Talek & Luna's page

Talek & Luna wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'll reiterate my contention that we get the best of both worlds if there's a sentence saying 'One Bulk is about 10 lbs of dead weight, adjusted up or down by at GM discretion based on how easy it is to carry. Unconscious people generally fall under the 10 lb level.'

That allows people to usually use Bulk for printed items, with all the ease of use and nuance that entails, while also allowing people to pick up random items and figure out how much Bulk they are pretty casually.

No, you are wrong.

Nope. I'm entirely correct.

Talek & Luna wrote:

Bulk should be an ambiguous term so we avoid examples of someone carrying 5 ladders around as expressed above. 100 # as a training weight is easy to carry around. 100 # as a 10 foot long wooden table is extremely difficult to carry around because it is BULKY.

I specifically noted that it could be adjusted up and down. Something like a ladder is also likely a listed item, and thus has a listed bulk independent of, and overruling, the conversion. The point of the conversion number is weird corner case situations, but it's really nice to have something guiding you in those situations when they come up.

Yes you did offer the caveat of exceptions for bulk but you wanted to throw in a standard unit of measure as a floor. (10 lbs = 1 bulk) That is flat out wrong. Bulk is how difficult and unweildly an item it. It has only a passing resemblance to weight. You could have a halfing with an 18 strength be unable to use a greatsword because it is too bulky for him even though a normal human with an 18 strength could lift it with ease. Bulk should have categories with examples of items that cost bulk. Weight should be of some consideration sure but it should not be the main factor in determining bulk as a greatsword would not be bulky to most giants at all

I'll reiterate my contention that we get the best of both worlds if there's a sentence saying 'One Bulk is about 10 lbs of dead weight, adjusted up or down by at GM discretion based on how easy it is to carry. Unconscious people generally fall under the 10 lb level.'

That allows people to usually use Bulk for printed items, with all the ease of use and nuance that entails, while also allowing people to pick up random items and figure out how much Bulk they are pretty casually.

No, you are wrong. Bulk should be an ambiguous term so we avoid examples of someone carrying 5 ladders around as expressed above. 100 # as a training weight is easy to carry around. 100 # as a 10 foot long wooden table is extremely difficult to carry around because it is BULKY.

My group is tired of the rules bloat and power creep in PF1. If PF2 does not pan out we will stick with 5E

The level of skill is not in itself a big deal. Its the feats that it opens up that make the difference. A rogue with master level diplomacy probably could get a meeting with the King even though he is only a rogue while his cute kid sister could never get an audience with the King. His courtiers would see that she never got a chance to have an presentation with the King unless she used enchantment or illusion magic

There is a huge disparity in strength vs dexterity in 5E. The main reason is one handed dex weapons are equal to the best one handed str weapons in the game. Only two handed weapons really require strength and they only work with heavy class and feat support. The great weapon barbarian without the great weapon training weapon style available to fighters and paladins is sub par to a barbarian either dual wielding or sword/board. Only the feat makes a difference and we banned it due to the extremely weak armor classes of monsters in that game.

Strength saves actually come up more often then Dexterity saves but are usually the consequences are not as sever if you fail them compared to dexterity saves. This is based on the fact that we use more monsters in the game than npc spellcasters. If you run more npc casters I am sure dex saves will pop up much more frequently.

The only ways to mitigate these issues are to lessen the damage dice for dexterity weapons to 1D6 max, keep max dexterity bonuses for armor types and make encumbrance meaningful without excessive bookkeeping. I prefer the 1E AD&D method where if you are in non armor and light encumbrance you move the fastest. Light armor, was a step down, then medium and if you are in heavy armor you are really plodding along. Stop the ridiculous notion of a dude in full plate moving as fast as a rogue in leather armor during a combat round. If people used 5E encumbrance that only happens if the warrior is the bare minimum of gear and weapons. Since most people hand wave it a key balancing mechanic is lost.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

That maybe true but you did notice that they LEAD with dual wield as their main option which is odd since rangers who are modeled after hunters would likely not be dual wielding but using spears or missile weapons as hunters.

You are ascribing intent that is not there.

I agree: it didn't LEAD with them, it said "Other feats will enable him to further focus on his weapon choice, including a whole string of feats that allow him to specialize in two-weapon fighting." Pointing out that one of the options is TWF just lets everyone know that you can emulate the old weapons styles. I'm sure the rogues will also have that 'sacred cow' of two weapon fighting. Heck i wouldn't be surprised if the FIGHTER gets them too.

Talek & Luna wrote:

Tell you what. Grab your longswords and go hunting dual wielding them. Let me know how successful you are at it.

I've had a LONG debate with someone else about how hunting covers many methods. Bushman NOW regularly use spears as do those using animal pits. There is a not more to hunting than sniping. In fact you have to look no further than the USA for spear hunting: Alabama, Hawaii, Nebraska and Oklahoma allow the practice.

Oklahoma permits it in a variety of situations, including “gigging,” or frog hunting.
Nebraska permits it for “antelope, deer, elk, mountain sheep or turkey,” although a spear cannot contain “poison or stupefying chemical” or have “an explosive tip.”
Hawaii allows spear hunting for “wild pigs and wild goats and wild sheep.”
Alabama? Anything you can legally hunt, you can do so with a spear.

It definitely is a sacred cow of two weapon fighting being retained and hi-lighted for rangers when the iconic ranger picture went from dwarf with crossbow to dwarf with dual wield axes. Also they went on to stress how hunt target stacks with agile weapons to reduce penalties for dual wielding. Its deliberately leading to the assumption that dual wielding is the preferred fighting method for rangers. Would it surprise you if the dwarf were holding a spear two handed instead of dual wielding axes?

Point two, thanks for making my point for me about spears being preferred over dual wielding. Its in my rebuttal to the previous poster about the absurdity of saying these rangers are hunters and dual wielding is the way to go, which is utterly preposterous as no hunter that I know of in any culture went out hunting game as a dual wielder. Bows, spears, crossbows and slings were the preferred hunting weapons.

Its disappointing that they didn't go into other aspects of ranger abilities such as tracking, terrain knowledge, spells, animal companions and survival abilities. Instead we got lame traps that seem very niche, a vague trackless step and nature's edge which is so narrow for a 9th level ability to be useless.

Talek & Luna wrote:

graystone wrote:

Talek & Luna, I'm kind of confused. Why do you think hunt target is two weapon fighting?

I too am confused Graystone as I made no mention of the hunter class feature relating to two weapon fighting. I am tired of the ranger as a dual wielding warrior concept. I thought I made that pretty clear when I listed several fantasy depictions of rangers and not one of the has dual wield. Rangers should be using spears or pole arms since many cultures use spears and long spears when hunting as you don't want to be up close to a wild animal.

There is nothing in the ranger write up that enforces a dual wielding motif. You can be a spear wielder just as well and benefit from the Hunt Target feature just the same.

That maybe true but you did notice that they LEAD with dual wield as their main option which is odd since rangers who are modeled after hunters would likely not be dual wielding but using spears or missile weapons as hunters.

Tell you what. Grab your longswords and go hunting dual wielding them. Let me know how successful you are at it.

Shinigami02 wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

I don't know of any non-D&D mythological or fantasy archetypes that feature dual wielding heroes as rangers.

I believe Legolas is often considered as an iconic non-DnD Ranger, and while his archery is the big, flashy thing (and where most of his class feats would probably be going) when things are too close-quarters for the bow he tends to whip out dual elven daggers and be quite effective with them.

Legolas is not considered a Ranger, that's Aragorn's shtick; Legolas is a Fighter, like Gimli and Borormir, and the dual-wielding thing was in the movies, only.

