Ezren

The Archive's page

416 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 416 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Ediwir wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
- Reducing the number of combat maneuvers you get by default in comparison to PF1 and making them into feats was a conscious design decision to ease up the amount of stuff new players need to learn about combat.
If this means making options anyone should have into a choice you need to invest in just to attempt it as a remedy for not having to know about it in the first place to help new players from exploding from knowing too much....it seems like a backwards approach. A new player might ask if they can do something in combat, and might not initially be bombarded with the mechanical options before playing. Only to be told "Yes you can do that...if you have the feat." How has that not increased the amount of "stuff new players need to learn about combat"?

Would you try to Disarm someone in P1 without Improved Disarm? Most likely no, you'd take the feat so you can avoid the AoO.

Same here, but without the punishment if you try without.

That said I'm pretty sure these required to invest in skill points, not feats, and the actual quote referred to something else.
edit: YEP.

To be real, the disarm provoking an AoO isn't the actual problem. Sure, it's strictly worse than not having the feat, but the killer is taking the damage from the AoO as a penalty on the disarm roll. That's the ridiculous part of it.

Though to be perfectly fair, the AoO was plenty discouraging even not knowing about the penalty.


dirtypool wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
I’m of the opinion that there is going to be some things they are going to errata shortly after release because no code is bug free. WatersLethe and Mathmuse insightfully point out that there are all kinds of wording issues with how some of these feats have been presented.

The text from a playtest document released in August of 2018 has convinced you that there are issues with a book that is not yet released that will necessitate an errata shortly after release of the final text in August of 2019?

I mean... all books have their typos and wording issues, some worse than others. And given they have said there's another ~200 pages in the final release compared to the Playtest doc... I'd be more surprised if there weren't any issues!

There'll certainly be a thread in here listing all the potential errors, just as there will be some sort of FAQ/Errata probably out fairly soon after the release. This is a brand new system after all! Some things might need adjustments or clarifications.


Mathmuse wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
Sigh, most of the text said, "Your maximum number of Spell Points is equal to your key ability modifier," as if key ability modifier was something variable, rather than fixed by the same class that gave the spell points
This is a bit of a snark against what is essentially nice future proofing language that lets them do things like change a classes key attribute (either through an errata that adds a choice like Ranger got or something like a class archetype) easily without also having to specifically declare all the various places that it changes within a class.

Seriously, would Paizo change the bard's or sorcerer's key ability to something besides Charisma, the cleric's or druid's key ability to something besides Wisdom, or the wizard's key ability to something besides Intelligence? The Playtest Rulebook needed only 5 months of future-proofing, and some changes, such as swapping a spellcasting key ability, would not happen in that time period.

I pointed out that the monk's ki could be thematically changed from Wisdom to Charisma, but the Ki Strike feat does not have the future-proofing language. It specifically calls out Wisdom, because the monk's key ability is Dexterity or Strength. Paladin also had their spell points directly linked to Charisma rather than key ability, because their key ability is Strength. Thus, this future-proofing is not universal. It applies only when the key ability was the spellcasting stat.

My snark was against an editing oddity that was not justified by future proofing.

Even druids, of all things, have the ability to have Charisma as their casting stat with a certain archetype in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Joana: I don't think there's a lot of examples of that right now. There's no PC ancestry or class based folks who have powers or spells a PC can't have. There are plenty of unique monster abilities, but I can't think of many that have "spell like" abilities. Monsters largely just get the same spells PCs do.

I just mean that, for instance, you can't say "Realm of the Fellnight Queen doesn't work in P2e because they changed baleful polymorph" because if they wanted to tell that story in P2e, they'd just give the BBEG a custom polymorph ability to use instead of the spell.

And then you're introducing, what in PF2 is, an 8th level spell effect into a module for 7th level PCs.

Or alternatively, you're making an argument that really isn't an argument. Of course, we can play the "everything doesn't fit right can be a custom ability" game, but that's not really productive, is it? And it certainly doesn't help any aspect that involves PC abilities.

Even we could just handwave everything, that's not a productive argument.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


First off, is there an adventure where an NPC caster specifically below 15th level Baleful Polymorphs some other NPCs and the party is left to find them more than a day later? Because that's the actual bar set by this topic. I wouldn't be shocked if there was. Wicked witches turning people into newts is a time honored trope. But a spell changing it's specific execution or level does not, in itself, qualify.

Even then, unless it's a caster below 15th level who does it habitually, a lone incident could have involved a higher level scroll. That sort of story speaks to a very personal sort of spiteful revenge, after all.

As an example, though I forget all the details, there's the BBEG of Realm of the Fellnight Queen. She does it to most of her prisoners and during the PCs final battle with her. And this is a Paizo published module for 7th level PCs.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Core class features shouldn't not stack; I don't care how much simpler you want the math to be, it's just stupid. A bard using inspire courage should be able to give everyone a bonus all the time, and not be encouraged to retire if they happen to be in a party full of barbarians.

Combat styles need to either be completely separated from classes or the class-specificity should instead be tuned towards giving different bonuses to that combat style, rather than access in the first place.
And on a related note, multiclassing really shouldn't be as nigh-universal as it seems to be in the Playtest. Single-classed characters should be able to shine just as well as characters that take fighter or paladin dedications.

...and frankly, multiclassing and archetypes need to not have the mutually exclusive set-up they do now. Or at very least, archetypes other than the multiclass ones need to actually be worth taking. I'm looking at you Pirate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Needing a critical failure to achieve the result of a PF1 failure doesn't require rewriting stories, because you can still achieve the same result even if the odds are shifted. It just means the target rolled worse in this case.

It's definitely true that, in some cases, merely shifting the odds is enough. However, there's at least two things that spring to my mind that don't really meet that paradigm so easily.

Baleful Polymorph, for instance, needs both a critical failure and to be heightened to 8th level to have any permanent effect. It needing that level of effect to actually be plot-relevant changes when the spell can be reasonably thrown around. Sure, you could further handwave, but that's starting to be a pretty big handwave at the point you're letting, what in PF1 would be, a CR 8 or 9-ish enemy wizard slinging around 8th-level spell effects instead of CR appropriate ones. Heck, that same wizard operating under PF2 rules can't even cast Baleful Polymorph to begin with thanks to its spell level increase. And in addition to all that, the PF2 version even removes a possible outcome compared to PF1's. The PF2 version doesn't allow for a permanent effect while still keeping the target's mind in tact. It has no equivalent to the outcome of failing the Fort save, succeeding on the Will save in PF1.

Flesh to Stone is the other example that springs to mind, if only because actually getting the petrification effect seems like it can be a laborious process. Handwaveable, for sure. It's just a little ridiculous with how the PF2 version works with it needing multiple failed saves and its potential for yo-yo'ing through slowed 1 and 2.

Aside from that... spell durations are ultimately going to mess with both PCs and NPCs/monsters. Pre-buffing isn't a thing anymore for both sides, and some spells just don't last long enough to do what they did in PF1.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Quick poll of folks reading this thread...

Which would you prefer...

