Tholomyes's page

Organized Play Member. 1,295 posts. 1 review. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 1,295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
I'm not sure if this was in the playtest, but here Jason mentioned that "since you're Trained, you can only aim for the lowest DC, which is 15" (paraphrase, but accurate and I think pretty close to exactly how he said it). So it sounds like increasing proficiency allows you to attempt higher DCs (presumably for more healing).

I just watched episode 3, but one thing I noticed is the "but that's all you can do for right now" after the treat wounds was done. I don't know if that's just due to the circumstances, given what happened next, or not, but it seems that maybe, as opposed to the playtest, the treat wounds ability bolsters the target for some period of time (just speculation, but probably less than the 1 day that the critical fail of the playtest had). So maybe this is a change from the latter days of the playtest, in that mundane healing (and again speculation, but possibly other 10 minute activities) is limited by time, more than just the time required for the activity (speculation, again, but I'd wager maybe, whether it be healing or regaining focus spells, ow what not, it might be once an hour, or something like that?)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting notion, but I worry that it might bog down play, as if a failure does nothing but require an extra roll, and maybe waste time if you're on a clock, statistically you're going to have fairly frequent strings where the player doesn't roll a 1 and doesn't roll a success, many times in a row (and that's just assuming you only need 1 success, or that each success gives some sort of discrete benefit). Dice pool systems often actually function on a similar notion (though not entirely the same), but they have the benefit that you're rolling at once, so getting a success or consequences is something that only requires one roll to see, which keeps the game flowing, and keeps the tension of the dice.

HWalsh wrote:

I beg to disagree. The untrained skill penalty is -4.

"Anything that isn't legendary is terrible!" Isn't true.

In fact from trained to legendary there is only a +3.

From Untrained to Trained is +4.

That. Is. Huge.

That is the single biggest jump in the game.

I'm not entirely sure I disagree entirely, however, the untrained penalty of -4 isn't necessarily comparable to the trained to legendary jump, due to the fact that the DCs tend to guarantee a certain base success rate based on level. Even discounting the imbalance with the DC math, respective of level, the -4 only ensures likely success in checks that are so easy as to be ignorable to most of the party. Meanwhile a success check based on trained, compared to the same check based on Legendary is more influential, simply because the checks that are viable for an untrained character are largely inconsequential, while the difference between legendary and trained will largely make themselves known on more consequential checks. Even ignoring the DC table, this will still have this effect, assuming DCs aren't so out of whack that most checks are either almost guaranteed, or unmakable by normal PCs.

Bardarok wrote:
As a general idea I like it. I was thinking something along the lines of regaining spell points in a short rest might be good as well though with the focus changes I don't know if that makes sense or not.

It'd probably involve some re-rebalancing of items, but honestly, I think it actually would work better with the focus changes. There probably needs to be some sort of balancing act there, as there are certainly ways to cheese the system, but with the reduced amount of focus, both for items (as even splitting resonance out into it's own thing, the gain due to level means this new system will have less "free" resonance to be used to power items) and spell points (1 or 2 + Cha is going to be less for most characters than Main stat + Number of other powers), not to mention the combination of the two, a way to get back focus seems ideal.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Charisma: Areas of influence - 3

1. Charisma deals with 2 skills.

2. Charisma deals with Focus. (formerly resonance)

It's worth noting that Charisma's two skills have very useful combat abilities - Feint and Demoralize. I'd put them above most of Athletics's Combat Maneuvers (Trip being the possible exception).

It's also worth noting that Charisma's two skills are actually four skills.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Barizac wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
They could just call it attunement like 5e since most potential new PF players would be coming from 5e anyways. Say you can attune to up to 10 items in a day, attunement takes 10 minutes and is an assumed part of your daily preparations.

I think the problem with calling it attunement is because that's ripping off 5e in a very blatant way.

Pathfinder at it's core is a DnD spin off I don't see a problem with using similar language to refer to the same concept between games. In fact I think it would be good. They already use a lot of the same words for similar game mechanics: Proficiency Bonus, Spell Slots, Hit Points. It's a genre thing so no need to arbitrarily rename things.

I'm no lawyer, but all those terms were things in the OGL. Attunement is new to 5e, thus not part of the OGL. Seems like there could be issues there.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Because the failed save calls out "full damage of each damage type," it would be 2d10 of each, for a total of 4d10.

Thankfully, because otherwise it'd be awful for a 5th tier power.

It would indeed be awful, but I'm not entirely convinced, given how another Bloodline power, Dragon Claws, specifically calls out the 1d4s as separate (though that also has the issue of whether the counting as +1 weapons means both d4s increase, or just one). I'm not entirely unconvinced either, as dragon claws has the benefit that only one of the damage types is variable, but I think this is a place where revision for clarity would be advisable.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of this I think is fair, but I wouldn't say almost nothing was done. I think the move away from resonance (or focus) for crafting is a big boost, but that really just speaks to how far the Alchemist needed to be boosted initially, as all this did was put their baseline chassis on par with other characters (at least in a vacuum, ignoring the weakness of alchemical items in general). A number of the issues, I think could be solved by moving away from bonus types, as others have suggested, and implement a "3 best sources of bonus/3 worst sources of penalties" system and maybe even having some of the always-on boosts, like weapon and armor potency, not count as a bonus under this schema, but that still doesn't cover the fact that, as mentioned, a lot of these items still feel like cantrip level benefits. Maybe the best solution for that would be that invested alchemical items act as if the user spent focus, but even so, I'm not convinced that's entirely enough.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WhiteMagus2000 wrote:

A really amusing scenario would be when a high level player fails to roll a DC 30 to climb a tree, only to watch a child climb it a few minutes later.

