Witch of Miracles's page

91 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Topic. I find this REALLY unclear atm.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

AS I said before in a similar topic:

English is in a no win situation on this. There's no accepted singular gender-neutral pronoun, and singular "they" can engender misunderstandings (which is highly undesirable in a rulebook).

Maybe in twenty years, "ze" or something similar will be accepted by the public at large. Until then, well, we're pretty much screwed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they hoped buffing cantrips would help compensate for this.

My suspicion is that it makes your vision more in line with how far you can move, which hopefully makes it easier to track.

Tracking vision is kind of a handwavy nightmare in 1e unless you play on VTT imo

Vic Wertz wrote:

I will note that "Determine Your Character's Concept" includes this paragraph:

Playtest Rulebook wrote:
Of course, you can always build a concept from any aspect of a character’s details. You can use roleplaying to challenge not only the norms of Pathfinder’s fictional world, but also real-life societal norms. Your character might challenge binary gender notions, explore cultural identity, have a disability, have any sexual orientation, or any combination of these suggestions. Your character can live any life you see fit.

...and the actual rules regarding choosing your character's gender say this:

Playtest Rulebook wrote:
Note your character’s gender, if applicable. Characters of all genders are equally likely to become adventurers.
(Note "if applicable," and the use of "all genders" as opposed to "both genders".)

Also worth noting that disguise only says you're disguising as something you are not. While that is pretty binary implying language on first pass, on a second pass, you could just take it to mean "looking like whatever you don't look like naturally." So if you're androgynous, appearing exceedingly masculine or feminine might require a disguise check, since that's attempting to disguise as not-androgynous.

That being said -- having played an androgynous character myself in the past -- I'd still prefer it if the feat were reworded. I do like that there's a feat that lets you be good at this, though.

Darklordjim wrote:

Normally I would agree with you, except normal wizards can call that spell they need out of the blue without prep, and universalists can do that once per spell level. They have psuedo-spontaneous casting. Add to that the feat that lets wizards swap prepared spells, and suddenly you get a bit more leeway on that "call the ball exactly right."

Thats my biggest problem- wizards pretty much already do what Sorcerers do. So why doesn't Sorcerer stand out more, for their restrictions? Is it that game breaking to give them 1 more spell slot per spell level?

Drain Arcane Focus only works on a spell you've prepared and already cast. (E.G.: my first level spell slots are mage armor and burning hands x2. If I cast mage armor at the beginning of the day, and haven't cast burning hands at all today, I can only use Drain Arcane Focus to cast Mage Armor.)

Colette Brunel wrote:
Paizo has already demonstrated a capacity for writing interesting, noncombat-utility-oriented abilities for martial characters in the form of vigilante social talents. Why can these not be reintroduced as skill feats (with reasonable level prerequisites, not being 15th-level to have super-cryptography or super-squeezing skills) and hand these out to martials more frequently, thus making skill feats more powerful and also improving martials' ability to contribute to noncombat situations?

Honestly, I got the impression 1e vigilante is why we have so many skill feats in 2e class progression. They saw social talents as something they could evolve into a meaningful choice for each class, and that became skill feats.

Xenocrat wrote:
The bloodline powers are garbage, but so are the wizard school powers. Are cleric domain powers as bad?

I made a thread with images of them all side by side here.

They're about as bad, yeah.

Yes please.

I literally started to fill them out wrong the first time

Re: focus: yeah, we're not actually disagreeing. I'm getting mucked up a bit.

Darklordjim wrote:

So what I'm hearing is that sorcs

-can do a slight increase of damage comparitavely,if you build to it
-are designed to use magic items?
-have a lot of trap feats
- the alternate spell lists are traps, because you should only take imperial bloodline?
- still lag behind the wizard by approx 1 spell/day.

So again, why not just play a wizard....? This saddens me because I like Sorcerors...

-Doing one thing great has typically been sorcerer's niche over Wiz, who does a bunch of things well.

-CHA is a better stat than INT now, and Sorc isn't screwed over on skills in this edition. (EDIT: They also get to choose from better signature skills than Wiz, who just has Arcana and Crafting. Sorc actually gets some choices, here. And holy balls, they just get trained in bloodline skills for free...?) Wiz is basically locked into taking a bad stat in the same way Sorc used to be. And to further expand, having a lot of resonance means you have more uses of "I don't always really want this but it's nice" spells from scrolls or wands as compared to wizard.
-Every class (including wizard) has a lot of suboptimal feats.
-Every wizard school but the best is a trap by this logic, too. Hell, universalist might have a shot at being the best just because it has the best access to a DC increase.
-Bloodline gives you an additional spell per day, so it's the same.

