's uninterested and leaves them to be dealt with later. The party wakes up in chains and has a chance to escape. Being narrative about defeat creates a much better story then just "Uhh well the Orcs just kill you because they have no need for you" Create a reason. Unless the players are being purposefully stupid or they fail at a critical moment don't wipe them. Let them build their story.
I do understand your point. I can't say I've had the same experience though. I've only dropped one of players Animal Companions but so far none of my players have dropped to 0. They have had Healers in every party so far so that may have been a factor.
The thing is, and while I will probably end up house ruling Stamina into my games anyway, Treat Wounds is super time consuming. A level 1 party having to bring, let's say, a character from 1 HP to his max of 14 HP could take up to 140+ minutes if they have 10 or 12 Con. So the Wizard is at 3 HP and they don't want to waste any healing potions. Better be ready to wait 2 hours to Heal him up. While Critical Successes will shorten that time even healing a 10 Con Character to max will still take 30 minutes if you get 3 Critical Successes in a row. The funny thing is that actually having a +1 Con is detrimental to healing you with Treat wounds because while it gives you more HP you don't actually heal any more then a +0 Con. So at 3rd level our character has 26 HP with 10 Con or 29 HP with +1 but still only heals 3 HP per success. So it would take 10 more minutes to heal him to full, roughly.
Again, maybe it is just me, but if a game is being balanced around the idea that people will not treat it as a game, then that is flimsy game design. How can that be true? It's a ROLE Playing Game. You are supposed to be playing roles. The Playing Game part is just to say that it isn't real, obviously. That doesn't mean you're supposed to play it as if there are no consequences or the characters within are just mindless bots with a singular objective. If you do then you're omitting the ROLE part of the game you are playing. I see this problem with players and GMs. Players don't use tactics, don't think of preservation, there's no sense of danger. If that's how they play then RPGs aren't for them. GMs on the other hand treat it as them vs the PCs. They play it as if it's a game where defeating the PCs is the final objective. The NPCs always fight to win because running away would be "too easy" for the players. And the GM can always spawn in new NPCs so who cares if they die? Again if this is the way you are GMing then RPGs aren't for you. I hated nothing more when I played 3.x all these years when GMs went out of their way to kill players or screw them over. What's the point of that? Also on a side note. The fact that you had Lvl 10 players killing CR monsters twice their level is terrible. THAT is a flaw within the system if that's possible.
Except that's not how the playtest works at all. It's more like, "Hey I'm trying to create a whole new menu that we're going to reveal in six months. If you agree to help you will get a free meal every week and all you have to do is fill out a survey to let us know what you think." "Sure yeah I've always liked your food so far. I'll help you out" "Okay here's the first menu, we've prepared one of every dish. Let us know what you think" "I don't like 3 of the menu items. Get rid of them completely." "Uhh okay well we can try to change them to suit your taste but they are important to the menu-" "Just get rid of them they are too salty" "Oh okay so add less salt? We can give that a try and you can come back next week and let us know what you think" "Nah that's okay if you're not getting rid of them I'm not coming back" See how that's not helpful at all and doesn't make sense? Unless you hate the whole system you're not helping anyone by leaving the playtest early. Even if you're having a bad time it's supposed to be helping them realize WHY you're having a bad time. Is it something you're doing? Is it a misunderstanding? A system flaw? Is a different playstyle needed from your group to have a better experience? All of these are valid questions. That need a lot of data to be sure of.
So is the Ranger dedication supposed to make Hunt Target useless in combat? It says "however, you don’t decrease the multiple attack penalty for your attacks, and if you share your Hunt Target benefits with others, neither do they." Targeted Hunter also doesn't change that. So you basically get a Hunt Target that only gives you +2 to Perception and Survival no matter what? That's...really bad...
I'm not sure if that was intentional but that is indeed how it would seem to be. There should be a specific rule that says failing a saving throw only lowers your dying condition by 1.
I would argue 8 is the lowest a person could be without being detrimental to the group. Anything below 8 and the character would ridiculously annoying if they were actually role played correctly. Like you know that one stubborn guy who refuses to believe anything you say or always thinks he's right? Or for those of you who have done physical stuff have you every tried having a child or weak teenager help you move stuff? Someone who uses words wrong because he doesn't understand what they mean. Would you like to role play your character getting winded after 2 rounds of combat? Or how about just having to sit there and not be apart of the role play because your character simply doesn't understand that "smart people talk"? Or having him slip and fall walking up stairs because he has two left feet? Those are things your character would HAVE to do if you had dump stats like that. Yet nobody seems to role play like that. That might be fun once. But it shouldn't be the point of the game. The fact that you have to go out of your way to do it is fine to me.
