As pointed out there is a good chance anyone who dumped strength who wasn't an arcane caster in 1E was not actually applying the rules. In which case why would you bother with these ones either
I'd assume people might use the bulk rules as they use simpler numbers and require less mental effort to work out, L or 1 to 3 bulk from memory, compared to as little as ¼ of a pound to 50 pounds, then consult a table to look up your carrying capacity for PF1. People should be able to do the math in their heads for the bulk rules, I wouldn't expect anyone to total their carry weight for their pf1 character in the head.
It doesn't make sense for copper to be worth more than iron when iron is more useful. Also the party might be tempted to trade in the coppers for iron coins to melt down for better gear.I'd suggest using stone coins or something.
Wanted: Spontaneous casting druid
If you actually followed the encumbrance rules in PF1 the only classes that could feasibly dump their strength were the Arcanist, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard. I don't find it surprising in the least that again the Wizard and the Sorcerer are the only classes able to feasibly put their strength down to 8 with no impact.
Vali Nepjarson wrote:
Now, it is absolutely true that high Strength doesn't exponentially skyrocket your encumbrance like it did in PF1 (assuming PF2 is the same as the playtest), but I'm actually quite glad it doesn't as I've seen a Barbarian player carry around things casually on their person that Conan would struggle to drag.
Hopefully they haven't kept the play test rules for determining the bulk you can carry, it'd be too much of a nerf IMO. The difference in carrying capacity between the strongest character and the weakest character is 8 bulk, assuming no feats or items outside of the stat boosting items to increase the carrying capacity.
I'll be importing universal spell DCs, essentially all your spells will use the DC of your currently highest spell level, so when you get 3rd level spells, even your cantrips will use [10+3+mod] as it's DC. I just really like how "Hey, I'm a high level wizard, but my 1st level spells are still really easy to ignore even though I can chuck a 7th level ball of doom at your face" is no longer a thing, because it was super FeelsBadMan.jpg
Consider removing bonus spells from the casting stat as well, you're giving casters a huge boost with that. It's effectively a free, better version of the heighten spell feat. Depending on the spell (blindness/deafness is a good example) you just made it viable for the rest of the caster's career.
Yolande d'Bar wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing your issues/war-stories/complaints about it, Skerek.
Basically what Rainzax has mentioned, there are a lot of actions that need to be sorted through, just going through the the listed actions in the CRB and the unchained action economy ended up filling an A4 cheat sheet for my players, and this didn't even cover all situations. I mean, what do we do with vital strike? is that just going to be a two action attack?
Regardless of that it did create some odd situations and balance issues.
With enough work, it's definitely workable, but that's just it, it'll require a lot of work to make it balanced.
I don't mind martial rocket tag as much as it was generally a specific build or feat that made it viable, compared to the baked in abilities of a wizard/sorcerer.
A certain barbarian and bat team comes to mind.
Didn't that team require the x3 damage from the lance pounce to trigger on every attack to be stupidly OP rather than just regularly OP? I remember a dev saying it shouldn't work because the bonus damage from the lance/spirited charge is from the momentum from the charge put into the attack which is lost after the first strike.
High level ... rocket tag
Everytime I see people talking about rocket tag in high level play it's always them damn casters causing it, even in your example it's wizards prepping just the right offensive and defensive spells. Hell I remember the time I personally caused a case of rocket tag and ended an encounter before the enemy even had a chance to act, good ol' phantasmal killer.Hopefully spells have been wrangled in the new edition. From memory in the play test the Save or Die spells now need the enemy to critically fail to die, so that's a step in the right direction.
I feel that removing the +level from proficiency bonuses for PCs and rolls/stats for NPCs would help reduce the massive number bloat that will cause these issues in high level play. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there are official rules for it considering how easy it would be to adjust on the fly, assuming level 0 is the lowest level enemy.
If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first?
