Rob Godfrey's page

My goblin cleric coordinated an international freedom fighting network across 2 continents with dream messages in our Age of Ashes campaign. Non-detection is absolutely vital for narrative adventure writing purposes and is a very well-written version of this spell for PF2. I enjoy getting it for free with my magic warrior wizard in PFS.

Have you even read ooze form? It feels like that is a list of spells you haven’t even fully read, you just dONT LIKe the sound of what they do.

Which Is great, the type of caster you wanted to play is supported, a lot of people's isn't,.or not very well.

Well, you will have to choose what you want from a blaster:

- Staying power
- Damage potential

The Kineticist is was designed, way back in 1st edition as the "all-day blaster". That has always been its nature. In your 30th combat of the day, the kineticist can keep pace with all the martials who don't have resources to track, while the Wizard and cleric ran out of spells 20 fights ago.

What the kineticist cannot do is "reach into the toolbox and grab anything off-theme"(if you're a pure geokineticist and a problem can't be solved with rocks, it can't be solved by you) and it probably can't hit the same peaks for damage as a slot casting blaster in the 2-3 fights where the slot casting blaster decides to go all out.

This is a reasonable way to differentiate these classes and was, in fact, the same way they were distinguished in PF1. Back in PF1 the Blood Arcanist with Spell Perfection on Delayed Blast Fireball did more damage than the Kineticist did, but it could only cast Empowered Intensified Maximized Fireball with 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots and you only got so many of those.

It's not a bad idea to have two classes have different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to doing the same thing. Like a fighter with a greataxe and a barbarian with a greataxe play differently. A monk with a bow and a ranger with a bow play differently. This is, in fact, a good thing.

What the kineticist shows is if you're going to get a themed specialist then the difference between "that thing" and "a wizard" is that the wizard is a toolbox character which has options that the themed specialist doesn't have. This is by design and not wanting to use those options is like a fighter not wanting to use the best weapons.

Except the Wizards 'best weapons' are the utterly boring debuffs, that turn them into a sidekick to the main characters...It's even worse for elemental/dragon themed sorcerers, who don't get to do the one thing they were born to do very well.

The Raven Black wrote:

I wonder who the consultant with expertise in matters of DEIB is. With all the name-dropping, it feels weird to me that their name was not mentioned.

They've already gotten into enough trouble doxxing customers, I don't think they have any interest in doing this to a legal professional they've hired.

We've already seen how nasty twitter warriors can be in all of this and I am confident that if Paizo started releasing the names of individuals who will be doing this work at the firm with X or Y specialty that they'd instantly have 5-20 activist twitter stans spending hours if not days aggressively researching anything and everything that named individual has ever done in order to try to pick at each and every seam, thread, and post they've very personally shared publicly or in some cases privately. That is not "accountability" at all, it's encouraging harassment and pointless dirt-digging.

we have seen how dishonest, untrustworthy and evasive Paizo management are. Only deeds will help now.

keftiu wrote:

I don’t feel comfortable monetarily supporting Paizo until the specific allegations about the treatment of trans employees are addressed.

The allegations are meritless, have no evidence, and fundamentally cannot ever be disproven by way of the nature they are presented... you might as well just stop posting here because this is a nothing-burger and if you expect concrete info on it you're going to be left waiting just like the USA waiting for news of WMDs in Iraq.

.

So you don't regard witness/victim statements as evidence?

Maybe someone should put together a list of gaming companies they won't give money to. They could even color code it with the companies being either red or green based on whether they're woke or unwoke.

It's called voting with your wallets, something conservatives have claimed for years we should do in the market..then they scream and cry about cancel culture when we do.

Generally speaking, a union is not going to stop something like the firing of Sara Marie. Most union/contractor relationships are completely discretionary. Meaning the worker can walk off the job for any or no reason and the union can put them right back to work the next day with another contractor. No questions asked. OTOH, the contractor can send a worker away for zero cause and have the union send someone else in their stead.

Of course if this happens to any meaningful degree, one side or the other is going to cry foul. The contractor could just not renew their contract with the union. And the union could strike or "conveniently" not have any workers available for the contractor when needed.

The primary role of the union is simply to create a framework by which the workers, represented by a few elected officials can bargain on equal ground for benefit and conditions with the company who also appoints a few officials to speak for them. Both sides have to negotiate in good faith or both sides will suffer. Maybe not immediately, but in the long run.

I suppose both sides could agree to a no-separation without cause clause, but those can often hurt the employee as much as the company so few agree to such things.

This is all just from the perspective of the US. I have not studied nor participated in any European, African, or Asian unions so I don't know how closely (or different) the US model matches the others. I strongly support unions, but its hard to discuss them because there is so much misinformation and unsubstantiated bias on both sides that it usually devolves into a street fight.

That sounds like an employment agency rather than a Union, interesting.

The 1e and 2e Warpriests really aren't comparable, 2e Warpriest is pretty much 1e Cleric, and 1e Warpriest isn't in the game, the hybrid classes require a lot of work to bring across, if it is possible at all.

Stay safe, and best of luck to all.

