Secret Wizard's page

5,291 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 5,291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

will this be the day i update my Monk guide for the final time?

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there's a right time of day to bring this up, so, sorry, designers.

I've been ruminating a lot about this subject, and my experience with the Playtest has made me more and more certain about the fact that 20 levels is not the best fit for PF2's system, and something more compressed like 10 levels would be best.

The reasons why I believe so are three-pronged:

1. Exciting action system... that you don't get to play with

The first moment when I realized that the progression was borked was during character creation for my Playtest run.
My players looked starry-eyed when I explained the action system... but completely crestfallen in actual play when they realized they had way too many actions. Tossing them out into low accuracy attacks felt terrible to them, particularly when their normal attacks had weak accuracy to start with.

I could tell that what they wanted was to interact with the system in more ways.

That's why I believe 20 levels is a disservice to the action system – every class should get a pack of abilities, modified by their Class Feats, that allows them to interact with the action system in satisfactory ways, and diluting a class into 20 levels make it so that the ramp-up time until this happens is excessive.

2. Lots of choices... and few exciting ones

Class feats, skill feats, general feats, ancestry feats... it's great to have so many choices around, but they aren't very impactful. A lot of them feel weaker because they are tied to feat-lines, which seem to predetermine your class progress – why wouldn't a Ranger that gets Monster Hunter go with all the rest of the line?
Skill feats feel like they could be too narrow to be properly used too. This is particularly salient in Backgrounds for campaigns – there are too many of them that grant a skill feat you'd use once at best.

This leads me to believe that 20 levels dilutes the power of the options. In a concentrated affair with 10 levels, you could make fewer, more meaningful choices, that got rid of feat-lines and each stood on their own. For example, the Monster Hunter pack would combine most of the utilities spread out through the levels (subject to balance, of course). A Ranger picking Monster Hunter would be great at an area, and have room for improvement in the rest.
Similarly, concentrated skill feats could provide general bonuses, specific bonuses and even extra combat actions all in one.

3. +level to everything warps play through 20 levels

Die has 20 sides. A 20th level character has a full 20-sided dice over a level 1 one. That's not a problem in itself, but when DCs come into play, math collapses, as a lot of people may have brought up in 1.3.

If you had 10 levels instead, the same system would have another texture and provide more grounded results. Concentrated feats would make 10th level characters better at processing dice, rather than better at outputting higher numbers. That would make the progression feel much more natural.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure they are giving Ancestry a big redo, I think it flopped the surveys.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

DEX-to-damage is all you need for me to NEVER play PF2E again.

STR-based characters have been disenfranchised for way too long.

I like a mix between STR/DEX for characters, I only wish you could replace DEX for INT/CHA/WIS for AC for mystical STR builds.

DEX hitting for less damage is fine since so many feats are able to increase output easily.

I'm here for a baseline Monk reaction.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm here for the unarmored Samurai!

A Dodging Panache-style reaction would be best.

DEX is no more meditative than STR. Training body and mind doesn't mean letting your arms be noodles.

@Vessa: 1E CRB Monks were good past 30 point buy, not 40. UnMonk is good at 20 point buy with a good build, and amazing at 25 point buy.

New PDF seems the same as before, bug in the update?

1 person marked this as a favorite.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DataLoreRPG wrote:

I like that class feats are gated. Every dude with a two hander having the same 5 feats doesn't make my character feel unique (especially considering that many feats are tied to a special actions).

I agree with the dev that more are needed and he is on the right track to more closely tie those to unique elements of the class. Having a Ranger and a Fighter use a bow differently is cool and it meshes very well with their multiclassing system.

Can't agree there.

An Inquisitor with the same 5 two-handed feats as a Slayer does not feel like the same thing. A Bard with the same 5 archery feats does not feel like the same thing as a Paladin with the same 5 archery feats.

Starfinder combat - more explosive rounds where you hit harder and with more accuracy, against enemies who do the same.

As opposed to grindier, defensive encounters.

