Goblin with Beehive

Skullkeeper's page

9 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this version of multiclassing could work well if it had more flexibility and depth. Right now it looks like 'multiclassing' into another class replicates 1-2 levels of dipping (or Paths from 5e) and thus maxes out around 1/3 of another class. I think that is a great solution for dipping to get a mechanic from another class. But this system falls flat for concepts that are more 50/50 split or even a change of career concept.

If the classes had more feats and could MC at 1st level to give a 50/50 split or even 70/30, then I think it could work. Otherwise, it feels needlessly restrictive for a system that prides itself on options. However, I think that Paizo will quickly add a ton of new classes, which might solve some of this, but that will introduce other issues, such as power creep. I would rather have a building block style of system. Give me Legos and Archetypes. Take off the restrictions.

I'd suggest making the abilities of other classes much easier to get and the classes more of an archetype- more open ended with less flavor. A paladin is a holy warrior, yes, but that can come in many forms- a knight in shining armor, a rogue like inquisitor, or a battle cleric. Find the core of the Paladin (or whatever class) and strip away everything else. Let the player decide what kind of character they want. I would also like to see skills uncoupled from class. Let any class be a skill monkey. Rogue and Bard should be able to stand on their own without extra skills.

I remade some of my characters from 5e as a kind of litmus test. Some worked fine (battle master fighter/assassin rogue), some worked better (wolf totem barbarian/beast master ranger), and some didn't work very well (shadow sorcerer/lore bard). In general I feel restricted with PF2's MC system- the combination of abilities I want always just out of reach.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AshVandal wrote:

The basic Wizard and Sorcerer should both be dumped in favor of the Arcanist. It is what casters should have always been with Vancian casting.

Never had a problem with preparing spells in spell slots. Not sure I understand exactly what the complaint is. Although if it helps, I've had a house rule for a long time with my casters that Heighten spell can be applied to any spell that has been metamagiced, as long as you have the heighten spell feat. So it's a bit of a feat tax but makes spell-casting much more enjoyable. Is that similar to what you mean by freedom to prepare any spell in any slot? It only really matters for combat spells.

I'm good with preparing spells, but having to assign specific spell level slots is unnecessary IMO. The real crime is losing the spell once you cast it. This is a throw back to old school Vancian spell casting from the Elric novels (I think). Cleric, Druid, and Wizard lose a prepared spell after they cast it. Bard and Sorcerer appear to be spontaneous casters.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aryx wrote:

Hi All,

I admittedly haven't gotten super far into the book, but my interest dropped off rapidly when I realized that prepared spellcasting is handled the same. I was hoping that Pathfinder 2e would take notes from 5e and divorce spell slots from prepared spells OR go to a magic point/mana system. Preparing spells the way Pathfinder 1e or 3.5 did was one of the reasons I jumped ship years ago. I've recently been drawn back to Pathfinder 1e but have had to completely homebrew a magic system to make it playable. Please at least concider divorcing prepared spells from spell slots.

I agree. Asking players to choose which slots to prepare at what levels is silly. And then losing the spell once you cast it is even worse. This is a deal breaker for me. Once you get a taste of that freedom to cast any spell you have prepared at any level slot you have, its so much better.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mach1.9pants wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

The way 5e did it though, it makes it so that you never feel like you really are high level when you are high level.

In Pathfinder...when you are level 9 and go up against Goblins...you'll be killing them left and right.

In 5e...if you face 5 of them you could be dead!

When you are level 20 you should FEEL like one of the most powerful characters in the world. In Pathfinder, you normally do. Some Moreso then others...which some have a problem with (casters being super powerful compared to the martials).

In 5e...nope...you can still be taken down by a group of low level 1HD goblins. No real heroes here...

So you really think that in 5e a group of five goblins could take down a single ninth level PC? Because that's not true. A group of twenty five may be a challenge, depending on circumstances - at ninth level a party is looking at a hundred goblins as a theoretically dangerous encounter. But, tbh, most parties would still cream that many. Bounded accuracy extends the range enemies are relevant, but not forever.