Player: "What? How did he roll a climb check of 30?"
GM: "Well, he's only level 1, the DC is 11 for him and he rolled a 13."

Well then, it's a good thing PF2e doesn't work like that. Like, at all.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Greg.Everham wrote:
Tholomyes wrote:
I'm worried that making Powers use focus instead of spell points will have a strange effect on the game, especially if the powers are getting buffed, where you will either see casters who never really use interesting items, because items without focus point investment are (understandably) weakened, and they want to save their focus for their powers, or you'll see the opposite way around where maybe some item effect is stronger than their powers, and they never use their Powers. Is this necessarily bad? I don't know, but it does seem odd. At least for monks, this feels like a good change (except for the Cha base not necessarily gelling, but the meditating to recover focus does intrigue me), since I could see Ki powers tuned such that item benefits are less competitive, leading to a viable ascetic monk feel, but for other classes, I'm a bit worried.
Good luck being a Dwarf with no Charisma.

Well, keeping a stat at 8 should punish you. I don't really care about that aspect (though admittedly, I might not be opposed to increasing the ancestral Focus from 1 or 2 to 2 or 3), my concern is more on the interaction between Powers and items and how tight a line balance will have to be for those, to prevent one from overwhelming the other.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm worried that making Powers use focus instead of spell points will have a strange effect on the game, especially if the powers are getting buffed, where you will either see casters who never really use interesting items, because items without focus point investment are (understandably) weakened, and they want to save their focus for their powers, or you'll see the opposite way around where maybe some item effect is stronger than their powers, and they never use their Powers. Is this necessarily bad? I don't know, but it does seem odd. At least for monks, this feels like a good change (except for the Cha base not necessarily gelling, but the meditating to recover focus does intrigue me), since I could see Ki powers tuned such that item benefits are less competitive, leading to a viable ascetic monk feel, but for other classes, I'm a bit worried.

John Mechalas wrote:

One thing I wouldn't want to do is invalidate a fighter's AoO ability simply by letting people pay a "difficult terrain" cost.

I see suggestions that players be given the choice of moving through a threatened square at full vs/ half speed, but then that becomes a cheap way to invalidate a feat. And, it defeats the intent of threatened squares in the first place. Make it optional, and once you figure out the opponent has no AoO then we are back to the original state of moving around the battlefield with no penalties. The reason I suggested threatened squares count as difficult terrain was to cut down on mobility with impunity, not to give people an option to get out of AoO's.

I do, however, like the idea of a "Disrupt" reaction that is available to everyone, which does no damage but interferes with potions and scrolls. I think that's much better than what I had in mind.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the suggestions, but I don't think anyone was suggesting difficult terrain as an Alternative to AoOs, for those who get access to it, but that classes that don't get AoOs still have some of the benefits of AoOs, by virtue of limiting movement, due to difficult terrain. My assumption though, it that classes that get AoOs, in some form or another, still get AoOs as normal, but that threatened areas also count as difficult terrain (I.e. if you try to move past a fighter, you trigger an AoO, and moving past anyone, including the fighter, but also other non-AoO enabled characters, counts as difficult terrain). If this is perhaps too powerful, I could see maybe there could be the choice, on the fighter's side as to whether to have the enemy provoke an AoO or have the enemy have to move through their threatened squares as difficult terrain, but even in such a suggestion, it'd be fighter's choice, not enemy's choice. But I haven't seen anyone suggest that the choice between provoking and moving with difficult terrain be the mover's choice, unless I'm misinterpreting things.

Focus is supposedly going to be tied to Charisma, but it was kind of confusing for how it would work, since they also said spell point casters would have something different going on, but I don't know if that means they'll get something like the Alchemist's "Replace [X stat] for Cha for Focus" or getting flat extra focus, or adding [X stat] in addition to Cha, so it's yet to see if it's actually worth it any more.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Focus, for instance, essentially combines Spell Points and Resonance*. I'd propose taking it a step further and folding Hero Points in as well. This would include removing the Out of Character methods for gaining Hero Points.

My worry with this is that you'd never see anyone use those points for Powers or Item activations, for the same reason that Hero Points rarely are used for anything other than not dying. Now this is partially due to the cost of the other options, but also this shows up with Resolve points in Starfinder, from what little I've played of it, where you only use it for staving off death and recovering Stamina, and not really for the class resolve point abilities.

ChibiNyan wrote:
only 1 caveat on the difficult terrian thing: It only applies after entering the threat range. It shouldn't take extra movement to just approach when you want to attack.

I think a reasonable rule, in such a case, would be "if you are in a threatened area, all areas within the threatened area of that creature are difficult terrain" or, alternatively, if you want to minimize the issue of moving between two threatened areas that might have some overlap "if you are in a threatened area all areas within the threatened area of that creature that are not within the threatened area of a creature that is not already threatening you, are difficult terrain" to prevent corner-case situations, where you can't step to a nearby target when an enemy isn't between you and the target (though that might be unnecessary, except in extremely movement restricted situations, in which case the first rule might actually be more reasonable).

On the issue of increasing dice vs increasing flat damage, I think that both are, if not equally problematic, probably both less than ideal. I personally think I prefer PF2e's more dice solution over 1e's bigger static numbers solution, not because I like rolling more dice, but because it's closer to an equivalent ratio of damage over levels. That said, it's still not ideal, because I think it overly emphasizes greatswords, ect, over smaller weapons, as level increases. Perhaps the best solution would involve having +weapons be static damage increases, while extra dice come from some other source, be it weapon quality or some innate benefit, such that maybe a d12 weapon is always about 1.4-1.6x the damage of a d6 weapon, depending on the user's investment into strength, as opposed to growing, fairly easily to nearly double that damage, as it currently stands, or growing nearly inconsequential as 1e did it.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Isn't the thing about the ECB that it's really quite long and thus awkward to carry? Falchions are pretty compact.