Just make Flat-footed apply to all things that have the attack trait no matter what the DC is. The new Combat Maneuvers need A LOT of love as it. They are super boring and some are just straight up useless.
Honestly the only real problem I have right is the Random AC, Saves, and hit bonuses. Like how does the Fire Giant have +14 Ref? It should have 10-1 for a total of 9. It's to Hit I can understand as it probably has Master Proficiency which would make it 10+7+1+2 for +20. BUT why does it have +20 to hit with its Gauntlet? It should be +19. ALSO why does it have +18 to hit with it's Rock? It should have +10 Max. 10-1+1. I'm all for higher level Monsters being extremely lethal. But making them Mary Sues is just going to make everyone feel bad. It makes me wonder if they wanted all of the monsters to have the same stats to see how they would do in the playtest regardless of individuality but they all ended up to strong.
Yeah it seems like there are many bad circumstances. With your guys lack of a healer and/or frontliner I believe you should have run away. A Monster 3 levels higher than you is going to eat you alive, and it should. AlsobI think that's the first time the playtest puts you up against a threat that much higher than you as well. It was probably meant to test how well the players do. It should be, in the best circumstances, very hard to defeat. I appreciate that. Brings back the lethality of monsters. I always hated how easy monsters even 3 CR higher than me where easy to kill in PF1.
I can't really agree with you there. I think the current multiclassing is the way to go. You begin your path at lvl 2, getting slightly better every 2 levels or so. It's something that takes time, and it should.
That is my bad, I reread the end of his post where he mentioned 7 rounds and I assumed it was 7. To be fair 9 isn't really all that bad either, but I know that isn't your point. My argument is that I don't see how this MAKES a bad experience. Would hitting him on 8+ and killing him in 3 rounds made it more enjoyable? I don't think so. At least not to me (though I understand that not everyone wants the same type of game). It's just seems to me what he described is EXACTLY what a boss battle should be after that sort of scenario. A HARD fought battle after WAVES of enemies drained your resources and then you have to fight a roided up boss? Yeah that should be difficult and not easy. But also how would have that fight changed if they fought him with the two missing players? Probably MUCH different I'm sure. Or fought him at the beginning instead of the end. A much different outcome. The point of the encounter also serves a purpose. I also don't see how this could have been changed either. Either you raise his hitpoints and lower his AC so that you "hit" more often but then it just becomes a grind. Or you lower his AC and keep hitpoints the same and he's just murdered in 3 turns, like the last edition. The big bad boss guy killed in 3 rounds, woo. Btw what's wrong with missing in the boss fight? Again I feel like people are leaving out that VERY important information. IT'S A BOSS. Like how "epic" would the fight against Thanos in Infinity War have been if they took him out in 18 seconds. Hitting him every time and just taking the gauntlet from his cold dead hands. OR how epic would the cave troll fight would have been in LOTR if Fellowship had just surrounded the Cave troll and killed it in 18 seconds. Come on guys, use your imaginations a bit. Think outside of "I hit" "He missed" "I missed" "He hit". If what the dice are saying is the only important thing then I think you're missing the point of Roleplaying. It's not Final Fantasy, there's other stuff going on. It's up to YOU to IMAGINE the scene. The system just gives it structure. But I guess I will have to see how my group handles, we're literally doing the last two waves tonight. I'll see how they react to fighting that boss after having their resources drained. Maybe I'll come away with a different mindset. Who knows.
I don't understand. This fight sounds awesome. You guys barely made it despite being heavily weakened by the loff of 2 players. 7 rounds is not a long time at all. That sounds like an epic victory. On another note please God no don't bring back AoO. AoO was always one of the mechanics I disliked about 3.x. As someone who actually trains in martial arts, with weapons as well as hands, I know how impossible/stupid it would be to attack someone running past you when you're fighting with someone else. Tunnel vision is real. Also if casting a spell gets get AoO then so should melee attacks. One of the best things to do is attack someone mid attack, sounds like AoO to me. Your football reference doesn't really work either as all of this stuff is supposed to be happening in the same six seconds. In your football scenario all of linemen would ready actions to grapple and you would go from there. But honestly the more you try and use the turn based system in real life the more it falls apart.
