Tridus's page

Organized Play Member. 588 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 588 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
IMO, it has nothing to do with the how wide the gap is: You're ALWAYS going to have one big enough to cause an issue if you try and it'll just get worse as more options come out.

No you won't. You will always have a gap, because if people can make choices some people will make better ones than others. It is in no way set in stone that said gap will be big enough to cause issues. It was just that wain PF1 and it's ancestors because those systems had wild power disparity between options, or even classes.

Hell, we had a guy in the PF1 game I'm in remake a character because his first one was just ineffective in our group. His new, far more effective one? A ranged Slayer with the "standard archery feats everybody has to take to make archery work". Not exactly some broken or OP build. That's how ineffective his first character was. Same guy, no particular attempt to break the game. Wild disparity.

There's all kinds of room to close that up without them being equal. It's not that big a deal if one character is better than another so long as both feel useful and contribute to the group. It is a problem when one character so totally eclipses another that there's a question as to why the second one is even there.

(The d20 system is riddled with those kinds of issues, which is why we need all these social conventions about trying to match power levels to each other in a party.)

quote]If people ignore the social contract and knowingly make characters that don't fit in with the rest of the group, it isn't a game issue...

If the game requires a social contract or it fundamentally breaks because people use the same rules and come up with characters that can't form a functional group due to one being a sword waving guy and the other being a demigod... then that is absolutely a game issue. It's a failure of the game to make such a situation even happen as a standard outcome of following the rules normally.

Maybe you should try 'twinking' out a normally bad/sub-optimal character to make it workable so you can work on na wierd build AND not put out other people as the total power level isn't blown.

That still requires knowing what everyone else is doing, because if he does that and the rest of the table shows up with the most OP things they can make, he's now the one on the wrong end of it. Which isn't better.

You know what I never needed to ask in the playtest? "Hey, are you guys using totally broken builds or low power ones, so I can make something to try and line up?"

That I never had to do that is a huge positive.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
heretic wrote:

Look folks.

You are missing the point.

You can have different flavours of pulp adventures, you can have different flavours of super hero adventures.

When you do pulp superhero stories ala old school superman/batman and the afore mentioned Doc Savage you are dealing with something outwith traditional heroic fantasy even relatively high fantasy.

High jinks and craziness are all par for the course. Being homo superior by level 1 or 6 or 20 isn't.

Anyway as I keep saying we'll see what the final product is like but the fundamental break with tradition that the +1 per level to every thing for every member of the adventurer super species with addition of the UTMEL to differentiate between the supers who have left base humanity so far behind is noticeable and deeply felt.

No, we get the point. We disagree with it. Those are not the same thing.

Right now I'm playing a Cleric who can literally walk on air, conjure enough food for 324 people a day with only a single level's spell slots, banish relatively strong demons to their own plane by uttering a few magic words, imprison a champion of a big bad wielding an artifact sword into my scimitar (true story, was great), bring the dead back to life, and call down literal Miracles. I can do all those things at more or less the same time in one day, and still have enough power left over to wield fire and lightning, heal impossibly grievous injuries, cure nearly any disease, engage in diplomacy with nearly anyone successfully, sing a pretty great aria...

I mean, this isn't an exhaustive list. This is stuff on my spell list from two game sessions ago and a couple of skills that are jacked right up (although I haven't had to feed an entire town lately). And that's not even a particularly powerful character, I built a healer because they're fun. :)

So I mean, if you're trying to say that +1 somehow breaks tradition because PCs aren't world altering forces at high level... my not so optimized Cleric wants to say hi. And so does the God King Wizard who actually did try to become as powerful as possible, because that guy is beyond superhero.

And since they changed it so untrained doesn't get that +1 anymore, my Cleric even gets to keep his comic ineptitude at Stealth!

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Ah! So you're saying we can treat HP as an abstraction rather than actual damage done to your physical body? Excellent.

Going by that line of logic, we can likewise treat AC as an abstraction rather than merely how good at dodging you are in-universe. It's a combination of that, and luck, and plot armor, and a host of other things both in-world and out. Just like HP is.

I mean...what's the difference between a greataxe that hits you for 1/10 your HP and one that misses entirely due to your level-based AC narratively speaking? It's not a large one, and in both cases can be attributed to almost the exact same list of causes.

The argument that somehow level-based HP makes sense while level-based AC does not is what bewilders me, since the same justifications that are used for HP almost universally also work for AC even more easily.

Yep. I'm not sure if you thought I disagreed or was just using my quote to reply to someone else, but I agree with that entirely. :)

Level based AC scaling makes perfect sense if we have level based other stuff scaling (which we do).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
What needs to happen is everyone has to be on the same page. If you're playing a casual game, you know you're a jerk if you hyperspecilize. If you know you're playing a tooth and nail epic fight for the universe, you as much a jerk for bringing in a casual character. If you build a character to actually fit your group, it's not an issue.

In order to know that you're going into a tooth and nail epic fight for the universe and that you shouldn't bring in a "casual character", you need to know that much about the game, and also need enough system mastery to know what a "casual character" is, and how to avoid it.

Anyone relatively new to the game or with low system mastery is incapable of doing that. And that's where the whole mess gets going and the DM has a bunch of extra work to do.

The system mastery power gap in PF1 is massive. It's so huge that it necessitates groups figuring out this stuff in advance, sometimes with players who have no understanding of what the problem even is or what they're supposed to do about it.

It seems to me that a better solution is to reduce the size of the system mastery power gap so that groups don't have to do this, because there's no lack of systems where it isn't necessary but there are still differences between character power. They simply don't allow one person to build Superman while another builds "Varkon the mall cop" and expect them to be in the same group battling the same foes.

The playtest did go a long way to alleviating that.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I really and sincerely do not understand why a 10th level Wizard having a minimum AC of 22 or so is more immersion breaking than them having the 100+ HP they often do in PF2. I am honestly befuddled.

I mean...all the complaints about the lack of realism/explanation for the AC bonus apply even more to increasing hit points, so objecting to one and not the other makes absolutely no sense to me.

I mean, even in PF1 with a Raging Power Attacking 1st level Barbarian critting them for around 57 damage on average, most 10th level Wizards I've seen would survive that. That's a full on greataxe to the face kinda situation, and they're basically fine (indeed, even absent magic, they'll be fine in less than a week). I find them learning to dodge better a lot more plausible than them gaining that level of physical durability ever was.

Seriously, when people can block greataxe blows with their face, other minor feats of superhuman physical prowess seem par for the course.

Because if you go there, you're also going to have to explain why ANYONE can block greataxe blows with their face. Human skulls do not become more durable by training with swords, so there's no logical explanation for why Fighters are more likely to survive a direct headshot from a greataxe than Wizards are. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Which of course, it doesn't have to. HP are an abstraction. Always have been. They have always represented more than how many direct greataxe hits to the face you can take without dying.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, are we talking Fighter feats? Sure. Playtest Fighter feats are generally pretty cool. Lots of them do interesting things. I found more than one I might want to have at some levels. They're an improvement over a lot of feats from PF1 for Fighters.