LoreKeeper wrote:

Just a for fun design distraction: here's my take on how weapons (including bow) could work for the monk

Iron Tempest Stance (Feat 1)
When learning this stance, choose one weapon that does not have the unarmed trait. Your proficiency rank in that weapon matches your proficiency rank for unarmed attacks. You can use the weapon with any of your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks except stances other than Iron Tempest Stance.
If the weapon is a monk weapon, it additionally has the agile and finesse traits while in Iron Tempest Stance.

Iron Strikes (Feat 6)
Prerequisites: Iron Tempest Stance
Requirements: You are in Iron Tempest Stance.
You ignore the multiple attack penalty, instead all attacks are at a -3 penalty. This excludes attacks that explicitly set a penalty other than the multiple attack penalty.

Seems like it steps too much on the Ranger/Rogue's gimmick. Agile/Finesse is part of the Rogue's purview, and Ranger focuses on reducing multiattack penalties.

Also, it needlessly punishes people who want to use weapons which are agile/finesse baseline, by making them inferior to weapons that spend their power budget on higher damage dice or other modifiers.

I would prefer:

1. Grant monk weapon proficiency baseline.

2. Add 1st level feats that grant additional functionalities to weapons with disarm, parry, trip, agile, respectively. The agile one perhaps could allow you to hit another target at an action discount, the trip one could allow you to make a follow-up while they are down, the disarm one could allow you to use that as a reaction, and the parry one could give you a reactive shield type of ability.

3. At 2nd level, add a feat that allows you to use your weapon with all unarmed-based abilities.

4. Add a few follow-up feats.

This way, you are making weapons exciting and unique on their own.


One of my recommendations to improve on the Ranger was adding this feature:

Hunter's Instincts – Xth
You are trained in Instinct, a special Wisdom-based skill that can be used only to Recall Knowledge, but can be used to Recall Knowledge on any enemy creature. If you are legendary in Survival or Perception, you become an expert in Instinct, but you can’t increase your proficiency rank in Instinct by any other means.

This way, the Ranger would have a unique monster hunter vibe.

Baseline for archetypes was very, very, very low.

They needed to bump it up to where Gray Maiden is.

I would be 100% cool if the solution was:

A. Monk weapon proficiencies baseline (even if you can't FoB with them).

B. Class Feat that allows players to get extra functionality out of a staff parry, either making it reactive, granting a bigger boost to AC, etc.

Picking up a specific weapon in which you are not proficient, to use an ability that is a single line lost between three different modifiers is something my player base would not grok and would feel arbitrarily imposed on them.

Adding a carrot – that is, something to boost that playstyle – rather than removing a crutch would be something that's much easier to understand and see as a power boost.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:

I don't see that Monks have too much of a problem with ac at 1st level, after all it's possible to have 20ac at level 1. Of course, it takes your entire build to do so, but:

get crane style as your class feat (+1ac)
play as human and use Natural ambition to get Monastic weapons, then carry a Bo staff for parry (+1ac)
get trained in Knowledge (arcane) and get the skill feat trick magic item so you can cast Mage armor. 2nd level scrolls cost 8gp (you start with 15, but have not much else you need to buy apart from some gear and a Bo staff) and will give +2ac.
So that's: level (+1), Dex (+4), proficiency (+1), Crane style(+1), parry (+1) and Mage Armor (+2).

There is no rule saying you have to do all this, so if you wanted to drop one of the feats, or reduce the investment in Dex in favour of STR or Con (or anything else), it's possible. Also if you want to play a different race (so you can't get 2 class feats), your ac will still be good.

This doesn't work. No skill feats at level 1, Parry doesn't stack with Crane, Parry takes out an action, and it's an absolute gimmick build.

I'm moving out of PF1 to be done with gimmick builds.

LoreKeeper wrote:

I'll take that into consideration once I can review the relevant post.

For the time being I believe that there'll be a way to get potions of mage armor at some point. The way spell scaling works now there is certainly no balance issue with it. (As opposed to the 1e potion of mage armor, which would be broken in 2e.)

A. No more spells in a bottle. Not because of balance, but because they are not supposed to replicate or replace items. Look into the alchemical items list.