Falchions are also, IRL, one handed weapons, so it's hard to really get a grasp on what they're supposed to be like in Pathfinder. I never pictured them as that compact, simply because otherwise I couldn't find them convincing as two handed (or at least some form of hand-and-a-half), over one handed.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Using a Bow, and being able to realistically wield one without being entirely handicapped are two different things. It's quite clear this falls into the latter scenario.

I find this part kinda hilarious because that's one of the things that PF2 got rid of. Anyone can use a bow fine as long as you have training. You don't need to spend 2 feats right off the bat just to not fire with a -4.

And honestly I think you can probably make a pretty sweet paladin build with bows. Here I'll build one for you:

16 str 16 dex.

Use a composite shortbow and take blade ally (doesn't specify it has to be a melee weapon.)

Take either hospice knight or a domain for your first level feat your choice.

Multiclass fighter and get the point blank shot stance then upgrade to a longbow.

Get blade of justice at level 6 (2e version of smite evil)

And then spend the rest of your feats as you see fit either on utility paladin feats or on more fighter feats to increase your combat ability.

Will you be able to use your retributive strike at all? Nope, but right now that ability is really underwhelming and is probably going to be changed in some way in the core rulebook. And really, it doesn't matter much. I ran a playtest game with a shield based paladin and he didn't have the opportunity to use it once but he was still pretty happy with the paladin.

That seems like a pretty viable build. You do lose out on some stuff if you decide not to wear heavy armor, which will net you lower AC because of max Dex bonuses but being a ranged character is just such an advantage you're probably still well off even without those features.

you lost as soon as you multiclassed. You cannot build a bow paladin.

Step 1) Take Paladin.

Step 2) Pick up Bow.

Um... Guys, I think I made a bow Paladin. Not that complicated.

Elleth wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do really like the essences too, and part of that is that it makes it pretty easy to add the other 2 lists (Vital/Mental and Spiritual/Material) since you just populate it with all of the single essence spells that fit which already exist then invent a handful of spells which combine the two essences.

So to flesh out any list as unique (including the occult one) all you need is more spells which involve two different essences.

I feel like Vital/Mental would be my favourite list, but I'm having trouble imagining what it could be other than weird pseudoscience stuff.

Vital/Mental, if it existed, I could see as some form of Psionics, particularly like the egoist from 3.5 or the vitalist from Dreamscarred. For Spiritual/Material, I want to say Ki, just for the sake of the fact that it's allowed to count as divine or occult, based on player preference, but honestly it's probably just Spiritual/Vital, but from a completely different perspective than divine magic, for the most part. It's hard for me to piece together what it might be though, as spiritual is about the (literally and metaphorically) ethereal, where as physical is about, well, the physical, and it's hard to see where those intersect. They are supposed to be opposite points on the same axis, so it makes some sense, though the fact that vital/mental is also supposed to represent opposing points, but is fairly easy for me to come up with an explanation for makes it a bit stranger to puzzle through.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The more I think about it, the more I don't want to see Hero Points in this form in the game. I love Hero Points, but there's a problem with them in that, the game has to fundamentally work without them, or else they just become another resource to manage, but one more prone to fiat. Where Hero Points work best is when they're not really a resource, but something that's part cooperative storytelling aid, part currency for RAW-bending, allowing for minor alterations to scenes or a way for the GM to say "Sure, you can do it... for a Hero Point" and as a way to reward good RP, or as a consolation for GM fiat. This isn't to say that it can't have defined mechanical benefits, like rerolls or whatever, and in fact I think it's better if it does have such benefits, if only to peg their value to something more concrete, or allow the player to influence climactic story moments in a way outside their character's mechanics or the whim of the die, but tying them too close to the mechanics of the game creates a situation as highlighted in this thread: If Hero Points allow for an effect as strong as staving off death, then in order to get the sense of danger the designers want, they have to make things deadlier, which results in more hording of Hero Points.

Now, personally, I'd be fine allowing hero points to be used to stave off death, if they weren't assumed to be standard, since the game would have to be benchmarked to a certain level of danger assuming no hero points, as opposed to that level with hero points, which means they'd be less likely to be hoarded for that purpose (essentially this is how Hero Points worked with my group in 1e, where in the playtest, everyone's pretty much expecting to go down at least once, and even saving Hero Points for when you hit dying 4, they're still far more likely to be necessary for that purpose that everyone hoards them). Not entirely sure how I'd fix them. I don't think the proposed solutions here really solve the core of the problem. Maybe the best fix would just be to put them in the book, but keep them optional (and maybe even then, rework the costs, as well), but I feel like there can be a better solution, and I just can't think of it.

Voss wrote:

It can be simple as every 4 or 5 levels or whenever the WBL currently assumes you'll get another +.

Based on how the monsters are designed, it shouldn't be hard to place when damage upgrades are required. And this way the DM doesn't need to hand deliver a cart full of exactly the right weapon types that match what the current party uses.

I don't really have a horse in the ABP race, since it does some things I conceptually like and others I'm more hesitant on, but I will say that 2e already effectively solved the latter issue, due to runes, and their transferability between items. So the GM doesn't need to drop a +2 Gnome Flickmace in a scenario where it wouldn't make sense, the PC just needs to transfer that +2 to their existing item.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GRuzom wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Tridus wrote:


5e's playtest had a lot of issues early on, too. It worked out pretty well in the end.
Yeah, and 5e had something like two years and two months between initial playtest release and final release. PF2E is getting what, like a year or so?
Maybe they should postpone the release? Alpha AND Beta test. I don't think that a rushed edition will do anyone any good.