But that isn't true for all classes. Cleric feats are... not that. So much so that it often makes sense to dump them into getting Paladin feats instead. Because yes, you can make the case that Channel Life is better than all the Cleric feats it costs to get.

Skill feats were all over the map, general feats were largely uninteresting even if they are good (the "add +1 to a thing" feat did exist, it just bumped your proficiency in a save, and Fleet with it's +5 movement was certainly useful but not what I'd call inspired).

I kind of feel like you two are talking past each other simply because you're talking about something so broad that you can both be right at the same time depending on what specific subset you're looking at. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's important that something resembling it exists. That is: Wizards/Clerics have access to a wide variety of spells, can only use so many at one time, and have to generally speaking decide that when preparing for the day, barring scroll/staff usage.

It's been an iconic part of the game for a very, very long time, and by losing it entirely I think you're losing something. That said, there is no requirement that it work exactly the same way, and something like the often discussed arcanist casting (where you pick a set of spells but don't have to assign them to individual slots during prep, so you can cast two Create Food spells without specifically preparing two of them) would make the classes generally more accessable and less prone to being so swingy power wise, without taking away from the setting.

Mostly it just solves stuff like "oh I only prepared one Restoration today and two people got crippling effects, so I guess we're done adventuring for the day despite having all these free slots".

(I also don't think this is the same conversation as the mechanics discussion in the other thread.)

I believe that's correct. Cost may be listed elsewhere. For example, Cleric Domain powers work like that. The Cleric section is what says "all basic domain powers cost 1 spell point, the advanced ones cost the listed amount."

graystone wrote:
For me it isn't the lack of "narrative justification", but the lack of one that explains why EVERYTHING advances at the exact same rate: attacking the same as defending. Mental strength the same as reflexes. Skills the same as all the above...

That's only true if proficiency never changes. When it does, the gap between things grows further.

But even then, there is also no narrative explanation for the inverse: when I'm dodging fireballs all day, why do my reflexes still advance at half the speed of the fortitude I'm never really being tested on?

There's no real narrative explanation that explains those rules either. The rule came first, and the narrative that "oh, Clerics are just bad at dodging fireballs and never really get better at it" followed.

This is not trying to change something at the narrative core of the game at all (as opposed to removing divine magic from the game entirely, which would be a huge narrative shift). Clerics are still worse than Rogues at dodging fireballs in the new setup, and Monks are still better at not getting hit than Wizards. The narrative hasn't changed all that much, and it wouldn't be hard to come up with a narrative explanation for how the new rules work after the fact, exactly like what was done with the old ones.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Those are fair points.

Personally I have a lot of faith in Paizo, and I also strongly feel that the success or failure of PF2e is going to be in the Adventure Paths, which have always been the flagship product. I don't think what PF2e looks like even matters that much as long as Paizo continues to be the only company regularly publishing quality prebuilt adventures.

But I also don't play PFS, so I can't speak to the trepidation there; I can understand worrying about that, though.

This is a topic of discussion a group of us has, if the AP's or adventures are good to excellent but the main system is less than that, will people buy the AP's or adventures? Is there or has there been any example of this from the past? And does it apply today?


Some people will, for sure. Some others will buy and then convert the mechanics to a system they like more. But on the general market, if the system itself is unpopular, content for it tends to not resonate that well. It turns into a problem where even if the AP itself is good, people who don't know that see the system name on the cover and immediately move on. That makes APs a much tougher sell.

Hopefully the system is popular because it makes the whole question moot.n

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluenose wrote:
Megistone wrote:

I don't get why a wizard becoming better at attacking (even physically) is ok, but a wizard becoming better at defending is absolutely not.

The only explanation I can think of is: because it used to be so.
Why does every character become more skilled with their weapons when their BAB increases, including the ones they aren't even proficient in? Why does the spellcaster who never casts a single necromancy spell turn out to be able to cast them perfectly when there's an 8th level one they like? Why does killing goblins make you better at opening locks because you level up and that's where you put your skill point(s)? It's all a great mystery.

The assumption was that during downtime you were practicing whatever you put your skill points into/researching the spells you'd learn/practicing the new feat you got/etc, which handwaved all that away.

Which is fine, and can still do that. There just has never been a justification for "your ability to hit goes up but your ability to avoid being hit doesn't" except "because game mechanics." Which means game mechanics can absolutely change that so they do both improve.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Starfox wrote:
As it is the sorcerer isn't really a viable class. Hopefully, we'll see the sorcerer go through a lot of evolution, including adding multiple beefed-up bloodlines.


I'm a bit skeptical about how well it the divine bloodlines function as written, and to a lesser extent the aberrant bloodline. But the primal and arcane spell lists are great, and any class with access to it is perfectly viable. Having great charisma also makes them amazing with Demoralize as a third action.

Yeah. My wife played a Silver Dragon Sorcerer in Mirroed Moon and loved it, while she was a useful member of the party too. That's pretty good for "not a viable class".

3 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Tridus wrote:
You don't try to balance class power by making the OOC game mechanics obtuse and complicated to use to their full potential. That simply gets you a wide disparity...
I guess I don't see how selecting one's spells at the start of the day as prepared casters do is "obtuse and complicated." It seems fairly simple and straightforward to me.

I think people have described their feelings on that in the other thread. :)

And for those who'd refer not play prepared/Vancian casters, there are numerous spontaneous caster options - oracles, sorcerers, etc.

Those aren't really the same as they move the issue to level up instead, and leave you without the same versatility. I like picking spells, I don't like "well I took X and Y because I thought we were doing one thing, but now we're doing something else so 2/3 of my highest level spell slots don't exist today." With how much magic was nerfed in the playtest, the power level loss caused by that simply hurts too much to make vancian casting tenible for me.

I can handle it more easily in PF1 simply because with so many more spells per day (and generally stronger spells, and less need to heighten things to make them effective, and longer durations, and scaling...), getting one or two wrong simply doesn't hurt as much.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Helmic wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Five months and was there not a single question on whether we should keep or remove Vancian style prepared casting?
I think of all my criticisms of PF2, this was the biggest. I think it had a knock on effect that made every casting class feel subpar.
Personally, I'm very happy they're keeping Vancian casting for prepared spell casters (one of the very few things in what we know about PF2e that I am happy about). For me, it's a fundamental part of D&D writ large.

Except for the most popular version of D&D ever released, by a huge margin?

This next bit is not a criticism of the folks I'm quoting but a more general observation. I find it odd/interesting that there is both concern about the alleged "caster-martial gap" (something that I don't think is all that real) and also unhappiness about Vancian casting which would seem to be a limit on caster effectiveness.