B. I'm done with counter-intuitive, gamified builds for what should be a natural, organic character in an immersive game world.

To me this is super simple: you want the class to not feel like a trap and for everyone who plays it to have options. If pump DEX like a madman is the only choice, if pumping STR is suicidal, then you have none of the former.

Asuet wrote:

If you give early level benefits you also have to take into account that they carry on to later levels. And as you pointed out the monk is actually quite impressive later on. If the monk gets some kind of improvement it should be something that doesn't bring him over the top in later levels.

I personally still think the monk is in a good spot right now, at least from my playtesting experience.

This is why my solution was a Reaction-based defence.

At later levels, it competes with other options – Impossible Technique, Deflect Arrows, Crane Flutter (which I think should be redesigned). Maybe even more.

So a Reaction-based defence would not pile on too much to later levels.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, man, Clumsy is meaningless for 14 DEX people.

Also, straight up giving Monks more AC would make DEX Monks better – a reactive defence would be a resource that could be gamed in interesting ways and would make the STR-DEX tension more interesting.

If you go STR, you'd have more damage but your defence is gated by reactions.

If you go DEX< you'd have more defence and could pile on top of that, but your damage would be need some souping up, which is a thing Class Feats offer several choices for.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LoreKeeper wrote:

Your Fighter also has a TAC of 14 (my monk 15).

Reflex of 1 (monk 4). Reflex is more important in 2e compared to 1e.

Speed 10 slower than the monk. For humans that is 15 vs 25.

All Fighter Dex skills at -3 compared to the monk.

Figher has basically no money left for anything else.

I don't care that you said "Reflex 1" even if I said it was a 14 DEX Fighter, and I don't care you wilfully ignore Perception here...

The thing is that the Fighter has a choice, and the Monk doesn't. The Monk is seemingly supposed to go with the AC option if they go STR, or die. The Fighter can just play out whatever they want, and begin making the character in their heads right away.

The Monk needs to optimize or get crit out of this world.

My stance is that adding a reactive defensive feature grants the Monk choice in Class Feat to start realizing their character rather than compensating for its faults.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you play a Fighter, with 14 DEX and 18 STR, you are dealing 1d12+STR (expected 10.5) and your AC is 17.

And then you have an extra Class Feat to spend.

Basically, the whole "your AC isn't bad, just get Crane Style" thing sounds like you are compensating for class flaws rather than making real, meaningful choices.

It'd be much easier if the Monk had a baseline reaction to defend itself, then you could make all sorts of builds as long as you maintain smart tactics.

1 person marked this as a favorite.


as i said before, PF1 did it well with Class Skills – a nudge towards a specific skillset but ultimately easy to ignore.

tottreson wrote:
So many great points here. Though, I'm not bothered by Monks wanting to seek out Bracers of Armor in the same way I'm not bothered by a fighter going after magical armor.

I was basing my argument on misreading bracers of armor. :P

I thought it said Bracers +1 were mage armor with 2nd spell level, but it's actually with 1st spell level. That made more sense.

Seven of Swords wrote:

Literal first post on the site... would we lose anything at all from having the Monastic Weaponry feat just be part of the initial proficiencies for the class? Because the weapons don't give much to the class as it stands, except for range, and as written, the monk isn't even proficient with simple weapons.

To recap, that's a group that includes the dagger and the club, weapons that don't appear on the monk weapon list, both of which are pretty basic martial artsy fare, especially the club. The sorcerer is proficient with simple weapons. The wizard is proficient with club and dagger. The rogue and bard both get their traditional, very scattered lists, cherry-picking appropriate weapons, what's the problem with doing something similar for the monk?

Edit: I should add that I just wanted to give support for the same thought in the original post, and also point out a little bit of weirdness in the way that the weapons are laid out.

I think it's a given they'll add it baseline at this point.

Asuet wrote:

By that argument the wizard player could also ask for being trained in martial weapons. It's just 0 instead of -2. Would that be unbalanced? No big deal, right? Gandalf has a sword!