I don't doubt that that would produce a better game, but you have to acknowledge that with 5e, they had Hasbro bankrolling them, and for Hasbro, WotC is far more lucrative from MTG than D&D, so waiting a bit on 5e is more viable, since they didn't need to worry about return on investment as much, both because their investment was smaller relative to their total income, and because their gains from that investment could be weighed against the opportunity cost of releasing the system earlier.

Now, Paizo has stated that they're not in a state where they need a bump from 2e, or that they can't delay if need be, and I believe them at that, but I also know that without a wealthy bankroller, it's harder to justify a longer term investment in a system, even if that investment might have some pay off. Essentially it comes down to a question of the ratio between total customers if they launch Gen Con 2019 vs launching Gen Con 2020. As a player, I'd certainly prefer the latter, assuming that comes with a more refined system, but for Paizo, I can see the former being more valuable, assuming that they can get the system to be reasonably good at launch, and expandible for future supplements.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

It would be nice if enemy threatened areas always at least counted as difficult terrain even in the absence of AoO. The way PCs and monsters just move everywhere with impunity and no one can stop them or control the battlefield in any way whatsoever is upsetting.

that does sound nice, but i feel that in cases where you do have access to AoO it would be too much since you couldn't even 5ft step to avoid the AoO.

Basically, AoO would be a guaranteed +1 attack, making 2 feats in fighter dedication almost mandatory for all marital builds.

At that point, you may as well remove the Step action from existing, since it would fundamentally offer absolutely nothing.

You can Step out of difficult terrain, just not into difficult terrain. So you could still get out of a threatened area just fine, it'd just mean you couldn't easily get past someone who has an AoO, or move as easily to flank them. And to me that's fine. I don't think this makes AoOs any more or less attractive to characters who don't get them naturally, as the places where this will come up most often, such as an enemy rushing past a character to reach a squishier ally, already will provoke. The main thing this does is make it so every character will get some of the benefits of AoOs as far as limiting enemy movement, and making flanks less automatic but not entirely create the staticness of 1e combat.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mostly agree, though I think skill feats are still good for the game, and would not like to lose them (but, maybe have them and skill increases be earned at the same time, for some of the reasons you mention). But I had a similar notion of removing Ancestry feats past 1st level, and replacing them with archetype feats, which I personally feel is a better way of doing things (and ancestry archetypes could exist that let you get what are now higher level ancestry feats, and possibly things that even push the power level even further, not being bound to the power of an ancestry feat).

Vali Nepjarson wrote:
If this sort of system was in place, what kind of Archetypes would people like to see?

Likely not for a bit, until an Inner Sea Gods book comes out, but I think it'd be neat to have a fighting style archetype for each deity, that focuses not only on their signature weapon, but on the way the deity's specific style impacts their use of the weapon.

Aashua wrote:
I feel like a decent bit of wind was lost from the sails when the primary general archetype added was pirate for the playtest (mostly cause it has you replacing way to many class feats with what are basically super niche skill feats, no matter how bad I want to make a mug rougue in the vain of final fantasy.)

I've had a couple ideas on how to solve this issue, that hopefully they'll work out by launch: First, make archetype feats not bound to class feats, that way the things like rope runner or sea legs can require that you've picked up the pirate dedication, but be taken with skill feats (though probably they'd still need buffing, since they're still super niche). The second option would be that these niche skill bonuses get combined with a less niche (likely combat) ability, so you get the benefit of feeling like a skilled Pirate (or whichever archetype) when it comes up, but when it doesn't it's still worth a feat, for the most part.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

By RAW, it seems it costs 2 Resonance, since that wasn't specified as changed in the update. So while it's a stupid rule, as currently written, it still does cost 2 RP. That said, costing 0 RP is the reasonable read of this, if you assume this was just a missed errata, and is how I'd run it, but yeah, this is something that should be definitely clarified in 1.5.

Shisumo wrote:
b) largely because I was enfeebled 5 from the ****ing [redacted]s, and for some super-weird reason enfeebled affects even spell attacks and spell damage. In earlier fights I had switched to ranged touch attacks when an enemy proved adept at saves, but that -5 penalty made that a non-starter, and the -5 damage meant that the damage was already pretty terrible even before the half damage from the save...

Just a minor note, but the -5 penalty should have been a -4 for the attack rolls (according to this citation from Mark Seifter). Granted, your point in general is valid, and maybe this means [redacted] should be changed, as I think the way its effect works can be super penalizing, but I think this is more an area where expected hit rates should probably change, so a -4 to attacks is a major detriment, but not quite as punitive.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

If you make any character under the current rules you will always have an 18 in one stat at first level.

Setting aside that none of this applies to NPCs, this isn't any more true in PF2 than PF1. You can absolutely build below an 18 at first level. It may not be advisable, but you can keep yourself from getting anything above a 14 if you determined enough.

PF1 characters tended to average an 18 in a stat at level 1, at least if they were at all SAD. You might have gotten a higher percentage of folks building below 18, but you also got lots of people min maxing and dump statting to get above 18.

This is a game of fantasy heroes. Let them be heroic.

