TSRodriguez's page

Came here just to comment that the Entry challenges are the best idea ever. Love it, I hope to see it repeat in the APs
Reading through the player guide is such a trip down the memory lane, I missed these colorful guys

Amazing!!! For me, I want First Volume of Iron Gods, First Volume of Reign of Winter, and the Whole of Legacy of Fire...!

Im very happy about this.

Omg look at that setting. Is like Warhammer meets Pathfinder. So Awesome as always!!

My god that cover. Ekaterina Burmak is just a goddess of the craft - That is beyond amazing

Cast slow, you win. If you fail, do it again, until win.

Yeah... I was about to ask the same. New players all feel magic is amazing and "broken" (And dont get me wrong, I agree magic was over-corrected, but then again, I am a veteran, and a caster player)

Yeah, I agree, maybe the avenue to improving is other than accuracy - But is hard to convince players that "They are being effective" by missing... while the fighter is on Crit City 2000

Its a tricky thing, the druid seems fine though for me, with the same accuracy as the wizard, it looks so much stronger

Yeah, Spells can alter the battle by too much... A good placed slow, with a little bad luck, and the enemy boss is completely screwed... So its a tricky thing, the casters in my group have never felt weak, but I would still increase the chance of success by 5-10% on average.

Its so weird, that the casters increase their mastery in levels 7 and 15, and martials in 5 and 13... Makes the casters feel horrible in those "in between levels"

I completely disagree though on the hyperbolic statement that the casters are "bad" or "nonviable" - Or that spell attacks are not usable

I seems that the design team puts too much value in the "effect on a miss" - I can see these on the alchemist as well
All the classes that have "effect on miss" have worse accuracy in general - in my opinion by too much.

Thank you so much for the answer. So it leans on the historic side, and maintains the limitation of the reloading needing a free hand is indeed intended. That lets me adapt accordingly
<I have never used and never will use the 6-2; Table of inhumanity in my games> But is so great to finally have an official answer.

The Gunslinger otherwise is looking so amazing, such a great job on the weapons as well. Expert level 1 + Fatal crits is a fantastic way of emulating the feel of the weapons, without breaking the thing.

I need to know if the Pistolero really needs 2 rounds, or 6 actions that provoke reactions to reload his pistols (I would never play like that, but just to know the true rule of the thing)
---------------------
I will be play-testing right away, we already have a gunslinger who is anxious to try the real deal. Btw you did a gorgeous job with the feats, they are all really cool

How do you reload a crossbow, if its uses 2 hands..? You just do it...

Yeah... this is a grand slam for me. It feels like the next step in class design for PF2e

I Agree, its an extremely manageable system, you can lower the difficulty easier than any game ive played so far - So if your players are having a rough time because they dont use tactics, just follow page 7 of the GMG for advice, and page 7 of the Core Rule book, rule number 1

Read, play, and see for yourself

Cody's "Experienced" players, based on the example that he gave, and the anecdotes he provided (Druid and a Ranger's terrible example) came to the conclusion that; "All you do in this game, is repeating the same rotations with no variations, because other actions don't matter"
There is NOWHERE in the core rule-book where it is stated, that you should attack 3 times, and most of the time miss the third one, but YET, these "Experienced" players choose to do so...
You can be experienced and good in Dragon-age, and be terrible on the Witcher... It doesn't mean that the Witcher is a badly designed game, it has other expectations, in which you have to adapt your play-style, based on your knowledge of the game, that you gain by PLAYING the game

Stangler/// What are you trying to teach... Everyone here knows more about the game than you. You OBVIOUSLY have no interest in learning it yourself. Are you trying perhaps to teach a lesson to Paizo, to those designers who clearly in "Cody's" opinion and yours, made mistakes in design based on some anecdotal notes, most of them wrong even.
What is the purpose of all this relentless sealioning? (my new fav word)

It is clear and transparent. You play, and you notice those kind of things

Depends on the enemies. On a enemy that is supposedly equal to you and your buddies, is 55/45. Harder enemies need tactics to equalize the number disadvantage against them (As it should IMO)
And against weaker enemies your chance gets bigger.
The modularity that is gives is amazing, every fight works as intended. But you have to be careful throwing big guys against your party if they dont use tactics.
APs are over-tuned in my opinion, everything should be baseline easier, most of the critics at the system point at that.
My players love the challenge, but not everyone is like that

If you read the book, you would knew about all the options (If its clear or not, its subjective
If you play the game, you would know about how effective are all the multiple choices you have, if those are up to your standard, its subjective

Everyone is giving you examples of equally effective ways of using all your options the game gives your character. All depend on the situation you are in (WHILE IN PLAY), if any of those is a "illusion" its subjective

The third attack is discouraged SOME of the time. Against most enemies is useless, or risky, depends on your view of chance. But is great against Oozes, again, you would know this, if you would play the game.

