Siro's page

202 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting. So the other big change is the ability to craft higher level items are going to be prof gated. I can get behind this (of course dependant on if lower level items are not completely power creeped out on higher levels, so those that did a modest investment can still get something small from it. Though I guess if worse came to worse those characters can always retrain the skill.). Overall I like it both from gameplay mechanics, as I can see these restrictions adding balance to what could be an extremely powerful skill (see crafting magic items in PF1), and from a RP/world building as only knowing the basics should only allow the person to craft the basic stuff, while the more advance requires more time effort knowledge and experience in the craft.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm bombs in a world without TAC is a bit of a concern I had not thought of. Perhaps bombs are going the same root as touch spells {if I remember correctly} where they target Ref now. {and going with that the alchemist bomb DC is there class DC.)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well looks like 'Invisibility' got a new best friend in this edition. Well actually its still its old best friend, except everyone once in a while he wears a pointy wizard hat (without having to take the correspondence course ' Magical trickery and you'.) Or a pope hat. Or a crown of branches. Or tries the seldom used strategy of sneaking while playing the tuba. :)

But jokes aside, I'm liking the possibilities the feat offers, and through it, the opening up of different classes for the 'Arcane Trickster'.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Joe.M thanks for the work that you have done, and looking forward to your return when that monster called "life stuff" CR is lowered. {take whatever time you need)

Less of a class then a concept, but perhaps a class which {for magic} solely has and focuses on cantrips. {ie having more of then then any other class, along with there own class cantrips {we saw that with the bard if I recall, with 'Inspire courage'} and class feats/features which impowers them.} Perhaps this could be a way of doing the '2/3 caster' in PF2 (ie you never get any higher spells then cantrips, but you get more of them, and while there power will always be behind that of the higher level spells, they do grow more powerful over time, and the lack of higher spells allows the class to have more stuff outside of magic.)

I was musing it could be an archetype {or subarchetype depending on how you view it) of the Conjuration specialization of the Wizard. Of course a major factor would be on the final Arcane List, though I could see powers filling minor conjuration roles the list does not include.

I could see it as a prestige class, with eidolon acquirement and advancement using the Cavalier prestige class as a baseline from the playtest {should be noted the Cavalier will be absent for PF2 initial release and will most likely come later)

And I could see the possibility of a class feat which grants the ability to slightly increases the power of Summoned creatures {similar to the wizards 'Augment Summoning' power from the playtest.)

The one difficultly to this would be incorporating the ability to summon creatures in a class feat. Obviously this would be a key ability for the summoner. However the playtest put a strict limit on these types of abilities offered through multiclassing {for example, if you got a 'Power' from a spellcasting class of which you were not a part of, you would only be able to use that power some much as the highest level of spell you could cast from that class, meaning both further investment, and never being able to reach the max with them. If you got a non-spellcasting power it would only be half your level.) Using those rules as a baseline, it would either need to be limited and weak, or limiting the prestige class to casters {at least in the playtest all casting traditions had a version of the summon spell.) with a class feat that gives a free summon or some sort.

As far as making them there own class, I going to bow out of speculation until we see PF2 in its entirety. {Mainly to see how class powers and spellcasting will be implemented, as they will have a big impact both on possible iteration and problems with conversion.)

Happy about the 'unconfirmed' increase in duration from a world building perspective. I was looking at duration of spells in the playtest and I was wondering how a wizard was going to make a living/ how people were going to afford it. {ie either the spell was only going to last until you left there shop, so not many people would buy spellcasting services, or people would have to also hire the wizard to follow them to the spot they needed the spell.)

I guess they could still sell spells, and get into item crafting {ie what most adventures use them for}. But, at least in my mind, a good amount of there income comes from spellcasting [what the majority of NPC's would use them for.)

That's good news to hear, both for skilled classes {Rogue, Bard, Ranger...} and Int in general. The simplified chart is also a glad change.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I got to admit, while stats for the horse was a bit lacking, the whole one action for two was something I had initially overlooked, and was fairly powerful in it of itself. More so because you could get this benefit for a relatively low cost {1 class feat for the Cavalier dedication would get you this, not a bad trade.)

rooneg wrote:
oholoko wrote:
rooneg wrote:
I don't know if I've missed this being discussed elsewhere, but from the attributes for the characters they all seem to have been built with a total of 9 boosts and 0 flaws. Do none of the ancestries have flaws anymore?

3 boosts from ancestry, 1 flaw, 2 boosts from background, 1 boost from the class and 4 from the buy.

They just used one boost to cover the flaw i think.
Yeah, that would make sense. Weird that they all decided to do it though.

Speculatively, it could mean a negative in a stat means a bit more {ie even in a dump stat, it should be avoided}. Though there could also be 100's of other reasons why, from rollplay, to what they are planning to do with there characters in the future.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:
Feros wrote:
I always have used the same character as a base test of each edition/iteration of the game going back to 1981: Human Rogue (originally Thief). Boring perhaps, but it allows me to see the differences between the editions quickly and without much fuss. Raymond Aberdeen was the second character I ever made, and he is sort of my personal mascot. It will be interesting to see what results!

I often do the same. I remake Elfteiroh, my first character, a CG half-elf, half aquatic elf Ranger from AD&D 2e.

PF2 is the first system that give me a pause when it is time to choose the class. I could rebuild him with many different classes, even Champion (Liberator)! o_o (He could also be a Rogue (Brute), and I'm pretty sure I had seen a type of barbarian that would fit.)

Same with me and my gnome bard {although my experience is limited to 3.5 and PF1, with a sole game of 5E.) Likewise, I'm also thinking I can rebuild him outside of the class, looking at a Sorcerer that has multiclassed into Rogue for the extra skills in particular {a good fit for him as he would focus on a mixture of face and knowledge skills to conserve and augment his magic, and use magic when skills were not enough.)

I like it to {though maybe not so much for a 2/3 spellcaster. But that does not seem to be a problem for PF2.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the "PF1 had too many spell lists" was because of the existence (and popularity) of 6-level casters who had enough of their class features invested in spellcasting that we needed to give them certain spells at lower spell levels than full progression casters got them. I think this is where things got silly.

I wonder if we couldn't instead do the 2/3 casters by giving them full spell progression as a wizard/cleric/whatever but giving them lower proficiency and not giving any slots at the highest spell levels. I guess multiclassing as a spellcaster already kind of does this.

Hmm, I remember there being some discussion on in regards to the Bard and turning them back to a 2/3 caster {which would apply to other 2/3 casters as well}. There would be two problems which these casters would face in the PF Playtest magic system {and most likely for PF2}, that they did not have in PF1=

1) There being no early access spells. Because spell lists are no longer based on class but on tradition, 2/3 classes would gain them at the same spell level as there full caster counterparts, but would have a lower rate of progression to those spell levels. Now, for a good number of spells, this would be no change from there PF1 counterparts, however the key difference is on those early access spells, which allowed the 2/3 caster to specialise {somewhat} so they would at least be able to stand in the shadow of there full spellcaster peers, at least in terms of spellcasting. I would not go as far as to say there casting would be useless, but it would be a big hit.