1. A rage that lasted the whole fight but was not as powerful.
2. A rage that lasted a variable or shorter amount of time but was more powerful.
3. A rage that lasted as long as you wanted it, but was mostly all about dealing more damage and a bigger cost to accuracy or defense

Not scientific... just kinda curious of the pulse of the folks reading this...

A variant of 1 or 3, probably. With so many totems that grant transformations, 3 rounds on, one round off is awkward and randomness is just worse in that regard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Voss wrote:

Ah. The errata has that (on page 26 of 1.6), which is significantly different from a feather fall effect. [FF limits you to falling 60' each round, dragon totem wings... is undefined/infinite].

Though as far as I can tell, it's still an issue for Dragon Transformation.

Why would it be an issue? Dragon Form lasts for a minute or until dismissed. That's way easier to work with than the 3 round/ 1 round setup.

Well, I'm afraid that means you don't know what you're talking about all that well.

Dragon Transformation (and Animal Rage) both have the "Rage" trait. Thus:

Playtest Rulebook, Pg. 57 wrote:

Many barbarian abilities use these terms.

Rage: You must be raging to use abilities with the rage trait, and they end automatically when you stop raging.

That should make the issue clear, no?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Yup.. this is a problem...

If it is a problem, what are some solutions? Much as I wouldn't want to say "moar feats!", given the feat-centric nature of the playtest, are more feat slots given through leveling a way to go? Or is the inherent feat-centrism problematic, and a distinct option-suite/system being examined?

As someone who is not a fan of the playtests archetypes or "multiclassing" (dedication feats) and having seen the rumor that PF1 style archetypes might also be seen (i.e. archetypes not via feats) I'm hoping something shakes out.

Really, I'd say that the problem isn't with the feat-centrism of the system. It's just that class feats are really hot real estate and a lot of stuff's fighting for those slots. Which means that it all has to compete against one another, and thus be comparable to each other (to some degree at least).

I don't really know what the solution would be myself. More class feats? More feats and features from class paths? I don't know what the best solution would be.

Archetypes ala PF1 may help, though I feel with the addition of class paths to many classes with 1.6 take at least part of their place. Honestly, I don't know how well you could build a PF1-style archetype as is; there's not a whole lot to replace in classes. Though, I suppose it could just also take up some class feats, but that just leads to another competitor.


Emn1ty wrote:
Blave wrote:
Emn1ty wrote:
I'm wondering why none of the class changes appear in the PDF? Am I missing something? Are these summaries not officially a change or is there somewhere else I download the full details?

Tha changes are in the update-pdf.

Or do you mean the original rulebook pdf? That's not gonna be updated. Would be too much work because the changes would screw up the layout.

Downloaded the update PDF, the only thing I see under 1.6 are the "Hands and Casting" section, and the "New Alchemical Items" section.

[edit] Ok... it's inconsistently been buried in prior update sections. Nevermind.

Yeah, no idea why they put it down there.


Emn1ty wrote:
I'm wondering why none of the class changes appear in the PDF? Am I missing something? Are these summaries not officially a change or is there somewhere else I download the full details?

They're in the 1.6 document. The order in which stuff is listed is a bit special, and you'll have to scroll down through the new alchemical items and the heritage changes to get to the 1.6 class changes.


55 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the frequent refrains I've seen on this forum is that the Playtest doesn't let you customize your characters all that much compared to PF1. Which I definitely have felt a bit of that building characters, but it's been hard to formulate just where the problem is. But, the last few weeks, I've found myself with a better idea of the issue.

As much as I hate the hand-wavyness of "there'll be more options in the final product", lack of options is not the problem. Nor is the strength of options compared to PF1, though that can certainly be a frustration. Instead, I find that the problem is that the Playtest and PF1 have a fundamental divergence in where you can make trade-offs.

Playtest characters have a huge bottleneck. Virtually all customization you can do with a Playtest character is made from the same pool: class feats. Archetype? Class feats. Multiclass? Class feats. Class features other than the small number of default features? Class feats. Combat style determining/boosting options? Class feats. Scaling class features? Class feat trees.

Basically every major aspect of customization has to be done with class feats.

Compared to PF1...
Archetypes? Trade out class features for class features. Multiclass? Trade out class levels for class levels or take an archetype that emulates that class. Other class features? Take a feat or a Rogue Talent/Rage Power/etc if your class has that option. Combat style determining/boosting options? Obtainable through archetypes or feats. Scaling class features? Inherent to classes.

PF1 in comparison has many more places where you can make your trade-offs. This isn't to say PF1 doesn't have some issues, like combat-oriented feats crowding out other options since they're all in the same pool. But, while the Playtest has made more space for non-combat feat options through have Skill Feats and Ancestry feats, it has instead shoved the problem elsewhere and made it worse, honestly.

Most major facets of a character are all competing for the same 8 to 11 class feat slots and very little scales without further and constant investment that uses yet more of those slots. This is the bottleneck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PCScipio wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Some Ability scores are flatly better than others (Dex, Con, and Wis at the moment, with Cha maybe fourth depending on how Resonance/Focus turns out). This is an issue and steps should be taken to improve Int and Str.
I notice that the number of trained skills is now X+Intelligence modifier, so 16 int now gives 3 extra skills, instead of just 1.

That isn't a change. That's how it's been since Day 1 of the playtest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, and the wizard changes. I'm cool with Vancian casting and all (even if it can be a bit of a hassle at high levels with 'I have access to every spell on my list' classes), but... why isn't the wizard just using arcanist/5e casting at this point with these changes? The combination of the spell slot preparation manipulation and the addition of inherent Quick Preparation really just seem to push the wizard to this weird... semi-sort-of-spontaneous place.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, where to begin really?

With 1.6 being toted as this major class, and final playtest, update, I had more or less said to myself, "the contents here will determine how much I care about PF2 when it comes out." Because, well, classes have been among the most disappointing aspects of the playtest for me. They've been drab, uninspiring, serve as a place where a lot of the different aspects of the playtest I dislike coalesce, and many of them and their options don't really do well what they've set out to do.

But I'll definitely say that a lot of the class changes thus far have been building them up to be... better than the original playtest versions.

But, hoy boy, this update has some issues.

The rage changes should be thrown out. Inherent variability probably should not be in a base class feature. It (and the existing implementation of rage) also works against the thematics and expectations of half of the totems, animal and dragon. No barbarian wants to be "hold on a sec, I need to stop being a dragon/using the natural attacks I have for a round in the middle of combat," let alone because they failed a flat roll that they never get any better at! Why can't a high level barbarian rage longer than a level 1 barbarian? That's dumb!

The wildshape changes... make it better. It's still, I feel, very much a work-around set of changes that don't actually address a lot of the issues that have been raised, though they are better.

But, then, then there's paladin... This paladin update is a mess and shows that the designers definitely have some of their own sacred cows in the playtest outside of +level. To put it simply: there is no way that a PF1 paladin goes to sleep, wakes up in PF2 as this class and can still be called a paladin. This is a holy tank, not a (PF1) paladin. If anything, people should be glad the name is changing.