By this logic, Wizards should not be able to cast spells either, you'd need 5 levels training Arcana and performing several high difficulty DCs to get access to, say, Detect Magic.

The point is that Wizards get basic proficiency to interact with the game world from the start. An assortment of spells they can use for several purposes, and proficiency with simple weapons to give them a mundane tool to fix combat. In addition, they get skills.

Monks get some skills (certainly less than a Wizard), get no tools to interact with distant enemies, enemies that are dangerous to come up close to, lack the versatility of spellcasting, lack high enough AC to just stand there in front of their enemies.

You are unable to have basic proficiency in one of the simplest things in the world.

If you follow your logic, nobody should get anything because obtaining it is better than simply receiving it.

My point is that your choices should feel like they add on top of a foundation, not compensate for a shoddy construction.

But this should be clear: I'm only having this conversation because I want you to understand why Paizo WILL change it. There is no universe lack of simple weapon proficiency makes it past the playtest. I hope this post illuminates you on why.

Erik Mona wrote:
Kerobelis wrote:

I am hopeful it will get some love from the developers
I am certain it will. ;)

Once, I was a sucker for Rangers...

Can PF2E convert this Monk fanboi into a Drizzt-clone once more?

Asuet wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Asuet wrote:
Or you just take the feat. There is really no point in complaining about not having ranged weapons when the only thing that holds you back is putting one of your class-feats into it.

That's the definition of a feat tax.

You shouldn't need to pay a feat to be able to use a sling just to poke at an enemy from afar. You don't need to make ranged attacks Flurry of Blows compatible, but it's a basic proficiency for any adventurer.

And you actually don't need to pay the feat to be able to use the sling. You just don't get the unarmed proficiency bonus. Beside that you get access to all the monk weapons by taking that feat, so don't behave as if that feat was a tax.

You do, you are not proficient with simple weapons.

Saying "-2 is not a big penalty" is a terrible argument, btw. -2 is a massive penalty in PF2.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agree with the general sentiment.

Not sure what each class needs, but my general gut about it –

1. Alchemists for sure could use some action economy boosts.

2. Barbarians wants Attack of Opportunity too.

3. Fighters need an option for ranged Fighters, a Sidestep would be pretty good.

4. Monks need a Sidestep or Combat Roll to keep safer early on.

5. Rogues getting Nimble Dodge wouldn't be terrible.

6. Rangers probably need the same options as a Fighter.

7. I like the Ranged Retributive Strike idea.

I have:

1. Tokens for all the enemies in A Lost Star, including a unique token for each Goblin.

2. Extra tokens to run the game with 5 players.

3. Maps.

4. Handouts!

So one of my favorite types of campaigns to run are Survival campaigns.

I also like to create scenarios where resources are limited, like wartorn countrysides or perilous forays into Underdark-like locations.

But Create Water & Create Food (and Goodberry of course) are the type of element that completely shut down a whole campaign-style from a low level. Furthermore, they devalue Survival as a skill.

For this reason, I would be very grateful if, baseline, they had an expendable reagent cost.

Otherwise, it's back to an edition full with houserules to make adventures work.

Asuet wrote:
Or you just take the feat. There is really no point in complaining about not having ranged weapons when the only thing that holds you back is putting one of your class-feats into it.

That's the definition of a feat tax.

You shouldn't need to pay a feat to be able to use a sling just to poke at an enemy from afar. You don't need to make ranged attacks Flurry of Blows compatible, but it's a basic proficiency for any adventurer.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cellion wrote:

I had a chance to deep-dive into the monk class math last night, and found the class to be much better off in that department than at first glance. A main DEX, secondary STR monk using either of the agile stances is both offensively and defensively well-rounded.

While its attacks are slightly weaker at 1st level, dice quickly eclipse the -1 or -2 to damage of lower STR, and d8 agile attacks (plus the bonus attack due to flurry) surprisingly stack up well against the big d12 swings of the fighter or barb. By 8th level, they're only behind fighters in terms of damage (based on my calcs so far), and it roughly stays that way all the way to 20th. Let me reiterate that: monk damage is already very solid and doesn't need further buffs.