2) There being no caster level. In PF1, spells power were greatly connected to CL {would last longer, deal more damage, greater range ect). This was a major boon to 2/3 casters, as, while they got most of the spells later, they could cast them as well as there full casting peers, allowing there spellcasting to remain somewhat relevant in comparison. In PF2, the strength of a spell is often dependant on the level its cast {to be fair, it is more seen in damaging spells, with more buff and debuff heightened effects replacing spells of old, but there are even a couple of them which are still dependant.) Because of this, 2/3 casters {assuming they would reach at max 6 level slots} would be placed at a larger disadvantage.

EDIT= Forgot to mention one advantage in this new system is DC is no longer linked to the level the spell is cast, so, spells which require saves would still remain relevant casted at lower levels, which helps both full and 2/3 caster alike.

Now, 2/3 could still be seen as powerful enough in PF2. But it should be considered what the new casting system would mean to them in comparison to there PF1 counterparts.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like it from an RP standpoint. Its interesting if your character delves deeper into there spell casting tradition {ie the bard I briefly played during the playtest gained his spells through connecting and contacting spirits, learning of there story, and using there story during his spell casting to from and shape the magic into an actual spell. It was awesome to come up with a brief {generally a line or two} description of what the story and spirit was in relation to the spell, which also intern affected other aspects {the way he would approach situations based upon the stories he heard, the Bardic Lore as, while he would be learning about there stories {even those which did not end up becoming spells} he would be gaining general knowledge, ect.)

Above that, I also like how two different traditions can have different viewpoints of the same spell, and even magic in general.

Bardarok wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

In the playtest, did anybody find "you get trained in more skills, get a bonus language" to actually be sufficient incentive for non-Int classes to invest in Int?

In my experience Intelligence was probably the most common stat which had nothing invested in it in the playtest.

Int was pretty weak in the playtest but removing level from untrained proficiency makes that untrained vs trained gap a lot bigger than it was in the playtest. Perhaps that alone is enough of a buff to Int to make it worth it.

Yeah, which will also reintroduce the problem of PF1 and Charisma, in, if you want to use Charisma based skills {ie the one specific thing Charisma has} your generally better off investing in Int, in order to gained 'Trained' in those skills.

Now, if you are in a more skilled class this is less of a problem {Rogue, Bards, hmm Rangers} though you are using limited resources of a class that could go else where, in order to make use of a otherwise underpowered {useless} stat useful. Generally though, and unlike any other ability stat that even if you do not invest in there skills you still get some use out of, your main concern is to at least get 'Trained' in those skills 1st, and then improving your Charisma for them.

I did hear some theory crafting {actually in PF1} tying item DC to Charisma. So to use a PF playtest item, a 'Circlet of persuasion' Charm DC, instead of being a flat DC 31, would be a flat DC {lets just say 31, but item DC on whole sale would need to be adjusted} + Cha mod.

Now this would probably have some inherent flaws, which we may not even be able to fully see yet, because we, at best, have a poor vision of what PF2 is going to be, {ie we have a playtest, which, even if nothing had changed, we would still be missing a great deal} and the systems in place for it.

Another something would be to slightly increase the power of Charisma based classes, to make up for there main stat not providing. {Kinda of in the same vain of the Oracle and Summoner classes, which had some awesome abilities to make up for it. Although some, myself included, would argue these abilities went a bit to far, so I would say improvement, but not as far.}. This would not solve the problem in general, as it would still be a dump stat for everyone else, {ie the Fighter who wants to be the Charismatic leader, and such} but it would at least help the classes that would be most affected by Charisma not having any bonuses. Now, I would not want this to be the actual solution {again the Cha Fighter, even though he would most likely be weaker in general then the Fighter which improved his Con instead, should at least get a little something for it.) but, if nothing could be done, I would want at least a small consolation prize for those classes.

Yeah, {connecting it back to Resonance} I think Piazo realised they could not give Cha something new with in the current system {based off of PF1, which itself was based off of 3.5), as it would become to finicky, to situational, need its own ruleset, step on the toes of other abilities and classes, ect. {ie problems everyone has been running into with there suggestions.)

Which I think gave part to Resonance, something that was newly developed to help combat certain problems, and, at least on paper {though arguably not in practice.) not tied to any of the pervious systems. This would also allow Cha to be the modifier for Resonance without any of the pervious problems, of course assuming Resonance did not cause problems itself. Personally, I did not hate Resonance, but did not love it because it did have problems, and those problems were apparently enough to lead it to getting axed. However I do think Piazo solution for Cha will be something completely new to the game.

I said this once {and then went back into the conversation of theory crafting}, We just don't know enough about PF2 systems {including but not limited to Charisma after Resonance), which also makes speculation difficult, or even if we know it will be needed once PF2 comes out.

Bardarok wrote:
Siro wrote:
... I was also thinking of in cases where face man gets separated from the party/when the bonus to social stats are N/A. {ie on there trek though the woods, the party meets a bear. The rest of the party runs one way, while the face man runs the other, and soon they lost each other.}


Good devil's advocate. I got nothing.

Nah, again its not situation that will come every session. PC's tend to stick together {for both there safety, and the GM sanity} and even when the party does decide to split up, they often implore the buddy system.

It just that I felt it should be mentioned situations can pop up that can sperate the group completely {From my experience, its not something which will happen often, but I don't think I was ever been involved in a long campaign without the separation scenario happening at least a half a dozen times, from botched retreat routes, to being captured, to a plan needing each character to be in sperate locations, ect.)

Though, what I do like about this bonus is how the high Cha character are encouraged and will be rewarded for interacting with as many people as they can, which seems to match with the feel of the ability for being social. This wouldn't just apply to PC's but NPC's {friends, mercenaries, fans ect}, so the social character would have a reason be leading a posse behind them. {ie a mechanic having a direct impact on RP, and RP having a direct impact on a mechanic.). It would also provide an out in the lone PC scenario, as the player could hire/gain a follower which they could then give the bonuses to.

Bardarok wrote:
Siro wrote:
Now, to be slightly counter to my point, and something which I think should also be considered in this theory crafting never the less is, under this version of Charisma bonus, there is already a in built limit. The bonuses applied for any other stat would still apply in most situations {ie you always have the bonus to bulk and melee with Str, bonus to AC and Ref saves with Dex ect. Unless something happens that would deny you the use of the stat completely, you would always be able to use it.) However, with Charisma, the bonus it gives you is purely dependant on if you have someone else to share it {ie to give the bonus). Now PF is generally a group activity, so I wouldn't say being alone is the norm, but it will happen on the odd occasion, to be at least a little limiting,
True. Though on the other hand if it is a party of one then by necessity that character is making all of the social skill checks so they would still get a benefit from more Cha.