To me, this is a lot like saying, why not just play a [insert the best school here] wizard? This saddens me because I like divination wizards. Some things are just worse. = /

Lavieh wrote:
Doesn't power attack get better at higher levels? It is really weak at lower levels but once that second part kicks in at level 10+ it seems to get a lot better.

The tl;dr is that as you get magic weapons, you're rolling fewer dice from power attack as compared to the dice from the weapon. That makes power attack a lot less valuable.

Like, Power Attack with a +5 d12 weapon at level 10 is what, 8d12? Only 2d12 of those are from power attack. That's 25% of the weapon's dice damage. If the weapon isn't magical at all, that's 3d12; then power attack is 66% of the damage instead, way better.

Xenocrat wrote:
Darklordjim wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Sorcerers do have the same number of spells per day as the Wizard. Wizards get extra spells (over 3) from school or the Universalist getting bonus uses of Arcane Focus, Sorcerers get an extra spell use from their Bloodline. Both can cast (eventually) 4 spells per spell level as their baseline.

The baseline is true, but all wizards get the arcane focus, which puts their baseline at 5/day. Universalists are 4/day but with flexibility, which is supposed to be sorceroers' trick.

Not Universalits are at 4/day plus one extra spell, which can be of any level. That's 5 day at 2nd level, but not as you go on.

Universalist can use Drain Focus 1/day for every level of spell he can cast as opposed to just 1/day. Very, very big difference


Xenocrat wrote:

That's not a Sorcerer DC increase, it's a single bloodline increase. All Wizards can choose Spell Penetration at 8th level which has the same effect on most tough monsters. They can also do a once per day +2 DC to any spell with the Empowering Focus feat.

The damage increase options are garbage on both sides. Your feat and your action are not worth that small of a damage increase or resistance decrease.

I mean, you may as well talk that way because it's how we compared s+&& before anyways. Sorc has lots of access to good things in 1e so long as you don't take stupid bloodlines that are wonderfully flavorful but inevitably worse than Arcane. I don't see why we should evaluate it much differently now

Darklordjim wrote:
I didn't see any DC increase options, and the only two damage increase options I saw were "deal extra damage based on spell level" and "add a somatic to ignore first 10 pts of resistance", at the cost of counterspell and quicken spell, respectively...

That's because the book's layout is suffering.

The first level imperial spell point power is a DC increase.



Casting Verbal Casting
Duration 1 round
You gain a +1 conditional bonus to spell rolls and spell DCs.
If you have available Spell Points, you can spend 1 Spell Point
and Concentrate on a Spell to extend its duration by 1 round.

Also, counterspell isn't worth taking anyways because you have to be countering a spell that have. It's disgustingly situational -- even more so at first level.

The opportunity cost of quicken is higher now that quicken is only once a day and is one action instead of one swift action.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

There’s no consequence for a GM fudging die rolls except the players learning the stakes and difficulty are arbitrary and I didn’t come to Pathfinder for more OD&D Bull Hockey.

There's as much consequences for it as cheating at any game where cheating isn't immediately obvious.

Perhaps you cheat at poker a few times. You aren't caught. Nothing happens. If you get caught, howewer, very awful things happen and people won't play with you.

PF is much the same. The GM needs players as much as the players need a GM. It is a relationship of mutual benefit. Acting in bad faith either way results in censure if discovered.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrus007 wrote:

In my mind, the two classes are so similar, especially in the spell casting area, that I don’t known why one would opt to play a sorcerer. The two classes need to be delineated in much more specific ways.

As I saw it, in PF1, it was very nicely balanced between brawn vs precision-in magical casting terms. Besides the sorcerer being able to encroach on other spell casters magical traditions, the sorcerer seems very bland. I would prefer that they go back with being able to cast more but knowing less spells, than how the class is formulated now.

The class is in a very unfinished form and Paizo needs to do more work on it.

Sorc has better options for damage-increasing and DC increasing abilities. Sorc innately has more resonance, and access to occult, divine, and primal spell lists, whilst likewise being more flexible in their signature skills.

Ckorik wrote:

I'm bummed displacement is gone.

I liked that spell.

Given the amount of times I saw spell-storing armor with displacement in its slots:

Good f$&+ing riddance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Why should a player trust a GM if the GM won’t trust the player?

The GM could be making a secret roll but thinks the player failing spectacularly is more interesting for “the story” no matter the roll. That sucks.
The GM could be making a secret roll and fail the check and just move the story onward. Accomplishing nothing but slowing the game down to roll for no reason. That sucks.

Fudging dice, and hiding rolls and difficulty is a great way to wallpaper over flaws in a game system, but terrible way to keep interest in a game as player have agency removed from their characters actions.