It's not a limit on caster effectiveness. If anything, it enables the disparity in the first place, because it makes caster power so widely variable.

The power spread between a vancian caster played by someone who gets their spell selection perfect and one who doesn't is huge. It's effectively impossible to balance against martials who aren't doing it, because which point do you balance for? If you make a near perfect vancian caster balanced, anyone falling well below that on a given day's spells will be at a severe disadvantage relative to the party. This is where the playtest came closer to, and it made magic feel awful for people who simply didn't get those perfect spell selections.

If you make a suboptimal spell selection what you balance for, then the perfect one becomes far more powerful than everyone else and you have the very problem we've had in the past.

You don't try to balance class power by making the OOC game mechanics obtuse and complicated to use to their full potential. That simply gets you a wide disparity between people playing the same class.

34 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, I hope they don't use Twitch as the primary means of getting information out. The last thing I need is an hour long video to cover something that can be done in 2 minutes of reading.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Repeatedly trying to escape from ropes seems like the sort of thing that would occur in gameplay often enough that it would be good if the rules could handle it. Something along the lines of "natural 20 counts as a +5/+10 bonus rather than auto-success, a certain number of failures / critical failures in a given hour / day fatigues you".

This would make more sense in general. Instead of auto-success, treat it as +10. If that's enough to make it a success, then it is. If not, then you simply can't do it. That'd also push anything that was already a success into crit success territory, so it's working on that front too.

That's fairly elegant, and provides an easily understandable situation of "no, even a nat 20 doesn't let you succeed on a DC 50 check with your +3 modifier" without any DM fiat required.

I mean, how many bloodlines does the CRB really need? This is the type of thing that it's really easy to expand over time, which is what I expect they'll wind up doing.

There won't be any more playtest updates as it's now over. It was in a stream. Resonance itself is gone from the release version of PF2 aside from something like the "you can only use X equipped items at once". Resonance use to activate items is gone. Focus is gone.

Wands themselves won't be the same thing either, which makes the most sense. Since the thing they waanted to get rid of was wand spam, changing wands (something which people aren't generally that attached to working a certain way) is a lot more straightforward than coming up with these huge systems to try and do it.

Malk_Content wrote:
Tridus wrote:

This is so true. I feel like auto success isn't taking that into account right now. The rules simply say that a nat 20 is a success and don't say "this only applies when you could realistically actually do the thing in question".

Yes there is. Pg 292 "If you lack the proficiency for a task in the first place, or it’s impossible, you might still fail on a natural 20."

Oh hey, so it is. Good to know, thanks. :)

Was certainly an interesting experience! I'm looking forward to seeing how the final rules turn out.

Helmic wrote:
Tridus wrote:
dmerceless wrote:
This is the overnerfing part almost everyone was complaining about. I didn't mention it that much because it is already being fixed, but I still think removing /caster level scaling was a good move, they just need to buff other things. Personally, I'm not sure if increasing spell slots is necessary, I'm most inclined on buffing the effectiveness of each spell and increasing versatility in how to cast them as solutions.

With how many spells require heightening to be effective as you level? Yes, more slots are seriously needed.

Right now we have so few spells that most casters don't feel like the pure casters of old. They feel like hybrid classes.

I mean, unless we went to Arcanist casting, in which case having 4 slots per spell level is plenty.

True. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Tridus wrote:

Vancian asks the same question, but instead asks them to do it by going systematically through every slot and picking exactly what they want to do with it, at every level. Metamagic? Figure it out in advance. Think you might need a second one of something? Better decide with no idea what's actually happening tomorrow. These three slots are special and can only hold certain spells from some other list? Gotta track that.

Playing requires the full list, all the time. My current PF1 level 18 Cleric has such a list: it was more than a page long in Notepad++ before I transferred it into Hero Lab (trying to do it manually with pencil and paper just wastes so much table time everytime I need to change the list that I long ago abandoned that).

One trick experienced players learned was to leave some slots unprepared. Then, if the party had a need for a particular specialized spell, the wizard could take 15 minutes to prepare that spell in the empty slot and then cast it.

Yeah, I do that. The other caster in that group (a Mystic Theurge) does it a lot more because they have so many spell slots. There was a stretch where they missed several sessions and I was playing both characters at once. Let me tell you, playing two high level Vancian casters and having three spell lists was not a fun experience. It was just exhausting to keep track of that much stuff.

Leaving slots empty isn't an option for Clerics in the playtest as there's no way to fill them later, and I missed it. Of course, with half the slots we had in PF1, it's also somewhat more expensive to leave a slot empty.

The last time I played a prepared caster as a PC (I GM mostly these days) was a D&D 3.5 cleric. That cleric had no channeling but could spontaneously convert prepared spells into a Cure X Wounds spell of the same level. Thus, I decided how often I would need to cast a Cure spell and filled those slots with specialized spells. As I healed people during the day, I gradually lost the specialized spells. I worried in which order I should lose them, since I would be embarrassed to throw away a spell right before a hazard where I needed that spell, but that was my only worry.

Yep, I do that too, although I also have so many spells now that if a couple of them wind up being not needed, it's not a disaster to my effectiveness. I have lots more I can use.

The playtest really exacerbated that aspect, as with half my spell slots gone, any badly chosen one (especially the higher level ones) was severely painful and specialized stuff was hard to take on the off chance it might be useful. You just don't have the resources.

Honestly, the playtest soured me badly on Vancian casting because of this. It's the first D&D style system I've ever played in (since 1990 or so) where I enjoyed Fighter more than the caster classes. That has never happened before. So, kudos for making a fun Fighter, but damn.

I had asked yesterday about using spell points to recall spells. However, today's posts seem to be about the problem of predicting which spells would be needed. What if Pathfinder 2nd Edition developed a system to overwrite prepared spells? The wizard had prepared Fireball, but the party needs Water Breathing, so he pulls out his spellbook, gestures for 5 minutes, and rewrites the spell slot containing Fireball as Water Breathing? Technically, that is very slow spontaneity, but it should be enough to make the wizard feel different from the sorcerer, especially since it puts the spellbook front and center. What do you think about that?

I think someone mentioned Quick Preparation already does that for Wizards. Would help if Clerics and Druids also got that, I think. It's certainly a helpful option for those narrative and restorative spells that come up surprisingly in an adventure and this option helps avoid the "oh we need X and can't get it, we're camping for the day" problem.

If it's costing spell points, it should probably be more of an in combat thing: I need it right now, so I spend 2 spell points and can cast it directly out of my spellbook/prayer/etc.

Of course, you might want that option even in an arcanist casting world, but with how limited the playtest is casting wise, it feels desperately needed.

Helmic wrote:
Jesikah Morning's Dew wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Unless it's a PC tied up, in which case, they'll often be unhappy with "I know the rules say, but there's more dramatic tension if you just stay tied up." They'll just start making Acrobatics checks and be out in a couple minutes.