As for Cha dumping dwarf, isn't the usual effect of dumping Str for mages just to hand their loot to the high Str character? In this case the obviously rude and generally unpleasant to be around dwarf is sitting out on asking for favors. If he does try, it'll most likely result in some negative.
Currently we have Sorcerers and Wizards that are going to be able to dump strength and not notice any real side effect. Maybe finesse rouges will be able to get away with it too, I can't remember item weights and the encumbrance rules off the top of my head. All other classes benefit from having strength in some way or another, even if it's just to avoid being encumbered by your gear.
Compare that to charisma that can be ignored completely by 9 out of the 12 classes unless you're looking to use social skills.
Also, I would expand the friendlyness to be 0-Indifferent, 2-aproacheable (people want to approach you), 5-friendly (people want to treat you well, 10-helpful (people want to help you out), 20+-infactuated (people want to follow you around).
The issue with this is that generally you just need one person to be the party face. You could be playing a dwarf and dump your charisma to 4 with no benefit and hardly notice because you didn't invest in charisma skills and were going to have the party's bard do the talking anyway. It's only going to make charisma better for those already investing in it. We need to see reasons for people to not dump it to an 8 when possible.
Also aren't those modifiers completely out? I thought the highest stat you can get is 24, so a +7 modifier.
Great...Hate to see this sort of min/maxing thing again.
It's hardly min-maxing, this optional rule ends up giving you worse stats. It's clearly to help make any race/class combo viable, being down to at 16 in your class's primary stat is going to make more of a difference in this version than it did in first edition. Furthermore the few cases where it does end up providing a mechanical upgrade (Wizard dumping str and cha, Fighter/Barbarian dumping int and cha, can anyone think of any other combos?) it still can only boost a secondary or tertiary stat, resulting in a pretty small mechanical upgrade.
Free choice of +2/+2 for everyone, no exceptions.
I guess that would work too, but at that point you might as well give everyone an array to use and ignore stat boosts from any of the three steps.
Change spontaneous casting to be under-casting much like psychic casting, get rid of spontaneous heightening
Carry some knotted rope up with you and throw it down for the rest of the party to climb up. Fly was one creature touch in 1e, so I don't understand what the issue is.
I'd prefer an undercasting mechanic for spontaneous casters. Knowing say a 3rd level spell as a 6th level spell slot allows you to cast it heightened using 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th level spell slots. Depending how a character's spell selection is set up this might give some option paralysis around the mid level spell slots.
I realised this the other day, the current system does not support non typical builds well. I remember one of blog posts (or a dev) saying that is was possible to have a functioning cleric with 10 wisdom. Although this cleric is possible it's probably not going to be very effective, it certainly won't have an 18 in any ability.
I'd like to have an 18 in a score that's not my class's primary stat for some builds. I imagine any gish will want 18 str (or dex if there's an easy way to get dex to damage outside of the rouge) and decent con, a casting stat of 10 for casting buffs seems to be suffice in this system.
Isaac Zephyr wrote:
A -2 to Con only lowers the cap to 16
Actually, the con cap is 16 as there are no classes that use con as their primary stat, so elves have a con cap of 14.
Comparing two fighters is a class focusing Con, so they would be aiming for the same anyway. If they can achieve the same, then it means nothing to say "Dwarves are tougher" in that regard.
Considering the minimum Con for a dwarf is 12, on average dwarves are going to be tougher. Races with only 1 floating +2 aren't going to put that bonus into con unless they already +2 to their primary stat.
A 4 HP difference seems a fair trade compared to Elves' more universal abilities.
it's hardly a fair trade, at first level level it's more balanced but as characters level up 4 hp becomes meaningless.Lets look at a dwarf and an elf wizard both with 12 con, at first level are going to have 17 and 13 hp respectively. The elf has approximately 75% of the hp the dwarf has. Pretty significant, now lets look at 10th level, 80 and 76 hp. The elf now has 95% of the hp the dwarf has. At 20th level it's 150 and 146 coming to 97% difference. Using a D6 HD class and not putting any bonuses into con is going to give us the biggest difference while keeping the con the same. Using classes with larger hit dice and a high con bonuses makes this difference even less significant.