That is true. There is no mention of Legolas being a ranger. That seemed to be a uniquely human thing. Rangers were mostly Dunedain humans who were descendants of the kingdom of Arnor which the Witch King destroyed

Talek & Luna wrote:

Seriously, it is very disappointing that rangers still have the sacred cow of two weapon fighting due to one drow ranger from the old D&D days.

The weird thing about that, is that TWF was originally a Drow thing, nothing to do with Rangers, it all went wrong with the 2nd Ed AD&D Ranger...I kept using the 1st Ed one.

You are 100% correct. In AD&D 1rst Edition you could dual wield as long as your off hand weapon was a dagger or hand axe although you did so with severe penalties. With the release of Unearthed Arcana drow could dual wield any one handed weapon. 2nd edition AD&D gave this to the ranger as long as the off hand weapon as shorter than the main hand weapon and the ranger had to be in studded leather or lesser armor.

This was done because people complained that the ranger was a walking tank that could track so the ranger was given stealth options and two weapon fighting to compensate for lesser armor.

Talek & Luna, I'm kind of confused. Why do you think hunt target is two weapon fighting?

I too am confused Graystone as I made no mention of the hunter class feature relating to two weapon fighting. I am tired of the ranger as a dual wielding warrior concept. I thought I made that pretty clear when I listed several fantasy depictions of rangers and not one of the has dual wield. Rangers should be using spears or pole arms since many cultures use spears and long spears when hunting as you don't want to be up close to a wild animal.

You can be a ranger with a greatsword if you want to be. Just don't pick TWF feats.

True but if the majority of great weapon feats are not found in ranger then it really limits my scope

NetoD20 wrote:

Quandary wrote:

About Heighten, it does fundamentally seem strange for a Wizard to be able to arbitrarily choose any # of spells to Heighten each day (limited by spell slots), but a Sorceror can't. Perhaps a compromise would be allowing the Sorceror to be able to prepare-as-Heightened similar to a Wizard AND have limited spontaneous-Heighten ability on the side. I feel like part of calculus is not letting low-level Spells Known freely "upgrade" to high-level Spells Known, although I feel that concern isn't as strong as it seems at first glance, considering the Wizard is being allowed to gain spells and later freely Heighten them at no cost.

I've always loved you, Paizo, but no, don't try to push this on me. State things plainly, "we are nerfing spellcasters", don't sugar-coat it.

It's not really a secret and it's welcomed.

You are half correct. It is no secret and it is entirely unwelcome. It adds unneeded complexity to the game. Do we really need 9 levels of invisibility or detect invisibility for that matter? Just make dispel easy. Paizo is fixing a problem that does not need fixing and doubling down on the God Mage concept by making save or die/suck spells more potent. This will cause hyper specialization and be a big problem.

Hi Drtizzt!

Seriously, it is very disappointing that rangers still have the sacred cow of two weapon fighting due to one drow ranger from the old D&D days. If Paizo is highlighting the hunter aspect of rangers two weapon fighting as a style should not be part of it. I don't know of any non-D&D mythological or fantasy archetypes that feature dual wielding heroes as rangers. It would have been nicer to see a spear focused ranger either as a single handed warrior or a polearm warrior using long spears with cross guards. When fighting animals I would not want to be up close and personal with a bear or a wild boar. Cross guards were attached to boar hunting spears to prevent the creature from running up the spear to gore the user badly before it died. This method of fighting would make much more sense that fantasy two weapon fighting.

Archery is a big element of the ranger in both game and historical/fantasy lore. Its too bad that there was no focus on ranged combat. Green Arrow, Robin Hood, The Huntress, Merlin the Dark Hunter and Aragorn are all excellent examples of rangers in fantasy that excel in bow combat and it would have been nice to get some examples of ranged combat based upon these archetypes

Talek & Luna wrote:

I never said you cannot have great adventures in a well developed world. I said it is much harder for you to really stand out in a well developed world than a world that gradually unfolds. For example, in WOTC/TRS's Forgotten Realms there are luminaries such as Elminster and Drizzt who even if they were modeled after actual rules are head and shoulders above PC's and can often make PC actions seem trivial. Its much better to not have the world completely mapped out because you don't have to account for where all the monsters come from and you are free to be much more flexible with your campaign then if every player at your table knows exactly what each nation/city/town/hamlet contains

That is one of the most common complaints I hear from people that are not into published settings, I just don't agree. If I run a FR campaign, you are not going to be hearing about Elminster taking care of business off screen, and Drizzt dropping by to save your heiny; as for mapped out, there are always areas, locales, NPCs, etc, etc, with with to challenge, surprise and entertain the PCs. The 2nd Ed AD&D Historical Reference series had D&D adventures on semi-historical Earth, and that is just fine.

It does not matter if you take Elminster behind the scene and remove him from play. How can a PC amass enough loot to found a kingdom that would rival Thay, Cormyr or Amn let alone powerful city states like Hillsfar or Waterdeep? PC's are but bit players in such a huge and well developed world. In Forgotten Realms you are more akin to an Ewok then Luke Skywalker

Talek & Luna wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

No, your logic is flawed. If every part of the game world is mapped out with very advanced countries then there is little room for classic dungeon crawls or monster threats to originate from. ...

The followups to my adventure path campaigns show that that does not happen. ...

Of course the follow ups to your campaign prove that didn't happen. You are the DM. That's like me saying those things always happen in my games when I DM.

I am sorry. I misunderstood your point. You were talking of logic, and as a mathematician I take a formal view of logic. One counterexample disproves logic.

The original point had been:

Talek & Luna wrote:

I feel that high level play tends to fail for three reasons. ...

2) Too much of the game world is known.
There is no fear of the unknown and players can read upon on established game settings. This also does not allow room for the PC's to grow. This has always been a fault of D&D since the TSR early days where settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms & Dragon Lance have long established nations that do not allow for much in the way of independence. Yes, it would be nice to go back to early D&D roots, establish a keep and attract followers but what is the point when you cannot field armies close to what established nations can produce?

My scenarios were in Paizo adventure paths; therefore, any GM can buy those adventure paths and have adventures where the exploration of Golarion has not solved the problems before the party deals with them. The Paizo writers know how to make this plausible. We have an entire planet to deal with; surely in any given year Golarion has at least one overlooked hotbed of trouble.

As for advanced nations, the technology of Golarion is 16th century at best, not counting the magic, and the governments are usually as primitive as the technology. The modern world believes in humanitarian aid, but the 16th century was more about conquest and...

I am not talking about international aid or adventure path scenarios. I am discussing the ability of PC's to effect their environment in world shaking ways. It seems that many world I am familiar with are set up along the line of 20th century nations where each area has a country that has a particular strong sphere of influence that it can project over a rather large area and the few places that do not have this scope tend to be inaccessible or hostile to growth of standard PC's races which makes settlements by PC's into castles or cities unlikely or severely disadvantaged. I want to found my own tribe or build my own nation. It is very difficult to do so in most established campaign worlds due to everything being mapped out and the powers in the regions where adventures are taking place tend to be well established. Now if world where designed in which cultures may be dominate but nations are not such as being compared to ancient times in our own world then I could see adventures taking place and PC's having the ability to make a significant impact in their world.

Talek & Luna wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

2) Too much of the game world is known.

There is no fear of the unknown and players can read upon on established game settings. This also does not allow room for the PC's to grow. This has always been a fault of D&D since the TSR early days where settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms & Dragon Lance have long established nations that do not allow for much in the way of independence.

Well, that's obviously not true, as you can have growth and independence in the real world, now; one can have great adventures in a familiar world as much as an unfamiliar one.

No, your logic is flawed.

Not at all, I may be going to Japan this year, I plan on some growth, independence and adventure. I don't have to go to an alien planet for that.