Tremaine wrote:

Since I hate the feat tax Dedication system, it's a lose/lose, an awful system forced on you to get a hollow echo of what was. Feats used to be a way of customizing, something anyone who met the prerequisites could take (needed work, obvious fails and op options did exist, no question, but if you wanted to be slightly more fighty, or more skilled or w/e, you could) Now it's a wall, the 'niche protection' they talked about in the Playtest streams, acting as 'role enforcement' with a really high penalty for trying to go off predetermined, developer approved builds, the prestige dedications are slightly better, but then they are replacing prestige classes, not feats per se, (this is why we have multiple versions of TWF, or only fighters getting Power Attack, which is closer to vital strike anyway) So it's gone from open but messy, to one system trying to cover everything, while wrapping tonnes of chain round...

Well, not playing PF (or, at least, PF2) is a totally viable decision.

Though: You can only say something is poorly designed in the context of its design goals. Old feats weren't just messy. They were wildly inconsistent with one another. They "forced" you to take chains of feats you maybe didn't want to get to the thing you cared about. That isn't *bad* but it clearly wasn't what the designers wanted.

I think Dedications, as a system, are fine. Some are better than others. That is also fine and, honestly, inevitable.

Not liking something doesn't make it a bad design and we could all do without hyperbolic ranting like saying you are being "chained" in some way or ascribing ill intent to the designers.

it's not ill intent, they had specific goals in mind (niche protection, and stop people taking Mc for the front loading or edge case interactions, to name 2) and AFAIK they achieved that, but to do it requires restrictions, and the other side of niche protection is role enforcement, so we get a very talent tree like system, that has a very clear idea of what it means to be a class, and how to make it punitive to try to leave that vision. It's a crpg type vision, and I don't like it because of that (when I want a crpg/mmo experience, I can have that, on my pc, solo or with friends) I want TT to be freer than that, it's what I didn't like about 4e, and it's entered the DNA of this edition, that is the problem, PF started because of a rejection of what they now embrace. Sorry for formatting, posting from phone.

Tremaine wrote:

No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting...

I'll confess I get confused by this kind of complaint.

It seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that focus spells were never intended to replace Ranger or Paladin spell casting. The old-school Ranger and Paladin are Ranger/Druid and Paladin/Cleric multiclasses.

But by setting up the base class as spell-less, they now give players the option of effectively trading away Ranger/Paladin spell-casting for addition class feats. Even better, you can make these trades incrementally, allowing you to decide just how much of the spell-casting you want to trade away. (And with full investment, you get a lot *more* spell-casting than the old Ranger and Paladin had, so there are further options there too.)

This strikes me as a win-win: the previous options are all there, but now you have further options as well.

Since I hate the feat tax Dedication system, it's a lose/lose, an awful system forced on you to get a hollow echo of what was. Feats used to be a way of customizing, something anyone who met the prerequisites could take (needed work, obvious fails and op options did exist, no question, but if you wanted to be slightly more fighty, or more skilled or w/e, you could) Now it's a wall, the 'niche protection' they talked about in the Playtest streams, acting as 'role enforcement' with a really high penalty for trying to go off predetermined, developer approved builds, the prestige dedications are slightly better, but then they are replacing prestige classes, not feats per se, (this is why we have multiple versions of TWF, or only fighters getting Power Attack, which is closer to vital strike anyway) So it's gone from open but messy, to one system trying to cover everything, while wrapping tonnes of chain round anyone daring to use it, is it class features? Or feats? Or Multi-classing? Because it's not working at being all 3, and frankly it is so terrible as a system, I will not interact with Dedications any more, tried it during the playtest, absolutely and totally hated it, would rather not play PF than interact with that system in any way shape or form.

Tremaine wrote:

that still leaves Sacred Weapon to be covered (and dice size is more important than ever now), as well as the altered Domains, and limited casting.

Deadly simplicity, standard domains, and focus spells instead of casting, with a cleric MC giving the limited casting back if you want it.

Make some of those focus spells focus cantrips that self buff, and you've got the beginnings of a PF1 warpriest in the PF2 system.

No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting, the versatility of a selected spell list out weighs the benefits of a really small number of spells that are spam-able, at least for me, the thematic of sacrificing top level spells and spell progression for more martial power is also core to the identity of the WP. Also having domains changed to reflect a different role in the faith is part of that identity. War Priests are not some Dedication riddled mess, they are a separate strain of the clergy.

I'm not sure if Sacred Weapon is necessary to bring back beyond things we already have like "deadly simplicity", since post-WMH the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain who picked up a good weapon was sort of *the* default warpriest.

Never played an Arsenal Chaplain, have played straight War Priest, Cult Leader, Divine Commander and a Champion of the Faith. ( really like war Priests, almost as much as I like Paladins/Tyrant Anti-Paladins. )

we will get another magus eventually.

. I hope it is feels more like a Magus than the current 'war priest' feels like a real war priest.

Cool, there's plenty of games where Paladin is the Destructor and Vanquisher. PF2 isn't one of them. Accept it, move on and let's maybe try to keep this thread on topic instead of trying (and laughably failing) to engage a class tribalist?

since my choices will soon be PF2 or nothing, that isn't a choice I have. (the move on to different game, not the derail thing)

Saldiven wrote:

Mos Eisley makes a bit of sense because it's a space port where people from hundreds or thousands of different planets travel. It's not unreasonable that there are hundreds or thousands of different intelligent species going through because they come from so many different worlds that have developed intelligent life.