Paladin's are still locked into a reactive playstyle. Retributive Strike and its ilk may get 15ft range now, but it's still a "Paladin's Reaction". It still doesn't inherently let you use ranged weapons or non-reach weapons well, without taking a feat tax. Not to mention that the different reactions of the subclasses are definitely not balanced between each other at all and the Divine Smite class feature makes it even worse. (I'll definitely say that Might Aura is neat though. That one's fairly cool.)

It also doesn't make any sense as to how allies get any benefits from the reactions in-universe. Like, you can just declare "I retributive strike" and your ally gets resistance against an attack, despite you actually doing absolutely nothing. It's just weird.

As for the new class feats... Quick Block comes too late. The level 12 feat solidifies the NG subclass as the best. And oh, look: "Smite Evil." As a level 12 class feat. And it works like a 3rd edition smite. Ha ha. No. That's completely missing the point.

As someone who's currently running a Wrath of the Righteous game, the playtest "paladin" is rather incredibly frustrating on several fronts. It makes the story and background make no sense if I applied it to the world, and my players who have paladin characters would certainly be frustrated if they got this chassis thrust on them.

*sigh* 1.6 didn't really make me want to care about PF2 more. I'm sure I'll get a CRB pdf or read a friend's but...
Honestly, the most disappointing part of the playtest is that it hasn't made me want to play PF2.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope that they're giving the paladin something other than its current Retributive Strike with this update. Though... given the name of the LG subclass, it sounds like they might be tying Retributive Strike to that one and giving the other two something else. Which... I really hope they don't. That would be rather awful generally (and exasperate complains about opening its alignment).

Retributive Strike needs to be dropped as a main class feature, given as a class feat option, and by no means be tied to a subclass.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course though, whatever they do decide to do with paladin alignment-wise, that doesn't really matter if the class chassis itself isn't getting an overhaul.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
I didn't realize my Fighter with +22 hitting a lich with 28 AC at base, before any buffs, feels like a 50% chance. How about you tell me more about that?

So, for starters, you've selected the monster of level 12 with the lowest AC. You additionally got its AC wrong. Lich AC is 29. Most of the level 12 monsters have AC 31 or 32. You picked one of the two exceptions.

Second, you can't actually have +22 to-hit, assuming you're at level 12, without something other than ability scores, a +2 weapon (+3's aren't available until 13th), level, and proficiency modifying your attack. The math works out as: 12(level)+2(item)+5(strength)+2(proficiency) = +21 to-hit.
It's certainly still not 50% to-hit against AC 29 (it's 60%), but let's keep the numbers within the range of the premises and use the correct ones, yeah?

Now, if you make the comparison using one of the level 12 monsters that doesn't have the lowest AC of the bunch you end up with...
Hm, gosh, is that 50% against AC 31? Huh. What do y'know? It is 50%.

The level 12 fighter, with no outside help, ends up stacking up as follows against all of the AC values of the level 12 monsters:
Lich and Rusalka, AC 29: 60% chance to hit on the first attack.
Sea Serpent, Slime Demon, Valkyire, AC 31: 50% chance to hit on the first attack.
Adult Green Dragon, AC 32: 45% chance to hit on the first attack.

So, in conclusion, let's not argue about the math in a tight-math system without actually having the numbers right. Because, you're right, +22 vs AC 28 isn't 50% to-hit, but it also isn't what's happening baseline.


How odd. Grappling a creature doesn't appear to currently move them adjacent to you if you have reach, like what happens in PF1.


In all seriousness, I don't think it would actually do all that much.

In PF2, ignoring cantrips, the maximum number of spell slots that you can have is 37 at level 20 as a school wizard or a sorcerer. As a cleric, druid or bard, you only have 28 maximum come level 20. If you decide to include cantrips, the numbers go up to 42 and 32 respectively.

In comparison, PF1 has a Sorcerer getting 54 base spell slots by 20th level, and the Wizard getting 45. Add in cantrips to the mix and that's 63 and 49. And we're not even getting to bonus spell slots yet.

The burden is already greatly reduced compared to PF1. Even just looking at base slots that's a ~16% and 50% reduction. Add in the fact that spells, with some exceptions, don't do all that much if they're not close to your highest level and that burden reduces it further.

Quote:
it creates a false expectation that low level spells should stay relevant the entire game.

No, I believe you can attribute that to the game being called Pathfinder 2 more than anything.

Notably: Paizo already has a version of this, and it's a better version at that. And this better system already gimps casters.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2's multiclassing is frankly terrible at doing any multiclassing that isn't planned at character creation. (I'd say that the system itself is pretty bad at this, but that's another topic.) It very much so gets in the way of "natural" or "based on in-game events" multiclassing. Thanks to being class feat based, you can only do it every other level. This prevents a character taking the dedication feat at an appropriate time, unless they happen to be leveling to an even level. And then the dedication feats with their 16-in-an-ability-score requirement further limit your ability to take one. This forces you to wait up to five levels to take your dedication when you have only a 14 in that ability score. And that's if you have a 14 (which, to be fair, you probably should have if you're trying to multiclass into something). Oh, and I hope you didn't already have an archetype!

Of course, if you had planned your multiclass originally, no problem! You've likely already solved those issues.

Or, you could just be playing PF1 and just multiclass into the dang class at any level, provided you met alignment requirements, of which three classes had any, and if you had an archetype already, who cares! That doesn't matter!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Tridus wrote:

Cantrips should do enough damage that they feel like they're doing something useful rather than being a dead turn, though.

Honestly, half the time I use a cantrip I'm annoyed when I'm doing it, because they're just not impactful.

That's kind of the thing here. Even if it is effective, the feel doesn't work that well for me. I was having more fun doing aid actions with the Human feat to give a +4 attack to someone else, hoping they'd land a crit or something. I'm not sure if that was actually better than shooting off my own cantrip, but it certainly felt more interesting.

Why? Back in Pathfinder 1, Cantrips did diddly/squat for damage. About the only Cantrip worth taking was Damage Undead, seeing it did the same damage whether it was a zombie, skeleton, or something else, so spellcasters had something effective against undead when their regular spells ran out.

A 5th level Specialist Wizard is going to have 11 spells and a free recast that they can cast during an adventure in addition to the Cantrips. And that Ray of Frost would be doing likely 1d8+4 damage per casting... which they can do an infinite number of times. Essentially they have a spellcasting version of a crossbow (but doing better damage). Or they can use Electric Arc and do 1d6+4 damage to two targets without rolling to hit... and still doing a minimum of 2 damage to each if a target saves (assuming it's not a critical success for a save). They can do that each round.

It would be like having a Short Bow and firing twice and hitting twice time and time again. Only you do more damage because of the ability modifier.

If you don't like the damage Cantrips provide then cast something else. Use one of your proper spells. Use some Resonance and a Wand. Use Resonance and use a Staff. Use Resonance and read a Scroll. You have plenty of spells available. The only reason you have to conserve your spells is holding off to use against Boss-level encounters... and to be perfectly honest, you won't...