Bad place for an auto success on 20 rule.
Each roll doesn't have to represent a single attempt at breaking free. The GM is well within their rights to limit the amount of rolls based on time, fatigue, etc. One roll could account for an hour of trying. Just like you can't sit there and roll over and over again to lift bars. Or at least, the rules might not say you can't, but the GM and the narrative are under no obligation to allow endless attempts at it.
It is much, much easier to bend the rule 0 in the players' favor then against. Any PC attempting to do nearly anything that isn't 'jump to the moon" impossible but still well beyond their capabilities is going to expect the game to work consistently, and is going to view any GM fiat of that nature extremely unfavorably. "You can't do this thing the rules say you can do because I said so."

This is so true. I feel like auto success isn't taking that into account right now. The rules simply say that a nat 20 is a success and don't say "this only applies when you could realistically actually do the thing in question".

They would either have to adjust that, or add an extra rule about how if you can't possibly succeed except by the nat 20 success (ie, the DC is higher than your highest possible check result), the DM can disallow rolling entirely and the auto success doesn't apply.

But saying "a nat 20 is a success" in the rules without any further clarification, and then expecting a DM to tell their players "I know what the rules say, but you're not allowed to do that anyway" is... not great. This isn't some weird edge case like trying to shoot a dragon in the eye with a ballista at 400'.

The system assumes that anything that is attempted has, at a minimum, a 5% chance minimum of either success or failure or that what's being attempted is preposterous for anyone to attempt, like jumping to the moon. It doesn't, RAW, take into account people who just lack the ability to ever succeed like someone else night, nor does it handle repeated attempts very well.


Struggling against ropes barely requires a minute of actions which isn't even fatiguing, so repeated attempts here result in a weird amount of success for characters with no investment in the skill. Disabling traps is another example, requiring a lot of repeated rolls where nothing happens, waiting for either a critical failure to trigger the trap or a success to finally disable it, and since the DC's are so high to make critical failure a real threat it means 10 results, or 50& of all rolls, result in nothing at all happening.

Disable device seems like a case where +/- 10 should actually be +/- 5 instead, just to limit how many rerolls are going on. Narrow the window for success or failure and let the game move on. Nothing is gained by making us sit there rolling nine times in a row until we get a result that actually does something.

The old system in PF1 did at least give the GM the option of citing the character's own lousy stats for why the roll won't work. As a random, poorly thought out example of an improvement, it could be adjusted so that if a character would critically succeed on a 1 or critically fail on a 20, they do that automatically, ignoring the normal rules for 1's and 20's. You can still have the player roll their dice and tell them what happened, as things generally do happen in those cases that void the need for further rolls, but the GM no longer needs to rely on fiat for doable tasks that nonetheless require superhuman capabilities. And also keeps high level adventurers from ever failing DC 5 checks.

This makes sense, but it's only going to apply when you start getting to higher levels. Until someone has a +14 total in a skill, they won't be able to reach the necessary 15 on a nat 1 to meet the criteria.

Similarly, with a 0 in a skill, the lowest one that a 20 roll would still be a crit failure is a DC 30, and you wont' be seeing many of those at low level.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I agree that the status quo is a problem. There also shouldn't be infinite retries. That was what take 20 was for (avoiding wasting everyone's time by rolling over and over again to go 20 fishing), and if you couldn't succeed on that, then there was no need to roll at all and you just couldn't do it. So maybe that's an option: if it's something that allows retries and you could succeed with a 20 on the dice (excluding the auto success), you can simply take 20 and do so given enough time. If you couldn't succeed with that, then the auto success doesn't apply and it's impossible for you to do it.

Dunno how to fix the trap problem other than to have a better way to handle repeated attempts so it's not just watching someone roll dice endlessly. Half of the possible rolls shouldn't be "nothing happens."

Well, one option there is what I mentioned above to lower the crit success/failure thresholds from 10 to 5, causing those to be much more frequent and the range of "does nothing" results to shrink. Another option is to lower the DCs across the board and make a normal failure do something.

But, what we don't want is what I've seen with people trying to recover from dying, where they get dying 2, succeed to get dying 1, fail to get dying 2, succeed to get dying 1, fail to get dying 2... Someone did that for five rounds in a row in the last playtest game I was in, it was just silly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
This is the overnerfing part almost everyone was complaining about. I didn't mention it that much because it is already being fixed, but I still think removing /caster level scaling was a good move, they just need to buff other things. Personally, I'm not sure if increasing spell slots is necessary, I'm most inclined on buffing the effectiveness of each spell and increasing versatility in how to cast them as solutions.

With how many spells require heightening to be effective as you level? Yes, more slots are seriously needed.

Right now we have so few spells that most casters don't feel like the pure casters of old. They feel like hybrid classes.

Yes, that sounds like the best solution.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
I have never found wizards confusing to play. I have been playing them since 1st edition. The people who talk about how confusing it is to play a wizard... I don't know what it is they don't get.

I mean, I don't "get" people that find a command line interface confusing to use, but I recognize that the vast majority of people do. Get immersed in something long enough and it's pretty hard to see it from the outside with fresh eyes.

That said, "confusing" probably isn't the right word. It's not that confusing to explain, it's just overly complicated, especially as you get to higher level. "Obtuse" is the word I'd go with.

Fundamentally, Arcanist style casting asks a caster every day to answer the question "what do you want to be able to do today?" They answer that by picking the X spells they want to have access to from some list (the spellbook, Cleric list, whatever), and that's it. When playing, all you need is your list of "I have these X spells today, and I have the following slots left."

Vancian asks the same question, but instead asks them to do it by going systematically through every slot and picking exactly what they want to do with it, at every level. Metamagic? Figure it out in advance. Think you might need a second one of something? Better decide with no idea what's actually happening tomorrow. These three slots are special and can only hold certain spells from some other list? Gotta track that.

Playing requires the full list, all the time. My current PF1 level 18 Cleric has such a list: it was more than a page long in Notepad++ before I transferred it into Hero Lab (trying to do it manually with pencil and paper just wastes so much table time everytime I need to change the list that I long ago abandoned that).

One of these is much more cumbsome, tedious, and unwieldly to handle than the other. The tradeoff for putting up with all that was that you could do almost anything with the right spells, thus we have this silly situation where people complain about casters being too powerful but they're so annoying to use that lots of people just flat out won't play them despite the power.

That all made lots of sense, once. But we've seen from experience that game design has improved since then and we can make a better system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Tridus wrote:
"Thievery" doesn't cover all of its uses either:

Which does it miss?

Pick pocket? check
Shoplifting? Check
Bypass security? Check
Open a lock? Check

To me, it covers all 4 actions. Please point out where it fails as I don't see it.