Defensively, you get AC on par with a Fighter (eventually catching up to a Pally), TAC better than anyone else, top-tier saves (plus evasion if you want to pick it up) due to your ability to be master is all saves by 15th and being able to bump up your DEX, CON and WIS every 5 levels without sweating about it (unlike classes that have STR, INT or CHA as their primary stat).

They have pretty solid self-sustain with Wholeness of Body, decent access to control effects via their various styles (tiger slash for a free shove effect, dragon roar for AoE intimidate, etc.), and some cute utility abilities (abundant step etc). Sure, they have some dud feats, but there are enough viable choices at each level that I didn't feel disappointed.


On the other hand, the STR monk seems a little bit weak defensively (though not dramatically so). Plus the payoff for being a STR monk appears to be some of the grappling bonuses (Crushing Grab, Sleeper Hold) that seem OK, a little bit of extra damage, and not a whole lot else.

Its a bit of a shame that you have dud feats that stack badly or not at all with things your party is providing: Ki Strike (no good with inspire courage, bless), Dragon Stance, Diamond Soul, and Enlightened Presence (no good with heroism).

I have no qualms with late game math.

And early game math for the STR Monk is pretty sad. There's also the fact that not everyone will optimize to an 18 DEX even on DEX builds.

That's why I believe that right now the biggest liability for monks is the lack of an early game reaction-based defense .

AC aside, ranged weapon proficiency, ability score versatility, and signature skill restrictions are still issues.

Light and heavy does sound pretty good.

Dye wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Dye wrote:
Is it really that far fetched of an idea that if you are dexterous enough to put a well placed arrow or knife in the right spot, that you won't be able to deal as much damage as someone smashing a mourningstar through armor?

I mean, let's say a morning star and an arrow hit a person in the same spot, and they are traveling at the same velocity... given the mass of the morningstar, the impact should have much more power... so yeah, count me down as team Morningstar.

Also, there's no reason why you should suffer due to damage. Take Monks for example – getting STR 14 DEX 18 is super easy on character creation (and otherwise attainable at 5th level), and that's a great combination to deal damage.

Less-damage oriented classes like Bards have less tools to make STR 14 DEX 18 give them a lot of damage like Monks do, but STR 14 DEX 18 makes sure that Bards have much more AC. A STR 18 DEX 14 Bard, conversely, would deal more damage, but have less armor.

What are you trying to build? Maybe I can make you have your character work.

An archer. Archers have been my go to class in every video game, but in every table ttrpg, I've found them lack luster because it's been 1D8. I roll a 1. Well my round is basically wasted. Thanks. That's really what started the rant. Rogues have their ways around it through certain feats, but archers have always gotten the shaft.

Arrow17 wrote:
I would however, absolutely love to see Dex to damage for missile fire whether for thrown or fired ranged attacks. Bows and Crossbows need some damage boosts
This is truly the part that has me upset. I have always loved playing archers in games, but in ttrpgs I've always found them underwhelming in comparison to running in with a greatsword.

Oh yeah weapon style support is trash at the moment. Half Strength is also pretty boring.

I still need someone to explain why it's a good thing to add anathemas to a class based on being untamed and unfettered, if not to portray uncivilised societies as vestigial.

Cross class skill penalties are dumb and monolithic. PF1 Class Skills were fine because it was trivial to modify them.

Only way I could be okay with signature skills would be:

A. Each class gets two additional signature skills up to their choice.

B. Obtaining new ones costs no more than a skill feat.

Bump cause mark is online

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't get how Gloom can say "Legendary protects niches" and "Expert is basically the same as Legendary".

Needless to say, Skills should be narrative, not power-gamey or optimizable.

2E forces you to optimize them with signature skills, and that's against the tenets of this edition.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Look, Paizo, I'll save you guys the trouble of scratching your heads trying to figure out why the Ranger isn't working: it's spending levels of class budget in features that are binary and conditional.