Cody's Analyzes is really superficial, as demonstrated by everyone here. He doesn't have any mastery of the system to speak in any terms more than a simple opinion, which he has all the right in the world to have...

Im tempted to suggest Wrath of the Righteous for a fully Mythic marathon. That campaign (one of my favs) was really controversial because of the rules, its a hard adventure to do, but I think it would be a incredible challenge to accomplish in OAD style. And I think the marathon would match the release of the PC game based on that AP.

Quick question, now that things have picked back up here. We've got some time this winter to do some conversion work. If we were considering playing an older PF 1.0 Adventure Path on the blog, which one would you be most interested in seeing presented?

The really old ones. Legacy of Fire or Second Darkness :)

Omg I love this Thread.
I love the fact that I dont have to baby-seat some of my players, they can build whatever and it always works
The difficulty is so easy to measure
I love the MC and archetype feature, and that there is an optional rule to give them for free
Monster design is wonderful and its easy to home-brew new ones
New players are getting the system in no time, and making their own weird builds.

The order is always a blob of positivism that makes me wanna play everyday for 20 hours straight - Everything looks gorgeous <3

When you summon Bahamut in Final Fantasy is just a spell with a face... but we still call it Summon...

I like scent, its a useful, flavorful ability. And in play, has been game changing for us, and memorable (The most important quality in a feat)

Specialization in attacks and DC based on his school (Something like +1 +2) like everyone has said. And better/more focus spells.

I think the only thing contentious here is the idea that casters are balanced with martials, which doesn't really see, to be the case from most of play experience admittedly that's not a lot of experience .

Its like that for us, they seem very balanced. We play 2 times/week, 10-12 players. No one thinks that the casters are weaker than martials...

I don't see how unless your GM is running home brew bosses. But cheer's to them.

Im the GM, I use the monsters on the bestiary for the game. No melee can achieve the damage of a well rolled Shocking grasp crit, or a crit fail on Tempest Surge

I've yet to see a spell destroy anything but low level mooks tbh. Saves time i guess.

The 2 casters in my group are the boss killers. Elemental Druid, Diviner Wizard. And they have the record of highest damage in one shot by far

The bolded part is super subjective, not true in my experience, and often poor game design if talking about enemies you should be on even terms with.

I think hitting foes half the time (60% of the time with flanking) is perfectly reasonable vs. on level foes you're attacking with no specific advantages.

I Agree 100%

First signs of hostility in this thread was these:

"Sometime after the Space Colony on Europa becomes the 57th US state... :P"
"Yeah, it's more than a little embarrassing"

So, not someone "defending" Paizo

The moderate AC for a 9 level monster is 27, High is 28 - Its in the rules...

Then they...

Yeah, they ARE considering the spell crit, thats why the proficiency of spell attack is so low. Im not necessarily agreeing with the logic, Im just saying that is most likely for that reason.

The damage potential of the Magus is too high, that's why the accuracy with spells isn't that great - A "Deadly" Critical hit plus some accuracy feat like exacting strike, ups the chance of doing catastrophic damage with some spells (Shocking grasp, Bolts, etc)
With master prof in melee, you hit a lot of crits in a day... based on actual play.
The narrative that Crits are too "unreliable" doesn't work with how the game plays - They have to take into consideration that the Magus has the potential to up-damage every class in the game

Finally official turn based! :D

im somewhere in the middle, i do think wizard and sorcerer, are two of the weaker spell casters and clerics/bards are the strongest with druids being ahead of oracle and witch. Sure. But there is a degree to that comment, weaker doesnt mean unplayable, or absolutely terrible no. just means i think they are worse by comparison.

i do look at what bards can do in terms of playing with the systems the game offers as the benchmark for a well made caster though. but again, thats me saying this, speaking for myself, not an entire opposing body.