Literally any use that isn't "theft", as evidenced by the first two pages of this thread. That's the whole problem.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:
Raylyeh wrote:
Yes, thievery has obvious negative connotations that all of its uses don’t deserve but it gets across what it does pretty well.

The point is that Thievery is but one use for the skill set.

In practice, if you look at all of the APs and modules, the skill is almost never used for anything approximating theft.

Rather, it is a standard dungeoneering skill used to circumvent or manipulate the mechanisms of a site (locks, traps, machines, etc.) -- and the site itself is usually the lair of a villian or monster and/or a long abandoned ruin.

Sure, NPC thieves use this skill for their profession, but adventurers generally use it for something else entirely.
So a name that captures the Indiana Jones and Lara Croft and MacGyver type skill use would be better.

"Dungeoneering". I like it!

Raylyeh wrote:
My point is that after over 100 posts no one in this thread has come up with an alternative that covers all of thievery’s uses satisfactorily without being even more problematic in their own way.

"Thievery" doesn't cover all of its uses either: all the non-thievery related ones are excluded. So it's not like we need a flawless replacement when the thing being replaced is itself flawed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

I am 100% onboard with a *BETTER* solution. But it is a complete non sequitur to jump from "there must be a narrative REASON for the math" to "the items we have are boring". Fine. Give me a better solution.

Right now I have a GREAT game that certainly has areas where improvement is called for an would be welcome. But the same 'ole same 'ole logically fallacy keep coming around that just because *SOME* change is welcome it must be true that *ANY* change is an improvement.

+1 Rings are boring. They are a boring thing in a great game. Number pointlessly dropping out of the air are a bad game. That is WAY worse than a great game with some boring blips.

Lets work on actual improvement.

"You level up, so in addition to the other stuff you spontaneously already get better at, you now also get better at dodging" seems like an improvement to me?

That's how everything else already worked, and it eliminates the need for the AC boosting rings and such entirely.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:
(As for the ‘contributing to the discussion’ bit, try this out - I can follow your maths fairly easily, but what is your design intent? What does your game gain from the calculation? Why is it important that level progress depends on monster kills? If something else is involved, isn’t that just the GM deciding he wants players to level early because of the story? If these are avoided, what does the story gain from the players being a lower level than expected? Would you change the encounters because of it? Why?)

That's why I stopped using XP as a DM the moment I was reading the Fate Core rulebook and was introduced to milestone levelling. What a revelation.

There was always this inherent problem around my campaigns because they are with an RP heavy group and involve lots of talking. If the PCs get sidetracked and I spend two sessions creating a side quest on the fly because of what they decided to do... how much XP is that worth? I have absolutely no idea.

If they do that several times and outlevel stuff, is it okay that all their random investigating made them better at fighting for some reason and makes encounters much easier? If they don't do it next time and I expect them to, are things now too difficult for them? How do I set the XP for these things so the PCs don't feel like I'm punishing them for choosing one path over the other?

It's so much easier to simply say "they'll level up at this plot point" in my notes, ditch the math entirely, and tell them that there are no XP numbers and thus there is no difference in how they go about doing things or much side exploration they want to do.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

Before the PF2E announcement, I was generally in the camp of folks who wanted a 1.5 style minor revision. Since the playtest I have come to see the merits of a greater revision.


Well, say prior to the playtest, if you polled a ton of folks who were actively playing PF at the time (or only recently went away from the game), some of those folks would say no to ANY revision, but I think most of them would see the merit of a 1.5. However, if you were to ask them WHAT A 1.5 REVISION actually entails, I don't think you would get absolutely any agreement.

Just look at the topics endlessly debated in PF 1E

Caster-Martial Discrepancy
Setting versus Setting neutral
Vancian vs other systems
Role of GM
High Level Play


some people may only see revisions to a couple or even none of those things as necessary. Some people may agree there are problems with these specific areas, but then have WIDELY different ideas of how to fix them or what degree of change is needed. Caster-Martial discrepancy is a great one to point out. I think most folks acknowledge an issue here, but some don't find it significant, and some consider it a plus. Other folks find it a major problem and want to nerf spell casters, while other folks find it a problem and think it requires a major buff to martials. Any decision you make on how to address these changes is going to alienate some core group of the existing audience, while at the same time losing the folks who want NO CHANGES IN ANYTHING.

So really, any revision at all is going to cause problems with your existing customer base. You might as well go for broke and do a more substantial edition change, and hope that any loss of existing consumers is made up by bringing back former players and attracting new players, either from 5E or folks who are completely new to the game.

Exactly this. Fundamentally, if you put ten people from ten different gaming groups in a room and ask what a hypothetical PF 1.5 should look like and what the top things to change/leave alone are, you will get ten different answers. Take one of them and use it, you have at least one other one that will say "you changed something that didn't need changing and broke the system!", and just lost a sale.

The obvious example is magic and caster/martial disparity. You hear that complaint a lot about how unfairly disadvantaged martials are. Yet, when the playtest dropped a nuclear nerfbomb on the casters... no martial players in my group went "yay!"

That's because no casters in my group are breaking the game or totally hoarding the spotlight. We're actually both playing largely support casters, favoring buffs, debuffs, heals, walls, and things like that. Most of that stuff has the effect of "make the martials better able to do their job", and nerfing my ability to buff the Fighter didn't make the Fighter happier. (Fighters themselves being really cool in the playtest did, though!)

So if you go ahead and listen to a group that feels overpowered casters are a problem needing fixing, you're also alienating my group where the "overpowered casters" are not a problem in the first place. Do you think that's going to make us buy the new edition, especially since if it's "1.5" we can likely adapt any APs we want to play back to 1.0?

If you keep backward compatability, you are shackled to some things that simply can't be changed. If you ditch it, people complain that you have a mostly similar revision that doesn't work with the old stuff "so you can sell us the same books again".

If someone can figure out how to make a 1.5 that doesn't alienate half the target market, that would be great. I suspect that's much harder than it initially sounds though, because while PF1 isn't perfect, it's quite good. Improving it without breaking what some people like won't be that easy.

It also doesn't give you the same option to draw in new people, or draw back people that got sick of it to go play 5e because it's got a more modern design instead. I think it's kind of a non-starter. If it turns out that's not the case, some 3pp could make it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think you're in the same boat as a lot of people. Without anything new to test and not much to discuss, stuff will quickly become about rehashing the same topics over and over again, which is pointlessly frustrating for everyone.

Hope to see a lot of folks back when the PF2 CRB hits. :)

Wow, that's really unfortunate. This would be a huge improvement to the system, shame to see it off the table like that.

Lightning Raven wrote:

One thing I always notice is the argument of "Thinking ahead". Does this really happen? Think about it. I argue that this is not happening the majority of the time, there is no much forethought given to the spells, simply because you can't afford it. There is a very narrow list of spells that you should always prepare because they're good for any occasion and there's even more spells that will never be prepared, among these are those that aren't quite good enough to warrant a slot, the outright terrible ones and those that are incredibly but highly situational. But here's the thing, there's a lot of scrolls and other means of circumventing this part of vancian casting that supposedly every advocate for it like.