Trackless Step is actually the most minor offender, because as a 5th level feature, it seems not to be taking anything from the class budget... that being said, it's something that would be very situational as a Skill Feat even. Maybe you can find another cool, more applicable feature to add in here.

Nature's Edge seems pretty terrible for me because you rarely get to decide when natural difficult terrain appears to exploit it. It's nice that it works with Snares, but it seems to say that you waste class power if you don't get them. What if Nature's Edge had an "always on" bonus that allowed you to deal extra damage to flat-footed enemies or something?

Wild Stride comes extremely late, and the fact that it doesn't help with magical abilities seems pretty bad. Most other classes have easier ways to dealing with it that also help against magical difficult terrain too, and the fact it does nothing against hazardous terrain seems like a pretty sad 11th level feature.

The Ranger is already encouraged to bring the adventure to the wilds thanks to having Survival and Nature-related abilities, why double up on that?


The problem with the Monk calcs is that they need ONE extra item to get there, a +2 DEX item, which is 4,500 GP.

That's extra budget that the Fighters/Paladins get to spend on something else... for example, adding Antimagic on their armors, or getting a Greater Ring of Energy Resistance, etc.

Gloom wrote:
Could you really give me an example of something that Signature skills really hold you back on?

1. Signature Skills are bad for story-telling. Play Carrion Crown as a Fighter, spend your life from level 1 to 15ish fighting eldritch horrors and unholy enemies, and you are unable to become a master in Occultism/Religion? Even if you had campaign-specific backgrounds that granted signature skills, what if my Fighter was just some douche that, through contact and learning of the occult, became interested in those things?

2. Signature Skills are arbitrary and close-minded. Why aren't Monks able to master Medicine, Occultism and Stealth? In fiction, you have countless monastic healers; Ki is by definition occult, less related to Religion as it is to body mastery; Stealth is archetypical. I could go on about every other class and a million other signature skills they could have... but the point is, why does Paizo get the monopoly on what is archetypical for each class? We can agree on classes as archetypes, but why zero-in on things that weren't imposed on us on PF1? I could get a grizzled Ranger that hunted demons in the Worldwound, I could make a Barbarian that was the charismastic leader of a tribe. Who says my Fighter will spend more time Crafting than being a soldier-diplomat involved as much in warfare as they are on Diplomacy? Who says my jester Bard shouldn't be good at Acrobatics? Why draw the line in a few skills?

Now, let me switch the burden of proof: what do Signature Skills do that is valuable?

My 2c: anathemas are stinking trash and pretty disrespectful to uncivilised peoples.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

I haven't looked at all at the options for a paladin, but the High Dex fighter is in good shape, either going Melee or Ranged. The Armor proficiency thing is not a big deal.

The proficiency thing doesn't kick in until 11th and 17th level. By 11th level, the High Dex fighter has a +5 Dex mod and so is going to maybe be one AC point behind the Heavy Armor fighter, but the heavy armor fighter is still moving at -10. By level 17, it might shift 1 more point and the speed penalty is reduced, but a melee Dex fighter focused on defense is going to be dualing dance and parry to get a +2 to defense without having to spend an action to raise a shield.

The ranged fighter's might slip a little, but they could always decide to pick up heavy armor at that point and just eat a -5 to speed if the bonus feels worth it. They don't lose the Dex bonus to attacks or reflex in the right armor. And the ranged fighter gets AoOs back at level 8.

This is the type of malarkey that made PF1 a bad game and makes 5E so painful in the first place.

Just make those features modular.

No class should have dead features. Looking at you, Trackless Step.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Asuet wrote:
Something like dex based builds don't exist in this edition. If you completely dump str as a martial class then you just cripple your character on purpose. The way stat distribution works in this edition you don't have to dump anything. All characters end up later on with pretty high stats in every single stat. On top of that the damage on higher levels is generated by the magic of the weapon. The damage modifiers are a minor factor later on. When you roll 6d8 for your +4 sword it doesn't matter if you add +5 from your dex or +3 from your strength.

My half melee alchemist/rogue doesn't have space for strength.