1) Enjoy Japan if you go. My friend really had a good time when he went with his wife.

2) I never said you cannot have great adventures in a well developed world. I said it is much harder for you to really stand out in a well developed world than a world that gradually unfolds. For example, in WOTC/TRS's Forgotten Realms there are luminaries such as Elminster and Drizzt who even if they were modeled after actual rules are head and shoulders above PC's and can often make PC actions seem trivial. Its much better to not have the world completely mapped out because you don't have to account for where all the monsters come from and you are free to be much more flexible with your campaign then if every player at your table knows exactly what each nation/city/town/hamlet contains

Talek & Luna wrote:

No, your logic is flawed. If every part of the game world is mapped out with very advanced countries then there is little room for classic dungeon crawls or monster threats to originate from. For example, what prevents the Knights of Solamnia from rushing out to meet a threat that the PC's are supposed to handle? What prevents the Great Kingdom from overrunning its neighbors? Fantasy settings have to throw in temporary Deus Ex Machina to overcome their own poor world design (I.E. A cataclysm, The Over King is completely insane, A circle of Eight ridiculously overpowered magic users, a secret do-gooder organization such as the Harpers, etc.). A brief attempt during 4E was made with their Points of Light backdrop to make PC's special by making civilization feel weak and threatened.

The idea isn't that you cannot have rich adventures. The idea is that at high level your characters with the possible exception of the wizard do not stand out enough to effect things on a global stage. Take the Forgotten Realms as an example. Your 15th level fighter may own his own keep and command 250-500 troops. That is nothing compared to the resources of a nation such as Cormyr or Amn, let alone Hillsfar or the Zhentarim network.

The followups to my adventure path campaigns show that that does not happen.

My Rise of the Runelords campaign went to 20th level. Varisia now has a new island in the sea south of Riddleport, because the party brought the Runeforge demiplane back to Golarion. That is a significant change, and some 20th-level movers and shakers from other nations might visit. Nevertheless, it does nothing that affects any other adventure path, not even Crimson Throne, Second Darkness, nor Shattered Star, which are also set in Varisia. RotR did affect Jade Regent, but those two campaigns began in the same small town with an overlap of NPCs.

I moved my Jade Regent campaign a few years earlier on the Golarion timeline so that it began before the end of my recently finished Rise...

Of course the follow ups to your campaign prove that didn't happen. You are the DM. That's like me saying those things always happen in my games when I DM.

Talek & Luna wrote:

2) Too much of the game world is known.

There is no fear of the unknown and players can read upon on established game settings. This also does not allow room for the PC's to grow. This has always been a fault of D&D since the TSR early days where settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms & Dragon Lance have long established nations that do not allow for much in the way of independence.

Well, that's obviously not true, as you can have growth and independence in the real world, now; one can have great adventures in a familiar world as much as an unfamiliar one.

No, your logic is flawed. If every part of the game world is mapped out with very advanced countries then there is little room for classic dungeon crawls or monster threats to originate from. For example, what prevents the Knights of Solamnia from rushing out to meet a threat that the PC's are supposed to handle? What prevents the Great Kingdom from overrunning its neighbors? Fantasy settings have to throw in temporary Deus Ex Machina to overcome their own poor world design (I.E. A cataclysm, The Over King is completely insane, A circle of Eight ridiculously overpowered magic users, a secret do-gooder organization such as the Harpers, etc.). A brief attempt during 4E was made with their Points of Light backdrop to make PC's special by making civilization feel weak and threatened.

The idea isn't that you cannot have rich adventures. The idea is that at high level your characters with the possible exception of the wizard do not stand out enough to effect things on a global stage. Take the Forgotten Realms as an example. Your 15th level fighter may own his own keep and command 250-500 troops. That is nothing compared to the resources of a nation such as Cormyr or Amn, let alone Hillsfar or the Zhentarim network.

I feel that high level play tends to fail for three reasons.

1) The saving throw system legacy from 3E
The saving throw system from 3E encourages hyperspecialization for saves to be effective. Coupled wiht the poor save category for most classes, npcs and monsters this creates wildly imbalancing situations that result in games of rocket tag where each side launches a variety of save vs suck/die spells at each other untill one side fails a save.

2) Too much of the game world is known.
There is no fear of the unknown and players can read upon on established game settings. This also does not allow room for the PC's to grow. This has always been a fault of D&D since the TSR early days where settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms & Dragon Lance have long established nations that do not allow for much in the way of independence. Yes, it would be nice to go back to early D&D roots, establish a keep and attract followers but what is the point when you cannot field armies close to what established nations can produce?

3) Martial PC's are too overpowered and combats become cakewalks.
This may be counterintuitive since most complaints on any internet boards are about caster dominance but put simply, monsters do not stack up to martial characters in combat prowess unless there is a big CR disparity. You can see this as each edition of D&D has evolved and PF borrows heavily from this legacy. I can remember in Basic and 1E D&D that monsters were the big antagonists. Then with the arrival of 2E and future games the high level antagonists tend to be NPC's with class levels or monsters that mimic casters (i.e zhentarim agents, assasins, vampire magic users, liches, mummy high priests, etc). Martials hit too hard and too easily so the GM resorts to magic to compensate as pure combat trials are never a challenge if the monster does not have spells, spell like abilities or a mix of combat abilities such as flight and ranged attacks. If martials were scaled down in damage and the DC's of save vs suck/death spells were brought into line at high levels then high level play would be much more feasible.Right now I would think you need to cut martial damage in half and break down saves into good & poor where you need a 4 or better on good saves to make them and a 8 or better on poor saves to make then high level adventures would be accessible to play more often.

Talek & Luna wrote:

How does it make no sense? Do you think an ogre will have a radically different AC from PF1 to PF2? It for a fact does not. So my assumptions on AC for monsters seem to be a lot closer to the mark than yours

We know they differ quite a bit more at high levels. The Grim Reaper, at level 21, has an AC of 45. 8 points north of where it'd be in PF1.

Add in that we know that they add level to AC just like PCs, and wind up with roughly equivalent AC to equivalent level PCs.

So no, PF1 ACs are a terrible measure by all the data we've got.

Where are you getting the grim reaper AC from? I have not seen this monster previewed. Also the redcap's AC is 20. That is hardly out of line for 5th level monsters in PF1. The zombie and skeleton's armor class seem to mimic PF1 equivalents as does the bugbear. The grim reaper may be an outlier if it exists

Talek & Luna wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

What monsters are you fighting that have an AC higher than 31 at 10th level? You have to create NPC fighters with high amounts of magic items to get to that high of an AC by PF1 rules. I don't even think dragons approach that AC at CR10.

Fact: An AC of 31 is about the default AC expected of a 10th level Fighter PC (or the equivalent) with only a single magic item (a +3 Chain Shirt). This can be easily determined by basic math and the info we have.

Fact: Monsters have been specified as on par with such PC characters in terms of AC, HP, and the like.

Conclusion: An AC of 31 is a reasonable AC for a Level 10 enemy.

Which leads to the additional conclusion that a level 12 or 13 monster (like a main boss for level 10 characters) might well have an AC at least 2 to 4 higher.

Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30

I'm fairly sure they're not talking PF1e rules, but PF2e. In PF2e with 10 Dex, Trained proficiency, and no Armor a creature has 20 AC at level 10. Add in the +2 Chain Shirt, +3 Potency, +4 Dex (easily doable by level 10, with 14 base and two +2 level bonuses), and bump up Proficiency two points and you've got 31 AC at level 10. The math is very much not the same as PF1e, so comparing specific PF1e and PF2e numbers alone is not a good comparison.

