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.
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.
Steve Geddes wrote:
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.
I know this cannot be answered in absolutes but I would like to know if any of the developers can tell me/us how much more stuff is going to be in the final draft of the book. One of my players main concerns is that there just isn't enough in the playtest to Warren switching to the new system. I said it's impossible to cram 10 years of content into a single playtest book but his point is valid. So I have this question.
How much more will we see in regards to Ancestry, Skill, and Class Feats as well as Backgrounds, Archetypes, Prestige Classes and Spells?
25% more? 50%?
I know this cannot be answered right now as we have 2 months+ of playtest left but just in a general ballpark how much more will be included?
To everyone in the forums how much more would you like included? I would like the following,
Ancestry/Heritage Feats: Maybe about 4 more per Ancestry. Whether that's 1 heritage and 3 Ancestry or 2 and 2 I don't really mind. About 4 more seems good.
Skill Feats: I honestly think there should be a LOT more skill feats. Like double what we have now. Really let our characters flesh out our skills. I love the new system but it's just not beefy enough.
Class Feats: I'm not sure how many more I would like. Maybe 2 extra every time a class feat is gained. That seems okay.
Backgrounds: I am actually quite happy with the current backgrounds so maybe add like 4 or 5 more. I'm not quite sure.
Archetypes/Prestige: This is something I hope there is a whole chapter of the book dedicated too. I want at least a dozen Archetypes (not including the basic Class Archetypes) and maybe 4 to 6 prestige classes.
Spells: I think some more "cool" spells need to be added. I don't have a specific number but throw some cool new spells in there. Really make this edition your own.
What do you guys want to see in the core rulebook upon release?
It's because then you have to add in your natural ability and experiences to get your actual modifier. Like a lvl 1 Druid who has a 16 Str actually gets a +0 instead of a -4. That same Druid using untrained Medicine gets a +1 due to her Natural Wisdom. It depends on a lot of things.
It makes training more important.
You're reading that sentence by itself while it's actually a continuation of the sentences before. In the example it says,
"So if you had a Hardness 3 shield and blocked a 6-damage attack"
This could have been interpreted before as the shield taking 1 or 2 dents, hence the confusion, and if it took 2 dents it would be broken. But the new update continues to say,
"you would take 3 damage and the shield would take 1 Dent because 6 damage is equal to or greater than its Hardness. Note that it no longer gets broken due to the update."
So it's just clarifying that it takes 1 sent and not 2. It's not saying that shields cannot be broken at all, just not in that example.
Colette Brunel wrote:
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.
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.
Well other then common sense says so if you want a specific rules answer I guess I'll give it a go. Under Command an Animal it says,
"you might be able to instruct your animal to move to a certain square"
Now it doesn't say how far away that square is so you could theoretically tell it to move to a square 300ft away and it would go there within the best of its ability, which if it doesn't want to fatigue itself it will wander on its own. So the only time you would need to use Command an Animal again is if you need to change directions, which makes sense.
Colette Brunel wrote:
Except that wandering is a single tactic so if you order the horse to wander it will just move at its travel speed. I highly doubt a horse wouldn't be able to wander. Again I'm sure that Ride and Command and Handle Animal are for Encounters not Exploration.
Colette Brunel wrote:
One PC is a bear companion druid, but unfortunately, the rest of the party did not pony up for the Ride feat, which is all but necessary to viably use a mount for overland travel.
Why is that? Command an Animal and Handle Animal are both untrained Survival checks with very low DCs. Ride seems to be a feat specifically for encounters. What rule says you can't ride a horse for overland travel?
They would definitely need mounts and a little bit of luck. A Horse has a speed of 40 meaning they can move 32 miles a day. That's almost 3 hexes a day. But if they find the slain mercenaries way before they find Ramlocks tower then they'll just lose out on that point. But yeah if they're walking it seems there's no way to be able to get it. They'll need mounts.