Dex, con, wis, int are more important than piddling 1-4 damage

But you have poisons, which are the purpose of being half-melee, right? That's what you use your attack for.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Some dude in there said 5E had a great licence and I had to be hospitalized because I broke several ribs while laughing frantically.

lordredraven wrote:
I know some have mentioned that magic weapons are crucial to the game as is because you can't keep up with damage levels otherwise. What is the increase to damage was tied to your proficiency. Base damage is trained, 2 dice at expert, 3 at master, 5 at legendary(or possibly 4, but 5 feels more legendary). What does anyone think this would do to the math?

And Magic Items only give +X to attack and damage. I could buy it.

Though I'd prefer Legendary sticking to 4.

The good part about something like this is that Spellcasters get more rolls.

The problem is that players get to roll MUCH less, which means less funz.

Spellcasters already get to fire off a spell even if they don't roll to do it, so it feels like they may not even need to get something like this.

THE RULE: "If an ability doesn’t specify a critical success effect, then the effect for a critical success is the same as that for a success."

is not the same as

THE WRONG: "If an ability doesn’t specify a success effect, then the effect for a critical success is the same as that for a success."

So you are wrong there to start.

But also, the ability does express what happens on a success. The whole Enhancement line is what happens on a success. If you missed your attack, nothing happens.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:

I don't see any reason why the proficiency can't increase for all the armors at the same rate. It's not like people are going to switch between different armors the way they do for weapons, so it's not like it's a huge advantage.

In terms of Armor Class, every armor comes out with an Armor + Dex = 7. What armor best suits you depends on your Dex. If they think they need to offer extra bonuses to make heavy armor worth wearing, then maybe they shouldn't make the penalties for wearing it so brutal?

Those are two different approaches. You either have better heavy armor, or you have different scaling proficiencies.

If you have different scaling proficiencies, then at the beginning, your choice of armor is just based on DEX, but no one is particularly AMAZING at defence, so everyone dies at about the same rate, making light/medium armor classes less screwed.

Anyway, I made an analysis about this on another thread, let me repost it below. Long story short, making heavy armor better is screwing Wizards/Monks/Rogues.

What AC 7 for all armor types accomplishes is this:

1. It makes DEX vs. STR relevant. Having 12 DEX means you have as much AC as having 18 DEX, but having less DEX means you have more STR, which means you can use better weapons. It balances itself.

2. It makes Light/Medium armor users not feel extremely fragile in combat early on. Later, when higher proficiencies roll in for Heavy Armor users, they get a boost in defence without making the early levels so disparate.

3. It makes PROFICIENCY more important than armor type, so a Wizard getting Heavy Armor Proficiency is not a big deal because they don't have access to better proficiencies. However, having proficiency in Heavy Armor is still good for the Wizard, because they get to turn 12 DEX into AC 7, so there's still a benefit for anyone who gets Heavy Armor.

4. As a Monk enthusiast, this one is important for me – AC7 keeps unarmored characters from being too far behind armored characters. If your unarmored character needs to race towards AC9 to stand with the frontliners with only a +4 bonus from stats, it can feel pretty hectic.

Now, what are the issues with AC 7?

1. Early levels, when you have to take large ACP penalties feel pretty crummy.

2. Speed penalties are too big in a game with limited movement and no way to maintain engagement (i.e. not everyone will have access to AoO and Step is still an option).

3. There's no incentive for high DEX high STR characters to use heavy armor early on until they get class features that encourage them to do it.

4. There's no incentive to use Full Plate over Splint Mail, because 14 DEX is easy to get and Splint Mail has less Bulk and ACP. (Clumsy is a non-penalty, you can safely ignore it with 14 DEX, it does even less than Noisy.)

Personally, I like the AC7 system and I think the benefits outweight the issues. Perhaps they could make it so heavy armor is more attractive early on than medium armor – for example, giving heavy armor another bonus like a small damage resistance, or even do away with Speed penalties or ACP altogether. They surely need to add options for Fighters/Paladins who don't want to use heavy armor.

But I don't think the numbers NEED to be changed.

1 to 50 of 5,291 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>