Golarion however, has dozens of intelligent species on just this one planet, not even addressing the ones that ultimately came from somewhere else. No explanation for how they've all managed to survive to modern times, especially considering the inherent violence of the world. Little explanation is ever given to the relationships between the species. They're all just provided as material to fill new publications, but little thought is given to how it impacts the internal logic of the world. This is the same argument I've made to why I hate the 200+ divinities that existed in PF1 at the end. It's great for providing interesting combinations for people to play, but each addition makes the world as a whole make less sense, unless the players and GM just ignore all the questions raised by the additions.

The problem isn't the ancestry, it is the geography. Golarion has all those peoples--I like to claim that interstellar gods liked copying their favorite species to Golarion--but most live in isolated places and are seldom seen in regular society. An uncommon-species party in Pathfinder is as if a roleplaying game about 17th-century colonization of the Americas had a party consisting of a Tibetan monk, a Russian horseman, an Arabic sailor, an aboriginal Australian boomerang hunter, and a French musketeer. All those people existed on Earth in the 17th century, but not together in colonial Virginia.

Yet we can assume that Pathfinder adventurers are well traveled, so some characters could have come from far away. As James Jacobs said above (comment #92) player...

. Can't speak about the aboriginal hunter, but the first Japanese Ronin had arrived in South America within 20 years of the discovery, as had Indian and Chinese merchants, with their guards, so the party you describe will odd is by no means impossible. That is just an aside that fascinated me, people moved far more than is the stereotype.

Ahh yes, the Paladin’s “You strike at my allies instead of facing me? Have at thee, varlet!”, the Liberator’s “Mike! Get out of there!!”, and the Redeemer’s “Are you really being the person Mr. Rogers thought you could be? No? Then I’m sorry friend, there’s a price to pay for villainy.”

Truly the height of vileness and evil.

you mean the Paladins 'their blade is caught in Mikes guts, savage them while they struggle' the redeemers 'feel your sanity shatter under my torturous visions' and the liberators 'inflict frenzy'? Dress them up however, but that is how they strike me.

Seriously, best use of Paladins reaction is while hiding behind human shields...yea.

Tremaine wrote:

The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack, it has removed the fun of two weapon fighters and flurries huge pile of attacks (low chance of success I admit, but something about rolling 6 or more different coloured d20s for an attack routine is great), and I liked the feel of the war gaming legacy turn structure, the move action, standard action and action of opportunity felt 'right' for a fantasy rpg.

The 3-action system makes a move-attack-move skirmisher workable, instead of a contrived inefficient disappointment such characters were in PF1. After investing multiple feats you could move, make a grand total of 1 attack and move again, which meant your damage output was so far behind "stand still and full attack ad nauseam" characters that it wasn't even funny.

So much for "feeling right for fantasy RPG". In PF2, since attacks beyond the first one have much less chance to land, making a skirmisher doesn't require as much investment and is far more viable.

anything about 'feeling right' is going to be subjective, these are reasons why I don't enjoy the game as is, not reasons I think you should not.

Tremaine wrote:

The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack

Full attack style iteratives were the one of the worst things that could ever happen to martials. They consistently helped to hold martials as an entire archetype back throughout the entire life of 3.x and PF1. Ana ll around terrible mechanic.

You phrase this as though getting rid of them has somehow left martials worse, but that's simply not true, it's almost purely an upgrade, both in terms of relative power this edition and in term of overall mechanical functionality.

Quote:

My issue with the rock solid role enforcement

This one I question on a fundamental level. What 'rock solid' role enforcement?

From experience with the 3 action system, hard disagree that it is an upgrade, it felt boring, flat and uninteresting, everyone had 3 actions, everyone was the same...bleughh. It was boring in unchained, boring in playtest, and boring in live. I loved the challenge and payoff of setting up those full round attacks, now? Everyone can do it, everyone bounds around like super mario...no solid battle lines shattering in a charge, no collapse in disarray, no getting cut to pieces if you are dumb enough to try to run past an enemy (unless they have a specific class with a specific feat)

On rock solid role enforcement: Their are, for champions 3 feats that aren't tied to either healing or tanking with their reaction, and those are arguable. (Smite is a tick until they hit you, blade spirit feats are ok for this, the Oaths are tied to reactions ,so part of the problem, that champions feats are tied to provoking aggro, not striking down evil)

Champions are bound to the tank role, no matter if that is utterly and totally anathema to what your vision of paladins is, you have that or heal as the supported play styles, nothing that supports, properly, being the right hand of a wrathful deity, either the near frenzy and rage of Good/Chaos axis, the cold burning wrath of the law/good axis, or the judgement and compassion of the pure good of n/g axis.

That post complaining about 2E is quite difficult to read as it seems to be all one sentence when paragraphs would help. It is a shame because there might be some more parts to explore in there

But leaving that aside I am intrigued what it is about the 3 action system you don’t like since as Captain mentions it is probably the most popular part even amongst those who don’t really like the new game

The 3 action system (combined with everyone getting +1/lvl) negates the one advantage martials had, the iterative attack, it has removed the fun of two weapon fighters and flurries huge pile of attacks (low chance of success I admit, but something about rolling 6 or more different coloured d20s for an attack routine is great), and I liked the feel of the war gaming legacy turn structure, the move action, standard action and action of opportunity felt 'right' for a fantasy rpg.