You're trying to argue from a PF1 cantrip paradigm about PF2 cantrips. That doesn't follow. PF2 cantrips are in a very different situation. One that ultimately is not caused by cantrips themselves, but the rest of the system around them. That being: your actual spell slot spells are ineffective more times than not and that you don't have, or have limited options, for a third action each round.

They're really more comparable to warlock blasts than PF1 cantrips on a whole, anyway. The damage ones at least.


Mathmuse wrote:


I tend to play support with my spellcasters in Pathfinder 1st Edition, so my main concern about the spellcasting stat was the bonus spells not the DC. Does Pathfinder 2nd Edition offer bonus spells based on the spellcasting stat?

No. Spellcasters get three of each level base, plus one more if they're a wizard with a school or a sorcerer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
You cannot get reduced to 0 hp as a result of Drained, because the most you can have is Drained 4.

For starters, a page number would be good. Mere reference to a rule isn't all that helpful in as new a game as this.

Secondly, if that is in fact the case, I guess we can throw that (a high level severely drained character) onto the pile of narrative things in PF1 that can't happen in PF2. Great.


Tangent101 wrote:

Okay, two things.

First, to reduce the lethality of Criticals for spell effects, why not reduce the critical effect to +50% damage? Thus if someone suffers a critical failure saving against an 8d6 Fireball and the Fireball rolls 34 damage, they take another 17 damage. This means spell damage is quite dangerous... but not instant-kill if you suffer a critical.

Unless you're talking about monsters flinging them at PCs, really, we need to reach a point where crit fails actually happen (on creatures not below APL) before considering that sort of thing.


26 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Throughout the playtest we’ve been gathering a lot of feedback about spells and their relative power level in the game, especially regarding how they compare to spells as they were used in Pathfinder First Edition. While some of these changes were made to prevent problematic situations in play, others were made to help them function more cleanly in the new edition’s structure.

The survey results are pretty clear that we have succeeded in those goals for some areas of spellcasting and fallen short in others—sometimes significantly short.

To be honest, when you have nerfs to prestidigitation of all things, I think you had some warning signs that you'd gone too far even without any playtest feedback.


perception check wrote:

Question because I don't read every post of every thread: has there been any developer input on the state of magic in 2e? Casting is just blatantly bad right now (and has been since the playtest began), and it's frustrating that it hasn't been addressed even a little in the updates.

It's beginning to feel like a lost cause, and I'll be treating it as such.
Barring any awesome updates, I'll be playing exclusively martials as my group goes through the rest of the playtest (and, eventually, Return).

In the meantime, I'll keep hoping for the option to place the class-given ability boost in something other than a class's primary stat. Allowing a wizard to put that boost in strength or dexterity, say, can allow him to at least participate more effectively in the martial meta.

Basically, no. I believe one of them mentioned off-hand in a stream that they were getting some feedback that people were dissatisfied with magic. The big magic thread and the unofficial magic survey thread were closed with a "we'll have a magic survey eventually guys!" And of course there was the whole: "we're nerfing fighter dedication because its too good for wizards."

It really sucks that today's dev posting regarding focus and people's concerns about it being Cha-based for Wiz/Monk/Druid/Alch is the closest we've come to anything at all being said.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
One of my favorite little distinctions is the invisibility potion. If you only need to move into a combat and make an attack while invisible, you can drink the potion to get 1d4 rounds of invisibility. However, if you have a lot of sneaking around to do before you plan on fighting, you can extend the effect to 10 minutes instead by spending a Focus Point!

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, you're spending both a use of a daily resource and a consumable to get a 10 minute invisibility. On the other hand, you're getting an effect 1000% better than using a scroll (which is the same item level) or someone actually casting invisibility.

That... that doesn't really feel right.


Aside from the headache I find these rules to be in general, at very, very least either the condition removal spells or the counteract conditions rules need to actually list what to roll. There is no reason for the spells to not say something like "Roll caster level for your counteract check." Or alternatively (or perhaps in addition too), maybe have some examples in the counteract rules? While medicine is certainly an easy assumption for poison and disease, there's other stuff out there!

I really don't like that there's two places in the rules that lack specificity that would make the rules either actually work (Recall Knowledge) or make handling those rules easier (Counteracting). I really hope this isn't a design trend. This doesn't even give power to the GM (or something), it just gives them more and unnecessary work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Evilgm wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


I can make a functional halfling paladin on a dog in PF1e with just the core rulebook. Not-so-much in PF2 Playtest.

I can make a functional goblin alchemist in PF2 with just the playtest rulebook. Not-so-much in PF1 Core.

Except you're pretty blatantly going out of your way to use two options that weren't in the PF1 CRB. That's all well and good that you can make that goblin alchemist with the PF2 CRB, but that's pretty a misrepresentative rebuttal.

The point is there's builds that can't be done in PF2 that could be in PF1. Pretty simple ones at that. Archer paladin's another popular one to bring up. It's great that we have new stuff moved into CRB territory and some new options for PF2! However, we should be able to still do most things in the PF1 CRB.

Maybe it'll be true in the final product, but we certainly aren't seeing that right now.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
this post sort of sums up everything I love about the playtest. I was reminded again, when I played kingmaker the CRPG all this week and last, and I was reminded just how how easy it was to break the pathfinder 1st edition system, how two level 12 characters could be miles apart in power level, how the game became rocket tag once the characters reached around 10th level.

While I agree that Rocket Tag at high levels was a problem, I don't believe solving this should come "at all costs" so to speak.

That definitely seems to be the experience for a lot of players, though I haven't gotten to 10+ in any of my games yet. The +level bonus and lack of meaningful Legendary/Master proficiency value definitely had me thinking it could be an issue though, so it's interesting to see that some of those that have gotten that far do feel that way.

It's true. Rocket tag is a problem. But so is bullet sponges.

For those who don't play shooters, a bullet sponge is a mob that soaks up bullets and has way to much HP. They slow the game to a crawl and turn into a slog because they're not interesting to fight. They just drag on.

2e combat can turn into that when stuff has tons of HP but you can only hit it half the time on your first attack (and far less on subsequent ones), and then it goes and pops another at will Mirror Image. Combat then turns into "we attack it" for 17 rounds of tedium until someone finally falls over.

Rocket tag has its own problems, but it's unspoken virtue is that it keeps the story moving.

This for sure.

Bad instances of rocket tag can leave you unsatisfied, especially if it was supposed to be a big encounter. But, at least you can move on with the game.

Bad instances of bullet sponges eat your both enthusiasm and session time and leave everyone hating the encounter.

Long combat =/= good combat.
Good combat == good combat.


NielsenE wrote:

If we skip the monster w/ class level bit that I assume will be addressed by the time the new game/full bestiary is published, it seems the primary problem is the difference in duration for enchantment type magics.

I'd be curious to here from the dev's on how they see this aligning with "Can we still tell the stories we want to tell?" given how common these long duration charms/dominate/etc are in many APs.

Yup. That's pretty much my take on it along with teleportation nerfs being an issue. Half the books here have plot points of various sizes dealing with long-term enchantment magic (and I didn't list anything Book 3 recommends doing with the aboleth), four out of six have monsters of varying plot relevance using teleportation magic to escape encounters.