I Agree. Sorry if I came like a total ass, but I dont know if you can notice, but there is a air of "hive mind" between the ones who dont like the thing, and it becomes us vs them, and it ends up being so pointless.

hyperbole is a tired internet trope

Please... this whole thread is hyperbolic. Saying there is a HUGE damage gap between the classes, when is only partially true in the more optimized side of things.

Sorry for entertaining myself with some hyperbole, but PLEASE the irony

The circular arguments xD - Its like no one is reading anything.
"Huge damage Gap" come on

I think no one is going to change their mind - The guys who think the wizard is ok will continue to play the class and be happy with it. And the guys who think is bad, will continue to think is bad forever (because most of the "problems" are designed with that intent)

Is not like Paizo is going to say, Ok, we admit, we hated the wizard and the nerfs were part of a massive and self-destructive vendetta, we are sorry for ruining your class, here is a patch, that fixes everything! Now you can deal more damage than the fighter, now your DC can be upgraded until your enemies almost never save...
Yeah, that is never going to happen, not even a more serious version of that.

Yeah, its like the prime example of joyful Paizo Forums... I love it. I have learned a lot here, like the Wizard is close to unplayable, and all the fun my group is having with it, is absolutely wrong, but maybe its because It dont even realize how BIAS I against my favorite class.

I want to do a little note on the "Incapacitation" Nerf... Like its the biggest deal ever for low level play... There are 10 Arcane Incapacitation Spells out of 199... not counting Focus Spells. talking about hiperbolic sentiments xD

Yeah, I think is a "Feel" thing. Most people arguing against the math simply don't like the 50/50 chances of success being the "rule" - In PF1 my characters just don't miss, ever. I'm not going to argue what is best, because everyone already has their opinions formed. I played just this weekend PF1 and PF2 back to back... and the first is very binary in everything, you are good, or you suck. In PF2 luck and in combat decisions are "a little" more important. Both have a very different feel, but I would not deem 1 strictly superior to the other... is just a matter of personal taste, not of "wonky design" or "badly designed maths" as some pedantically proclaim.

I have a player who likes Surveying Wildlife feat very much :3 - It opens a lot of cool character moments based on the ability to do that repeatedly.
I think most of these "unlocking basic results" skills, give players certainty that they CAN in fact do that reliably, without taking into account how the gm feels that evening. So I think they can have a nice niche in the game.

MEYANDA!? MY GIRL IS BACK!?

What!? that would be some amazing fan service <3

Draco Bahamut wrote:

I understand the E.G.O. not being there, but why not Armag ?

Because those four on the cover were the ones we wanted to put on the cover.

the best answer ever xD

As it often is with bosses it is hard to try again, when you are on the floor dying x. Apart from that it is of course just math and chances. For example our "maximized" fighter thouroughly thrashed every single mook we met while rolling slightly above average / great but still managed to not connect once (!) during our boss encounter while rolling slightly below average / abysmal for 3 or 4 consecutive rounds.

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, I guess luck does do its part. Of course, you can't do much if you are dying, but again if its a boss, he is alone vs 4 + NPCs/Pets, and in a round, even if everyone is terrible and has to roll 15+ to hit, he is going to get some damage done, get crippled by some effect or receive some crits by Nat 20s.

High-level boss encounters in my experience work so much better than in PF1 (One of the only aspects I don't like about that system) They are really hard, but it gets countered by action economy. And you can always hit, is just a matter of stacking benefits (Luck effects, flank, intimidate, etc) and then a dash of luck. But 4 against 1, is really unlikely the party would lose, but it feels that they are always on the ropes. And I want to be very clear here, EVERY single boss fight I've had in PF2 has been amazing (Levels 1-11)

The alchemist was a class really tuned to the playtest... and then it seems that when they changed a lot for the final release, they left the Alchemist as it was... So, it feels unfinished. Its the only class in the game that makes me feel truly disappointed. \
But I have heard designers of Paizo saying that the alchemist needs work, they are paying attention.

My armchair analysis of the class is that it seems mired in PF1 design sensibilities. In PF1, you often had fairly weak basic class abilities and could pick various options to enhance them to the point where they became useful or even powerful. In PF2, class abilities usually are where they're supposed to be in the first place, and class feats give you new stuff to do.

It seems like the only class in the game that has to fix his numbers with his abilities