My issue with the MC archetypes is: they fail at multiclassing, you aren't sacrificing one progression for another, you can't represent someone who has turned their back on a career with it, because they keep improving at that first class, so Brother Cadfael would have kept levelling as a fighter, even as he was living as a Benedictine, and gaining xp as an investigator, so they don't achieve an in story goal, and end up just being a feat tax on weapon skills, one that locks you into a 3 feat investment, especially if you want to join a knightly order or similar.

My issue with the rock solid role enforcement is the same in pf2 as it was with 4e, if I want the tank/dps/debuff/healer split, I have a computer, and MMOs do it better, it is a set of mechanics lifted from MMO and CRPG gaming and forced onto the tabletop, and it damages the classes it touches, my examples, because the annoy me the most, are Champions and War Priests. Champion has gone from the crusader of ADnD (seriously seeking out a Holy Avenger was part of the code of morality, as was forsaking all other weapons to use it), who in art was portrayed as standing alone against the demonic, who in DnD 3.x was even more the righteous hand of divine power, smiting evil and standing while others could not, but with more concepts validated by the feat system opening up archery, and weapon styles that previously hadn't been possible, to now be the guy who hangs back hoping his enemies leave an opening as their weapons get stuck in his allies, if he wants to make best use of his reaction.

War Priests are a joke, they took one of my favourite mechanics fron PF1, the 1-6 caster with secondary resources, (be that WP with fervor, Magus with Arcana, Hunter with their stances or w/e) and used it as the name for a class that has zero feats related to, well, the War part of the name, and is stuck with 1-9 casting. They are the classic cleric and them being given that name makes it clear, those fun classes of PF1 aren't coming back.

Those issues will do for now.

Sorry about the formatting of the orgininal post, it was stream of consciousness a little, I hadn't intended to do a 'and this is what I don't like about PF2 dump.

I visit this forum in the vain hope I will read a post that makes the system click for me, something I have missed that makes it possible for me to look past those issues enough to actually enjoy it, because I don't live in a big city where finding a group playing classic is possible, and I like Golarion as a setting, but as it stands of its PF2 or nothing, I chose doing another hobby. My experience with Roll20 etc has been bad, not through meeting bad people, just that timezones and real life commitments fizzle those groups fairly quickly.

Not sure overall, but my group will probably switch soonish, (3 people love what they see in 2e, 2 not so much, maybe the GMG will allow enough modifications of the rules people have issues with to let us reach compromise rule set), and ofc more content in general to hopefully give us back classes/concepts we liked (proper War priests and smite loving champions being my wants, really do not like champions as tanks and war priests as full casters, misses the point of both, at least for me). I have other issues, but will probably switch eventually, or try to move to another system entirely (Witcher and Zweihander look interesting, as does Cyberpunk or an old edition of Shadowrun).

So anecdotally, people switch if their friends do.

VampByDay wrote:

(How did we get on Tungsten death rods?)

I asked if players could break balance if given a lot more expansion bays to work with on larger ships. The answer was basically "no", so far. Trying to use Atomic Rockets logic in Magic/High-Sci-Fi doesn't count.

putting the Sci into Sci-fi is fun, plus makes settings more interesting, at least to me, otherwise its reskinned fantasy, and I prefer that without the veneer. But then I prefer Mass Effect to Star Wars, and Altered Carbon is pretty much my favourite universe, so each to their own.

Will 1-6 casters, like the War Priest and Magus return? Multiclassing really did not feel like them, to much of what made them interesting was missing (though Eldritch Knight was mostly covered), for instance the Fervor/Arcane Points mechanics, the more focused spell lists, the reduction in casting (really made a War Priest 'feel' more like the ADnD Cleric bought forwards and updated, rather than the Divine Mage that full 1-9 feels like) Given that War Priest is turning up as a Path name I am not hopeful that the partial casters will return, but some of my favourite classes are in that category, and without being able to change it day to day Spell Powers don't have that vibe, while 1-9 is to much emphasis on magic.

KYRA IS THE WARPRIEST PATH OF CLERIC!!! (Gets heavy armor) There's also a spell-focused version!

SO much for the class! But this can be good!

and I hope that doesn't stop us getting actual war priests... Because a cleric in plate is way less interesting.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Cut for brevity.

For CR: I'm not sure I can envision a functional system that allows monsters to be "naturally" a certain CR without some number padding (if thats what you want to call + level.) I mean past a certain level thats just going to mean all monsters have massive attributes, which is just padding of another kind. The only way this is avoidable is to go for a 5e style game, and even that has arbitrary padding of HP just because something is of x level.

For feats: Still not seeing the functional difference between "this concept takes several feats to work in a chain but classes we want to do it get bonus feats" and "this concept requires taking a dedication feat before getting a second feat." Or even the fact that many class feats are the functionally equivalent of class features that you would have had to multiclass for in the first place.