I'm another agreeing Dudemeister and rainzax, the whole system needs to be simplified.
Various posts have mentioned the use of the medical skill to patch up party members, which hopefully means that potions and various magical healing affects will be used in battle to make sure everyone survives rather than magical band-aids after combat. This ought to stop people from saving all of the RP for healing, you might save your last point or two just in case you need to quaff down a potion but that should (assuming potions continue to use RP)
Come on guys, drink responsibly, have the 4th shot glass be water, you need to stay hydrated.
Intelligence doesn't just influence a few skills, it influences HOW MANY you get. Now how good that is depends on how many skills you get anyway. If you get proficiency in (say) only 4 skills before Intelligence, then every + or - is a big deal. If you get 8 then it barely matters.
The skill system has changed drastically in the new version, we don't get skill ranks anymore. I don't think int effects how many skills you get anymore.
Rek Rollington wrote:
It seems so far the lowest you can dump a stat too is 8 and that’s only if it’s a race’s flawed stat. So far none of the races we’ve seen have Int as a flaw. So depending on how they work with skills many characters may leave their INT at 10.
With the ability score generation that is being used I consider a 10 effectively a dump. You're not allocating anything to it, and once a race a negative to int comes along it'll probably a popular choice. But as gustavo pointed out rolled and point buy will dump it if given the chance.
In PF1 Charisma was the go to dump stat unless you used it for your class, all other stats impacted you in some meaningful way, Charisma is used for some skills, and that was it.
Now it looks like Intelligence offers nothing other than a bonus to a few skills (like every other stat) with how the skill system has changed, unless your class uses it of course.
I hope something comes out or changes to make intelligence worth investing in if your class doesn't use it.
I'm in 4 corner alignments Paladin Camp. I just can't see a good reason to restrict the class to only LG (I am seeing a lot of "I like it the way it is" and "It's always been like this, don't change it") when so many people want it opened up. Having the option to play something other than LG doesn't stop one from playing LG. I'm hesitant to open it up further as it's going to create a large amount of work for Paizo attempting to balance and write for 8 or 9 alignments. Also the corner alignments offer a nice juxtaposition to Druids having to be one step within TN.
Anyway, it seems that Paizo is attempting to make the classes more modular, this can work out pretty well for the 4 corner alignment route. At first level you pick one of the corners and you get the Good/Evil and Lawful/Chaotic properties. When picking class feats you can only pick feats that have a tag matching your alignment. That way instead of balancing LG, CG, LE, and CE as a whole you really only need to balance Good v Evil and Law v Chaos when it comes to the class feats.
I'd rather see stats divorced from backgrounds. Give us 2 floating +2s, a skill feat (or some other background feat) and a lore feat that we select. Minmaxers are going to ignore the fluff and build what's strongest while those who actually roleplay may end up with sub optimal builds, effectively being punished for making a character rather than following a build. Also saves room in the book.
•Will thrown weapons still suck?
I suspect they will for a few reasons, bows and crossbows will probably have their own niches, several low damage attacks for the bow, 1 large damaging attack per round (or two) for the crossbow, for example. I'm not sure what niche thrown weapons will have, they tend to not have as much range and will require an action to draw, making a quick draw type feat mandatory if it exists. Perhaps they'll be weapons that can be used short ranged or in melee, probably sub par at both but that's the price you pay for flexibility.
Even if we give them a niche, how on earth do you balance the cost of these items? How many thrown weapons will a character need to be effective? We don't know the pricing rules for crafting/enchanting weapons but if things haven't drastically changed it will make two weapon fighting look cheap. Also the character will probably lose some weapons at some stage as well, throwing them at enemies only to miss and go off the side of a mountain or something making the pricing issue even worse.