Yup on that. Though I was also thinking of in cases where face man gets separated from the party/when the bonus to social stats are N/A. {ie on there trek though the woods, the party meets a bear. The rest of the party runs one way, while the face man runs the other, and soon they lost each other.}

Bardarok wrote:

The problem is that giving Cha modifier which can start at +4 and go up to +7 as a circumstance bonus to something is a way bigger than any other circumstance bonus in the game so just changing aid another to provide your Cha modifier as a bonus would be numerically overpowered.

Dex has a similar issue where if you added full dex on top of armor it would make the numbers for AC go outside of a reasonable range hence they implemented max dex for heavier armor.
So while I like the idea of Cha as a bonus to aid I think full modifier in all situations would be too much so there would need to be some sort of limit. That was the intent of the limits I suggested in my above theory crafting.

Yeah, that was the reason for my above question, as a possible +7 circumstance bonus can get out of hand. {and the reason if the bonus merely applied to the check to see if you could aid, as that bonus to the actual check max at +4, although it could also lead to a problem of level bonus by itself eventually being enough to pass and crit, making the Cha bonus redundant.)

Now, to be slightly counter to my point, and something which I think should also be considered in this theory crafting never the less is, under this version of Charisma bonus, there is already a in built limit. The bonuses applied for any other stat would still apply in most situations {ie you always have the bonus to bulk and melee with Str, bonus to AC and Ref saves with Dex ect. Unless something happens that would deny you the use of the stat completely, you would always be able to use it.) However, with Charisma, the bonus it gives you is purely dependant on if you have someone else to share it {ie to give the bonus). Now PF is generally a group activity, so I wouldn't say being alone is the norm, but it will happen on the odd occasion, to be at least a little limiting,

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Wraith wrote:
Maybe Charisma could help a character when he uses tactics to help the rest of the party during Exploration Mode. What I mean is, if the Ranger is giving a boost to Survival checks or the Rogue is helping in Stealth checks, they could add their CHA Bonus to 'whatever kind of boost' they usually give. Nothing mandatory but a good 'Leadership' bonus if present, so to speak.

That's not a bad idea {would allow for a neg mod to mean something, wouldn't take away from what most people use a class from, and matches with the Charisma feel} Maybe even not limiting it to exploration mode {ie using it as part of the assist and aid action, or in downtime activates.)

Now, do you mean as a bonus to roll itself? {ie if the Cha 24 Bard aids the Ranger in Survival then the Ranger gets a +7 'Leadership' bonus on the survival roll.)

Or do you mean a bonus on the check to see if you can aid them? {I believe the 'Aid' DC is 15 to 20 in the relevant skill, to see if you can aid them.) So same example above except the Bard rolls to see if he can aid with a +7 'Leadership' bonus along with everything else, giving him a greatly increased chance both for success and critically success on the check, and give a bonus on the Survival check.

Yeah I guess they made the forms somewhat weaker {by way of both class abilities and spells. The only one I somewhat heard was ok was the Barbarian Dragon transformation. to avoid what had happened in 3.5 {and because it would be difficult to implement PF1 version of stat bonuses, as a +1 bonus is equivalent to a LV14 item which you can only have one of.) It also didn't help that because forms would wear out there usefulness quite fast, as your normal from would become more powerful {even with auto heightening and/or the LV10 Druid item} you were on the from treadmill with spells or class feats, with general minimum and fleeting gains.

Also, yes on multiclassing {Druid with Monk multiclassing also made a pretty good combo.) This was the same for many classes, as multiclassing either could provide you with stronger abilities then what you class could, and/or was an easy way to gain something your class lacked. Now, I really liked the multiclass system in the playtest {and I didn't think I would} and hope/beleive classes will be improved to meet that in the finsihed product.

Ah, Resonance, how far we've come :p

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

I could be wrong, but I genuinely believe they made strength the stat for wild shapes for 2 reasons

1) balance. Otherwise its better thanall other druid subclasses.
2) for the sake of the team. The team wrecker suddenly being the worst physical combatant because they ran out of wild shapes can probably cause major party dynamic issues. Linking it to Con could be a middle ground, but having all druids be fairly MAD while one is almost SAD is likely a factor.

And even for flavor, the wildest of druids being the most charming is a bit odd, but having them being physically strong enough to wrestle a tiger even when not being a tiger makes a certain degree of sense.

Though it does make me want to see a class like the Starfinder Operatve iin pf2, where each subclass is tied to a different Stat

Yup. Also due to the historical connotations. Wild Shape {and most other transformations} in 3.5 replaced your physical stats with that of the from you took. You would still want a bit of natural Dex {for Ref saves AC and initiative when in your natural from, } and Con {both for FOrt in natural from, and because HP in general}. However, Strength became something you could dump because any situation your would need it, you could just become a strong animal {often times with more Strength then the Fighter, to the point you would be a better melee fighter then the melee fighter}. PF1 aimed to change this by making forms increase your stats instead of replacing them, both so you could not just take a form with ridiculous stats for a PC {and alternatively not to restrict design space when designing creatures}, and a Dump stat would still matter.

However, the Playtest version returns to replacing your stats to the from you take {not as directly, but practically for terms of Strength.) reintroducing the need to give a reason for these types of Druids to not dump Str. Having Str directly tied to how much you can change {especially because that from only lasts a min} gives a reason not to dump Str {and not to repeat the same mistakes of 3.5 that PF1 tried to correct}. Having a low score means you can not rely on that ability throughout the day {maybe only being able to use it once or twice at higher levels, with each use only lasting a min} so eventually your low Str Druid would have to face those challenges without use of a 'Strong' from. A higher Str Druid could rely on those forms, but at that point it solves the problem of them dumping Str.

Yeah, when it originally found out people were going to be able to have a flat 10 magic items on them {although that mechanic hasn't been fully revealed/pieced together yet} I though Charisma was going to play a role in it. {similar to TheGoofy idea of the more Charisma the more magic items you would be able to equip.) But, that so far does not seem to be the case.

Hmm, the more I think about it, the more I think it may be better to wait and see what they have done with Charisma before speculating on how to improve it. We don't really know what will be the official solution, if Charisma will need improvement afterward, and we don't have all the info on the mechanics of PF2. {Kinda of like a blind man holding a piece of paper---he can tell it is paper, but until he is informed what written on it, he does not know what if anything should be changed about it.)

Still, one can theory craft, and Charisma as been the Pandora Box for improvement, even before PF1. {last 24 hours have found me wrapped up in it.) I guess its fun/belief its needed because of how important Charisma is to certain characters, and how little we know about it in a Resonance-less world, especially in comparison to the other ability scores. I do hope they reveal something soon.