Of course, but I don't think having all scores being 16+ necessarily makes one more heroic. I would prefer if the rate of advancement was just toned down a notch.
I wasn't trying to comment on the general rate of advancement, just what characters look like at level 1. Those are pretty separate things in my mind.
I generally like a cap of 17, after modifiers, for 1st-level characters. A 20 seems rather high for a 5th-level character. I know in previous editions you are able to start with a 20, depending on whether you roll or use point buy, I just prefer a slightly lower start. In AD&D, you really need higher scores (15+) to gain any benefit, but in the d20 system, a 12 Str is like a 17 Str.

How can you get a 20 at 5th level? The max you can have at 1st is 18, and that 5th level boost bumps it up to 19. You have to be level 10 to get a 20 in a score, and to me that's just fine.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
On this note - I'm also not sure why Arcane is the only spell list that cannot heal. I'd have been okay if Occult couldn't heal except for Bards who sing a healing song.

To me, I can see two reasons:

a) Tradition, Wizards have never been able to heal, at least easily. As much as I'm usually somewhat dismissive of Tradition as a reason for things, this is one place that it would bug me if wizards got an easy (non-ritual, for instance) healing spell. I guess I contain multitudes.
b) Arcane has traditionally, and still is, to some (although a slightly lesser) degree, been good at most things to do with what the conception of "magic" is to most people. Having it contain all of that, as well as something that has been traditionally the domain of non-wizards creates some ripple effects in what a spell list aught to be (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's something that should likely be designed from the outset).

As for why Occult gets Healing? If I had to guess, I'd say that moving the Bard to Occult, and likely the Witch as well, if my guesses are correct, resulted in them splitting the difference with existing occult casters (not quite half of whom get healing abilities), to grant a weaker healing spell to their list. Personally, I'd be fine with having a healing song, or a healing hex (for the witch), and other occult casters either losing their extant healing abilities (if they had them) or getting them similarly through class abilities, but I can see a degree of thematic association that's hard to describe other than with some of the intratextual insinuations that outside of certain hedge-witch stuff, witchy healing is seen as unnatural, which ties to the unknowable nature of occult, as contrasted to the knowable, almost metaphysically complete notion of Arcane. Or at least that's how my mind has rationalized it.

I've never really felt Tower Shields that important in my games, but I do think maybe something, as ErichAD says, like Portable cover might work, though it might involve some negatives to account for that, which I hope aren't simply ACP (like always), but something different.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My guess was that there would be some break point where twin takedown got better with two d8 weapons over a d8 and a d6 agile, which it does do at high levels in some corner cases where you get a +4 weapon before you get Masterful Hunter, but since that's such a corner case, (as the treasure table assumes you get that +4 weapon at about the same time as you get Masterful Hunter, and the expected damage benefit is still less than 1 point), it does still seem odd. Especially since, at least to me, if there's any class to dual wield non-agile weapons, it's the ranger.

I'd be fine getting rid of that -2 circumstance penalty, were this not the playtest, as it might be a misprint, but even if it's not it's probably a miscalibration. My gut says it's the latter, as with higher to-hit numbers, which the designers seem to be accounting for, the values are a little higher, in some cases, for the non-agile dual wield, but it's still close enough, that I don't think it's worth the penalty, as any gains in fighting multiple lower level monsters are lost when fighting a big-bad.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
The first Goblin Scuttle was indeed not supposed to be level 9 alongside the follow-up, as you guys guessed.

Follow up Q: Was Goblin Scuttle, then supposed to also retain the bestiary goblins' requirement of a "Goblin ally"? Because, outside of "We Be Goblins" type campaigns, I don't see it as all that common a trigger.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:

The argument of paladins being of alignment extremes is tempting in its simplicity. On the surface, it seems logical.

But the fact of the matter is, a chaotic-evil antipaladin-blackguard-whatever is such an unplayable concept that I doubt it's worth the time to develop it or the pagecount to print it.

Unplayable, perhaps (at least in most cases), but that hasn't stopped page counts being spent on it before, and at least for folks who like using NPCs built as PCs (or at least layering on some PC features, which is more my take), it can be useful. Maybe though, more like something 5e did, where they kept their Antipaladin in the DMG, so as not to crowd the PHB, PF2e could keep it in a supplement. And Honestly, I wouldn't really mind if they did something like make a base class of "Champion" or whatever, and have the only PHB option be the Paladin, and have all other options be in supplements, if page space is an issue, just so long as they design it in such a way that it's easy to fit other class-ideals in the place of the LG Paladin.

Though, again, if there's anything I'm most concerned with, it's that Deity-Free is an option (Second most would be that the "Iconic" vision of antipaladin becomes more to the LE corner, rather than CE, as that's far more compelling for me, but I'm getting a bit off track)

On the one hand, adding Sense motive back might have the same problems that Perception had in 1e, in that it was the one skill you wanted maxed no matter what, because it was by far the most rolled individual skill. On the other hand, tying it to perception just feels wrong. We haven't seen it much in play, just because there are fewer opportunities for intrigue-heavy sessions in the playtest, but every time it does come up, it bugs me a bit. Maybe with the smaller skill list it could be more balanced, especially if they manage to balance what is opposed by sense motive, what is opposed by perception, and what is opposed by Will DC.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, there's nothing in here that I don't generally think is a good change, but it does still feel a little too lite a touch if this were the way that ancestries are to change for the final version. Maybe some of my problems are that this is a more extendable system, and I won't get a good grasp on how valuable this change really is, until we see more of that extension. On the flip side, not seeing the full effects of it after a couple supplements or so make me worried that it's hard to gauge how well the new framework works until it's too late.

Edit: Also, goblin scuttle seems a bit too situational. With PCs, outside of "We Be Goblins" type scenarios, I'm not really sure how likely having two goblins in a party will be. Hell, we haven't even had one yet, and as a group we aren't really negative on Goblins as PCs, just sort of ambivalent.