That AC does not make any sense. The PF2 ogre would have no chance to hit a 10th level character except on a 20. The PF2 ogre has an AC one worse than a PF1 ogre. If armor class works the way you claim, then the PF2 ogre's AC needs to be reworked. Also, how are you are getting legendary armor proficiency at level 10?

Talek & Luna wrote:

Case in point, skeletons have both weapon resistance slashing 5 and fire 1. Zombies have slashing weakness 5 but not elemental weakness. I think that is a bit odd. Even 1 point of elemental weakness would be an improvement, but casters get nothing.

Spells do slashing damage, too...

Yes, blade barrier is one that springs to mind. Now I am not versed in every spell in every splat book but I don't remember many spells in the PF1 corebook in the level 1 to range that do slashing damage. None as a matter of fact spring to mind.

Talek & Luna wrote:

Please show me how a PF1 fighter with a chain shirt +3 and no other magic items has an AC of 30

As others have noted, I'm predicting PF2 enemy AC when talking about how much damage characters will do in PF2.

Using PF1 AC numbers to determine how much damage a PF2 character will do to PF2 enemies makes no sense at all.

How does it make no sense? Do you think an ogre will have a radically different AC from PF1 to PF2? It for a fact does not. So my assumptions on AC for monsters seem to be a lot closer to the mark than yours

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Because it doesn't seem worth a thread on its own to me, here's some info from the earlier PF2 panel that I noticed while watching it:

-We now know what Double Slice does. It allows you to spend two actions and make one attack with each of your two weapons. These attacks are both at your full bonus. Their damage is then added together before applying Resistance or Weakness. If you make a third attack it gets the full penalty for being a third attack (usually -10). This is actually super good (since it's effectively a +5 to hit on that second attack), and it's the introductory TWF Feat.

-We now know that stat-boosting items are in the game, though they were referenced as only at high levels (they also usually do other stuff as well, like a Belt of Giant Strength giving you Rock Catching and the ability to Enlarge yourself).

By math (based on Mark's comment regarding a 17-18 point swing between people who are terrible at a skill and specialists at 20th level), and combined with items giving up to +5 to skills (basically proved by the Gauntlet), we can infer that leveling Abilities past 18 with Level Ups must only give +1 rather than +2. This caps PCs at Ability Scores of 22 without magic (and, again due to the math, almost certainly at 24 even with magic).

-References were made to a Legendary Intimidate Skill Feat that is a Save or Die effect, as you literally scare people to death (it's limited to no more than one use per target per day). This bodes well for Skill Feats being powerful.

-In related news, you can spend your General Feats on Skill Feats if you want (and one Human Ancestry Feat gives a General Feat). Generally, you can't switch Feats between categories otherwise.

-Haste grants a bonus action (for a total of 4), but specifies that this action may only be used to Stride or Strike. In related news, the -10 for your third attack also applies to any subsequent attacks (like the one you could get from Haste) rather than escalating to -15.

EDIT:

...

+1. Am sure that martials will point out that its no big deal. That the feat cost justifies it...blah..blah..blah. Until high level sorcerers get a hold of it and THEN it will need to be toned down, by say switching intimidate from CHA to STR. I can see the posts writing themselves now

Talek & Luna wrote:

edduardco wrote:

Meirril wrote:

At a certain, fundamental level from a game designers point of view, spells that grow more powerful with the leveling of the caster (to the point that they are equal with higher level spells) is wrong. That is just bad design. A 5th level spell should be far more powerful than a 3rd level spell, but a 9th level wizard casting fireball does as much damage as a cone of cold, and if that fireball was made into a 5th level slot it could be more powerful than a 5th level spell! This is bad! This is horrible design! This...has finally been addressed.

Then what is the point of Heightening?

The more I think about it the more I feel that Heightening for blasting is a poor mechanic, it makes spells consumes resources in a very inefficient way, a level 3 spell heightened to level 5 is going to be inferior to an actual level 5 spell despise consuming the same resources.

I completely agree. There are only two reasons that heightening works and works poorly IMHO in 5e.

1) Everyone is a spontaneous caster

2) Everyone gets less spells to prepare or know per level

I really don't care if someone at Paizo dreamed up upcasting before someone at WOTC did. WOTC got their model out first and so everyone has to be compared to their model. Its like the keypad. The first keypad for type writers was not the most ergonomic developed. Other later models were much better. Howver, people were used to the first keyset so that is why all typewriters and keyboards use the inferior model. Paizo has to adopt to the reality of upcasting and adjust to it because WOTC got their model out of the gates first

IMO Heightening or upcasting in both PF2 and 5e is a nerfed version of 3.5 Psionics Augment applied to spell slots, although PF2 nerf seems harder from what was revealed in another thread about Sorcerers.

I agree with your assessment

Diego Rossi wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Why...are you firing a disintegrate at something you have a 55% chance of missing? If someone's fortified so heavily that you have a 55% chance of missing his TAC, perhaps a different spell would be more appropriate.

I am pretty sure that the wizard actually has a 55% chance of hitting (45% chance of missing) while a fighter would have a 45% chance of hitting that same enemy. Either way, I think it is unlikely that the attacking wizard is targeting that Dex character's weakest defense.

The 55% miss chance is for a fighter attacking regular AC.

If the enemy has +17 to con saves and a 20 in Dex, I am betting that character's will saves ain't gonna be that great.

Dam, part of the math was still those done before adding the "undefined bonus to the spellcaster attack"

So yes, with a +20to hit ws TAC 30, it is a 55% chance to hit.

That change the numbers to:

45% chace of doing nothing
50% of a normal hit
5% for a critical

and the final results

45% ofdoing nothing
27.75% of doing 33 points of damage
20.25% of doing 65 point of damage
5% of doing 130 points of damage

Still more than a 72% chance of doing little more than the damage that a greatsword wielder do in 3 attacks in 1 round.

You still have a 51% chance of dealing 66 or less hp of damage with two disintegrate.

As soon as the target TAC fall under 30 it start to change, but then you are using your highest spell against targets that don't even are at the same level as you.

Note that TAC now is close to normal AC. The armor used for the example has a difference of 2 points between AC and TAC.

And with 3 spells +1 specialist spell as your highest level you haven't the space for spell that target different saves, at least non damage dealing spells (if any damage dealing spell that targeta will save exist at all).

I suppose. I will note that you have given a situation where a fighter only can hit their second...

What if the target is an undead or constructs? Will saves are not always your primary option

Talek & Luna wrote:

Your arguements are flawed. We don't need current 9th levels spells to compare damage. Spell scaling tells you that these spells do not stack up compared to PF1 spells of appropraite level. Therefore, the spellcasting is a huge nerf.

Irrelevant, because the specific point I was responding to was upcasting, not PF1 vs PF2.

Quote:

Secondly, even if I can spend money to purchase a true 9th level spell, the arguement was that a multi-class caster using a 9th level slot does not equal a true 9th level spell in effect. This is incredibly obvious just by eyeballing upcasting damage effects.

We don't know how multi-class casters will work in PF2. In PF1, they didn't wouldn't have the highest level slot in the first place. This is also irrelevant. (Though, even if it was the case, I'd point out that gaining access to a new spell list is a huge bump in versatility and there should be a trade-off in terms of power, which wouldn't happen if upcast spells are as good as high level spells.)

Quote:

Third, no its still a 5% difference in critical effect if the weapon is the same in all areas. Proficiency with a normal longsword and lesser proficiency in a normal dagger reward with the same 5% dip in critical hits.

Except you didn't say it would be critting 5% more often, you said it "was a 5% difference in damage output." A 5% boost to hit and a 5% boost to crit is more than a 5% boost to DPR when combined. In PF1 terms, this isn't just weapon focus, this is comparing a mundane heavy mace to a +1 Keen Morningstar. Having to switch from the latter to the former is a significant drop.