Though there is one thing that I did forget to mention in my summary in the original post; there is other one semi-big issue: ability checks. They're mentioned in Clumsy, but... How do ability checks actually work, if they're supposed to exist in this ruleset? d20+Ability mod? d20+Ability mod+Level? It's not listed anywhere that I could find.


Cyouni wrote:


From my memory, part of the change in creature-building ends up being that you can just add class levels to a monster by literally just giving them class levels. I believe this was mentioned in either the monsters preview blog (unlikely) or in the comments of that blog post (more likely).

Playtest regeneration is effectively "you actually have to run it by PC dying rules", which is even listed in the entry for regeneration:
- "It can’t die from damage or the dying condition; its dying condition never increases beyond dying 3 as long as its regeneration is active."

Well, from both memory and skimming through the designer comments on both monster blogs, there aren't any mentions of what the custom monster rules are, or suggestions of those rules will be, unless they're buried pretty deep in the comment threads. Now, what is mentioned is that monster math should be closer to PC math than PF1. Which is and isn't true. They certainly get +level like PCs, but monsters also get their, compared to PCs, free advancement on skills, to-hit, and damage dice. Without knowing the actual guidelines on such things it's difficult to advance something rather significantly. We can try to reverse-engineering certainly, but again, that comes with difficulty beyond slapping class levels on the creature.

I pointed it out, less because the Playtest is lacking in such rules (as we've already been told they won't be in the Playtest), but more to make the point that those rules really need to work well if there's any hope of emulating a PF1 AP, especially when it comes to adding classes to monsters.

As for regeneration, well...

Playtest, Page 294 wrote:
Villains, powerful monsters, enemies with healers or regeneration, and any other NPCs at the GM’s discretion are knocked out like a PC as well.

Yeah, it's kinda dumb right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After accidentally stumbling on the fact that Wrath of Righteous, under PF2 rules, ends rather unceremoniously in the opening scene (death by Feather Fall nerfs), I thought it would be interesting to go all the way through an Adventure Path and see what other stumbling blocks I might find operating under the Playtest rules. It could help expose places where the Playtest rules are lacking, and it would help me better learn the Playtest rules.

I choose to look through Serpent's Skull. This was the best (read: most convenient) AP to look through for a number of reasons: I'd run it before, I own physical copies of the books (which are much easier to skim, imo), and it's a relatively old Adventure Path, having been coming out right around when the APG released. This last bit meant that the AP is operating largely under CRB and GMG rules, with one or two splats scattered about. Additionally... the campaign is pretty beat-sticky overall; it doesn't have huge amounts of magic required.

Before I start listing out my notes, I did have a few caveats. I didn't consider PC effectiveness in these scenarios, save one or two instances. I have mostly ignored skill challenges, pre-battle buff routines, and whether or not creatures actually exist in the Playtest Bestiary. I won't be counting these things as stumbling blocks, though there are a few exceptions here and there. But: skill challenges are easy to adjust DC-wise, and I frankly just didn't look closely enough to compare skill functionality assumptions. Pre-battle buff routines, while definitely something that can no longer happen, are partially mitigated by how enemies in PF2 are going to be built, aka they'll have all the stats they need for the most part. And dinging the game for not having a full Bestiary yet, well, would be too easy and just not helpful.

I'm going to provide a rating for each occurrence of how difficult it is to handle each situation, in my opinion.
Everything's going to be grouped in spoilers by book, so with that, let's get started:

Souls for Smuggler's Shiv:

In the Adventure Background: Yarzoth, an Advanced(not the template) Serpentfolk, uses periodic use of Suggestion on the ship captain to set up the adventure.
Rating: Hand-Waveable. There are some believability issues (Suggested for 1 minute vs hours), but ultimately, the GM can have the captain fail narratively.

Yarzoth uses Dominate Person to cause Captain Kovack to crash the ship on Smuggler's Shiv, and then to have him as her ally as she travels Smuggler's Shiv.
Rating: Somewhat Impossible. Even accounting for a lack of Advanced Serpentfolk rules, which aren't specific to this adventure, Dominate just does not last long enough and Failure vs Critical Failure is too a large difference for believable daily application.

Captain Kovack is infected and dies to ghoul fever, but before his death, Dominate Person runs out and he writes down a confession.
Rating: Somewhat Impossible (see above)

Side-note: Survival changes make finding food for the party actually difficult without the Forager skill feat. Not sure how I feel about that.

The PCs potentially need knowledge of Aklo to active the Tide Stone to enter the final area of this book.
Rating: Difficult. PF2 is much stingier with languages, making one having Aklo less likely. This is only a problem if the PCs additionally can't meet the alternative activation methods and lost favor with all their possible allies.

Yarzoth uses the Find Traps spell to avoid the traps in the Azlanti Temple, and thus make it the final dungeon of the book.
Rating: Hand-Waveable. Ultimately, narrative success is easy enough to grant even though Find Traps does not exist in the Playtest rules.

A trap in the dungeon also suggests use of Detect Magic to more easily find the 'stop the trap' button.
Rating: Difficult. This is still in theory possible, but Detect Magic and Read Aura are 10 minute castings. This makes reactive searching not possible.

Yarzoth herself is currently impossible, as there are no rules for adding class levels, a class template, or any template really, to creatures. And with creature math being separate from PC math, stitching classes levels onto creatures doesn't work that great. ...This is going to turn out to be a theme of these notes.

Racing to Ruin:

When encountering Umargo, a barbarian insurgent, he first is supposed to cut an NPC hostage's throat putting them at -1 and dying.
Rating: Hand-waveable/Impossible. Everything except PCs dies at 0, and there's not really an in-between state between being conscious or being dead. It is the thing that can be easily fiated, but I really don't think fiat should be necessary for this scenario.

Umargo is a TWF barbarian.
Rating: Difficult. By no means impossible, but it is the sort of thing that can't be done amazingly with pure barbarian right now. He's otherwise an easy conversion from what I saw.

Chirok the Stormbird's encounter can be bypassed via knowing Auren and using Diplomacy.
Rating: Difficult. Again, stinginess with languages makes this listed potential solution that much more unlikely. Also, the DC for Diplomacy would 100% be level-appropriate... which means a 50/50 at best for the peaceful solution to work.

The PCs can obtain a one-use magical item that can cast Dispel Evil, to potentially make a future encounter with a shadow demon easier.
Rating: Impossible. Honestly, the lack of the Dispel Alignment series (spells from the CRB) is a bit surprising. ...Unless they're under some different name now and I missed them.

Members of a rival faction ambush the PCs at the building that they are staying in. The leader of the ambush uses a wand of Glyph of Warding to set blasting runes at the doors to discourage the PCs from leaving.
Rating: Hand-waveable/Impossible. Glyph of Warding no longer has the option for blasting runes. Which is odd. I guess this could be replaced with snares potentially?

Lack of bane arrows make an encounter with lower level enemies relatively pointless.
Rating: Hand-waveable. This isn't too big a concern individually, but the lack of Bane and Slaying arrows surprised me. It's an odd omission, I find.