Because the dedications lock you in. You can have one, be it archetype or class, and to have another you HAVE to take 3 feats in that archetype/dedication (so no pirates with double slice, til really late game, for instance), and the merging of what were universal feats and class features into class feats means that you have to have multiple versions of a feat chain (so we shall keep using twf, just for brevity) so you have rogue twf, ranger twf, fighter twf, and one will clearly be the best (in this case fighter), so you waste pages making sub-standard versions of a feat that could have easily been done as a single feat that anyone meeting the stat pre-requisites could take.

On monsters: My point was: if your sand worm analogue needs a str of 50 to be CR 8...it should not be CR 8, make the creature with stats dictated by a logical, consistent system, and see what CR that makes it, if that is cr5, then it's cr5, don't mess with numbers to buff it to 8, it bugs me in pf1 when I catch it, and PF2 makes it a core design philosophy.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Charlie Brooks wrote:

It all boils down to the style of story you want the game to tell. Personally, I think +level helps differentiate this game from D&D, and I think everybody benefits if Pathfinder and D&D tell different kinds of stories. However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.

Differentiate between D&D 5e and PF2, maybe. But there’s another version of D&D that incorporated that treadmill that I ditched for PF1.

PF1 used the same basic treadmill PF2 does. +level to attack, or a fraction of +level with an additional bonus that basically resulted in +level.+level to CMB. +level to CMD. +level to any skill you kept maxed. Caster level was almost always +level. AC was preeeetty close to +level if you actually kept up with all the big 6 boosting items the game assumed you got. Saving throws were a fraction of +level, though probably the most divergent example of it.

This notion that level didn't matter in PF1 doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny.

Level mattered less, it still mattered, but it wasn't the character defining, story crushing monolith it is now, with the horrendous monster system (don't get me wrong, PF1 suffered from forcing a monster to fit a CR as well, but it was a bug that should have been resolved, not a feature to double down on, if a monster needs a 'bonus from nowhere' to be a CR...then it isn't that CR, lower the CR to a rating that reflects the 'actual' creature, not give it random bonuses to fit a math requirement) making matters even worse, the 'stay in lane,no quirks, no fun, no escape' class feat system chaining you to an endless mind numbing treadmill, and the dedication system just spitting in your face, with the feats that you actually need to make an idea work blocked off behind a feat tax (not being awful at two weapons or swinging really hard being fighter only for instance) which throws on even more chains, and seems to scream 'badwrongfun' at any idea to be actually good at something.

You are just a bundle of positivity, I bet undead recoil at your presence.

HA! Touche, sadly doesn't change the fact I really found only 1 thing in the Playtest to like, and that was Champions, and even then only the creation of non-LG holy warriors, the actual mechanics...hell no :(

MerlinCross wrote:

PF1 I'm not forced to pick between between a class Feature and Power Attack as a Monk. If I want it in PF2, I have to give up 2 monk abilities. Or post pone them till later and question, after a certain point, is it REALLY worth going back for lower ranked Feats?

I think this is more of a "not enough space in the playtest" issue than anything else, as with a lot of similar cases.

Paizo has, imo, a very cool idea in the playtest of having different classes have different versions of similar feats. I strongly expect that to be expanded on in the final version, with a lot of the holes in the playtest closed that way.

For example, I suspect Monks will have a class feat similar to Power Attack that the same kind of builds are going to want - but instead of working exactly like the Fighter version, it will have a Monk flavor to it and slightly different mechanics.

I think this approach of "each class has a slightly different way of achieving a given effect" is wonderful both for giving each class a thematic niche as well as increasing the amount of customization that multiclassing can provide.

Basically agreeing with what Captain Morgan said above, about how just giving Barbarians Double Slice doesn't really make sense with their action economy, and it would make a lot more sense for them to have their own TWF feat that matches their style better.

or it could (and probably will) be simply a waste of pages making dozens of feats when 5 would have done

Temperans wrote:

Idk if rapid shot was too powerful as it was effectively the TWF of bows and gave throwing builds an extra attack if they chose to TWF.

After reading your post and thinking of how casters used to work (the first recommendation was to never multiclass). I thought that they might have probably been thinking the same thing for martials, and they forced it by having all those pre-reqs for the trully game changing feats.

I dont know how pre-reqs would change going forward in PF2 besides what we have seen so far.

Rapid shot was actually better than the TWF feat for at least 2 reasons.

1) Archers have to move less than melee combatants, meaning archers got more full attacks off.
2) TWF, as a fighting style, means giving up the raw single hit damage of two handed weapons. You still use the same bow whether or not you use Rapid Shot, so getting the extra attacks is a no brainer.

But what really got dangerous was when you started to combine rapid shot with manyshot, plus haste, plus some sort of static damage booster like smite, favored/instant enemy, or weapon training/specialization. The sheer number of attacks archers could pour out round after round was absurd, and represented no meaningful reduction in damage per hit. Even the bane of flurry, DR, was easily bypassed by archers. This made the archer the best combat style in the game and created this "one true bowman" path.

Comparatively, there are a lot more ways to do a ranged character than following that one feat path now. The Ranger's crossbow feats and precision edge actually creates a heavy single hit damage alternative to being a machine gun. Casters have magical striker and can easily cast and attack in the same turn. Rogues are better served using their actions on stealth, distraction, or Dread Striker to make enemies flat-footed than they would be by fighter feats. Paladins can survive on the front-lines with their armor and punish enemies with ranged reprisal.