Quote:

Fourth. no feats are always on powers so balance is more of a concern for them than spells, hence why certain spellcaster feats require additional mitigation in the way of spell points. If feats were no big deal then spell points wouldn't be a tacked on mechanic to balance them out.

I didn't say anything about feats in the post you quoted, and you then went on to...

1) My point is not irrelevant. In order to arrive at a conclusion of whether or not upcasting is effective you need to measure it against something. PF2 spells with upcasting are weaker than PF1 spells without upcasting. That is a fact. PF1 fireball with empower (upcasting spell to level 5 is 15D6. PF2 upcasting is 10D6. That's a 50% drop in out put.

2) Multi-casters should not have to suffer a downgrade in spell level power no more than multi-class martials suffering a downgrade in attack power. If its not a concern for multi-class martials to be on same attack power effectiveness as a true martial than mult-class casters should be just as effective in regards to spell power.

3) You are moving the goal posts with your third point. If its unfair for me to compare PF1 to PF2 casting then you cannot argue that PF1 magic weapons and feats make my assumption inaccurate. Also, my comparison was a standard sword vs a standard dagger. If all enchantments on your backup weapon are the same or within one step of your primary weapon. The net reduction is that small.

4)No, you said it in another post about feats. Feats are always on powers. There should be no reason for power attack to scale. There should also be no reason for sneak attack, laying on of hands or other powers to scale if spells do not scale. These are all class abilities of characters and if one set is good enough at that level you get them for your whole career than other classes powers should mimic this same formula.

Meirril wrote:

At a certain, fundamental level from a game designers point of view, spells that grow more powerful with the leveling of the caster (to the point that they are equal with higher level spells) is wrong. That is just bad design. A 5th level spell should be far more powerful than a 3rd level spell, but a 9th level wizard casting fireball does as much damage as a cone of cold, and if that fireball was made into a 5th level slot it could be more powerful than a 5th level spell! This is bad! This is horrible design! This...has finally been addressed.

Then what is the point of Heightening?

The more I think about it the more I feel that Heightening for blasting is a poor mechanic, it makes spells consumes resources in a very inefficient way, a level 3 spell heightened to level 5 is going to be inferior to an actual level 5 spell despise consuming the same resources.

I completely agree. There are only two reasons that heightening works and works poorly IMHO in 5e.

1) Everyone is a spontaneous caster

2) Everyone gets less spells to prepare or know per level

I really don't care if someone at Paizo dreamed up upcasting before someone at WOTC did. WOTC got their model out first and so everyone has to be compared to their model. Its like the keypad. The first keypad for type writers was not the most ergonomic developed. Other later models were much better. Howver, people were used to the first keyset so that is why all typewriters and keyboards use the inferior model. Paizo has to adopt to the reality of upcasting and adjust to it because WOTC got their model out of the gates first

You know, it occurs to me that the lower number of spell slots and greater emphasis on at-will abilities makes the casters feel a little closer to the witch paradigm. I'm sure I'm not the first person to point that out, but it might be a useful frame of reference. I imagine the at will abilities will skew a bit more towards damage instead of debuffs and utility in PF2, but who knows.

Incidentally, our witch opened with a basic CL6 fireball for the surprise round of a boss fight with two minions on Sunday, and it did some pretty solid work. The boss made his save, but he made his save against most things she tried to do, and that at least hurt him, took out one of the minions, and crippled the other. *Shrugs*

That's great Cap. What happens when you are higher level and the fireball won't even take out the minions and the boss feels the damage is inconsequential?

Nathanael Love wrote:

Starbuck_II wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

I guarantee you that nobody other than dedicated caster fans think that a spell that grants completely unavoidable damage should be an infinitely spammable cantrip.

It is only 1d4+1

The cantrip version can have a hard only once per turn limit.

Considering a wand makes this effectively doable for a few gold per shot now it doesn't seem terribly problematic.

Cantrips are supposed to scale, so I am not sure how you are envisioning a cantrip magic missile that does a constant static damage, but more than likely that would either mean more missiles or more damage and both of those lead to problems with limitless usage without an attack role or a save.

Wands are not limitless. In the new system they will be fairly more limited and even in PF1 50 magic missiles could be a lot, but it is a limited number. Until we understand what other limits magic missile has in terms of required line of effect or just the ability to see, we cannot know for certain how broken its limitless spamming ability is, but unless folks are comfortable with magic missile requiring an attack roll to hit, it has to have some limiting factor to explain why 100+ (or 1000+) 1st level wizards together couldn't band together to create the most unstoppable army the world has ever seen. Personally, I am fine with that limit being that magic missile is a regular spell and not a spammable cantrip. I would prefer cantrip damage spells to require saving throws or attack rolls and have a more common damage type than force.

Magic Missile has a number of limitations

Low damage & no critical chance

Its possible that magic missile is still blocked by the shield spell (If that is the case in PF2, the MM definitly needs to be a cantrip as shield is according to PF2 tidbits)

Line of sight is an issue for it as well. It also does not damage objects so it lacks versatility of a fire or acid spell that could start a fire, burn through locks, provide light, etc.

Just make it a 2 action cantrip and its balanced out. 1d4+1 on a auto hit vs 2D6+4x3 with a chance to critx3 is extremely balanced out.

In your example that army of 1000 wizards would still be killed by other armies. Hordes of goblins and orcs could easily take them out as could other casters. Even in highly magical settings like Dragon Lance, wizards are not all that common and certainly do not number in the thousands.

Nathanael Love wrote:

Starbuck_II wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

I guarantee you that nobody other than dedicated caster fans think that a spell that grants completely unavoidable damage should be an infinitely spammable cantrip.

It is only 1d4+1

The cantrip version can have a hard only once per turn limit.

Considering a wand makes this effectively doable for a few gold per shot now it doesn't seem terribly problematic.

It scales by level.

And it competes with other cantrips that do that much more damage, but can miss, can be resisted, can (maybe) save for half damage.

And most problematically, it scales by number of casters. One of the big problems with Magic Missile is you have to explain why 20 (or fewer) low level Wizards can't burn down a dragon that attacks their town while they hide and shoot through windows. In PF1 the reason was limited slots and spell resistance. It's not clear if spell resistance still exists in PF2.

Perhaps because the dragon cast a simple spell called shield and it utterly ruined the apprentice wizards' day

I guarantee you that nobody other than dedicated caster fans think that a spell that grants completely unavoidable damage should be an infinitely spammable cantrip.

I disagree. The damage is minimal compared to damage based cantrips and does not benefit from critical damage rolls. Also it won't likely benefit from weaknesses since force damage seems to be the one type of magic damage that has no weakness, resistance or immunity to it.

An auto hit 9D4+9 seems very fair compared to a 9D10 with a critical chance for 18D10. Make it a two action cantrip to cast and its fine. Most of your career its 1D4+1 to 3D4+3. As another person pointed out you can craft a magic missiel wand in PF1 and spam it. I never heard complaints about 1D4+1 magic missile wands ruining the game in the way that wands of cure wounds are griped about.

Low level spells prepared in high level slots need to be strictly worse (not in every respect, but overall) than equivalent, naturally high level spells. The opportunity cost of learning one high level spell over another was mentioned already, but there's also a flexibility cost due to the lack of "downcasting". Burning Hands can be prepared in 1st to 9th level slots, so a 3rd level Burning Hands obviously cannot be as good as Fireball that can only be prepared in 3rd to 9th level slots, and a 9th level Burning Hands (or Fireball) obviously cannot be as good as Meteor Swarm that can only be prepared in 9th level slots.