Vancian casting actually is not providing what is supposed to be providing, which is rewarding forethought, because the thinking ahead part is very minimal and those situations were you would prepare the perfect situational spell mostly come from information gathered by scouts or forewarning.

I think it does happen in PF1. I know it does in my game. When we know what we're going to face (which does happen, for example if we ran away from it already or we had good scouting), I'll customize my spell list appropriately. PF1 gives you enough spell slots to have the "you must always take this" spells and also have room to do it.

Additionally, PF1 lets you leave slots empty and fill them by taking some time during the day. So you can stealth up and scout, take a spell to solve the problem, and move on.

And yes, you can also fill this with scrolls and such if you don't know what you're going to face but plan ahead for stuff that's likely to come up at some point. But you don't need Vancian casting to do that.

PF2 gives you far, far fewer spells per day and also removes the option to leave a slot empty and fill it later (although Wizards got something similar in an update). The combination made Vancian casting even more punishing.

In a not so short way, what i'm trying to really say is: There really is a reasonable amount of "thinking ahead" element that actually provides choices? Or this just boils down to lack of system mastery, in which experienced players will know which spells are the best at every level and will be prepared with stacks of scrolls and wands of situational ones, while newcomers will barely know how to weigh one spell against the other due to a lack of basis for what makes a spell good or not?

There's definite system mastery in playing a Vancian caster. Getting it right rewards you, and getting it wrong punishes you. The playtest features a lot more "punish" and a lot less "reward" than PF1 did, IMO.

I'd love to see more hardcover complete APs like the anniversary editions. Those are pretty nice for people who weren't around when the APs were originally released and now find it hard to find them.

7 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Right, cuz who really wants those narrative things like magic items, right? This isn't about telling a story. It is just a math exercise. As long as "the math works" who cares if it ties into what is happening, right? Oh, wait, a lot of people *DO* care.

Rings of Protection, Amulets of Natural Armor, and Cloaks of Resistence were not interesting items at all. They're just gold/slot taxes everyone pays because the game expects you to have those stats or your get crushed.

I'm perfectly okay with being able to take an interesting cloak instead of the mandatory stat booster one, because the math was fixed to not require the mandatory stat booster one anymore.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Nettah wrote:
I (and hopefully others including Paizo) sees the issue with all my 3 examples and why a limit is needed for a better game. If you think all my 3 examples is equally valuable or that the ring of swimming is just as good as the combination of the other 7 rings from your example, then fine you don't need any limitations on magical items in your game.

No, I don't think any of your examples showed a combination that broke the game without an item limit or were relevant to the question of the thread.

I'm legitimately looking for examples that make me think, "Oh yeah, you know if there wasn't an item limit, a player could afford to do... xyz... and that would be ridiculous." If you have an xyz that fits in this question, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, like the rest of you, I'm curious what systems the final rules use, and in the meantime I won't be using a slot or resonance limit.

Fundamentally, you've asked a question and then systematically dismissed every single answer given to you. You're not looking for discussion. You're looking for people to agree with you, by changing your criteria to be so vague that no answer can possibly actually meet it.

Because really, if you don't think having 35 rings of Counterspell active simultaneously as opposed to increasing your AC by +1 is a problem, there is no possible thing that will and continuing this discussion is a waste of time.

The idea that this is an "unattainable amount of gold" is nonsense. It's clearly attainable, unless increasing your Armor rune is unattainable. They cost the same. This is entirely expected within the standard wealth rules of the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Honestly, even though it doesn't perfectly cover picking pockets, Security is kinda my favorite suggestion to far. It also works for actual thieves on an ironic level. "I'm a... security specialist, you might say." :P
But nothing is stopping the current master of thievery of framing it that way in game. Thievery is an OOC term for the selection of skill uses, so I don't see the reason why the name should in anyway dictate anything in-game. Security to me fails to cover Palm an Object and Steal an Object and to some extend Lockpicking as well.

That's the point, really. "Thievery" is an OOC term, but we have this entire thread devoted to "Paladins can't use it because Thievery is inherently unlawful."

That perception is exactly the reason why the name should be changed. It's strictly an OOC problem.

9 people marked this as a favorite.
dmerceless wrote:
I'm trying to understand why Paizo didn't even leave a question on the surveys about this, classic Vancian x other systems (Arcanist, most probably). I mean, is it so set in stone that they aren't willing to get feedback on this? If so... why? I'm gonna talk a little bit about my experiences with it but this one single thing has been the biggest roadblock for new people to get into PF2 from what I've seen. By pretty far, actually. Well, here are some of the reasons I think Vancian casting is bad and should be replaced by Arcanist or other more modern spellcasting system:

Can I like this like 50 times? I don't know why it didn't come up, but surely they must see how well it's worked out for that other game to abandon a system that said game itself made iconic.

Vancian casting is not a sacred cow. It absolutely can be improved and/or banished.

- As I've said, it really turns new players down from trying the game. I have commented about this in other threads, but almost every person I pitched PF2 to and didn't want to try it was because of this. And, also, from the 20 or so people that I've DMed to, this was a dealbreaker for like... half of them?

Saw something similar. The people who played spellcasters in 1e were good playing it. The people who don't didn't show a whole lot of interest in starting aside from the spontaneous casters.

- It makes prepared spellcaster's power level fluctuate very hard between adventuring days. If you prepared the correct spells you are going to contribute a lot or even auto-win the encounter (although the latter was reduced a lot in PF2). If you prepared the wrong spells you can sit down and pull your popcorn, because you aren't going to contribute at all.

So much this. I play support casters in D&D and PF1 all the time. This turned me off PF2 Clerics so much.

It's a problem in PF1 as it is, but you get so many spells and they're generally so strong that a couple of bad decisions don't cripple you past very low level. PF2 took away half the spells per day Clerics had, made the non-Heal ones much weaker, but kept the preparation limitations in place. A bad choice was utterly awful.

It strongly reinforced "skip stuff that might be interesting and might be garbage, take what you know will work" because you simply can't afford to have dead slots with so few of them. It also reinforced "focus as much as you can on Channel, because that is always awesome without fail."

It would help a lot to take some of the other, potentially wasted spells if I know I can turn them into a second cast of something else should it not come up, and would make casters in general much more player friendly to play.

- A little bit of an extension of the last point, but this makes people afraid of preparing cool and different stuff. You could prepare some castings of Bind Undead to enter the Necromancer's tower, but what if he has non-undead minions first, or his minions are already binded by him? Well, guess it's better to just prepare 3 Fireballs then. People end up just preparing their generic spells over and over again because any other thing could go to complete waste.