The PCs encounter three priestesses that have been dominated and tricked into accepting profane gifts by a succubus.
Rating: Impossible. Dominate just doesn't last long enough for the succubus to Dominate multiple people with a 1/day SLA. And then, the whole reason the priestesses haven't otherwise fled already is the threat of Cha Drain from the succubus removing the gifts; stupefied, while potent, doesn't have quite the same potential for cutting them off completely from their spells. Multiple profane gifts are impossible now anyway.

Charau-ka cleric. A creature with class levels.
Rating: Impossible.

Side note: Interesting that domains don't give any passive or class feature-esque abilities, only powers, now.

Permanent Magic Mouths.
Rating: Hand-waveable. Permanency is definitely something that wouldn't be included in the playtest, but I frankly can't be certain it will exist in the final version. Though, it would be cool if it was a ritual.
Side-note: Ability checks are apparently still a thing that exist, but are only referenced in Clumsy? What?

Advanced Serpentfolk Wizard. Creature with class levels, solo encounter.
Rating: Impossible.
Side-note: I really do wonder how solo-spellcasters are supposed to be boss encounters in PF2, if they aren't remotely gish...

City of Seven Spears:

Side-note: No creature templates other than Elite and Weak?

Side-note: Looking at encounters of low-level creatures designed to use magic items to boost their effectiveness makes item level seem a bit silly.

Side-note: The advanced aboleth in Saventh-Yhi is always going to surpass the PCs levels in this adventure, making using its presence more questionable. Also, we really don't have aboleths in the Bestiary? Dominate nerfs actually hurt them a lot from a story perspective...

Charau-ka with class levels as patrolling encounters.
Rating: Hand-waveable/Impossible. They only have warrior levels, elite adjustment would be fine.

Olujimi, an angazhani, is supposed to use dimension door to escape and then set up another encounter.
Rating: Difficult/Impossible. Dimension Door nerfs make escapes with it less likely. The distance nerfs really hurt.

Charau-ka cleric 7.
Rating: Impossible

Petrified Half-fiend dire ape revived with stone salve.
Rating: Difficult/Impossible No actual templates at the moment. And really, what an unlucky person you have to be to get petrified currently.

Boggard oracle 7. Long-term dominated by the aboleth.
Rating: Impossible. Creature with levels+Dominate being too short.

Green hag sorcerer. Sorcerer bloodline goes a long way to explaining her character.
Rating: Impossible. Creature with levels.

Side-note: The 'grandfathering' clause of the performance check that aids the party in allying with the Radiant Muse probably will be too difficult +/-10 rules.

The Radiant Muse is a lilend with class levels.
Rating: Impossible.

Boggard barbarians as a part of patrolling encounters.
Rating: Impossible

Boggard fighter.
Rating: Impossible

Troglodyte cleric as part of patrolling encounters.
Rating: Impossible

Troglodyte cleric/fighter.
Rating: Impossible

Serpentfolk ghast necromancer wizard.
Rating: Impossible

It's at this point that I was surprised just how many enemies had class levels in addition to creature HD.

Vaults of Madness:

Juliver is a Pathfinder hit with a Feeblemind spell. The PCs need to cure her affliction to continue the adventure. The adventure offers several ways of getting Heal(PF1) scrolls.
Rating: Hand-waveable. The lack of PF1 Heal and Limited Wish make this a bit less simple. A scroll of Remove Curse (7th) is required to guarantee a cure.

Side-note: Remove Curse is irritatingly vague and sends you off to a section to read just to understand it. Counteracting Conditions isn't a very clear read. It took far too much effort just to figure out how to cure a Feeblemind effect. Especially when Feeblemind doesn't list what fixes it.

Side-note: Wish and Miracle no longer have their condition removal text. Doesn't actually limit them, but slightly odd.

Side-note: No Limited Wish?

Going to ignore the usage of insanity rules in this adventure for the sake of my sanity. I don't want to go back to Counteracting Conditions.

The Gorilla King presents the PCs with three tests. The PCs have to succeed on two of three to proceed without having to fight the Gorilla King (who vastly out CRs them) and his retainers.
Rating: Difficult/Impossible. The Test of Strength is maybe still possible? A single PC has to beat a strength ability check, but can be magically aided. But ability check rules are non-existent? The Test of Storytelling would maybe be possible. As a DC 35 Diplomacy, Bluff or Perform check, it's intended to be relatively difficult for the 10/11th level PCs. Does end up running a bit counter to the new aid another rules in its suggestions, however. The Test of Combat is impossible. 10/11th PC vs CR 14 creature in single combat. You may not need to kill him to win, but the Gorilla King is going to curbstomp any PC.

Gorilla King is an awakened animal with fighter levels.
Rating: Impossible.

Shaitan Rogue.
Rating: Impossible.

Advanced Serpentfolk fighter/sorcerers.
Rating: Impossible.

Vampire Rogue.
Rating: Impossible.

Templated Boggard Fighters.
Rating: Impossible

Corpsespinner tactics include using Plane Shift to flee the encounter.
Rating: Impossible. Plane shift is now a 10 minute casting.

Charau-ka barbarians.
Rating: Impossible

Ogre Mage Monks.
Rating: Impossible

Boggard fighters.
Rating: Impossible

Charau-ka cleric.
Rating: Impossible

Intellect Devourer sorcerer.
Rating: Impossible

Side-note: We don't have portable holes?

The Thousand Fangs Below:

I'm, uh, not going to list ratings for creatures with class levels in this one...

Cloaker Rogue.
Morlok Barbarians.
Morlock Ranger.
Morlock Oracle.
Urdefhan fighters.
Mummy fighters.
Drider sorcerers.

Side-note: Rings of invisibility are mentioned in the Perception section, but aren't actually in the Playtest. Huh.

Urdefhan cleric.
Degenerate serpentfolk fighter.

Side-note: Has this really just become listing monsters with class levels?

Side-note: The fortress in this adventure actually accounts for use of Teleport. Various areas are affected by Forbiddence and Dimensional Lock.

Lots of serpentfolk fighters.

Selaxasp is a succubus rogue/master spy that was called via a Gate spell to keep an eye on BBEG's underlings.
Rating: Hand-waveable/Difficult. Gate doesn't have a calling use now, only a planar travel one. Planar Ally is strictly deity-sent servitors, and well, given that this whole AP is about Yderius resurrection, it doesn't work. Planar Binding works, but is horribly vague.

Selaxasp uses Greater Teleport to report to the BBEG, if not killed by the PCs.
Rating: Impossible. Demons just don't get Teleport of any kind in the Playtest Bestiary, for some reason?

Urdefhan fighter.
More serpentfolk fighters.
Advanced Serpentfolk fighter/duelist
Yet more serpentfolk fighters.

Advanced Serpentfolk evoker with contigent teleport as an escape.
Rating: Impossible. Even Heightened Contingency doesn't let you cast a contigent Teleport. The casting time is too long.

Even more serpentfolk fighters.
Serpentfolk rogue.

Sanctum of the Serpent God:

Again, with the skipping...