The end result is that ranged combat...

ye folks, Paladins are a terrain hazard now, anyother vision is forbidden, all they are is a slap wrist machine, want to be the holy knight smiting the enemies oc the faith? Tough, you have to be tied to the sickening, horrendous retributive strike mechanics, no opt out, no escape, no choice, no customisation away from that pile of crap.

I mean, we know there are going to be a lot more class feat options than there are in the playtest. We also know that some of those feats are going to allow for combat strategies which were hard to pull off in the playtest without multiclassing (e.g. twf for rogues, archery for most). Even if "archer paladins" aren't yet a thing in the core rulebook, we can nonetheless make them work by printing more feats, a thing which is certain to happen.

it is, but the experience of the playtest was that new feats were almost all worse than existing ones for another class. Rangers got an updated twf... Worse than double slice, they got archery... Worse than the fighter feats again. Chaining classes to horrible concepts (paladin as passive wrist slap trap for instance, or the utter dumpster fire that is hunt target or removing partial spell casting to be replaced with static, dull powers) breaks so much fundamentally that print more feats cannot save it.

Thanks for releasing this, now to hope the Adventure doesn't mess up the Tyrant and the Whispering Way (they being, along with Cheliax, Nidal and the Hell Knights what interests me about Golarion, shining beacons of ideas among a bland fog of 'good' nations, seen in every setting in one variation or another)

Thanks, I will do that.

Although another aspect of the problem is that I'm not a huge fan of running online games compared to in person.

But still, I will definitely check that out and I appreciate the advice.

your welcome. I found online games strange at first as well, but with the right tools they can really work ( played a Wraith the Great War campaign on Roll20, the party had 3 native english speakers and a German, the characters lined up with that, having only accented voices, and character portraits to go on made it much more intense, the character was the person, in a deeper way than sitting at a table and imagining it, at least for something like Wraith, with very human themes, i5 really worked, especially as the storyteller had a sound board of artillery bombardment, screamed orders, the sound of the maelstrom, wailing people etc....man that was an experience) wasn’t a paid game, but honestly the Storyteller was good enough it could have been.

Becoming a paid GM is something I'd love to do - I really enjoy GMing and I've had lots people tell me I'm good at it.

But I really wouldn't know where to start, and I currently live in a city small enough that basically everyone who plays Pathfinder is already in one of my games. :P

look on Roll20, plenty of paid GMs there, and they forums lay out rules and guides for how to do it.

Gratz wrote:

Rob Godfrey wrote:

An sadly, they have chosen to nerf everything into a bland, joyless mush, where everyone sucks, no one is powerful and altering the math wont change that feeling of classes being this stodgy concrete you are dragging around.

Hm, I guess we playtested different games, because I enjoyed myself mostly and don't share your experience. Also changing the math will have an effect on success rates, which should have an impact on how you feel about how well a character performs. But I guess you have already decided for yourself how the changes will play out, even without having seen them.

Yeah, I think my group and I were playtesting that other game as well. Everyone had a grand time, characters were plenty diverse except maybe in chapter 3 (heck even then they were plenty distinct), and even the notion of everyone sucking because math doesn't hold up in actual play for us (Not that it was a legitimate notion in the first place) because my players play smart and use flanking, buffs and debuffs and the like to end up with great levels of success throughout the Playtest.

. The maths thin* was analysed to death, and in my experience whiffing attacks and saved spells happened with such regularity it impacted enjoyment, but that wasn’t th3 biggest thing, the removal of combat feats was, the rail roading of class roles far more than 1e also was, the feeling o& suck was strong, and the feeling of being locked into an MMO niche was also strong, fair enough if that wasn’t your impression, it was mine, it was a very similar blandness to an edition we aren’t supposed to mention, and I hated it then as well.

I mean - this is still a game where a 20th level wizard can wade naked through an army of 1st level orcs and kill them all with his bare hands one by one, without the aid of any magic.

I'm pretty sure ridiculous characters doing world shattering things will still be part of it. The big difference as I see it is going to be that it will still be possible to actually challenge those characters if you want to.

I agree that the playtest has significantly less versatility of character concept than PF1e. But I think that's a matter of content rather than design; I would be amazed if five years from now PF2e doesn't have the same level of versatility. Probably even more, considering that multiclasses that were terrible before (fighter/wizard) are actually viable characters now.

Heck, in the playtest wizard multiclassed as fighter was so strong as to be almost broken.

. If the price of that is the removal of the hybrids, who are fundementally not, multiclass characters then totally not worth it. At all. Also you coul£ challenge 20th level characters, the rightly went hunting Arch Dukes and Demon lords. Oh and tha5 because o& lvl to ac thing is a loss, a wizard without spells should get lynched by a mob, the power is in what you can do by playing to you4 strengths, if you do something that silly the bookish guy who knows world altering spells is not counter intuitively also unstoppable a5 fisticuffs, and the local blacksmith can pound his head in with a rock.

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

I see qhere you're coming from but again that's not broken, that's a feature.

I myself hate what it can lead to if misused. Just like freedom. Freedom can lead to awful things if used for bad ends.
It's still inherently neutral. I like freedom. I like order, too. It depends on your priorities.