Yup. Exactly. It's worse than it was in PF1, both due to fewer slots making each incorrect one that much more punishing, but also becuase in PF1 a Cleric could turn an otherwise wasted slot into healing. Which while not a super awesome thing to do a lot of the time, did turn an otherwise dead slot into something that would help the party continue on for the day.

- It even hurts spontaneous casters as well. How? Because now their advantage is just not using this terrible system. If prepared casters used Arcanist-style casting, Bloodline Powers and Compositions could be a lot stronger without making Sorcerers and Bards too powerful in relation to the rest of the casters.

Agreed. This is the main reason my wife wanted to play a Sorcerer (although the dragon claws didn't hurt). Vancian casting is simply too much bookkeeping and work than she wants to put into the game.

Paizo, I'm here to sincerely ask: You don't need to just go and change the entire spellcasting system with no data, but please, at least consider letting people give feedback on this in the surveys. I've seen so much people both in the forums and IRL manifesting that they want this system gone. Even some diehard PF1 fans have said that if one thing should actually change, it's this.

At this point it seems too late for surveys in the playtest cycle, unless they plan to do a post playtest one. But yeah. They could always ask about it on FB and Twitch and see what the feedback looks like. They could look at the reaction to 5e removing it and seeing how positively that was received.

I'm not sure it even needs a survey to come to the conclusion that it's something that can be removed.

We had a hard time using it, both because of the action cost but also because it wasn't clear exactly what information it should give (what are the "best known attributes" of more esoteric monsters that aren't well known in general?), or which knowledge to use when it either wasn't obvious or we didn't just fall back on what it would have been in PF1.

We ended up using it mostly like it worked in PF1, and that worked fine... but it's not RAW at all.

doc roc wrote:

- Forces role of healbot onto PC at the expense of other options. Channelling is very rarely traded out in archetypes making the problem worse. Wide abundance of healing in other forms makes it largely unnecessary..... classic example = the ubiquitous wand of CLW

For some alternate definiton of "healbot" where "healbot" == "has any kind of healing ability"?

Channel without any feat support doesn't enforce healbot at all. Quite the opposite. Without feat support it's barely usable in combat at all. You'll be doing something else and using channel in downtime to help recover.

That's not a healbot. That's not even close to a healbot. A healbot is a character that isn't effective doing anything except healing, and a PF1 Cleric is not even close to one of those.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Then it makes no sense that a Paladin who is trained in Thievery never actually used Thievery in its obviously intended usage, since now you're justifying Paladins being Legendary Thieves, which is an absolutely ridiculous character concept. An Antipaladin, sure, because they don't have any moral quandaries and might actually have insidious uses for the skill, but a Paladin? What's next, Paladins being full-fledged Wizards or Alchemists? (And no, Dedication feats don't count.)

There's no reason whatsoever that a Paladin who winds up picking a lot of locks is a "ridiculous character concept" unless you're being overly judgemental on other people's character concepts for BadWrongFun. We've already shown how easy it is to get the skill on a Paladin. There's no reason whatsoever they can't train it after that to get better at it, just like any other character can train in anything, even if they aren't always using it.

Unless you want to apply this across the board and tell me my Cleric can't get better at Perform at a given level up without actually using it. Because you can't apply these kinds of extra restrictions to Paladins and nobody else because reasons.

It's only a problematic word choice because people want to justify being a thief as being a Capital LG thing that Paladins should have every right to do. And they don't. It's an unrealistic standard to suggest that Robin Hood is a Paladin, because he's not, no matter what amount of piety he may seem to possess. He might be Good, but he's also a Vigilante, sparking Chaos in an otherwise Lawful land, and in the service of legitimate authority, a Paladin would have qualms with that kind of person because the Paladin isn't a lawbreaker. He wouldn't kill him unless he had to, obviously, but a Paladin should, at the very least, be on the side of bringing him to justice and instead finding a better way within the laws of the land to support those less fortunate unless he finds the authority to no longer be legitimate. But for the sake of argument, it is in this case, so if that Paladin wants to aid and abet a criminal, he should suffer the consequences of what that does to his Paladinhood.

No, it's a problematic word because of exactly what you're doing: you're so hung up on the word that you're dismissing every possible usage of the skill as "not something a Paladin would do".

You can't really suggest an alternative simply because they are two completely different skill sets by nature. The ability to set and disable traps, the ability to pick and create locks, the ability to steal and hide objects on your person, these are all things that iconic Thieves do. But you know what? I got a better name than anyone else does, and it fits with the existing concept. Roguery. There. Now it's not Evil and Paladins can justify their Robin Hood-ness via Roguery. Problem solved, everyone go home and be a family man and all that silly nonsense.

Seeing as how several alternatives have already been suggested, it's pretty clear that people can suggest them. But hey, lots of iconic Necromancers are good at Arcana, so should Paladins also be banned from that because it's clearly not Paladin like to know about arcane magic?

[quoote]The long and short of the thread is this: I won't agree to a change on the word Thievery unless we also agree to a change on the word Necromancy, a word that similarly exists with heavily evil connotations that Capital LG characters would have qualms with.

Considering how often I run into people confused by Necromancy (enslaving and animating the dead), Necromancy (negative energy/curses/etc), and Necromancy (healing)? Sure. I'd be perfectly happy splitting off the "this is always evil because the Gods have declared it so" one from the other two, where that isn't true.

Until then, you're not convincing me to let Paladins play like Rogues and Thieves, because if they wanted to play Rogues and Thieves, there's a class for that already.

Believe it or not, there are people who want to play Paladins differently than you, and they don't need your permission to have BadWrongFun.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works. The world does not level up with you. You should not be fighting random Goblins at level 10 that have been levelled up to level 10, without some kind of narrative reason for why they're so strong. You should be fighting Giants or Demons instead. Those Goblins don't drop back to level 2 if a low level group of town guards shows up to fight them instead: they would slaughter those guards. That's why level 10 adventurers were called in.

The world largely stays the same. The range of things you can fight increases as you level. Similarly, swimming a river doesn't get harder because you levelled up. You can simply ignore easy rivers because you're better at swimming than you used to be. You can now attempt to get past harder ones that were certain death before.

It's working exactly as intended to create a strong progression where a level 10 character is far stronger than a level 5 character, which is not what 5e does at all (but 3.5 and PF1 did). Stylistically they're simply going for a different feel of game. One of them constrains power growth and the other one lets you go from "random guy" to "Superhero".

And hey, if you don't like that style of game, that's entirely legitimate. It's not for everyone. But if you don't like it because you think you need to rob the PCs of their progression by making every basic challenge they should be able to easily overcome just as powerful as they are, then you're using the system incorrectly.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

First "trained" is a mechanical term here. I'm not onboard with it as a good narrative description of wizards. If the game "works" (still a big if right now) then those kind of meta issues are insignificant.