I'd like to see thrown weapons being usable outside of a high strength character's early game ranged back up but I'm doubtful it'll happen.
John John wrote:
This is from the Eminent Domains comment section
Mark Seifter wrote:
and this from the All About Spells blog
prepare a spell in a higher-level slot (or cast it using a higher-level slot if you're a spontaneous caster)
As I understand it, Sorcerers will only be able to upcast "bloodline spells"
Where are you finding this information? the blog from 16/4 seems to indicate otherwise.
Heightening a spell works much like it did previously, where you prepare a spell in a higher-level slot (or cast it using a higher-level slot if you're a spontaneous caster)
The Arcanist does have his own problems with his pool of points and how hampered he is with limited slots of Known preparations and spells per day. The class itself is still balanced with the Wizard just as the Sorcerer is, and has exploits he uses with a very limited arcane pool that runs out far to quickly at low levels, and is likely used to fuel spells later on.
This was more of a question on which casting/preping style to use for prepared casters due to the large number of requests for it, not a critique of the Arcanist class.
The thing to remember is that the Wizard and the Sorcerer need to be on an even playing field. The only way to do that is for both to have the same casting mechanic, one that is shared by all casters in the game. Then the differentiating factors for the Sorcerer can be expanded on and Bloodlines can shine without having to wait a level for higher level spells.
If the Sorcerer and Wizard are sharing spell lists and casting mechanic why bother having them as separate classes? You could roll them into the one class then at first level let the character choose between school powers and bloodline powers
Vancian is confirmed at this stage, but what kind of casting did you want? Why did you want that type of casting, why not the other kind?
I'm seeing a lot of people wanting Arcanist / 5e style casting so I'm wondering if there are people that are quietly contempt with the Vancian style casting or do the people just want Arcanist / 5e style casting.
I would have liked to see the Arcanist / 5e style casting but I'm not sure what would happen in regards to the Bard's and Sorcerer's spell casting if this were the case.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
The inclusion of floating scores each step is clever. Means everybody can have 18 in their main stat, as long as it is not penalized by your ancestry. That make things like Elven fighters or halfling wizards more viable, as you are not "incentivized" to pick certain races for certain classes.
I like this too, but I'd like to see a way for races that have a penalty in a stat to be able to get to the 18 cap as well, perhaps if they are using the method Deadmanwalking proposed instead of the four +2s you get a single +4 with the caveat that it can't bring a stat above 18
It always bothered me that in PF1e some races were just better at being a certain class than others. A Dwarf sorcerer (baring the Empyreal bloodline) will never be as good as an Elven sorcerer and even worse compared to Halfling/Gnome.
except in your case your using one significant figure. With medium creatures in pathfinder it's usually 3 significant figures, 4 if you're a small character. in PF2.0 using the new mechanic you're going to be dealing with 2 significant figures at the most. You never have to deal with fractions or decimal points, although not an issue for me and I assume yourself there are people out there that hate that system, evident by the number of people ignoring those rulesI might give some examples later when I'm actually at home near some character sheets.
Metric is factors of 1000 with a few exceptions, but that's just me nitpicking.Maybe instead of trying to get you to use
But as people keep telling you, bulk isn't likely to just be weight alone, as others have mentioned it's probably factoring in size and how easy it is to carry as well.
I have NO reference point for what a bulk is. How do you imagine what carrying a bulk is? How much more effort is 2 bulk? How much effort is it to move a 50 bulk item? Can I slide it? Who knows?
Fair point that we don't have a reference point to what bulk is yet]. I don't think there's going to be a straight conversion from weight to bulk or vise versa due to the different variables that go into determining bulk. I suspect we'll get an idea on how hard it is to move/carry bulk by examples provided in the book.
the math isn't different
Except the math is different, the math involved in calculating bulk uses less significant figures
It just seems like a sneaky way to slip in metric into the game and for the same reason I don't use metric I don't want to use bulk.
What? sneaking in metric? What misconceptions do you have of metric to think that?