Captain Morgan wrote:

So PF2 isn't trying to give you features you won't actually use. Dwarves used to ignore armor speed reductions by default, but that does nothing for a dwarf monk. For that class it is a dead feature to the monk. Therefore, they changed unburdened to an optional thing you can select, so dwarf monks don't feel like they are wasting a class feature.

Giving ancestries default spells is useless to anyone with low charisma or who doesn't want to use magic. It then becomes a dead feature just like unburdened was to dwarf monks. Also, while it makes sense for gnomes and elves, it doesn't make as much sense for all ancestries.

I don't think the issue right now is that charisma is too weak for characters who use charisma. Those characters can use it very well indeed. The issue, for me at least, is that there are drawbacks to dumping any other stat even if you on plan on using its skills. Dex hurts AC and reflex. Wisdom hurts will. Intelligence means less skills you are trained in.

Charisma really doesn't have anything like that. Am I making sense?

Alright, I see what you are saying. One of my problems with Charisma was it offered nothing by itself, even for those that specialized in it. For example, if in the Sorcerer class, you were to swap every instance of Cha for Int {including skills) and visa versa {to ensure the only difference was the innate bonus the key stat gives} the Int Sorcerer would be the mechanically more powerful class {assuming of course Cha does nothing with resonance being a thing of the past, which I don't believe is the case for the final product) Now, you have mentioned before, and I agree, the power of Intimidation, and while this certainly does help, it still carries inherent problems. You need to spend resources for it {ie prof, and prof increases, at the very least} in order to give Charisma purpose, something which no other ability as to do, from a mechanical standpoint. {ie especially in the official PF2, if you are untrained, no matter how high you Cha is, you are not intimidating anyone, and you would need to spend more resources to make sure its reliable as the levels go up, and so that you can qualify for its powerful skill feats such as Battle Cry and Scare to Death.} Which is a problem for both high and low Charisma characters alike, as low will receive no benefit, and high needs to use a decent amount of its limited resources in a specific skill in order for it to be of use.

As for there being no negative to dumping Charisma, well, that may be a ship that has sailed. From what little I heard of 2.0, Charisma played a part in how NPC’s would initially treat the character in a social setting to a certain extent, so a low Charisma would have a negative impact on this. But to introduce something new that could have a negative or limiting impact on a character, would be meant with great push back {see Resonance, Cha for Focus Points, ect), especially if its just seen as an artificial limitation, just to give another stat a purpose. Now this isn’t a great excuse, and it may mean Charisma needs something else in addition, and could be one of those flaws I had mentioned in the initial post. {EDIT= perhaps everyone gets a very small ability that is universal to everyone at a score of 10, but Idk, it may be to finicky.}

As for ancestries {and perhaps this is my fault for not explaining well}, is they would not get these magical abilities by default. In this imaginary and raw wording {only for the purposes of demonstrations, and the sprit of what it is} of what Charisma innate benefit would be=

"You gain one Charisma magical ability from your Ancestries list, per positive modifiers. You select which ability at the time of gaining that positive modifier."

Ancestry would only play a role in what list of minor magical abilities you could choose from, the feature itself coming from Charisma. In this, I don't think it would give you dead options, as most abilities would not interfere with other, and you would have enough choice that you would never have to pick dead option. Now, if you still believe this creates a problem in terms of dead features for ancestry {I would argue against this, but I think it would become an unproductive tangent/ get further away from the threads initial purpose, which we are already very close to anyways} you could simply switch out 'Ancestries list' for 'Charisma Power List' and just have a list of common minor magical abilities everyone could choose from. In either case, even if someone only had a 12 in Charisma, they would still gain a minor magical power, and perhaps like increased Bulk for Str, or a new Prof for Int, enough of a reason to think about even making a minor investment.

Now I do somewhat get your concern with the idea of a character not wanting to cast magic from a conceptual standpoint. Arguable this is a problem all ability scores have to some extent, for example my non violent cleric wants to increase his Strength so its easier for him to wear heavier armorer and drag injured people off the battlefield to heal them. However, in doing so he does improve his ability for violence. Now, the one difference is the cleric could just ignore that, by never swinging a weapon, and still gain the benefit he wanted, something which could not be said for Charisma {as ignoring the ability would ignore all innate benefit of it, something which I better understand you meant when you clarified) Which is kinda of the reason why after the initial posting {and to not just limit it to copying spells} I've slowly changed it to minor magical ability, which would allow for a larger scope. Of course they may be some spells in some from or another, however there would be a possibility to create magical abilities that would simply be seen as a natural part of that ancestry {ie kinda of like a Medusa stony gaze, while magical, is just a part of what it is. Of course, I would not suggest to make the Charisma abilities that powerful.) And other abilities could just be flavoured through non-magical means. {ie for a human, I was thinking a possible choose on the list was the ability to magically learn a Common language, representing the humans long history engaging with different cultures and races, awakening a language one of their ancestors knew form history past. The non magical way is "Hey I made some friends that talked this language, and they taught/I picked it up as I hanged out with them. And they liked and let me hanged out with them because I’m charismatic.”

As for the Ancestry, and those that don’t seem to go with the innate magicaal abilities, again you can use the non-magical option above, or just go with it’s a new edition, new rules, and magic is weird. {ie The Goblins, those adorable <almost as though magically endowed with a bonus to a stat which makes them so> little ankle bitters, whom also seem to listen to the little voice in there head to burn things, could probably justify some minor innate fire based magical abilities.)

Captain Morgan wrote:
Siro wrote:
-----------Warning, long post, do not blame you if skip...

We do have CHA based ancestral spells though. They are tied to ancestry feats. Any innate spellcasting is already tied to it. Unless you mean it should just be a part of the base racial package, but I'd disagree with that. Giving a base feature which will be dead to anyone who doesn't prioritize CHA is not a good idea. This is why they made Unburdened Optional instead of default, so that unarmored dwarves wouldn't have dead features. (It really should have been an ancestry feat, not a heritage, but I digress.)

I also don't think it really fixes the issue per se. It just continues to make CHA only useful if you already wanted CHA

Yes, I was thinking of it as a sort of add on to the base racial package {similar to how a selection of bonus languages are part of the basic racial package for high Int, except without the restriction of being only at character creation, and the ability to get more then one the higher you increase Cha, although at what ratio to Cha would be one of those balancing things, especially because something would needed to be gained at stat 12, so even those not planning to go heavy into it would still get some benefit like the other stats.)

Which, I would not think would take away from the race itself, as all the races former abilities would stay the same they are. At least the way I am interpreting it, the 'bonus' as it were, comes from the innate feature of Charisma, with race only becoming involved in what small list you would select from {if you would prefer, you could also just remove race, and make the list come from a common pool. I was adding it both for flavour and to allow for more distinctiveness.} The possible impact {which was the reason for my edit and you mentioned} was on ancestry feats which gives you a cantrip, and how these may be muddled if there was another way to gain them {ie through Charisma}. However, these would still have a place because= 1) they would have a much larger list of spells to choose from, then what would be offered from Charisma 2) not everyone going to be a Charismatic character, but they still may want a certain cantrip, and so the feat would provide it and 3) even if you are Charismatic character, you may still want a cantrip, especially if it has a use that you want that you could not get through Charisma.