I can't really agree with this. Its simply because the system is new. I've devoured the book. I can create a lvl 1 martial character in P2E in 10 minutes. I can probably create a spellcaster in 15 min. I can do the most important stuff for a lvl 12 character in like 20. It's gear that usually takes any more time. Against spellcaster are more time consuming but they always were. It's just new. Get used to it and you'll do just fine.
Before the people come in saying how terrible the Ranger is I would like to say I agree. The Ranger is good stuff. I do think some things need to be changed/tweaked/improved but for the most part the Ranger is pretty cool to me.
You could say the same thing about a Barbarian who tanked all of his rolls. The outcome of the dice in a single play test do not show whether a character is effective or not. You can however go off of how game play is effected when the dice rolls go as expected, ie not too good or too bad, as it was for several of my gaming sessions. The Casters did very well. Like I said mvps.
You can't say that just because a class is helping the group out doesn't mean it's not broken. Spellcasters just break the game when used correctly. So that means there is a flaw within the game. Also it isn't hyperbole. They are essentially Gods compared to martial characters. They can destroy, create, heal, fly, turn invisible, teleport, control minds, summon beings, control the weather. How is that not a God? I do agree that raising up Martials is a good idea. But raise them up to what? In a system such as 3.x damage is abstract so anything that does damage can flatly be compared. If you look at all the damage a lvl 9 Wizard can do without magic items and compare it to a Barbarian hitting once or twice against a single guy then I just don't know what to say. While yes the Barbarian could kill everything that the Wizard can kill that doesn't mean that the Wizard isn't doing it better. The caster can consistently damage/impede/weaken multiple people while Martials can at best do it to one. That kind of power gap in 3.x was just to wide. The system of having spellcasters and Martials work together was broken (or iffy at best) and needed fixing. Improving the Martials and nerfing the Casters has helped that tremendously. Some may not like it but it was a needed addition. I do indeed want a game with Casters. It's just nice that they aren't wrecking the game with their power. I guess my main point is that I wholeheartedly disagree that P2E spellcasters are weak. I've seen it in play. They are doing just fine.
Possible Spoilers for Sombrefell Hall I would like to add, and I understand that people might have differing experiences, I've run 5 sessions so far and every one of them has had spellcasters. In the latest one, at level 7, a player made an Evocation Wizard. He's murdered everyone. Literally everyone. He's fired off a Fireball, Lightning Bolt, and a lvl 4 Burning Hands in Sombrefell Hall. He's also used Color Spray and See Invisibility. He has made the combats soooo easy. After he's used his big attack he's used his Telekinetic Projectile and Disrupt Undead to mop up. I understand he's not able to keep this up forever but we're almost to the end of the campaign and he's still got a lvl 4 and lvl 3 spell. OH and he was going to use Knock earlier to open up something but he didn't even need to as he was Trained in Theivery, +4 dex and a skeleton key. I just don't see how spellcasters are weak. I can understand they were nerfed but cmon guys Wizards were Gods in P1E. After like Lvl 8 they could almost one shot anyone and do damn near everything everyone else could do by themselves. Is the current iteration really all that bad?
Are Lances 2 handed even when on a mount? They are usually held with 1 hand and a shield in the other, bracing the weapon against the mount. If I remember in P1E it worked that way, is it the same in P2E?
As I've stated before I think only allowing so many Stamina refills up to your Con mod+1 is the way to go. Having only 1 health pool makes any type of out of combat healing to strong. BUT having the pools separate, with one ONLY being refillable a certain amount of times per day, means that no matter how much EXTRA healing you have (from items or healing spec'd players) it won't be broken, just helpful.
I think every time you go down you also add a Drained value. That way there's a "persistent" effect like last time and Drained also gives you a minus on Fort saves which means if you get dropped 3 times you're Drained 3 so you get a -3 on Fort saves, making it much harder to make the fort saves. It would make getting dropped in combat A LOT more lethal as well.