Urdefhan fighter/rogues.
Meladaemon sorcerers.
More urdefhan fighter/rogues.
More meladaemon sorcerers.
More urdefhan fighter/rogues.
Cyclops fighter.
Urdefhan ranger.

Serpentfolk use a Reincarnate-like process to inflitrate PCs camp with little chance of detection.
Rating: Hand-waveable There's no Reincarnate spell in the Playtest, and I'm honestly unsure if would be in final game. But, it frankly doesn't change that this can be hand-waved.

Sorcerer/assassins that use Teleport to escape and attempt to kill the PCs again later.
Rating: Impossible. This is common thread #2 it seems...

Morlock barbarian/rogues
Serpentfolk cleric/fighters.
Advanced Serpentfolk transmuter.

Side-note: Even with heightening, the new Form spells seem really hard to have enemies use in similar ways to PF1, due to forms just not being relevant at that some levels. Also no earth glide for earth elemental form?

Another advanced Serpentfolk transmuter. This one with Teleport escape tactics...
Rating: Impossible. Teleport nerfs are not only a PC problem, I guess.

Said transmuter also attempts to gather up various artifacts, scrolls, and texts into bags of holding before the PCs get there.
Rating: Difficult? It seems like you might have to hold open bags of holding with two hands now? Or am I just reading that wrong?

Serpentfolk fighter/ranger.
Advanced Serpentfolk cleric.
Troglodye fighter.

The Avatar of Yderius has regeneration and can only be killed by decapitation, either by vorpal or by coup de grace.
Rating: Hand-waveable.

Side-note: Not only does regeneration not actually have a description in the Playtest outside of the Regenerate spell, why the heck is it "to the GM's discretion" whether creatures with regeneration not die at 0 HP?! It's kind of the point that they don't!

In summary, this AP didn't have a whole lot of its story that heavily relied on PF1 magic, thus, it should be relatively easy to run it in PF2. However, I did find that:
*Creatures with class levels or templates make conversion difficult, if not impossible. We definitely need some rules for this.
*Teleport nerfs hurt everyone equally.
*Regeneration combined with the "dies at 0" rule is stupid.
*Some scenarios that were easy to set up in PF1 just aren't possible in PF2.

To be perfectly fair, I fully expect the first one will be solved in the final release. We just don't have a lot of tools for building creatures at the moment, which, I guess, for a play focused Playtest is fine; it's not what's being tested. But it does make conversion rather difficult and improvised.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

It's my personal preference that all "hybrid/planetouched" persons be at least half human. My headcanon is that the human superpower is that they can (and will) breed with a surprising variety of things. Like I know that Pathfinder has rules for like Gnome Aasimar, but it's my preference to just house rule that stuff out of existence.

It's also my preference that there are no half-dwarves anywhere.

Well, according to Bastards of Golarion, half-dwarves and half-gnomes don't exist. Outside of stuff like Wishes.

So, that should make you happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Ronnam wrote:
I wonder if there's a disconnect between the story writers and the rules writers.

I don't think that at all.

I don't think there's anything in any of the APs or modules that's been published that doesn't work with the new rules paradigm.

For instance, just because PC casters have roughly a 50% of wasting their slot and turn by casting a spell doesn't negate published events. Karzoug and friends for instance were clearly the statistical outliers whose dice were always hot, and their foes' were always cold. By definition, the winners are the ones who won.

The only AP that really makes no sense is Wrath of the Righteous, and given the vocal outcry against the mythic rules, and the repeated rubbing salt in wounds over it, I kind of suspect PF2 Playtest is partially in response to that. "Don't want powerful, kinda-broken, epic do-stuff rules? Fine. Have a new edition."

Funny you mention WotR, actually. That campaign, following PF2 RAW, can't even get off the ground, let alone to mythic content. The Feather Fall nerf TPKs the PCs in the opening act.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gratz wrote:
The Archive wrote:
In the blog post thread, I mentioned that I didn't think most of the games I had played of PF1 wouldn't be translatable to PF2. I even went so far as to suggest that PF1 APs will not translate. Which, to at least some extent is hyperbole, but I do stand by it.

Could you maybe provide an example of that? Because the only things that I can think of that I would need to run those APs are the subsystems for the different APs, but those were obviously often released in tandem with the AP itself.

Late reply, but generally the instances I was thinking of apply to NPC magic-use in APs. Though, in addition to that, the change in capabilities, whether magic-based or class-based or skill-based, would definitely cause translation issues. And, of course, there's the toted example of "why should I be scared of Karzoug now?" But, beyond that:

Serpent's Skull:
Souls for the Smuggler's Shiv has its background rooted in frequent use of the suggestion spell, for instance. 1 minute of being suggested is much different than multiple hours.

Though this particular case could be more of 1 hour vs. multiple given that it's the BBEG of the first book using the spell against some expert that's a ship captain. But at a DC 16 (meaning critical failure is only so likely) in the new Bestiary, the scenario has its believability reduced.

Though, considering it again, in SS's case, it's the lack of rules for Serpentfolk advancement at higher HD (or I suppose level for PF2) that would mess with the challenges in the later books. Not an impossible thing to accommodate for, but still something.

Rise of the Runelords:
Not a game I've personally run, but having played in it: in the third book, if Lucretia's information gathering that causes the ogre invasion of Fort Ranick relies on magic, that's another case of less believability.

A lot of what I spoiler'd is pretty easy to fiat, admittedly, but I think that having the 'behind the scenes' parts of adventures still be reasonable scenarios is important to keep a sense of immersion. I'd have to go to my AP books for other examples. It's been a while since I ran SS and CotCT, and thus far WotR (only just finished Book 1) has minimal issues... other than the whole "paladins can't smite" thing... Wow, that's actually pretty bad now that I think of it.

...wait. Feather Fall only targets one person now and only lasts 1 minute!? Okay. Nevermind what I said. Wrath of the Righteous is actually just a TPK machine if Feather Fall is one person only.

Wrath of the Righteous:
At the start of the first book of WotR, the party, and three important NPCs, is saved from an otherwise deadly fall by the last actions of a dragon that casts Feather Fall on all of them. There are even explicitly dead bodies where they land, "citizens whom the dragon could not save." The PCs only live due to Feather Fall.

I guess that pile's going to be a bit bigger under PF2 rules. Assuming silver dragons don't get to cheat with their SLAs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And what, exactly, does anyone else get? What about clerics or martially-focused bards? What about Sorcerers or Wizards that take Magical Striker? Shouldn't they also be able to meaningfully crit? Saying "they'll auto-hit" isn't any sort of consolation prize: 20s on a die are already more than likely to hit.

Frankly, this is just not a suggestion that will result in fun. There's no reason to take crits away from only *some* players in a particularly critical focused edition. It'll just result in disappointment and less fun when someone not with the 'feature' rolls a nat 20 on their attack. And removing them generally would just further destroy verisimilitude on top of it. Basic mechanics should work the same for everyone at the base-line.