I may have exaggerated a bit much but my original point is true. In REAL combat a stance does very little. Stances are something you get into during duels, when you have time to prepare, and do not hold up after the initial clash of combat. Plus real combat is not a duel. It's hectic and chaotic and there is absolutely no time to get into stances. Granted I may be getting too "real" for the developer's tastes but I am correct.
Edit: For the record I love anime 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.
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.
I guess my point is that it's hard to define what exactly entails a "class feature" and what doesn't. To me classes have focuses, if you want to have a class that's good with weapons (Fighter) then you need to limit the other classes with those weapons. Otherwise the Fighter becomes almost pointless, like in P1E. Now if those classes have a specific theme of their own give them their own feats for those themes. But leave the genaric theme of good with weapon to the Fighter.
The Fighter now has a purpose. You want to be REALLY good at TWF? Be a Fighter. Want to be REALLY good with a bow? Be a Fighter. Want to be REALLY good at 2-handers? Be a Fighter.
Want to be sneaky, skilled, and agile? Well you're going to have to give up being REALLY good at TWF. Can you still do it? Absolutely. But will you be REALLY good at it? No. Because you want to be REALLY good at sneaking, skills and agility.
Even the only other class that gets TWF/Bow (the Ranger) is because that fits it's (prior) theme. I would argue they should have abandoned it and made more broad feats that work with Hunt Target and have different effects depending on what weapon they're using. That would focus the Fighter even more as the weapon master.
To me that would have been ideal.
Skills & Skill Feats
Now if they removed the class system entirely (or instead made it very broad) and made most of the class abilities into the feats anyone (or mostly anyone) could take I would enjoy that as well. But I think the change is a good change for keeping the classes unique and special. Fighters will be good at Fighting, Rogues will be good as sneaking/skills, Rangers will be good at tracking and taking down targets, Barbarians will be good at... Being mad? Lol
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.
Colette Brunel wrote:
I was actually just thinking of something just like that. My thoughts were to introduce something like this,
Go For The Kill [AAA]
I think something like that would be an awesome thing to implement. It makes killing immobile, sleeping, or fallen characters a thing but not exactly something you would do in the middle of combat.
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.
Colette Brunel wrote:
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.
This is all solved by not thinking of the game like it's a game, which I've brought up before. In reality if an enemy falls you'd move onto the next one, there's no reason to worry about someone who is on the floor vs someone who could stab you. Now if you see that person get up and the same creature faces the same PC again he MIGHT be like him "Hmm didn't I take that guy down already?" only then could I MAYBE see any enemy attacking a downed opponent.
Now this would still only be true if there was no one else attacking said creature or near him what so ever. As again the creature isn't going to go "It doesn't matter if I'm hit because I've got HP to spare. Lemme attack this guy to really make sure he's dead".
In your arm wrestling match example there are a few ways you could roll that in the new system. The most rules friendly version would probably be Athletics vs Athletics DC. A lvl 13 Wizard would have a +9 untrained Athletics skill (if he had 10 Str). The Barbarian would have a +7 or +8 depending on if he was Expert or not (with 18 Str). Now who roles against who? As the person rolling would generally have the advantage I would give it to whoever has the higher Proficiency, so the Barbarian. So a Barbarian would have to roll against a DC 19. Seems kind of high but certainly doable.
Another way you could do it is simply compare their base stats, which are very similar, and go off the chart to decide the DC. Because they are similar I would argue it's a Medium difficulty. So again who rolls? I would again argue the person with the higher Proficiency. So a medium DC for a lvl 3 character is 15. That's a LOT easier. But maybe a little to outside the box.
The other thing that you could do is have a straight Str vs Str DC. Giving it to the Barbarian again he would get his +4 against a DC 10 (10+str). A lot easier again.
Remember that the system is supposed to help the GM and players. If it needs some quick tweaking it gives you all the tools to do that.
In the old system it would be Str vs Str with most of the outcomes simply decided by the luck of the Dice. A Wizard could roll a 16 and the Barbarian rolls a 6. Does that "make sense"? Not quite sure lol.
Matthew Downie wrote:
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?
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.