Feature for some, broken for others. The critical point, I think, is that it is broken for Paizo; they have clearly reached a point where they would rather design a new system than continue to face what they see as the limitations of the existing system.

And ultimately I think that has to be reason enough for anyone. If Paizo isn't having fun designing for their own system anymore, it's time to move on, especially with the Adventure Paths being their flagship product.

There is also the financial reason that Mathmuse said, which is part of the equation as well, but it's very clear from Paizo's stated goals that the mechanical reason is a big driving force for them.

. An sadly, they have chosen to nerf everything into a bland, joyless mush, where everyone sucks, no one is powerful and altering the math wont change that feeling of classes being this stodgy concrete you are dragging around.

Preface: This turned into a much bigger rant than I intended so please try not to pull at any one thread too hard lest the shoddy craftsmanship of the post fall to shreds, this is intended to a discussion launching point about how best to position the mechanical components and "power level" of PF2 against it's competitors.

I've read the criticisms, the praise, the back-tracking of a few design decisions, the theorycrafting, pitfalls of the tight math, the endless circular debates about the "true" role of a number of classes, bemoaning of loss of backwards compatibility, and the million and one discussions about the caster/martial disparity that is being discussed around here.

One thing that I haven't seen much of, that I personally see as one of the best potential components to the future of PF2, is one that I think is being skirted by Paizo intentionally for the VERY reasonable fear that they'll be stepping on toes or infringing on someone else "zone" but nonetheless I think represents a function to enable more cross-pollination between different play groups and also to be attractive to new players.

This being, the degree to which published 5e D&D Adventures and player Content can be EASILY AND QUICKLY be converted for use with Pathfinder 2E. The Dice & Slice Podcast has tackled this discussion point HEAD-ON and I applaud you guys for doing so and jogging my imagination.

As it stands many people have been apt to compare the various components of the PF2 crunch to that which is present in 5E, some levying talk of how it is a bad idea or that it would serve to dumb things down, but they rarely touch on the idea that it is inherently in everyones best interest to line things up in such a way that a GM could take a published 5E Adventure such as the Temple of Elemental Evil, and with only a little bit of tweaks implement almost the whole Adventure with minimal pain. As it stands with PF1 being puffy and swollen like a Bloatmage at level 20 it is nearly impossible without rewriting EVERY statblock,...

. Because it isn’t in everyones interest if I want to play 5e i can, that ‘bloatmage’ is what makes pf great.

Chess Pwn wrote:

The "point" of overspecialization IS to "trivialize" their thing, that's what they've invested everything into. They go and say, the game has 10 types of challenges, and the player says, I want there to only be 9 and then spends everything to do that. As the GM you shouldn't scale up the world and make that challenge a challenge again. You should allow them to shine at their thing and have the challenge be in the remaining 9 things.

Do you believe CM/D exist? If yes, why would you want something to be trivialized? The whole idea behing the Disparity is Caster trivializing every bit of content with a single spell.

. The problem of CM/D is martials not being able to trivialise, not casters beng able to,

The problem with that, Rob, is that for monsters to use no fudge at all and still be an appropriate challenge for a given level, you need tighter math than most people seem to want.

. Or a codified list of what the fudges are, so that they can be added and removed as needed.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

If you enjoyed it, fair enough, I wont tell you badworngfun, but personally I loathe it for straight jacketing classes, feats used to be (imperfect) ways to customise a character to a concept, now they are this...thing that lumps core class features and combat feats into a single poll and slaps a class roadblock on them, then imposes a tax, and a further ‘must buy more feats’ chain on what should be a simple choice: do I want to use two weapons.? If yes get TWF, off the feat list, not ‘pay a feat to multiclass fighter, then another feat for the only decent twf feat’ multiclass should be more fundemental than that, it should be a real edge case build, (for instance the old Sword Lord builds that used fighter and monk to make the ultimate duelling build) or flow from in game events, not be the gate keeper on what were core class concepts.

Can agree multiclass is weird and new... I hated it when i first saw it now i love it, still don't know how to feel about having combat feats into classes but can see why they do it even if i don't feel like it's a great way to go.

But yeah i think those are already baked into the system with no way to go away, i am hoping for some bow archetypes, sword and board archetypes... But with the way paizo talked about it... They won't be here for a while, or even might not be here at all. And multiclass as before... Well it won't be back ever from what they said.

. Taking multiclass in the playtest felt like taking Combat Expertise used to, this thing you did because it was the tax to get to the good stuff, were as it should be a choice, with impact and weight, it didn’t feel like it meant anything more than pay this feat tax and lock yourself into this for multiple feats.

Wouldn't a Ranger multiclassed with the Druid work for that sort of thing though?

. Nope. The multiclass system is horrendous, and an attempt to patch a broken feat system, not a decent mechanic, and certainly never to be used to build a concept

Rob Godfrey wrote:

make power attack good again, make it the same 1 action it always was,

I feel like "power attack is bad, no one wants it" is a welcome change from "power attack is amazing, literally everybody with 13 strength who uses melee weapons takes it." Like "feats that everybody who they apply to automatically chooses" should not be feats.