Burning Hands won't be as good as fireball because the AOE is much less. The damage should be comparable. Same with fireball used in a 9th level slot. Its not going to hit the area that meteor swarm does nor should it without extensive metamagic help. It should, however pack as much damage as meteor swarm does because it is a 9th level spell

I'm obviously going to have to wait and see the actual spell selection and monster selection when the books come out, but my line in the sand is that if a blaster has to keep upgrading to higher level spells to be effective, so should a controller. If at 13th level a controller can be just peachy locking down and beating level-appropriate enemies with 2nd and 3rd tier control spells, and gets to use all their higher level slots for amazing utility and buffs, while the 13th level blaster has to lean heavily into 5th-7th tier attack spells and doesn't get the same versatility as the controller... that's a problem. And I think that's what a lot of people are trying to express concern about, one way or another.

+1. I couldn't have said it better myself.

It really seems the designers are bent on making casters into strictly controllers and everyone must play in their little sandbox to be effective.

Shinigami02 wrote:

With the math being as tight as it is and the DC automatically scaling with the caster's level a low level buff, debuff, or control spell will probably still be at least about as useful at level 20 as it was at the level you got it. After all, something as simple as a +-1 is pretty much always going to be useful since everything scales at approximately the same rate.

People keep saying this, but I'm not entirely convinced it is true. At least not for debuff and control spells. In PF1, spell DC was only one thing that limited these spells at higher levels. Control spells like Grease or Wall spells lost a lot of power as flight became more common on enemies. The blinded condition loses relevance as enemies develop more special sense and AoE attacks, or other effects which don't care about miss chance. Create Pit loses power once enemies grow bigger than the pit. There are also flat out immunities-- we have been told they will be less common against damage, but I'm not sure if that will be the case for things like mind-effects.

Consider the list of 1st level spells with the most use at high levels according to Mark. Pretty much none of those are control or debuff spells-- the closest is Charm, which has always been more effective out of combat.

Buff spells may age a little a better-- you're right that a +1 seems unlikely to go out of style. But buff spells also include things which can help blasters like True Strike-- which Mark mentions as one of his favorite 1st level spells at higher levels.

Quote:

But using a damage spell in any slot lower than your highest two is going to be a waste unless it's for clean up. Now maybe this will be made up by having more (or more effective) damaging cantrips than any other combat type, but it still kinda hurts those of us who prefer to specialize our casters to be told that we have to ignore our preference for this type of casting.

...

Wait a minute. Wasn't one of the arguments that Mark made for less caster slots and no bonus spells that those lower level spells remain more relevant for longer as you level up because of the save dc? It seems to me this statement is true only as long as you take the spells the designers WANT you to take because they KNOW whats best for you as a caster. I don't buy it.

A 9th level spell should be equal to a 9th level spell in performance. You don't see a fighter being downgraded from legendary swordsman to a master swordsman because she uses a longsword instead of a greatsword

Dasrak wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Also it is important to remember that blasting spells don't get worse as you level up.

This is only true in the most literal sense. In practice, a 14th level party won't do battle with a CR 8 encounter. So saying the spell has the same level of power it did when you were 8th level is kinda irrelevant, because you won't be fighting that level of opposition anymore. Relative to your typical opposition, the power of the spell drops off phenomenally. If PF2 has similar HP progression curve to PF1, it's about half as strong.

And if for some reason you do end up fighting an APL-6 encounter, the expectations are that much higher. In fact, any usage of daily resources would be a questionable move in such a situation, so the expectation is total domination. This is one of the reason why fireball was considered weak in PF1, because 10d6 just didn't meet those expectations. And PF2 fireball capping at 2x6d6 on a critically failed save isn't really any better. If I need a critical fail for my spell to be worthwhile against a foe so weak that I really shouldn't have needed to contribute at all in the first place... what is the point in even having that spell?

I think you are missing the point. A group of say 10 creatures makes up an APL-6 encounter, if you double the number of creatures it would take 2 Fireballs as opposed to 1. Triple the number and its now 3 Fireballs. So what if one Fireball can't deal with 3 times the number of an APL-6, its not what its meant for; And, if it could, whats the point of having lv 4+ magic? What about martials? They can still only barely deal with one opponent.

The point of having 4+ levels of spells is variety. Not every situation requires a fireball. Martials deal with opponents fine unless they are intentionally made poorly. I've seem martials deal over 100 damage in a round. Nothing in PF2 previews makes me believe otherwise.

Talek & Luna wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

Rek Rollington wrote:

I really feel this system is designed to make blaster casters think more about taking more interesting choices with their low level spells. You can do big damage with your highest spell slots, regular damage with your cantrips which frees up your low level spell slots for some variety since fhere’s point taking low level damaging spells other then maybe a few magic missles for a guaranteed hit to finish a low HP foe.

If I was making a blasting wizard with these rules I think it would have been a more interesting wizard I made when I first started playing 3.5/PF.

Why should I be forced to take more "Interesting choices"? What if I don't care about buffing my party or utility and just want to blast stuff. Stop saying that my fun is badwrongfun

Then do it. You have plenty of choices. At 5th level, you can use fireballs. At 9th, you have cone of cold. At 11th, you have chain lightning. At 17th, you have meteor swarm.

Use them, they are pretty good at the level you get them.

Yes but they quickly fall out of favor once you exceed these levels. Let me put it into perspective for you. Power attack as stated in the playtest gets a bump in damage at a certain level to keep it viable. Why is this? If using your action to grant an extra die of damage for the first 10 levels of the game good enough then why do they need to increase its damage again? It should just always be a single extra die of damage. Why the 500% increase to damage for magic weapons? Why should sneak attack keep increasing as you level since you claim that the entry level where you get a power is good enough for that power throughout your career.

Choosing a feat and choosing a spell are not equal levels of resource purchase commitment. Most characters get 1 class feat at 1st level. A wizard also gets that, plus 10 cantrips and 1st level spells. I can guarantee you will get more spells as you...

A character in PF2 is getting 2 feats at first level and 1 feat per level afterwards, minimum. Spells are a feature of that but with the exception of cantrips, cannot be spammed all day like feats. Certain spellaster feats are even more limited because they require spell points. If you are arguing that spells scalling is too powerful than any class ability such as sneak attack or feat like power attack should not scale either.

Choosing a spell is much more complex then choosing a feat because most spells are selective and do not apply in every circumstance. Sleep for example is powerful but worthless against undead and higher level opponents. Its a good choice for a lowbie caster but is outgrown quickly. Where as power attack retains its benefits from levels 1-20

Talek & Luna wrote:

Yeah, ok. So mastery gives you a +1 difference in tier level for your longsword vs your dagger. If there was a 5% difference in damage output .

False. It is going to be more than a 5% increase on damage from a weapon change because of the crit likelihood.

Quote:

9th level true spell and an upcast spell using a 9th level spell I would agree with you but someone else on this thread has run the math and it does not equate to a mere 5% difference

Also false. We don't have 9th level spells yet to compare the blasting damage to. We do have a 5th level spell to compare to an upcast 3rd level spell: The former deals 11d6 while the latter deals 10d6. Cone of cold does 10% more damage than 5th level fireball, and unlike your Fighter example has the same chance to crit no matter which spell you prepare in the 5th level slot.

Also, magic rune potency will be adding additional die, so the damage will be substantially lower, which brings us to....

Quote:

With being able to craft your own magical weapons as a martial I can easily see your backup weapon being equal to your primary weapon in quality unless crafting is sub divided into tiers for each category . I.E> Legendary at sword crafting, mastery at axe crafting, expert at mace crafting, etc. I don't see this as being the case because that is a lot of tedious bookkeeping.

Let's assume this is correct, even though it is a based on a whole lot of nothing. The argument is that you can spend money to make your backup weapon equal your primary weapon. In which case... why can't the wizard spend money adding those higher level blasting spells to their spellbook?

