Ryan Freire wrote:
I would argue that Vital Strike / Manyshot both fall into the "non-mandatory" category. Even Clustered Shot can be mitigated with the right ammunition, most of the time.
I think it boils down to Precise Shot, Rapid Shot.
Oh, which of the stated design goals aren't?
But Pathfinder did touch those two topics - many of the more "game-breaking" spells were nerfed (wild shape, Divine Power, Polymorph and their derivatives, Web, the Save-or-die spells, etc). Combined with buffs to the fighting classes and simplifying of feats like Power Attack.
The question of whether they went far enough is still open, of course. But they did make progress.
Better designed? That's questionable. Design principles have always been wishy washy marketspeak. At least Pathfinder was designed to be "compatible with 3.5, but better. And it succeeded at that. Maybe it didn't go far enough, but it largely succeeded.
Depending how you look at it, you could say that in some ways, PF2 did manage to create a system that is easy for developers and GMs to tell the stories they want to tell, for instance.
A better game? Well, we shall see...
With undead steed, does it mean "undead can command the steed without making a check" and "allies of the steed can command the steed without making a check".
Or does it mean "undead can command the steed without making a check" and "allies of undead can command the steed without making a check".
The phrasing is unclear.
Thank you very much for transcribing this.
The content, however, is underwhelming. I thought they were doing away with feat trees.
And the "Devotion" line of fears are either overcosted (if low-level class feats are powerful), or insignificant (if they are not). It seems like nothing more than the option to check a box labelled "mulitclassing".
All Jason's statement tells us is that he knows how to perform multiplication.
How many of those choices are meaningful? How many of them have a concrete effect on how the game is played?
If I'm choosing from fifteen different backgrounds, couldn't this be a barrier to playing the character that I want to play?
If we're bringing up "number of distinct choices" as a metric for system flexibility, my int 10 human barbarian has 1'947'792 different ways of allocating skill points alone.
At first level.
If we're talking about the compatibility with pre-existing content, by dropping compatibility with Pathfinder (and by extension with 3.5), we're losing eighteen years of first-party content. Not to mention all the other third party stuff.
Getting three years of 5e content (which seems to be lighter on the ground than the Pathfinder content produced even in that same period) doesn't seem like a good exchange.
If Doomsday Dawn was a test, one thing it objectively failed at was demonstrating that AP writers could readily come up with justifications as to why a certain skill usage required a particular level-appropriate DC.
You realise that literally anything that isn't an established system will satisfy that requirement?
"Doesn't support Pathfinder mechanics" isn't a glowing statement of support for a system.
Mary Yamato wrote:
A different approach you could have taken - and one that I have taken is to explain to the GM that if the PC's numbers are incorrect, the best person to fix it is the GM.
This is why we have GMs.
I started playing D&D when 3.0 was out. When Vancian Casting was presented to me back then, it was different to any other system I'd dealt with. But then I realised that other systems for limiting a mage's spellcasting were harder to track and balance.
I've seen various other attempts to structure magic differently, from point-based psionics, to 'prepared spontaneous' (3.5e Spirit Sharmen/PF Arcanist/5e wizard), to Pool-based (One ring/SP), to Limited Daily Use (4e style). Of these, none seem to offer the balance and reward offered by Vancian.
While the call for Vancian Casting to be removed is loud, I think it's important to consider what it is to be replaced with.
I think that the Requirements for a Replacement would be as follows:
I have yet to see such a system. Maybe the fact that after the years of PF2 design we are being presented with Vancian Casting indicates that the Designers have also been unable to come up with one.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Amazing, creative people can have a great time, play a great game, and tell a great story regardless of the system they're playing it under.
A great system makes it easier for people who aren't amazing, creative people to do the same.
As I see it, it won't really come up. By the time +1/level becomes really significant (level 4 or so), almost all things that people are going to actually roll on will be at least trained.
Perception, attack rolls, and AC are all automatically trained - it doesn't matter that a wizard gets a -15 to AC when wearing armour because she will never be wearing armour.
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out the weaknesses in the mathematics of Pathfinder - and the Playtest - they bring up skill modifiers. When what is at stake with an unreasonably high modifier is typically not particularly impactful in the big picture.
At least compared to combat modifiers of save DCs, attacks and AC. Which all appear to be always at least trained.
Effectively all this change achieves is aggressively trained-proficiency-gates all skill uses vs scaling DCs.
My issue is that when writing these systems for testing (healing, dying, resonance etc), it wasn't clear what the designers wanted to achieve with it.
They made complaints (clw spam, "big six", "mandatory items", item slots, overuse of low-level consumables) but they didn't state what they wanted to achieve.
For example, rather than saying "clw spam is a problem", they should say "for out of combat healing, we expect PCs to be spending about X% of wbl." Then design a healing system around that.
But so far, the only "design goals" that have been posted are really wishy-washy and the myriad subsystems they've published - while they might well be good ideas - show a lack of cohesion.
Yes, yet when you read these very boards, there are numerous claims that its campaign specificity is routinely ignored, resulting in abuse.
Shouldn't we aim to not print rules that are commonly abused - regardless of which side of the screen they typically apply?
A rule that is habitually ignored is by no means a good rule.
And a rule that's commonly abused is not a good addition to the game. Just look at Blood Money.
Exhibit A. Page 30 of the Playtest rulebook.
I honestly just think that you should be happy that some of these options are even available in PF2.
I think you're missing the point. Maybe the OP's example of a wizard wielding a greataxe was a little extreme, but an ability that is only available at a high level is in some ways worse than that ability not existing at all. At least if it doesn't exist, it can be added in a later splatbook or be achieved by a player's creativity.