Now ideally we would have "power attack is situationally useful, some people want it, other people don't"

power attack was mandatory because most other feats sucked, they needed a buff, not PA. a nerf, which is also my view on caster/martial disparities for what that’s worth.

Every class does have a core concept, I agree. What I disagree with is your apparent assertion that you are the arbitrator of what that core concept is, especially in the face of the fact that it seems that the vast majority of Paizo's fans don't share your opinion.

For me, the core concept of the Ranger is "wilderness expert specialized in tracking and hunting"; that's how I've played Rangers and seen them played since 3.5. Spells have never been part of what I've seen as the "core concept" of the Ranger. They were a tool that helped the Ranger achieve his core concept, but not a core part of the identity and to me at least it's obviously possible to achieve the same identity without spells.

Telling me you have a different concept of the Ranger and you'd prefer to see Paizo move in the direction of your concept instead of mine is fine, I'd love to have that discussion.

Telling me that my concept of the Ranger is objectively wrong and yours is objectively right is just rude and leaves no room for mature discussion.

. My concept of Ranger (or one of them) was Nature’s champion, the Druidic Paladin (suitably altered by the major differences in how that concept would operate) the guy who stabbed the enemies of nature, whether the good hunter of monsters, or the evil vision of eradication of civilisation to that end the deities of nature who approach those same goals bless the ranger with spells, and in later editions a companion and guardian animal. That is gone now, you can’t be that guy, you cannot be a spell casting ranger, (Rangers even suck at their new ‘fighter with a stalkerish obsession’ identity most combat feats they have are worse versions of fighter feats, which again brings up the class feat straight jacket...but thta has damaged every class, not just Rangers.

Bluenose wrote:

Roswynn wrote:

At Crécy the English longbowmen were, indeed, terribly effective. First off, they had trained for years with their weapons, both to enhance their arms strength and their aim - it was simply the law. Secondarily, when they shot on the French cavalry, they didn't need to then stop, hide behind a pavise, shove a foot into their crossbow stirrup... no, they just picked up another arrow, cocked, aimed, shot again. They were damn fast, they rained a veritable storm of arrows on those knights. Unlike the slow and not necessarily more powerful Genoese crossbowmen mercenaries, whose main advantage was that crossbows... are easier to learn than bows.

Crecy, of course, predates plate armour. And the French did get through the arrow-storm and into contact with the English foot. And incidentally, Genoese law dictated very similar training for their crossbow militia (and other militia) as English law did for the English longbow, so I'm dubious at the idea that the crossbow is especially easy to be good with.

No, no it doesn't. Crécy doesn't predate plate armor. In 1346 plate was new, and some soldiers still wore transitional, but many many knights wore plate.

I didn't say the French didn't manage to get into melee range with the English. I just pointed out that archers are bad for you, even in plate, but not because arrows PIERCE plate (which they usually don't).

I didn't know about Genoese law! Thank you for the info. As for crossbows, as far as I know (and I would encourage anyone to read more about the subject), yes, they're easier than bows, requiring less training and not even as much strength as most bows, and being easier to aim. Bow archery usually required training from a young age, much like horsemanship, but crossbows could be confidently given to a "rookie" unit of soldiers and they would be able to learn the basics quite fast, and could pull the lever much more easily than nocking an arrow, drawing the bow, and firing. At least, this is...

war crossbows got up to 1200lb draw weight, and were operated using a windlass or cranequin, that is a late period anti plate armour weapon mind you, and the short power stroke of crossbows reduces comparative power to a long bow, but it is still equivalent to a 250lb longbow, and drawen using a complicated winching system, so training with that monster would have been necessary, as well as training volley fire, the use of Pavise, formations etc.

Themetricsystem wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

You monster!

And if I did not make it clear, that bit in the hidden text in my original post was the text for the very original ranger. If folks are interested. Some strange stuff in there...

they were far more focused on being Tolkien rangers back then, and I shed a nostalgia tear for fighting men classes getting armies at mid levels, but the class identity was more focued than PF Playtest, for good or ill, and the spells really played a massive part in that, the decision to remove spells from the 4th level casters really, for me, damaged the identity of Rangers and Paladins, the Versatility casting bought, and just as importantly, the link to a Power, be it Divine, Ideological or something else, that those few spells made manifest in the rules of the game showed as strongly as Favoured Enemy or Divine Grace/Smite that this was a champion, blessed and anointed, not just a person with funny skills.

Also locking all combat feats into specific classes and the near elimination of fixed features damaged class identity, almost to the point of making classes pointless (a classless system can be great, no problem with that, WFRP is amazing, as is Shadowrun).

You cannot be a Ranger (or even worse a barbarian) who takes huge risky, near frenzied swings at the target, only fighters get that feat now, and it does not work for that idea anymore anyway, (to the extent of being unrecognisable as Power Attack, its Vital Strike, and really should be called that). If you want to be good at two weapons, again, fighter has the only decent feats for it, archery? Again, fighter, most feats worth having for physical combat are gated behind multiclassing as a fighter, this has removed the Versatility that made DnD 3.0 and PF1e great, and replaced it with tight, yet bizarrely bland, character lanes, that to me is a great loss.

Sorry for meandering a little, haven't posted in a while, and all the concepts are linked at the base anyway.