Another concern which you did bring up is it will only be useful for those already investing in Cha, basically an all or nothing. Now, I'm assuming {please let me know if I am off base} this is either because of how I linked it to bonus languages {and clarified a bit more in Paragraph 1} and/or because of Spell DC's. For that, while I will admit there are spells/effects that rely on DC, there are others which don't and so even lower Cha characters {and I assuming this imaginary limited list there would be a couple of effects like this)would be able to take advantage of it. Of course, I would not want it to be an auto pick {again where balancing would need to take place} but it would need to be useful enough to be considered.

As for dead base features, I'm a little bit confused? I might have some idea of what you mean, but I'm not confident enough to give an answer that may be based on a erroneous assumption on my part/ would want to understand a bit more encase I made a mistake,

-----------Warning, long post, do not blame you if skip--------------

I did have a small radical idea, which will most likely be riddled with flaws, but here it goes=

To mirror one large point Doktor Weasel and others have made, which I agreed with, is any change to Cha as to be seen as an improvement as a whole, not a step back to allow a stat to take the place of something that already was. The other thing is its organic integration within the system, that the bonus itself did not just seem to come out of nowhere in order to bolster a stat. Resonance had good intentions, {and personally I did not mind it, but was definitely not in love with it} but among other things, it ran a foul with both of these.

Now lets look at what Cha has been traditionally used for, and what it represents. The main use has been {in its essence} the ability to shape, influence, and manipulate creatures. Now the skills do a fine job at representing this nature, however it has the problem of needing additional resources to make use of {ie proficiencies), while the bonus to certain skills is not unique to Cha {ie Str will improve Str based skills, Dex to Dex based skills, ever ability except Con does this). Now a possible solution would be to roll these Cha based skills into an innate character skill, such as what became of Perception. However, this could possibly limit its use {ie skill feats} and more importantly it could be seen as a constriction {ie even a lower Cha character can still be decent in Cha skills, if they are willing to pay there prof increases into them, more so after the changes to prof bonuses. In this system <assuming it would follow the same rules as Perception in the playtest> it would be more difficult to make these increases, {and adversely make a characters bad at these skills at higher levels} both limiting characters mechanically and conceptually.) Plus, it may be too broad of a scope to place its uses as just part of the character sheet.

However, Cha as also had another use in PF history, and that is in innate spellcasting. Now, we have seen this in the Sorcerer class, as there spellcasting comes from the innate magic in there blood, and many creatures whom naturally have spellcasting tend to use Cha as its stat. Going back to PF1 we have seen core races gain minor spellcasting abilities {namely those loveable Gnomes, though others gained it to} by having a high enough Charisma score, and that maybe the answer for the Charisma in PF2. Much like languages, races could have a list of certain minor spells/spell like abilities associated with their race, and characters when reaching stat millstones with Charisma can select one of them. This would give Cha a use, even in classes which do not traditionally use Charisma, but would not make it necessary, as its not taking away anything, instead its giving another option. It would also give Cha an innate use, while still grounding it within the lore of the world, and possibly expanding it.

Now, if you made it these far, congrats. Even though the post is long, it is still at best a Raw idea, that if it were to be implemented {and again this is all speculatively assuming Charisma as no use now that Resonance is gone, which I do not think will be the case.} it would need a lot of work and balancing. {for example what spells to place in what race, how strong/weak should they be, should there use be limited and should Cha play a part in said uses, ect. EDIT= not to mention how it would after certain ancestry feat, and things like that ect.). And ultimately the idea may be itself too flawed to work, but, at least, I found it an interesting idea to the Charisma conundrum

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
It strikes me as very odd to look at making a rule system simply as a make-work program for Charisma. I'm much more concerned about whether something makes sense and is fun or not than forcing artificial relevance to a stat. And making all classes powers dependent on charisma really doesn't make sense and frankly isn't fun in my mind. It's just a stat tax justified solely by the desire for a stat tax. A stat tax should at least have a better justification than the fact that the stat is irreverent to most people.

I want to be clear I don't want a rule for rules sake and I don't want any stat to be a tax. What I want is for anytime I create a character for there to be a mechanical reason to want to advance all the stats and I then have to make a choice. Currently unless the character actively uses the stat, I only have to make that choice about 5 stats not 6. Having low charisma should not be anymore crippling than low strength, but it should mean something. Even strength is pushing it (now that bags of holding only have a monetary cost) so in PF2 when you get your 4 stat ups there isn't a choice, not really because there are two stats that are only relevant in any way if you aren of a class that wants it as high as possible.

Case in point, I'm level 5 and I suddenly find my character ends up doing a lot of the talking so I should get better at Diplomacy. Do I buff my Charisma and raise my bonus from +0 to +1 or do I raise my Intelligence and gain training in Diplomacy to raise my bonus from +0 to +5?

It absolutely should not be shoe horned in.

Well said. The other thing I would like to add is there are certain classes {Sorcerers, and Bards} whom are forced {highly encouraged} though there class mechanics to have Cha as there main stat, meaning it cannot be ignored as a stat on a whole. To do so would merely be shifting the stat tax to these classes, and to anyone whom wishes to play a more Cha based character. Which itself isn't fun, knowing that the class/concept is gimped because of its main stat {similar to the feeling of every non Cha based class if Cha suddenly became important to activating its abilities.)

To bring up a PF1 example, a lot of people I saw playing Sorcerers would generally play the 'Sage' bloodline, because it switched out the Cha casting stat for Int. From a mechanical standpoint, having a Int casting stat was better then Cha, because Int innately gave the Character bonus skill points, while Cha innately gave nothing. From a roleplay standpoint, even if you were planning to play a Face based Sorcerer, it was still better to have Int, as those extra points would allow you to invest more into those face based skills, along with others to round out your character concept, and fully realise it, then a Cha based one, whom would fall behind, or have to leave certain face skills out.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, if stat generation is like the playtest, you can't really "dump" stats anymore. Since you increase stats 4 at a time you have to increment at least one stat that doesn't contribute to saves, so Charisma just needs enough to make it as attractive as Strength and Intelligence.