The skill check thing is very relevant tho, outside of bards and rogues the d20 is most of the result. Max ability is twenty, so +11 without expertise doubling proficiency bonus. The plus side to this is that DCs don't go so high that you can't give it a try, if proficient. I play 5e but have used 2d10 for skill checks to make the die less important.

I agree. I see a lot of hate for 5e and some pretty skewed understanding on how powerful a character is. For example, a single 5th level fighter with great weapon mastery can kill 4-5 goblins in the opening turn. Likewise a wizard or sorcerer can fireball them. Even if the goblins somehow got a surprise round on the party and all of them attacked the weakest target and landed a few crits, they might be able to drop (not kill) one 5th level character before being annihilated. Its true that bounded accuracy doesn't seem like much of an improvement, and I can see why people would see it that way. In 5e you improve by getting more attacks and dealing more damage per attack, instead of getting more BAB. The numbers are smaller, easier to work with, but there is still viable progression. Skills in 5e are terrible though. Bounded accuracy should not be used for skills. Totally agree with that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Well, the game could still theoretically limit the difference between the highest bonus in the party and the lowest bonus in the party at any given level WITHOUT minimizing the difference between a higher level party and a lower level one.

I don't care how different party members are - in fact I want them to be different... I just want to be able to easily challenge my players with a diverse array of creatures, situations, and levels.

ULTIMATELY I'm hyped as hell for Pathfinder 2nd Edition and I hope that the rules are flexible and modular enough to allow as many different play styles as possible - I just hope that mine is included under that umbrella.

That Mark the developer guy should comment on this thread to let weigh in on the conversation!

It is difficult to easily challenge a party when the Barbarian is hitting on a Nat 2 and failing a Will Save on a Nat 17, while the Rogue is missing on a Nat 16, and the Cleric is succeeding that Will Save on a Nat 2. When I say limiting the difference in bonuses, I mean so that a monster's AC can challenge the best attacker, while allowing those with lower attack bonuses to still have a reasonable chance of hitting, as well as making saves challenging to all, but not practically impossible for some.

I love building characters that grow gigantic with massive strength to go nose-to-nose with giants, as well as physically weak casters who barely shot the crossbow and never swung a melee weapon their entire adventuring career. So, I like great variety in characters, but encounters where slightly suboptimal-for-combat 3/4 BAB characters can hardly hit and the combat-specced Full BAB characters can barely miss aren't that good imo.

This is exactly what bounded accuracy fixes (for combat). It looks weird at first but works great. Even a flat bonus of +1 attack/saves per two levels would solve most of these issues.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Bounded accuracy works well for combat but not for skill checks. It's really about how much damage you deal, not how often you hit. B.A. just makes the math easier and faster. I like that magic weapons/armor only go up to +3, and that +3 is a big bonus. I like that getting a +1 to hit from something is valuable, instead of in PF where you have to stack a bunch of features or items to stay competitive.

As previously mentioned, it can be hard to make an encounter balanced when there's a 5-10 point swing between different character's attack rolls and the progressive penalty to additional attacks. It's all extra rules that don't need to be there. It's just clutter.

One thing I dislike about 5e is the skills. If I'm proficient, then I should be able to reliably perform the task. The mechanics just don't support the concept. If I want to be effective at a skill, then I have to be a rogue or bard.

But on the PF side, I had a ranger of about 8th level that stacked everything and with a few good rolls, was hitting DC 30. It was fun, but all of a sudden, I needed to hit DC 30. It set the par too high. My GM was unimpressed with DC 20's because that was an easy roll. Maybe that's not fair but it happens all the time. I played a ranger recently in 5e and she hasn't succeeded once on a tracking track or nature check. She has a decent wisdom too.

So perhaps there's a middle ground where PCs can be good at something but not so good that it messes with the GM's ability to set up challenges. Ex. proficient +4, expert +8, master +12. I personally would like to see proficiency = Advantage (take the better or two rolls). Less math, more reliable results, and less book keeping. Attribute mod + 1d20 for unskilled or 2d20 for skilled.