If a player wants Blind Fight, its very existance as a tenth level feat precludes its use for at least half the game.
Comparing the Playtest with the 2008 Pathfinder Beta, this genre was possible, with either a base cleric or base wizard (also achievable with Sorcerer).
A core-to-core comparison should be valid - saying that it might be in a future book is admitting that the product as released is an incomplete product.
Removing core options on the surface, makes it harder to tell the same stories using the new system.
Rather than attacking the OP on the kind of character he wants to play, it's better to ensure that the options are available.
4e has an extensive series of specific DCs in addition to DMG page 42.
It didn't stop the aforementioned table being abused.
I couldn't agree more. But the solution that worked for 3.5e was not to print these options. And it worked pretty well.
The fact that the APG released the alchemist (3/4 BAB that targets touch), followed by the Gunslinger (full BAB that targets touch) illustrates a possible lack of understanding on the part of the developers early this decade.
These options weren't in core, and is how that if it was redone, it wouldn't happen again.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Haven't you just reinvented skill points, with a different name?
As a GM, the last thing I want to be required to do is tell players, "you can never achieve that". Blanket denials rob players' ability to creatively overcome challenges.
Is this really a good idea?
There are actual issues with defences being too high - especially defences that negate effects (which definitely includes 'high AC').
It slows combat down. It causes frustration to the other side (GM or player). In extreme cases it results in fishing for natural 20s.
Luckily, a pool of HP should also be considered a defence, which might be a mitigating factor...
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I don't think people are claiming they I'm wrong. There are claims that they don't like it.
And there are claims that it's fine. Both of which are completely legitimate.
But assessing the system against its design goals requires understanding the design goals.
A few months ago, Jason Bulmahn posted the design goals for PF2. In particular, the second one:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
The question that arose here was, "who is 'us'?" Paizo (in selling adventure paths)? A GM, running a homebrew? Five people from diverse backgrounds, sitting at a table?
While I had some theories, I wanted to ask about it, but was unable to properly phrase my question.
Last Tuesday, I read an interesting post from Jason Bulmahn:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
It finally snapped and I now understand the design goals as stated.
PF2 wants to allow characters to be customisable, but wants GMs to be able to tell the stories they want to tell.
Say as a GM, I wanted to run an investigation of a murder by poisoning. In Pathfinder, the access to the detect poison cantrip might make this problematic. But lo! PF2 has provided me the tool to say "detect poison is uncommon, you can't learn it" (and even if you could, it's a first level spell).
The decoupling of monsters from being bound by PC rules makes it very easy for a GM to tell their story. A Razmiran calamity can easily be explained as "he's an NPC", while also preventing a high level PC from attempting to replicate his success.
Should a magic barrier exist, a GM can easily prevent it being solved by making it a few levels higher so that the counteract rules prevent the PCs from dispelling it. In Exploration Mode, a GM no longer needs to worry about the druid spending all their time in Wild Shape.
By level-restricting items, the risk of the odd high-level consumable interfering with the story - at least at character creation - has been eliminated.
Players should still have options. It's important from a financial standpoint for the company, and it's an important checkbox to maintain the "feel of Pathfinder". We'll give characters a massive amount of options, as long as it doesn't affect the story the GM wants to tell.
Because after all, it's the GM who's telling the story.
I find peoples hatred of 10-2 so weird, and while I do agree the world shouldn't automatically scale with you, so does Paizo. It's clearly stated in the rules that the world doesn't arbitrarily scale, so all 10-2 really is, is a helpful tool. I do however want Paizo to make a more...
Although it's "clearly stated in the rules", both Doomsday Dawn and abilities like Lingering Performance clearly have DCs that directly use that scale.
So it doesn't provide a restriction more than any sort of gp pricing does, and causes unnecessary confusion. Why does the subsystem exist?
One of the best PFS games I ran was solved by the players coming up with a really well thought-out plan and executing it with the help of a hired casting of veil (in tier 5-9). Removing player agency in this regards is not a good thing for an RPG.
If item price is so closely tied to level (and price is much more easily justifiable in-game), what is the point of levels for items in the first place?
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
So, if there were no +1/level, what is the alternative? Have the same to-hit at level 15 as you have at level 2? I'm not really sure what the point of this entire post is, honestly.
The OP has illustrated a problem. He likely hasn't spent three and a half years working on a system to be able to supply a workable solution.
It's a hard problem - and one that will frame Pathfinder 2 for the life of the system.
Math of an RPG is hard. It's also hard to house-rule around.
With Essentials, WotC tried to rework the math of D&D 4e. By that time, the interest in 4e had plummeted. Even with the brand recognition, they didn't have much of a second chance.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Sounds like Quadratic Fighters. Why is this an issue in-principle?
Wow. There's a lot of association of "people who don't like the direction" with powergamers. It's easy to dismiss opposing views in this manner.
I think that classes in general should scale differently. It promotes diversity, highlights differences between classes, and incentivises characters to play to their strengths. And the diversity should increase as levels increase.
Designing such a system, while maintaining balance, is possible, but difficult. Designing for such a system is difficult too. But I think that it is worth the effort.
But I understand the temptation to take the easy way out and use uniform scaling across the board. But I don't like it.
These settlement rules existed in a similar form in the D&D3.0 DMG. Paizo has used them since at least 2007 (Rise of the Runelords book 2)
This really depends. It's likely that if PFS2 has that restriction, it will at least matter there.
But from what we've seen of PF2, magic items are at least required for the system to function: and there is therefore an assumption that they will be available.