True, {and good point on mentioning both stat increases and the dichotomy between ability scores that increase your saves and those that don't. Which if we were to make a comparison those that increase saves also gives you something else= Dex gives you increased AC, Con gives you bonus HP, and Wis, which while it does not give something special other then Will saves,it is used for Perception, which is arguably the most rolled and all around useful 'skill' in the game. However I'm getting side tracked on a topic that would take us further then our goal.}

So, in order to Cha to be innately useful in comparison to Str and Int it would need to be as useful as= 1 Str) bonuses to hit and damage with melee and thrown weapons, bonus damage to purposive weapons, increased Carrying weight, and <if the liveplay notes are correct> reduced speed penalties for heavier armor or 2 Int) Assuming it works the same as the playtest, an additional language at character creation for a high enough score, and increased Trained Prof {which did get a considerable boost considering how Prof and level bonus work now, at least on the surface.)

Now, Str or Int isn't going to be important for every character {ie a Wizard whom spent all his life in a library studying so he would not have to carry a sword, most likely will not care about the bonuses to melee from Str, especially in a class that generally wants to stay away from close combat) but it still provides a use for them {ie that same wizard may not mind the extra carry bulk so he can actually carry all the books, or magic items he wants on him} and it still provides the option and reward for making 'off brand' characters with that ability {ie that Wizards sister, after graduating from magic school joined the army, and, unlike her brother whom spent his years researching the more finer points magic, spent hers strengthening her body and sword arm, having something as back up should her magic fail her.)

So, at least in may opinion {underdeveloped as it is, as this is just a quick glance}, Cha innate use would need to be arond the same level mentioned in Paragraph 2, while still fulfilling the points of paragraph 3.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
There are a number of ways they could've boosted Charisma that have nothing to do with Resonance or magic items. I agree it needs a boost, but that hardly needs to be the boost in question.
Of for sure. But we've been given no indication that any such thing exists [or if we have I have missed it.] Without the suggestion of an alternative then we are left in the state of Charisma being a non stat for non charisma focused characters. I would be happy with basically anything to make me think more than 0 seconds about leaving Cha at 10 on most characters.
Weeeell... with Demoralize being so freaking strong and Scared to Death being even better, intimidation alone can justify CHA investment and it seems like an obvious skill for many martial types. This doesn't really negate your point: people not interested in Intimidation have no need for CHA. But it is no longer quite as simple as "I don't want to be the party face so I have no use for CHA."

That is assuming Demoralize and Scared to Death will be as strong in the final version as it was in the playtest {and of course, also assuming Cha will have no use outside of skills that go off of it. Which I think will not be the case, as one of the points of the new edition was to ensure there was not a default dump stat/ and we have seen Int <which was considered to be a weaker stat during the playtest> improve through the new prof rules, at least on the surface]

Even with Intimidation, if Cha does nothing else, it repeats a major problem it had in PF1= You still need to use other resources in order for it to really do something. For example, in PF1, Cha <unlike say Dex which would naturally give you bonuses to AC and Ref, or Con for more HP and Fort> requires you to use your limited skill points in those Cha based skills, those same points you could have invested in other ability skills that the abilities were already naturally giving you something. This would repeat in PF2, except you would be using your limited Prof increases {which if the Playtest is any indication, is a resource that is harder to get more of then its skill point PF1 counterpart, although it is worth mentioning there are less skills in the Playtest and assumingly PF2, then in PF1).

Now, to be a bit counterproductive to my own point, I also wanted to give a shout out to 'Battle Cry' especially the ability you gain when you hit Legendary in Intimidation. Not to say Intimidation doesn't pull its weight before hitting Legendary, but both Battle Cry and Scare to Death at Legendary seals the deal of its 'Legendary' effectiveness in battle.

Joe M. wrote:

A few details from Mark's recent posts.

Post #1 reconfirms that, for archetypes, the CRB will include only the multiclass archetypes, and implies that the Cavalier archetype will not be featured in any of the initial release products (surprising me, since I had assumed we'd see it in the World Guide).

A bit of a surprise for me to {I've made and seen more then a couple of cavaliers in the playtest}. Though thinking about it, I could see some reasons why {mainly for world building and simplicity reasons. The Cavalier dedication in the playtest had the 'serve a knightly order', similar to its PF1 counterpart, but we did not get any specific orders <which for something like a playtest, most likely was not needed>. I'm guessing a certain amount of worldbuilding ground work for PF2 is needed for these orders/ making the CRB a bit easier for those new and not familiar with the world.)

And I could see the reason for there inclusion in the playtest, other then being a class, both as another way to test the new animal companion/minion mechanic, and to see the results of allowing traditionally non-animal companion class to have access to a animal companion. {ie what would be the affect both mechanically and RP, if the foe saw a half bull man <barbarian rage, animal totem> riding on top of a horse into battle, ect :p >

Also, thanks for the notes and keeping those out of the loop updated.

Edge93 wrote:
I feel like we could easily make the Elemental Spell Metamagic. Add 1 action, choose your element from fire, ice, cold, and acid. Seems reasonable enough. Maybe prohibit fire and ice from changing into each other and same for electric and acid, could be interesting. IDK.

Possible {and interesting, especially with the restrictions}, though it may have to be one of the higher level class feat {having a creatures weakness on command is a very powerful ability. Though, if I am remembering the spell correctly the LV2 'Illusory Creature' kinda of lets you have a elemental weaknesses on command, so maybe its not has problematic. However the spell also has its own restrictions to get it from getting too far out of hand, {ie half recovery on disbelief, concentration, targets instead of area, ect). The other thing is, Illusory Creature is a spell so it has the weakness that you may run out of it {ie spells remembered/spell slots) while the feat could always be applied to a proper cantrip. Idk, maybe limiting it to one element {chosen at the time of gaining the feat) and granting a bonus to damage for spells that already deal that type of damage.

Bard, because it is my favorite class, and because you can learn a lot of a system from the Jack of All Trades class {assuming they still hold that role in PF2}

Then Rogue, because I really like skilled based classes.

Lucas Yew wrote:

Other than the math thing, I focus on how they did with the "ribbon" abilities that emulate high-end Wuxia stuff, like greatly extended (if not immortal) lifespan and immunity to all things passively hostile.

I want my 300 years old healthy hermit loafing around in a barren nuclear wasteland without any problem once more...

Yeah, kinda of liked the idea of prior editions the monk could prefect his body and mind to a point that when he sensed the grim reaper, he could spin around and punch it in the face. And then the Grim Reaper floats off, because, like most creatures, the Grim Reaper doesn't like being punched in the face. At least that's what he did in my head canon, yours may vary.

Though I'm pretty sure that if its not a innate ability of the class, there will probably be an option for it. {Paizo as tried to kept most of the iconic abilities and features of a class in tact {at least in the playtest} in one from or another, ie certain spells on the Arcane list for Wizards, certain weapon prof and light armor for bards, the flexibility and increased number of Fighter feats for fighters, Rogues and finally becoming the skill masters they were always meant to be, ect}

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
So happy they switched to a more sensible NPC system, I can imagine myself creating levelled characters for important NPCs still but when it comes to mooks or monsters having that level of creative freedom is absolutely awesome.