Monsters being deadly with crits cannot be properly fixed by taking away crits with fiat. It changes none of the reasons why those monsters are getting those crits, or why they are so deadly with them, in the first place. Removing crits won't stop monsters from currently being overtuned, or that the math currently really doesn't like equal-level or higher encounters. A change like removing crits would just be ignoring the cause for the symptoms.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

In the blog post thread, I mentioned that I didn't think most of the games I had played of PF1 wouldn't be translatable to PF2. I even went so far as to suggest that PF1 APs will not translate. Which, to at least some extent is hyperbole, but I do stand by it.

To a large extent, this is due to the magic changes. But, frankly, the whole system takes part. But, yes, various changes to how magic works breaks parts of plots and encounters in APs, whether that be rendering any plot points involving enchantment magic less believable or infeasible, not allowing escape tactics with teleportation nerfs, or simply making "X casts these buff spells prior to combat given the chance" rather completely impossible. And of course, none of that accounts for spell level changes.

Even ignoring magic, the system as a whole doesn't exactly encourage stuff to operate similarly enough. There's a noticeable power gap between the playtest and PF1, and that's got nothing to do with optimization in PF1. The playtest's 50/50-at-same-level nature just makes characters less effective. And what the math results in, frankly, would make me nervous to run boss encounters.

But, really what I don't get is this dismissal of "I can't play my PF1 character in PF2" in regards to the second design goal. I mean, sure, no, you're not going to be able to play the exact same character. But, is it not a problem that a close-enough version of core archetypes isn't available? Or that the version you get just isn't as good? Or heck, just can't be made thanks to combat styles being class locked?

Player characters are the way that players interact with the game, the game world, and the story that is being told. If a design goal is be able to "tell the same stories," PCs need to be able to be similar to their PF1 counterparts. After all, it's a bit hard to have a story about a paladin of Erastil when you can't exactly be an archer paladin or any other PF1 CRB concept the system doesn't actively support.

A paladin should be able to have the same narrative moments of smiting down evil. Spellcasters should get those moments when a failed save swings an encounter. The skill monkey should get moments where he is just that good that he easily succeeds at an important check. Everyone should be able to have their power moments.

I don't think the system as is supports that. I don't think I can have three PCs narrowly escape a TPK with teleport and later return to rescue their fallen party members. I don't think that my WotR party's scythe bard would get the amazing time of confirming a crit against the boss encounter, while three levels under it. I don't think that I could have as many characters that managed to live through ridiculous circumstances. I just don't think that many stories that I've had with my gaming group could ever happen with this ruleset.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

...that is impressively unintuitive. Not only is that different than the PF1 condition, there is no way that anyone coming into the game is going to see "all checks" and think that it applies to their DCs, let alone that AC is a DC. Checks involve rolls by the character: neither a character's DC or AC do. Even assuming that we know that our DCs are also "checks" (because that's not confusing), no one's going to assume that DCs also means AC.

That's honestly just terribly written for any sort of clarity. And if anywhere else has similar phrasing and intention, it needs to be rewritten. "Checks" is going to get shorthanded in a player's mind based on prior experience. The writing should not be hostile to previous experience.


20 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.

Frankly. With the PF2 system as it is currently, telling the same stories is just not possible.

Heroes are just simply at a lower power level and magic just does not operate well outside of combat. Heroes are comparably incompetent and the magic that could be used to fuel plots cannot be used in the same ways anymore.
The changes in math when it comes to level differences just does not let the same encounters happen to similar appeal. And the flow of encounters per day cannot be even close to the same thanks to numerous factors.
PCs really just don't have good escape options anymore with both Dimension Door and Teleport nerfed which causes inherently more risk.
While partially a product of only being a playtest (and partially due to how multiclassing and archetypes work), PCs are nowhere close to being as flexible in concept.
Honestly, any encounter that had PC-classed enemies I just think will not work anymore. Partially due to the PF2 classes and math for PCs, and partially due to PF2 monsters design.

Like... regardless of I think of PF2 as is, I can only think of perhaps one or two PF1 games out of many that would have been at all similar using PF2. And that's including APs. The same stories just cannot be told.


Zaister wrote:
What's that with this Angel Summoner reference? Is this something American that I don't get because I'm European?

They're referring to this, a comedy sketch.


Personally, I don't see issue with casters using weapons at low levels; that's fine and not really a problem at that point. I'd say that there's definitely a problem with the relative lack of third actions for casters later on other than metamagic however. And metamagic's not going to be applying to every spell.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:

I don't understand. This fight sounds awesome. You guys barely made it despite being heavily weakened by the loff of 2 players. 7 rounds is not a long time at all. That sounds like an epic victory.

Quote:
But encounters where the PCs spend 9 rounds doing the same thing over and over and over again because that is literally the best thing they can do is absolutely horrible.
Quote:
Final hits v misses were 9/11 for the brain collector (81%) and 12/46 (26%) for the party.

I feel like you missed this completely.

Of course that wasn't fun. A 26% hit rate overall for the players is the kind of thing that feels terrible; it just feels like a slog in play, especially with declining to-hit chances. That's the kind of thing that gets you "did I roll 15+? No? Pass." and tuned-out players all around the table.

There's a difference between "difficult and exhilarating" and "difficult and 'just end it already'". Difficult, barely-squeak-by fights are not inherently fun. They certainly can be, definitely; I've had more than a few! But, they have to be kept from becoming a hopeless or 'bs' encounter. Having it feel like you can actually do something in the encounter is generally a good way to combat that. Effectively missing 34 times, while the boss casts mirror image repeatedly, probably didn't promote that feeling this time unfortunately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Two characters with absolutely identical choices can be role played completely differently.
I would consider that a near-fatal flaw in a game system.

Why...?

I'm actually curious why you would think this.

Individual players are always going to add their own flair to character, even when they have made the exact same mechanical choices.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To be frank... a blog post about saving on word count isn't really what I would have liked to see as the weekly post, even limiting to just the topic of organization in the document.

Even if it is repetitive, I think it would be better to keep the current format over having yet another thing that requires flipping through the book to find a rule. There's already far too much of that in the Playtest document. I really can't say I think that another new bit of terminology is a good thing


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, the fact that Wild Order gets Intimidate as a signature skill still confuses me. Yeah, it fits a bit with the idea of a feral druid, but that's not every wildshaper. As pointed out above, you already want Str, Con and Wis; even with the new stat ups, adding Cha to that group can be difficult. Not to mention you probably want a little bit of Dex early to boost your AC out of shapeshifting, as Pest Form is a terrible combat option especially with how high low-level monster attack rolls are!


Jason S wrote:
TheMonkeyFish wrote:
The biggest problem I see with this, is the fact that we are already giving up Point Buy stats for something weaker, unless we build optimally for a 16/14/12/12/10/10 stat build before racial modifiers. 18/16/14/12/10/10 after racial modifiers.

Well, humans only have 2 ability boosts and no one complains.

That's not actually a point...? Humans have one fewer boost in both PF2e and 1e compared to other races/ancestries in exchange for no flaw and boost flexibility. It's a trade-off. And humans got a bonus feat in 1e to top it off, which 2e still has to a lesser degree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Count me in.

1 to 50 of 416 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>