IMO, I like General feats, as they provide the area for feats that are just kind of boring, but necessary, like weapon/armor proficiency, toughness, and others which will come either in the CRB or in later suppliments, and having that room, or the room to take extra ancestry feats or skill feats with them means you'll always have an option for something more interesting, if you don't need any of the boring but necessary feats.

I think there are valid points to what you say, especially that skill feats could be beefed up, but I think the biggest issue is that General feats shouldn't be the only choice at the levels you get them (same, probably with ancestry feats, though 1.4 might change that for me). If you look at them through the lens of being your one main point of differentiation at 3rd/7th/ect levels, they're very underwhelming, but I could see a better approach, involving a change to archetypes, perhaps becoming more akin to expanded backgrounds (i.e. maybe a Wilderness Guide, who gets bonuses to tracking and assisting others in environmental challenges), and having those be the off-level main feats, in addition to the general/ancestry feats, much in the same way that class feats are the even-level main feats, supplemented with skill feats. It'd mess with MC archetypes a little, but maybe archetypes could still provide class feat options as well, which could only be chosen with your class feats, not archetype feats, but this way, I think it'd allow you to make meaningful character choice at each level, while still allowing for the boring necessities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For skills, I'd be perfectly happy doubling the bonus, but I think attacks and saves should stay as they are, both because those are hard to have much input in how you raise them (which is another thread entirely), and that they occur far more frequently. With the law of large numbers, the variance of a d20 will go mostly away on common checks, leaving each +1 feeling generally impactful, but on rarer checks, the variance of the d20 is a higher proportion of the overall success variance (or to put it another way, proportion of success is a good predictor of attack chance, but a poor predictor of skill chance). Once again, I think this is something where one system is trying to do too much, resulting in the choice between either overly wide bonus range on attacks and saves, or overly narrow bonus range on skills, or just admitting that elegant math that makes the system slightly easier to learn won't necessarily make the game as compelling to stick with. I know what I think of which of those three is the best.

Gratz wrote:
Lyee wrote:
I think so, yes, especially after today's heritage update if they get it right.
Will we even get a update today, considering offices are closed?

On the stream, they said that they'll be working to get it out today, at least according to Jason second-hand from Mark. That said, even if the designers are working while the offices are closed, that doesn't mean the tech-people will be, so it might just be up to whether or not the website cooperates.

I'm not sure it would work moving everything to encounter, but there could be some interesting ways to do this on a more limited scale. Like maybe "You can spend 10 minutes to regain a spell slot of X levels lower than the highest spell you can cast. You may do this only once per hour" or something like that (maybe Spell Points could also work/work better). I do like the dynamic provided with some limited per-encounter abilities, as it allows for some sustained gas in the tank, so to speak, while not being too easy to trivialize days with a low number of encounters or other spell-necessitating tasks.

I fear, however, given 4e's use of them, it would cause some backlash, even if unearned. 4e's problem, at least for me, wasn't that it used the AEDU system, or even that every class used AEDU, but that the structure was too focused on "this is an ability which is an attack that does X damage and Y effect" for every ability. But to some it seems that it's hard to separate the mechanics or conventions 4e used with the reasons those mechanics or conventions provided a poor experience, so I'm not sure it'd be accepted positively. Maybe in 10 years when PF3e comes out, it'll have been long enough that it won't be a contentious issue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
Alternatively, take Alchemical Crafting and do the Bruce part via skill progress / feats. Hulk doesn't need an intimidate build, Hulk smash.

Yeah, that's how I'd go. A few years back, I made comics characters as 1e gestalts, and while alchemist/barb worked back then, with the new skill feat system, I think you could just go fully Barb, and use skill feats to make it work, especially with the changes to mutagens.

Dasrak wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Even without the adding a hand action tax, bastard swords are still overpowered and need to be reworked. They're currently both a longsword and a greatsword, with the only downside over either is that they aren't Versatile P.
To be completely fair, "Versatile P" is just a terrible ability, so the longsword and greatsword are in somewhat sad situations right now even without the bastard sword hogging the glory.

There is, in fact, just one (uncommon) creature in the playtest bestiary where Versatile P actually benefits you, and without metagaming the knowledge on that it is more vulnerable to piercing than slashing, it effectively does nothing. Now the playtest bestiary isn't as comprehensive as the release bestiary, not to mention when Bestiary 2+ get released, but still, I agree that I'd like to see them find some way to boost longswords and greatswords, without necessarily penalizing bastard swords (which I'm unsure of how they fair, overall, given that I'm not sure whether the two handed aspect is more situational than Sweep, for instance. It might be a little above the curve, but I don't have much more than gut feeling to back that up).

My wonder is how domains would have to shift, in the notion that they're the logically closest to a path that the class has (maybe deities could be more, but it'd be kind of hard to do that, for games that don't use the Golarion setting). But otherwise I think this could be neat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belisar wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Belisar wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
I guess this particular concept is not so tough in PF2, but I think it would feel like a pretty garbage character. If I want to get faster crossbow reload on a cleric it's gonna be a mess and will probably lose most cleric abilities in the way.
This is because clerics are not mainly about being expert sharpshooters? It is doable but it tied to costs. Wanting to be as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character all the same sounds like a contradiction. At least if you create a cleric with a fighter multiclass archetype you do not lose any spell progression like you would by multiclassing in PF1 where you would also forgo cleric class abilities.
I don't feel like "a cleric who can reload a crossbow faster" equals "as good as a single fighter and single cleric, but in one character".
But then I didn't find any feat in the Rulebook to reload quicker than usual for non cleric classes, not even amongst the fighter feats. So why should a cleric be more capable of reloading a crossbow quicker than a dedicated fighter?