Same. Is it sad to say that I'm most looking forward to the NPC creation rules in this new edition? :)

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I agree that non-Arcane Sorcerers had issues in the playtest. Any or all of the reasons for that could have changed in the final version, though, so let's see how it goes.

Agreed. I enjoyed a good portion of what was in the playtest, and given what has been gleamed from the liveplay stream so far, I'm both really happy about the changes {fixed a decent amount of the issues I had with the playtest, and knowing it has only scratched the surface} and excitedly optimistic about the finished product.

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, my feeling in general was that the non-Arcane spell lists were weaker, but the non-Arcane sorcerers didn't really get the features to make up for that the other casting classes did.

Occult bloodline abilities need to be more powerful than arcane ones, just like bards get a whole lot more outside of their spell lists than wizards do.

Ture, Arcane seems to the more powerful casting list {note= this isn't to say the other lists are bad, they have stuff the Arcane would love to have such as healing spells, or 'Heroism' off the top of my head.} But they have there own brand of impactful spells, and more importantly (and where I think there true power comes) a huge variety of many different types of spells. From my understanding this was because of the wizard and how iconic certain spells and the way they could specialize in certain schools of magic, which made conversion somewhat difficult, and expanded the arcane list {a wizard that could not cast Magic Missile is a sad Wizard indeed, and the need to included at least a couple of spells from each school to accommodate the school specialization feature.)

Now this works in a vacuum of wizards and arcane, {more so assuming spells are going to get a little bit of a buff in the actual PF2} as the class is more limited in options outside of magic. However, place these same limitations on a class because they may get the Arcane list, you see a bit more of the problem when they don't. Occult Sorcerers is just the easiest to see this because there one option to gain this casting isn't the greatest.

In conclusion, I do not think the Arcane list is to powerful given the limitations it places on the classes that gain it. However these same limitations on class with non-Arcane spell {ie at this point just the non-Arcane bloodline Sorcerers} are slightly to much for what they get in return.

TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

We had that originally, right? Im hoping sorcerers get a little more Pizzazz, not much reason to go sorcerer vs bard if going occult

Yeah, had that thought myself when trying to make one, although {at least for me} the main issue was the Aberrant bloodline itself, and it being the only source of Sorcerers occult spells. Flavour it was pretty good, but the problem was the powers could be a little to situational <could still be useful, but it took some set up in comparison to others> and a lot of the bloodline spells were lackluster, gutting alot of what made it special in practice.

Hopefully there are enough changes in the final addition to Aberrant {I still do love the concept}/more occult bloodlines to help with this problem.

Xenocrat wrote:
Siro wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Siro wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Yeah that would be deadly for wizards {or someone planning to play a nudist character} if you weren't trained in unarmored.

Though it does bring up the question= is there a way to improve prof outside of normal class upgrades <or alternatively the system accounts for this> in the final product? For example, at higher levels being trained in armor will do very little against someone whom is legendary in a weapon, having a natural +8 advantage before everything else. Same gets applied to saving throws and saves.

We know that even wizards eventually get expert in staffs and other wizard weapons. So I'd say defensive proficiencies upgrading at a different track than the playtest is a safe assumption, but I can't say how much of it will happen outside of class structure. One imagines rogues will get beyond trained with light armor, for example.
Alright cool, as long as there is some sort of gap closing method to keep higher level play in check <ie a fighter should have a really high chance to hit with there weapon, but having a +8 before everything else against someone whom is only trained in armor maybe to much, and in reverse if same fighter has to over come an additional 8 before everything else on a Will save to avoid killing the rest of the party.)
Unless PCs are fighting each other this isn’t actually a concern.

Ture part of its speculation, but it can also come up both depending on how NPC's / Monsters are built {ie if they are built with Prof / there stats are built incorporating prof bonuses}. Of course I admit it is probably to early to speculate on these things, and if so I apologise.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Siro wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Yeah that would be deadly for wizards {or someone planning to play a nudist character} if you weren't trained in unarmored.

Though it does bring up the question= is there a way to improve prof outside of normal class upgrades <or alternatively the system accounts for this> in the final product? For example, at higher levels being trained in armor will do very little against someone whom is legendary in a weapon, having a natural +8 advantage before everything else. Same gets applied to saving throws and saves.

We know that even wizards eventually get expert in staffs and other wizard weapons. So I'd say defensive proficiencies upgrading at a different track than the playtest is a safe assumption, but I can't say how much of it will happen outside of class structure. One imagines rogues will get beyond trained with light armor, for example.

Alright cool, as long as there is some sort of gap closing method to keep higher level play in check <ie a fighter should have a really high chance to hit with there weapon, but having a +8 before everything else against someone whom is only trained in armor maybe to much, and in reverse if same fighter has to over come an additional 8 before everything else on a Will save to avoid killing the rest of the party.)

MaxAstro wrote:

Thanks. I knew that there was no +level to Untrained, but I saw a comment from one of the devs along the lines of "you don't get level to Untrained skills" and I wasn't sure if they were calling out skills specifically as if different things worked differently. I didn't think that was likely, but I wondered.

Good to hear that everyone is trained in unarmored - that assuages some concerns I had about the combat survivability of caster classes.

Yeah that would be deadly for wizards {or someone planning to play a nudist character} if you weren't trained in unarmored.

Though it does bring up the question= is there a way to improve prof outside of normal class upgrades <or alternatively the system accounts for this> in the final product? For example, at higher levels being trained in armor will do very little against someone whom is legendary in a weapon, having a natural +8 advantage before everything else. Same gets applied to saving throws and saves.

"Your familiar’s saving throw modifiers and AC are equal to your own, before applying any circumstance or conditional bonuses or penalties. Its Perception, Acrobatics, and Stealth modifiers are equal to your level plus your spellcasting ability modifier. If it needs to roll any other attack roll or skill check, it uses your level minus 2 as its modifier. It never benefits from ability modifiers or item bonuses."---Page 287

So I would assume {at least the way we have interpreted this and playing with} is, its bonus on everything would be equal to its masters level {minus of course the exceptions stated within the paragraph such as the penalty to attack.) This is because most bonuses the master would get do not apply to the familiar {ie does not apply ability modifiers, item bonuses ect to the saves} leaving only the bonuses applied by level.

Of course we could be mistaken as well. {familiars in combat never really came up, as the one familiar we had was a bird that would fly either a bit behind or overhead, and so was generally a decent distance away when fighting broke out.) And yes that character too was a gnome whom {along with the Animal Whisperer feat} would generally use that familiar to 'Twitter' with the rest of the birds.

Also, on a side note, awesome idea with Glorp familiar.

May I just take this opportunity to say, the Rogue seems to be one of the best classes to multiclass from. It could be that a lot of what they do they just naturally get without the need of class feats, but they are really flexable in terms of multiclassing {I made a double occult spellcaster {multiclassing in both Bard and Sorcerer {Occult}, <note was a Human, so got the LV9 multiclass feat> and a friend of mine was toying with the idea of a Rogue/Paladin {Multiclass}, to both defend {Retributive Strike} and heal {Lay on Hands} from the shadows, ie his 'Guardian Angel' Rogue.