Again +1 for Stamina
It's also not backed up by Paizo. I'm playing Doomsday Part 4, the level 9 section, and every DC is in the 24-28 range. At no point does it say 'scouting the wilderness is relatively mundane, so the DC is only 16' or 'these guys actually really need help, dispite their standoffish nature, the situation is in your favour and it's a DC 14 diplomacy' - nope, everything is 24-28. It's rubbish. My players don't feel particuarly competent even at their specialties. I understand that 'oh, you're trying to talk to that powerful beast? The inherently hostile one? Yeah, that's a level appropriate challenge. A really tough one, even. DC 30!' Not everything should be easy. But... have some range to these DCs! While not every DC is within that range (there are several DC 18s) it still is exactly as you say. Every DC seems to be based off of the group being lvl 9, which is exactly what they said they weren't going to do. I would argue against several of those DCs being that high. For instance one of them is against a CR 4 Creature and the DC is 26. Why?? Shouldn't you use a DC based off a High level 4 challenge and adjust from there? That means a max of DC 23 at extreme difficulty. The 26 doesn't make sense. I can understand some of the others but come on. I wonder if the other DCs are scaled the same way...*goes to look*
So.... Why does this matter? Like why does it REALLY matter. If they used He/Him, She/Her, or them/they the whole book does it change anything in the book? No. No it doesn't. It doesn't make it easier to read. It doesn't make it MORE inclusive. It doesn't do anything. Maybe they were just like okay the GM is a girl so all instances just use she/her to show its the same person in all instances of GMing. Whoopdie doo. If you somehow have a problem with to many uses of her vs him then YOU have an issue that needs working out. Not Paizo. Can we please stop bringing this up?
Actually making it so Stamina can't be healed by magic is exactly what would make Healers and items still relevant. I'll explain. If a player has let's say 14 HP and 9 Stamina. He takes 4 damage in one battle. He knows he can only regain his Stamina twice in one day (let's say) and he doesn't want to waste it yet, as he still has most of his total Health. So he trudges on. In the next battle he takes 13 damage. He then has to drink a potion or get a heal from a buddy which could be anywhere from 1 (if the potion) to 12 (from Heal). So let's say he heals 5 (around average). He was at 6 HP now he's at 11. After the battle he can use one of his rests and now he's back at 20 total health (11 HP and 9 Stamina). Now the Healer doesn't have to use one his heals on him and can wait until he really needs it again. He would also still have a potion on hand in case of emergencies, like the Healer going down mid combat. But that can't be misused because of Resonance, and cash restrictions. Also because the dying rules you are never in fear of absolutely dying even if you are at half health, as the worst that can happen is you go to dying 2 with a crit. Therefore you would always want to wait until you Stamina is all gone (or almost all gone) before you rest so that would mean you're bound to take HP damage, and make the Healers useful.
I will again reinforce my support of Stamina in Pathfinder. Even just adding it in as an optional rule will probably appease a lot of people. It just makes sense and it works perfectly with Resonance as is. I explained in this thread. It doesn't even need to have a healing factor, just make it so you can heal it 2 ways, a number of times per day equal to your Con modifier +1 or rest for 8 hours. In my post I showed how a Lvl 1 Barbarian with no Healer and only 1 Potion of Healing fared MUCH better than the current system. Even having a healer didn't make it broken because Stamina cannot be healed by magic. So it was this nice give and take of managing your resources for healing and Stamina regen. I like the idea so much I'm probably going to houserule it into my games no matter which direction the playtest goes.
I would like this as well. Not as much as Stamina but I would still enjoy it.
My thing is how are class feats any different from what we already got in P1E? The only difference is more choice and them being called feats. That's it. Look at how easy this 2E character becomes a first edition character simply by changing name of "class feats". "Monk 1st lvl
STYLE PATH
The Monk can pick advanced styles at 6th level or higher if he meets the prerequisites." I don't have to go into full detail but I think you can see my point. It's the same thing. Just because it's called something different doesn't mean it isn't the same. The only thing I would say is that the current problem is that a lot of the classes have are choices like "combat ability" or utility/theme option. Forcing characters to choose between these is a bad idea as it makes it seem like you're forced to choose between playing your class and being combat effective. I hope the feats and bundled a little differently to allow a choice between combat at 1st lvl and then utility at 2nd and then combat at 4th and so on. That way you're never forced to choose between combat and playing your class.
|