The ranger and rogue get running reload, which lets them move and reload in one action. Nothing that makes you able to reload for less than an action, but hey. My personal view is that reducing reload times shouldn't be the route to improve crossbows, but find ways that capitalize on their role outside the 3 attacks per turn dynamic of bows and other weapons (The crossbowman fighter archetype from PF1e did this well by focusing on readied attacks, which is probably where I'd lean on going with this, but there are other options too), but I agree with you that a cleric, even an Abadaran cleric, shouldn't be more capable with a crossbow than a fighter, at least without archetypes. Which is probably where I'd like to see this particular class of things go: in whatever Inner Sea Gods book 2e decides to do, have an archetype for each deity (not specifying that the follower be a cleric, but simply a worshiper of that deity), granting weapon feats for characters based on the deity's favored weapon, in a way that plays up the deity's style in a way that's not just mirroring fighter feats or w/e (Spear dancer, Spear dancing style [because apparently paizo forgot which names they'd used] and bladed brush are good 1e examples, and yes, I played a lot of Shelynites).

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I just wanted to say that the use of unchained here is kind of unwarranted since we aren't really chained to it yet.

True, but I think 'Unchained' still works, because a lot of both unchained and alterations to PF2e operate based on the fact that revisions to the assumptions of the given ruleset (3.x for PFUnchained or PF2e for this) can provide a better play experience due to flaws found in the underlying system. The fact that Unchained relied on a greater timescale and on an established ruleset, does leave me more skeptical of "unchained" varients of PF2e, but this is a case where I think it applies, as I don't see the timescale or ruleset as fundamentally altering the experience of the issue. With other degrees of success systems already in use in PF1e, I can see enough experience to reason that the 2e system has faults in the application of the same system to skills as saves and attacks.

I'm fine if not everyone could be legendary in something. Having the fighter be the only one who can reach peak skill in weapons is fine with me. I do wish there was a little more granularity (maybe, trained, expert, master, supreme, legendary, though Paizo could probably find a better word), and I wish there were more easy ways to get to expert, or even master, but I'm fine if you gate a little, in terms of who can be legendary.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
1of1 wrote:
kpulv wrote:
I'm kinda surprised at how many posts I see talking about how their entire group gave up on the playtest for one reason or another. So far my group has been really digging it and we're excited to transition over to the new system once it becomes fully realized. We're not ultra power gamers or whatever though so maybe that's the difference? I guess I'm just not seeing what the major hang ups are other than the fact that we only have a single playtest rule book so far and not 10+ books of expansions. If people are looking for maximum customization of the most esoteric character concepts possible, the core system that exists in the playtest so far looks ripe to enable that with time.

Oddly enough, my group just gave up back on Sunday. The stated reason was that they only get one day a week to do much of anything, so they would rather play a finished game on their day off. Most of them weren't keeping up with the errata, and they weren't really interested in doomsday dawn's episodic nature.

We're not ultra power gamers or whatever though, so maybe that's not the difference. There are just too many unpolished rough edges that kept snagging us after so many years playing PF1, so we're just going to go back to that. Oddly enough, our first burnout was the noob, who had just joined us a few months before the playtest, rather than the stoggy old guard.

Oh well, back to our diesel punk necropocalypse game. Here's to hoping I can convince them to try again when PF2 gets a little older, eh?

Your response seems to exemplify the perspective of people who probably were never really contemplating the idea of an actual playtest. They maybe just thought they were playing a new game. But playtesting is about testing a system that is consciously not complete, and major mechanics and balance are in flux. This is not a relaxing drive on the scenic route, it is destruction testing an engine & transmission whose design & parameters are almost certainly broken, the point being to...

Yeah, I think all of our group would rather just be playing PF1e (especially one player who actually likes the new rules possibly best of all of us, but hates the disjointed nature of Doomsday Dawn), but it's sort of a value proposition for us: Do we ride out the playtest, so we can make 2e better for us in the long term, or play something more fun? I think we're mostly on the former, but playtesting is rough stuff, especially when rules change every other week, and we don't know whether the next rules change will shift that balance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think logistically saving throws being done the way they are works best, as lets say a monster AoEs the party, you don't have to roll 1 attack for each party member sequentially, all players can roll at the same time. And with a party member AoEing monsters, it'll be the same number of sequential rolls either way, just differs if it's that player or the GM. Granted, player always rolls does the same thing, it's just less of a unified mechanic, which could be a negative point against it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Here's my thing on flexibility re: PF2e.

The playtest has vastly, VASTLY less flexibility than PF1e. No question, not even the slightest debate there.

However, the playtest - just the playtest, mind you, not even the full core rules - does seem to have greater flexibility than the PF1e core rulebook.

And that gives me a lot of positive feeling about the direction of the system and the amount of flexibility it will eventually have.

That is actually a really good point. Archetypes for example didn't come along until much later. It's just that - having seen how archetypes are proposed to work in the playtest rules - it seems that PF2 is looking to cut back significantly on that flexibility that we'd all gotten so used to.

If the playtest had said something like 'archetypes aren't ready yet but they'll work similar to PF1' that would have been fine. But they did include them, and they're nothing like PF1.

(Although I realise that to some people that is a distinct plus. I'm just not sure how many people.)