Passed that I don't really have much else. Deadmanwalking pretty much summed up what I was going to suggest, but said it much better then I could, and masda_gib provided a solution to the Greatsword Sneak attack problem. The only thing I can add is, if you are going the Rogue route, but still want that sneaking greatsword feel, you may want to check out the Elven curve blade {definitely not a one for one solution, but it was the closest two-handed sword weapon that would still get sneak attack I could find.}

Draco18s wrote:

Bit of a necro, but I'm digging into a part of the forums I didn't while the playtest was active.

Quandary wrote:
I think it should/ is intended to work with Cantrips, although there may be wording issues with that currently.
What would be the point, though? You can already cast a cantrip as many times as you want.

The point {for a Wizard anyway} is, it would allow them to prepare more cantrips per day. In the current from a Wizard can prepare 5 different cantrips {with the cantrips not being used on upon casting} so they would have 5 different spells. With the ring {if it worked on cantrips} an additional 2 for a total of 7 different spells could be prepared.

Actually, going with the topic of prof {and avoiding it being just a +1) and martials, I was kinda hoping they were going to be a little bit more with weapon prof. The criticization effects are kinda cool, I'd say at the level of what an expert with the weapon would be able to do, which is the level of Prof most characters get the effects. But it just kind of stops there, every improvement just adds up to another +1.

To kinda of close the gap between casters and martials,--- {my personal opinion is 1) Magic got rolled back one notch to much. I definitely don't want it to go back to PF1 levels where out of 10 an it was an 11, but here it feels like a 4 when it should be a 5. 2) Martial still lack the power of options there casting brothers have)--- is to use Mastery and Legendary prof in weapons to close the gap and lack of choice. In a fantasy world, I could see Masters of there weapon start touching upon the realm of magic with them. For example, perhaps someone that is a master of the bow could fire an arrow in the air while picturing what they want to find, and the arrow veers in the direction of that. So, it may not be as good as a spell {it would only give you a rough direction}, but its both something the Bow master as access to all the time, and something the Bow master can do without limit {well as long as they have arrows to fire.). Now within the weapon prof system as it is right now, this could be a bit too powerful depending on the class {ie a fighter would be carrying every single weapon type in the game if you were to just get this as soon as mastery.) but maybe there would be a way of limiting it {ie you need to be a master and get a auto class ability to unlock a weapons group mastery effects, with certain classes unlocking more of these then others, and none martials unlocking none.)

Blake's Tiger wrote:

The martial dedication feats also seem to give more for the feat, but I may be underestimating half-power cantrips.

As to the argument that "it's harder to learn a new class" (that's some old school 1st ed. D&D), that seems to already be represented by the fact that you only gain a smidgen of the adopted classes ability.

I think its more that your doing some training in another class while still keeping up with your original class. Which is kinda {in my most likely substandard opinion} the reason why you only gain partial abilities, as your giving up class feats {which is still a high cost} but your still gaining the key abilities of that base class. For example, a Rogue who say, uses all there class feats for a Wizard Dedication and spell casting will gain a lesser ability to cast spells {much more then a Rogue that did not dedicate themselves to a spell casting class, but less then a Wizard} at the cost of not having any Rogue feats. However, in spite of not having any Rogue feats, they still gain skill increases, skill feats, sneak attacks and other base abilities at a same rate of a Rogue whom did not multiclass. {to sum up, I think the power is being balanced against you sacrificing class feats, not the progression in the class itself.}

And, while there not going to ever steal the show, cantrips can be useful, depending at what they are being used for, and the class itself. For example, I've played a Monk whom took the Druid dedication feat {in a homebrewed 3-shot}, and used the ranged cantrips to have a ranged attack {two actions were not ideal, but it helped the monks lack of range, along with having a 'ranged weapon' without gold cost, and could occasionally take advantage of elemental weaknesses.) Mind you this was Level 5, so it may not be so useful at higher levels.

Stay safe, stay warm, stay in doors.

Hello DaBaine, I hope this helps:

1) You would not be able to prepare 'Produce Flame' from your spellbook. This is because Produce Flame is not on the Wizard spell list, and you can only prepare spells in your Wizard slots that are. {For the future, if a spell/spell-like effect does not list what class it comes from, it defaults to, unless the spell is not on the list 1)Wizard/Sorcerer, 2) Cleric, 3) Druid, 4) Bard, 5) Paladin and then 6) Ranger. So the spell-like ability 'Produce Flames' would default to a Druid spell, as its not on the Wizard or Cleric list.)

2) You would still be able to make Scrolls of 'Produce Flame' using your spell-like ability. {though you would be limited to making one per day, as you would use up your 1 time use of that spell for the day when making it.}

3) And I believe your cleric would still be able to cast it from the scroll {assuming they are high enough level} without any difficulties. As eluded to in point 1, 'Produce Flame' is not on the cleric spell, but would be on fire Domain cleric spell list, because of the domain.

Also, {and I've made this mistake to} you have posted a question about PF1, in the PF2 playtest.

For my opinion, there not weak at lower levels. {for the most part, for me anyways, they hit just the right level of cost <3 actions and a spell slot> and impact <trading in an action to get two, another body on the field to take /get hit/flank/attack, and some variety to meet the situation, but not the ability to steal the show by themselves, as pointed out, there lower stats hold them back.}

Its actually the higher levels that I see some problems with there strength. {some of it is because saves start to become a bit more important, and some of it is because a lot more things have reactions against concentration.} The main kicker is the level 9 gap. Summon Monster is a spell that is dependant on the level its cast, with the power of these monsters based on it. As long as your casting it at your highest level slot, it should help against the foe you are facing, with a new list and updated power every two levels. However the difference between getting 9th spells and 10th spells {which not everyone gets, and you only get one slot for if you do} is four, {meaning those monsters, who are based off a level 17 character, will become very outdated by Level 19.) This is also true for the 10th level list, as it follows the same two level power upgrade as the pervious iterations, but both as the gap, and is using a very limited resource. (Sorry if this is a bit confusing}

What I oddly found was Illusory Creature became a better 'Summon' spell at higher levels. This was because, with the exception of damage and size, its power is dependant on the caster, not the level, and you could make it anything. This meant, even casted at lower levels, it could still do things, and because you could make it anything, you could easier take advantages of weakness. Now its does have its own weakness {disbelief with seek, destroyed on hit, ect} but that means it still made the creature use an action, and the reason why you cast it at a bit lower levels, where it breaking isn't as big of a deal. Plus, you can use both Summon Monster and Illusory Creature together {as long as you cast Summon Monster 1st.)

1 to 50 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>