I've been playing various versions of TTRPGs since the 80s and it should be no surprise that I also enjoy related media. You are not describing wizards I recognize.

Someone already mentioned Gandalf, right? Arguably the most famous Wizard in the English speaking world, doesn't tend to get hit a lot?

Wizards use a lot of magic items and spells to defend themselves. And even then they AVOID getting into hand to hand combat. The is literally no narrative basis *at all* for the wizard getting better at dodging blows.

You mean other than the Wizard going "getting stabbed hurt! Maybe I'll ask the Monk for some tips and a sparring session during downtime so it doesn't happen the next time I try to cast a spell?"

The idea that there is no narrative basis for a Wizard training defense at all is frankly absurd. Unless the Wizard is literally going to stand still and allow himself to be hit every combat, he's going to be trying to dodge. If he's trying to dodge, he's going to inevitably get better at it because people improve with practice.

And that's excluding that your narrative is not the only one. Plenty of sources have hybrid Wizards who also have some martial skill to fall back on (aside from Gandalf), and they will certainly not want to get stabbed.

I think if you were to go out to the public at large and describe this, you would get odd looks. It "makes sense" only to gamers who want to rationalize free boosts to their characters.


If you asked the public at large to describe this, they wouldn't know what you are talking about, because this is too mechanically indepth for someone not familiar with gaming. Asking those who are, you're going to get lots of answers.

Besides, even in the playtest, a Wizard without magical defenses is easier to hit than a Paladin is (and bumping proficiency bonuses to +2/tier will widen that gap as the Paladin moves up to better armor prof). The gap has simply narrowed up, and it's now presumed that a level 10 Wizard has had more practice avoiding death than a level 1 Wizard, which is entirely reasonable.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:

A 700,000 sp item or 700,000 sp's of items is nonsense. It makes as much sense as a horse sized duck or 1000 duck-sized horses duking it out.

I expect a GM to challenge her players and reward them in a manner befitting everyone's expectations of fun. I don't currently have a plan to use resonance or item limits in my homebrew PF2 world. Open invitation to people who have a real example demonstrating some need for a limit system beyond resources.

Nonsense doesn't count. Investing an obscene amount of money in blocking every spell... as I mentioned, it won't block an axe. That's how that player would get challenged... but I wouldn't advise them to go that far anyway. It would be absurd.

"37 items confuses me." Don't keep 37 items then. Keep what you have a plan to manage and use effectively. That's on you, not the system to tell you not to be ridiculous.

My players have bigger goals than "upgrade my gear with every penny I have!" They want to world-influence and invest in kingdoms. Magic items are not their #1 focus like many people in the PF1 PFS world heavily distorted.

You've gotten several. You keep claiming to want examples and then dismiss every example as "nonsense because reasons", when your own argument comes down to "my players don't make this a problem therefore the entire rule system doesn't need it."

A couple of decades of experience in the core system PF1 is based on suggest pretty clearly that if given the option, lots of players will walk around looking like a veritable Christmas tree decorated with magic items. The original idea for Resonance didn't come out of nowhere: it came about because of how much of a problem this turned into.

If your players don't need a limit, great. Have fun. That is not sufficient justification to dismiss everyone elses experiences, including those of the Paizo developers, who clearly saw an issue worth trying to address with the amount of rules effort they put into trying to tackle it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

What I'm saying is that lockpicking is a skill commonly used by characters of majorly moral ambiguities that Paladins generally don't approve of, meaning the odds of a Paladin being able to pick a lock is the same odds of a Paladin being good at sleight of hand: it will probably be taught by someone who doesn't care for the laws of the land, and is someone that a Paladin would struggle to maintain his powers with at best, or outright turn said person into the authorities or he loses powers via alignment change.

If Paladins had the authority to pick locks, they'd be fine. If they could have a legitimate means to learn how to pick locks, they'd be fine. More often than not, however, they have neither.

IIRC from playing PFS without my own character and using premades, the iconic Paladin has a backstory along the lines of "stole a Paladins helmet, that Paladin got killed because of it, felt bad, became a Paladin herself."

It's a very short reach from there to "also learned how to pick locks while learning how to steal before becoming a Paladin."

Any background involving being a criminal/troubled street child/spy/etc before becoming a Paladin would have easy justification for having learned how to pick locks prior to becoming a Paladin.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You keep asking for examples and keep getting them. So lets try this: Why would it be better if the game allowed someone to simultaneously use 37 magic items?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The DM of wrote:
Tridus wrote:
As for if some limit should exist? I think so. Having someone wearing 37 small items for various activate or other effects would slow down play dramatically and likely become optimal if its doable.
Aside from haste, you don't get more than 3 actions per round. I don't see how it could slow down play. Do you have an example?

When something comes up and I start looking through four pages of activatable items to see which one I want to use now. That takes much, much longer than if I have 10 items for the day.

It will get progressively worse as splatbooks add more items, as well. Some kind of limit forces that choice at the start of the day and forces some choice in what you keep vs what you sell, as opposed to decking yourself out in 47 trinkets.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

This results in 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 in some order for ancestries without a flaw and 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 in some order for ancestries with a flaw. Sometimes we might have 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10 instead. Those are the only stats I have seen at 1st level. My wife hates this aspect of PF2. She said, "All the characters are alike." She would love to use 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10 for variety, but she said PF2 demands the 18 too much. The playtest scenarios are deadly.

The value of an ability score is not linear. 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 is more powerful than 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 10, though both sets of stats sum to 78. A point buy offers a reward for not grabbing high stats. PF2 does not.

Yeah we saw a lot of this in our group too. There's so much ridigity in the system that the end result almost always looks the same.

I like the simplicity of ABC (Ancestry, Background, Class) character creation. But I call the final four ability score boosts step D, because they are not provided by Ancestry, Background, nor Class. And for most of my players, selecting the Background is not a playful exercise in imagining the character's origins. Nope, they conduct a boring search for a background with its ability score bonus in the right place and a feat that fits the class. Only my wife treats Background as an important part of the character's personhood.

Agreed. I wanted to treat a background as a character creation concept thing, but then they throw stats into it and it becomes very restrictive again.

Stat wise, we saw very little variety at the table, and basically none amongst the people playing Humans. I don't think that's a desireable outcome of the system, because if what they really want is "everybody looks the same", they could just print a stat array and save everyone a lot of time.

If the goal is to have stat variety, the system needs to not discourage it so heavily.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They were trying it in the focus playtest where Resonance was changed to simply "you can equip X magic items". Sounds like that part survives. In which case it does let you wear four rings if you want, out of your X items. X = 10 in the playtest and that seems likely to survive.

As for if some limit should exist? I think so. Having someone wearing 37 small items for various activate or other effects would slow down play dramatically and likely become optimal if its doable.

Making people make choices on which items they want to use in a given day is an interesting choice without the big six, and I think that has value still.

1 to 50 of 588 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>