That is, sort of, what they said back before the playtest was released. I think it was more "well we know classic archetypes work, so we're not putting them in the playtest" presumably for designer time or book space reasons that had to be devoted to new or changed content. They just sort of muddled the waters by also putting something named archetypes in the book, and not just calling them dedications, or something like that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess I'll weigh in:

1. I think they haven't quite gotten this right, in part because I think their focus on ease of learning got a little muddied with elegance in design. Like how every spontaneous caster gets the same number of spells known as spell slots (well, initially, as they changed it so this actually isn't 100% accurate, with the bard having 1 more first level spell known, after the 1.1 update), so they only need one chart, or prior to the removal of signature skills, having the same number of signature skills as base skill choices, so a new player can just opt to choose those as their base skills. But I don't think it solves the ease of learning/play that much. While there were some steps that actually do help with this, like the 3 action system, there's still a lot to learn, arguably more than PF1e, just based on how PF is just by its nature a fairly crunch-heavy game. And on the customization side, I get that it's unfair to compare a game with nearly 10 years of supplements to a playtest version of a CRB, but that doesn't mean there aren't still places where certain abilities seem needlessly siloed in a class, or given as class features, that are only useful to some characters in that class (AoO and better armor proficiency are useless to an Archer fighter, whereas if a Ranger wants to use a Longbow without penalty, they have to MC fighter)

2. I think this, they've accomplished, but it'd be hard not to, assuming it's something desired by the design team, as telling the same stories is fairly easy if you make sure not to do drastic changes like making every caster use PF1e Kineticist mechanics, or removing weapon attacks from the game.

3. Remains to be seen, as the "best ideas" differ from person to person, and this design goal even accounts that the core book might not have all of them. I think some of this is accomplished, such as making the unchained action economy core, or giving all classes class feats, or making skill feats a core part of the game, but without knowing what is on the horizon, it's hard to say whether this is fulfiling the goal.

4. More balanced, sure, but mistuned in places so it doesn't feel like characters "thrive in their defined role" but are just alright if they invest heavily, and fall behind if they don't. Also, I think there's a bit of a design philosophy issue with me, on the notion of 'defined role' as I think Pathfinder is pushing niche protection a bit too hard. I don't think Pathfinder should become classless, or effectively classless, but a big draw in PF1e was playing off type. Most of this is in the niches of combat roles, as a fighter just never would have enough skill points to be a skill monkey, or the like, but Archer Paladins, or the like were still things you could do. I think 1e arguably improved in terms of skill, as skill feats and the removal of signature skills mean The fighter could specialize in stealth and lockpicking and deception (almost) just as well as a rogue.

5. Sure. I don't see many places where this isn't accomplished, except for the nature of any high-crunch game necessitating a little higher of a barrier of entry to those new to the hobby, but even so, it's still probably more accessible than 1e

Having tried several times to wrap my head around Spheres of Power, I think I finally sort of understand it, but I'm unsure whether it would be a good move. Part of the complexity that SoP has, likely has to do with making it play nice with Vancian, and maybe if it were core to the system, it could be made more simple to read and comprehend, but there is a simplicity to just having a list of spells that have certain effects, and maybe have slightly different effects if heightened. And yeah, Pathfinder isn't D&D, and there are actually some places I wish 2e does move even further from D&D on, but SoP seems like better as a 3pp option, and stick with some variant of Vancian.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

So there's an idea I've seen floated around a bunch that PF2 HAS to have tighter math because of the +10/-10 thing making it so that people would be critically succeeding all over the place, and I'm not actually sure that is true. I don't recall the devs saying it specifically, and I pay unusually close attention to the Paizo staff when they talk about the design of PF2.

Yes, if bonuses get higher, critical successes will be more common. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing? Like, if you invest in something enough to not fail at it, you probably will be pretty happy if you critically succeed at it a lot. This is especially true in a system where somethings can only be achieved with a critical result-- I'm looking at disarming and pinning enemies, for example.

I think the reason for the tighter math has been made stated up front-- to reduce the ridiculous disparity you could get within the same party between two characters who invest in the same thing. I think there's room for that to be true and still move the needle in the direction of characters succeeding more often than failing.

The +10/-10 thing DOES make each +1 more valuable, but that doesn't mean you can't have a great bonus. It just means that bonus can be even more awesome. In PF1, by the time you crossed certain thresholds your bonus stopped mattering. If you hit on a 2, the die roll only mattered if you rolled in your weapons crit range. In PF2, if you hit on a 2, that means you crit on a 12 and that is exciting.

I don't know that the Paizo has the needle in the right place, but I don't think the system itself prevents them from getting it there.

As someone who I think falls into the group of those who think the +/-10 system necessitates tighter math (not that I think this is inherently bad or good), I want to posit something:

If you assume a hit rate of 55%, then +3 to attack bonus is +50%, as if your damage on a successful attack is X, then the damage base is 0.5*X+0.05*2X, for 0.6X, where as with a +3 bonus, it's 0.5X+0.2*2*X for 0.9X. If you assume different hit rates, the impact of each +1 will tend to be lower, as for most hit rates, you reach a value of less than +16.67% for each +1. Now this might not be an issue much, but will deviate from the assumptions of the devs, and might make crits too assumed, or too overpowered, depending on the assumed hit rate. By deviating from the +/-10 system, the assumed hit rate doesn't have to be tied to the effect of crits on their design of monsters.

Now I don't know that they couldn't adjust for monster HP and monster AC, to allow for monsters that are more easily hittable, but take more hits to take down (accounting for the increase in crits), and this is even something I've advocated for, but the longer I've considered this, the more I don't know that tying crit chance and hit chance as a 1:1 ratio is a reasonable option. I don't disagree with some of the posivives, such as ease of play or the value of a +1, but, I don't know that it works best on the whole, in part due to tighter math, and in part due to the values desired by that math.

1 to 50 of 1,295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>