Your arguements are flawed. We don't need current 9th levels spells to compare damage. Spell scaling tells you that these spells do not stack up compared to PF1 spells of appropraite level. Therefore, the spellcasting is a huge nerf.

Secondly, even if I can spend money to purchase a true 9th level spell, the arguement was that a multi-class caster using a 9th level slot does not equal a true 9th level spell in effect. This is incredibly obvious just by eyeballing upcasting damage effects.

Third, no its still a 5% difference in critical effect if the weapon is the same in all areas. Proficiency with a normal longsword and lesser proficiency in a normal dagger reward with the same 5% dip in critical hits.

Fourth. no feats are always on powers so balance is more of a concern for them than spells, hence why certain spellcaster feats require additional mitigation in the way of spell points. If feats were no big deal then spell points wouldn't be a tacked on mechanic to balance them out.

Talek & Luna wrote:

Rek Rollington wrote:

I really feel this system is designed to make blaster casters think more about taking more interesting choices with their low level spells. You can do big damage with your highest spell slots, regular damage with your cantrips which frees up your low level spell slots for some variety since fhere’s point taking low level damaging spells other then maybe a few magic missles for a guaranteed hit to finish a low HP foe.

If I was making a blasting wizard with these rules I think it would have been a more interesting wizard I made when I first started playing 3.5/PF.

Why should I be forced to take more "Interesting choices"? What if I don't care about buffing my party or utility and just want to blast stuff. Stop saying that my fun is badwrongfun

Then do it. You have plenty of choices. At 5th level, you can use fireballs. At 9th, you have cone of cold. At 11th, you have chain lightning. At 17th, you have meteor swarm.

Use them, they are pretty good at the level you get them.

Yes but they quickly fall out of favor once you exceed these levels. Let me put it into perspective for you. Power attack as stated in the playtest gets a bump in damage at a certain level to keep it viable. Why is this? If using your action to grant an extra die of damage for the first 10 levels of the game good enough then why do they need to increase its damage again? It should just always be a single extra die of damage. Why the 500% increase to damage for magic weapons? Why should sneak attack keep increasing as you level since you claim that the entry level where you get a power is good enough for that power throughout your career.

Talek & Luna wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

edduardco wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

That's the most annoying part. Cantrips ARE quadratic but normal spells are not. Its a really bad idea that creates a lot of dissonance for me. The difference from a master casting a cantrip and an apprentice is readily apparent if both cast a cantrip. If they both cast a magic missile with a level 1 spell slot you cannot tell the difference between the two. I think that is really immersion breaking.

Why would a spell act differently when both casters expend the same amount of power for the spell? Same actions, same energy, same result. If the master wants to show off, they can use metamagic, or spend a higher slot for more power in the spell.

Well that is a design decision of how much do you want level to impact the game, for example, should a higher level caster be more efficient and get greater effect expending fewer resources than a lower level caster?

In my mental model of magic, higher efficiency is gained with higher level spells. You get more out of the same resource if you use a spell designed for that level of resource.

I don't have a good analogue for why a master caster can wiggle their fingers and say magic words the same way as an apprentice and somehow do it more efficiently. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

So by your reasoning a martial's second and third swings should do less damage because he cannot swing as accurately as he could on his first swing? AMIRITE :) ?

Attack rolls don't model single swings in any way. And they're already getting a penalty in the lower attack bonus. If they'd used to get higher damage from using a greatsword solely because they were higher level and each attack was deadlier then removing that would make for a comparable analogy with a lack of automatic scaling for spells.

Correct, attack rolls do not measure single sword swings. However, any fighter knows that swinging more often will decrease your accuracy. The faster something is going, the harder it is to control. So even a wizard or a non combatant could theorotically be swinging 10 times in six seconds but the chances of 9 out of those 10 swings being meaningful for a noncombatant in PF rules is zero, hence most non-combatants if they are lucky will never get more than 2 attacks in a round that count as a meaningful attack roll

comparing pf2 spells with pf1 spells is fairly meaningless dont you think? We know nothing about PW:kill in 2e, not. How PW in general work, not the level they may be. These AE efficient spells may even be relegated to higher levels than before?

Talek & Luna wrote:

So by your reasoning a martial's second and third swings should do less damage because he cannot swing as accurately as he could on his first swing? AMIRITE :) ?

Statistically speaking this is what happens, lower accuracy on the iteritive attacks means lower chances to hit so overall a lower damage output. Consider an AC 26 vs attack +15 martial. My first hit is effective 50% of the time so If my damage is 20 points and i hit only half the time my average damage is 10 points per round. My second attack at -5 is 25% chance to hit per round so 5 damage per round, less damage.

Talek & Luna wrote:

. The part about critical fails on saves is no big deal either. Lets put it this way. Lets say fireball does 5D6. A critical is a 100% increase in damage. A +5 sword is a 500% increase in damage and 1000% increase in damage if you crit. Blast spells need to increase in damage to be viable and I don't accept the argument that they are ineffective. I don't lobby to make dual wielding ineffective. Evocation spells should be treated better than they seem to be by playtest rules

That +5 sword represents what is probably a large investiment of wealth by that fighter. If pf2 has nothing that a spellcasting blaster can invest money in to improve his abilities I would see this as an issue, Isuspect there will be things though.

I woyld agree that a 1000% increase on a crit is a litle over the top and would like yo see...

It is not unfair to compare a PF1 spell with a PF2 spell. At 9th level I can cast magic missile, get 5 missiles and move with PF1 MM. In PF2 I would have to upcast magic missile to 3rd level to get six missiles and no move. Its a big difference and a huge nerf. If rogues went from 10D6 maximum sneak attack to 3D6 I would think you would have a right to make a comparison between PF1 rogue & PF2 even if you didn't have the full picture yet.

Statistically speaking, fighters missing on additional attacks is not a big deal due to various buffs from magic and circumstances in the game. I would expect that an attack landed with a -5 or -10 penalty would not be as solid of a hit as an attack with no penalty. Many fights have hits that hurt but are more of a glancing or set up blow rather than every hit in a fight being a finisher move. Martial damage does not support this. If a 9th level spell should be uber powerful compared to a 3rd level spell then it should hit like a 9th level spell regardless of how that 9th level spell was used.

Talek & Luna wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

A 9th level fireball which is weaker than meteor swarm is still a good option for a non blaster than suddenly needs to prepare a blasting option. A wizard that, say, learned Dominate monster and know will face an horde of mindless high level monsters. A 9th lvl fireball is a better option there, so he slots the third level spell he has been using 15 lvls and is essentially free, slot it in 9th slot, and get the job adequately done.

It should NEVER be the go to option for a dedicated 17th lvl blaster. That dedicated blaster should pick 9th lvl blasting spells

Fighters don't lose optimal fighting ability because they have to use a dagger instead of a longsword. Casters shouldn't suffer from upcasting either. The spell should do as much damage as a 9th level spell. Its other effects such as aoe radius should not be as good as a meteor swarm and it should not have the same riders but its damage should be within the ball park and upcasting does not allow this.

To put it in perspective of a fighter, it would be like a fighter suddenly losing half his attack bonus because the dagger is not his primary weapon.

Fighters do in fact lose optimal fighting ability when they are forced to use a backup weapon.

In the old PF rules yes, because a lot was tied up in specialization and expertise. In this edition, it does not seem to be the case so far. You don't suffer a reduction to your attack number because you switched weapons unless you switched from a magical to a non magical one.

False. From the Fighter blog:

"Next up, at 3rd level, you gain weapon mastery, which increases your proficiency rank with one group of weapons to master."