My mind already knows how to figure out weights and it not in wuzzles factors or bulk.
Ah, I think this is your issue, bulk is likely not just weight, it's likely factoring the size of the item as well. Although I do agree with you that would be nice for item weight and sizes to be listed as well.
Everything looks really good, except for some parts on heightening spells.
blog post wrote:
This spell doesn't increase in power incrementally as its level increases (except for being harder to dispel); instead, it has a specific heightened benefit at 9th level.
Except that "specific heightened benefit" is just a power increase.Now since it isn't marked at +2 but specified as 9th level does casting it at 10th level give you the standard regeneration 15?
also blog post wrote:
Heightened (+2) Increase the damage by 3d6.
So casting Vampric Exsanguination at level 7 increases the save (maybe) and makes it slightly harder to counter (also maybe), but 8th level is both of these and more damage?
All spells should get a power increase when casting from a higher spell slot.
Vampric Exsanguination could be:
non-standard format I know and but rounding down the number of dice would result in the same dice increase from the even levels and give additional granularity in power.
What about the double sling?
In short, way to feat heavy to pull off. I can't remember if Halfings treats double slings as a martial or not, but you'll need to grab the TWF line, ammo drop, juggle load and some archery feats such as precise shot and improved precise shot. In the end you'll save yourself 3-4 feats by using a normal sling and the war slinger alternate racial trait.
I am intrigued on building a some what viable halfling slinger now.
Daniel Kreutzenberger wrote:
You can use acrobatics for moving over a field with an enemy. When you do that, does it provoke an Attack of Opportunity? And can you use this for more than one time in a round?
It will provoke an AoO if you do not beat their CMD+5.
Daniel Kreutzenberger wrote:
Next question is about preparing spells. For the Wizard, it is finde, he is able to prepare all the spells written down in his spellbook. But what's up with Cleric and Druid for example? They have no Spellbook, so can they just choose their prepared spells from the Spelllist all the time? I mean, if this is the case, wouldn't be the Druid too powerful, because he has so many spells to choose from?
Druids get their whole spell list to choose from, clerics get most of their spell list, alignment restrictions do limit their spell list a little.
It's not really over powered at the wizard's spell list is a lot more powerful than the druid/cleric's spell list.
Barbarian can do more than that 10d6 (average 35) heal easily. You're not going to outheal a Barbarian in melee range. You need to cut down on their ability to make full attacks (staggered, prone, etc.) or bring massive DR to the party. Barring another Barbarian that pretty much means going with Option A.
To get 10d6 lay on hands you need to be 20th level (unless you get certain items) so it's automatically 60 hit points, and with the right build you can make that 80-100 (depending on how one rules fey foundling). You won't be out healing the Barbarian's damage but you'll still be getting a lot of your health back each round.
I have been thinking about taking Med armor prof at 1st lvl to give myself a better ac with my low dex.
Might be better off dipping your first level in Fighter if you're wanting better armor.You're going to get medium/heavy armor, shield and more weapon proficiencies, a bonus feat and an improved fort save at the cost of 4 skill points and delaying your progression in Investigator by 1 level.
If you end up getting the Mutagen talent you might as well go the Mutation Warrior for the dip.
Paladin/Ninja might be okay.
Paladin/Bloodrager (Steelblooded) might work as well.
Also Tiefling (pitborn is a good choice) + Fey Foundling + Paladin FCB = so much healing with Lay on Hands.
Mike T. wrote:
First, when you are gaming, have the rule of Open rolling. Everyone rolls out in the open and may NOT touch the dice or move it until at least one other person takes a look at it. If it is snatched away before the result is confirmed it's an automatic reroll. Consistent snatching up results in a ban. Most players will have no problem with this at all. The ones that do are hiding something and that is an even better reason to enforce the rule.
I think a better way to handle it is if the person touches/snatches it before it's confirmed, it's a nat 1. no need to start banning players this way.