It looks like you gain legendary proficiency with this weapon group at 13th, but don't get it for all weapons until 19th. Also, item quality matters in addition to magic, and frankly either way your backup weapon is unlikely...

Yeah, ok. So mastery gives you a +1 difference in tier level for your longsword vs your dagger. If there was a 5% difference in damage output between a 9th level true spell and an upcast spell using a 9th level spell I would agree with you but someone else on this thread has run the math and it does not equate to a mere 5% difference.

With being able to craft your own magical weapons as a martial I can easily see your backup weapon being equal to your primary weapon in quality unless crafting is sub divided into tiers for each category . I.E> Legendary at sword crafting, mastery at axe crafting, expert at mace crafting, etc. I don't see this as being the case because that is a lot of tedious bookkeeping.

So far I enjoy the fighter preview, stat builds, ancestry and shield usage

One of my problems with the 4-Axes is that Law/Chaos is more often than not subserviated or marginalized to Good/Evil, which does a massive disservice to Law/Chaos.

Melkiador wrote:

That might be good, but my argument here is that there is no such thing as an actual difference between Law and Chaos. And more importantly, what would the difference look like if there was one.

I would argue that in terms of D&D terminology, Law/Chaos was a far more important concern in the mythos of ancient cultures than Good/Evil, though "Law" does have a presumed positive value judgment and, likewise, "Chaos" a negative one. There is a reason why the motif of the Chaoskampf is so preeminent in a lot of ancient mythologies. "Order" was closely associated with "Creation." This is particularly clear in Genesis 1 creation account where establishing order from chaos /is/ creation. Dieties in Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman mythologies are frequently depicted as forces that triumph over the cosmological forces of chaos (often personified in rival dieties/titans/etc.) to establish creation through order.

The inverse of order and creation can likewise be seen in the Noahide/Great Deluge account where "Chaos" is a symptom of human failure in their obligation to preserve "order" in the world, thus letting the world fall to violence, entropic corruption, and decadence. Pure "chaos" is a lack of "creation." Here, there are close parallels between the cosmological Chaoskampf of creation/order constantly combating entropic un-creation and the human activity of civilization-making combating the wilderness. And here, kings and priests were frequently envisioned as contributors to the preservation of "order, law, creation" in this Chaoskampf. (There is a positive value to "Law" over against "Chaos" because it preserves the things that these ancient cultures valued: life, civilization, cities, stability/peace.*

* Here wars are often envisioned as rulers establishing greater peace, stability, etc. for...

I definitely agree with your take on this. Cultures trying to survive and flourish in a hostile world would have a bigger emphasis on law over chaos. Later on as the culture advances and becomes more sophisticated, morality enters into the picture as mere survival is not the paramount issue any longer

Talek & Luna wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

A 9th level fireball which is weaker than meteor swarm is still a good option for a non blaster than suddenly needs to prepare a blasting option. A wizard that, say, learned Dominate monster and know will face an horde of mindless high level monsters. A 9th lvl fireball is a better option there, so he slots the third level spell he has been using 15 lvls and is essentially free, slot it in 9th slot, and get the job adequately done.

It should NEVER be the go to option for a dedicated 17th lvl blaster. That dedicated blaster should pick 9th lvl blasting spells

Fighters don't lose optimal fighting ability because they have to use a dagger instead of a longsword. Casters shouldn't suffer from upcasting either. The spell should do as much damage as a 9th level spell. Its other effects such as aoe radius should not be as good as a meteor swarm and it should not have the same riders but its damage should be within the ball park and upcasting does not allow this.

To put it in perspective of a fighter, it would be like a fighter suddenly losing half his attack bonus because the dagger is not his primary weapon.

Fighters do in fact lose optimal fighting ability when they are forced to use a backup weapon.

In the old PF rules yes, because a lot was tied up in specialization and expertise. In this edition, it does not seem to be the case so far. You don't suffer a reduction to your attack number because you switched weapons unless you switched from a magical to a non magical one.

I really feel this system is designed to make blaster casters think more about taking more interesting choices with their low level spells. You can do big damage with your highest spell slots, regular damage with your cantrips which frees up your low level spell slots for some variety since fhere’s point taking low level damaging spells other then maybe a few magic missles for a guaranteed hit to finish a low HP foe.

If I was making a blasting wizard with these rules I think it would have been a more interesting wizard I made when I first started playing 3.5/PF.

Why should I be forced to take more "Interesting choices"? What if I don't care about buffing my party or utility and just want to blast stuff. Stop saying that my fun is badwrongfun

Talek & Luna wrote:

That's the most annoying part. Cantrips ARE quadratic but normal spells are not. Its a really bad idea that creates a lot of dissonance for me. The difference from a master casting a cantrip and an apprentice is readily apparent if both cast a cantrip. If they both cast a magic missile with a level 1 spell slot you cannot tell the difference between the two. I think that is really immersion breaking.

I know we don't have much else to go on, but picking magic missile for this example is a mistake. It is an outlier spell. It has no save and does not require an attack roll. the 1st level and 20th level caster will look significantly different on almost every other first level spell, especially attack ones. Anything that gives an attack roll will see the 20th level caster hitting critically while the 1st level one will be like to miss.

magic missile is not a mistake as an example. Its a classic spell and the canary in the coal mine. As written I see the spell disappearing after 3rd level and that is bad because it is an iconic spell.

The part about critical fails on saves is no big deal either. Lets put it this way. Lets say fireball does 5D6. A critical is a 100% increase in damage. A +5 sword is a 500% increase in damage and 1000% increase in damage if you crit. Blast spells need to increase in damage to be viable and I don't accept the argument that they are ineffective. I don't lobby to make dual wielding ineffective. Evocation spells should be treated better than they seem to be by playtest rules

Talek & Luna wrote:

That's the most annoying part. Cantrips ARE quadratic but normal spells are not. Its a really bad idea that creates a lot of dissonance for me. The difference from a master casting a cantrip and an apprentice is readily apparent if both cast a cantrip. If they both cast a magic missile with a level 1 spell slot you cannot tell the difference between the two. I think that is really immersion breaking.

Why would a spell act differently when both casters expend the same amount of power for the spell? Same actions, same energy, same result. If the master wants to show off, they can use metamagic, or spend a higher slot for more power in the spell.

For the same reason that a high level fighter hits for more accuracy then a low level fighter. Being a higher level gives you greater mastery over your chosen profession. Now if fighters never increased in attack bonuses and only differentiated from each other via feats I could understand your point about there being no difference between Talek the apprentice casting fireball vs Raistlin the Arch Mage casting a fireball

Hey if sneak attack does not scale then I am completely fine with spells not scaling. Just give rogues 2D6 extra damage on a sneak attack hit and call it a day.

edduardco wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

Talek & Luna wrote:

That's the most annoying part. Cantrips ARE quadratic but normal spells are not. Its a really bad idea that creates a lot of dissonance for me. The difference from a master casting a cantrip and an apprentice is readily apparent if both cast a cantrip. If they both cast a magic missile with a level 1 spell slot you cannot tell the difference between the two. I think that is really immersion breaking.

Why would a spell act differently when both casters expend the same amount of power for the spell? Same actions, same energy, same result. If the master wants to show off, they can use metamagic, or spend a higher slot for more power in the spell.

Well that is a design decision of how much do you want level to impact the game, for example, should a higher level caster be more efficient and get greater effect expending fewer resources than a lower level caster?

In my mental model of magic, higher efficiency is gained with higher level spells. You get more out of the same resource if you use a spell designed for that level of resource.

I don't have a good analogue for why a master caster can wiggle their fingers and say magic words the same way as an apprentice and somehow do it more efficiently. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

So by your reasoning a martial's second and third swings should do less damage because he cannot swing as accurately as he could on his first swing? AMIRITE :) ?