“Legolas! You find a secret door.”
“Why, I wasn’t looking for secret doors.”
“Your elf senses tingled.”
“Okay. Thanks for telling me. That was a thing that happened.

It's an eternal two way street. All games with hidden information require trust and a fundamental agreement to play by the rules. It's a social contract of sorts. If people find out you're breaking the contract, you get censured.

It's no different than trusting someone not to cheat at -any- game.

Saleem Halabi wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
And the default, from a rules perspective, should always be for the GM to not trust the party not to metagame.
I... what?!? How can you play with people if you don't trust them? This line of thinking literally makes no sense to me.

Game rules are written assuming the worst case scenario, wherein you are playing with human beings that understand the rules to the letter and play to the letter but care nothing for intent and will attempt to gain every advantage. You don't want to support a!*%@+$s doing things that they can "technically" do but are unintended.

It has nothing to do with me or my tables (I trust my players and wouldn't play with them otherwise). It's just the general philosophy required when writing rules. You need to provide innocent people ammunition against jackasses in the case it comes up -- and with the large amount of people playing the game, it probably will.

If you want, you can think of it as PFS-proofing.

Almarane wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
All that being said, I think rolls for NPCs and monsters should always be kept behind the screen.

That's not the point. Of course monster and NPCs rolls should be kept secret. The problem here is that PC rolls (like Craft or Stealth) are now secret as RAW and made behind the screen.

I too roll my NPCs and monsters' rolls secretly. But I don't like doing it for my PCs' rolls.

I know, but a lot of people were talking about no screen in the thread, so I brought it up.

IMO, secret checks are a party trust thing. And the default, from a rules perspective, should always be for the GM to not trust the party not to metagame. So secret checks should be the default.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

Funny that in the many games I've run for 5e, I've never actually seen two GW Fighters that were identical.

This white room analysis of 5e is very poorly done and shows a great misunderstanding of the system.

Even for two completely identical characters, say two variant human champion fighters with GWM, and the outlander background, both wielding great swords - those two can still be unqiue people just by putting in the tiniest effort of role-playing. All you have to do is think beyond the character sheet; don't rely on your character sheet "buttons" as the only options you have in game. This isn't a video game, and the mechanics aren't the end-all-be-all of the system.

When people talk about role-play vs roll-play, this is almost literally what they mean. Folks claiming that two characters are identical just because they share some of the mechanics together are those exact type of folks who miss out on all the wonderful role-playing aspects of the game. Don't skip that; there's a lot of fun to he had in that arena, and you can really bring out the flavor and personality of your character with it.

And if you don't believe me, then I challenge you to try it. Play a game where you're all required to play mechanically identical characters, and see how the role-play can make each of you shine in your own unique way.

This is willfully misunderstanding the argument. We all know the same statsheet can have a bunch of different personalities attached to it. That doesn't make it not the same statsheet doing the same actions. WE want mechanical diversity.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Secret checks are important for game integrity. They keep the game from being a solved question for the players. Trying to figure things out with limited information is part of the game. It's just more interesting when your players don't know the optimal choice.

And honestly, I think the biggest argument for secret checks isn't preventing metagaming: I think it's keeping the game from getting bogged down. A lot of perception checks, for example, just end in you telling people nothing. The game moves faster if you do them behind the screen. It also stops the whole "I want to roll to see if I notice anything," which is common at tables that don't do secret rolls for perception.

However, you can adjust what checks are secret based on your players. I'll let my Tuesday players roll stealth themselves, since I trust them to do the same thing regardless of success or failure, but I wouldn't do it with every table. I'll tell them to roll perception, more for suspense than anything, knowing my Tuesday players will carry on the same either way. In general, players feel more satisfied when they see their rolls and see the results that are happening. A lot of my players like narrating their results and feel happier when they have a hand in what their results feel like, which isn't possible with secret checks. I prefer to let them have that until they've shown they can't handle it.

All that being said, I think rolls for NPCs and monsters should always be kept behind the screen. It's just better for the GM, both from a gameplay and narrative standpoint. When the roll is behind the screen it lets you dramatize the rolls without letting them metagame. "He only missed by 1 -- that was close." And it also keeps players from nitpicking if you do bungle some math on your sixth cup of coffee (something I'm pretty sure every GM has been guilty of at one point or another). Even more importantly, it gives you a chance to show off the rolls that really matter: when you roll the enemy's save and they nat 1, when the enemy confirms their crit with a 20, that's when you show the players. When someone lives or dies based on your crit confirm, maybe you even roll it in front of all of them so they have the suspense as the die slows to a stop. You just lose these options if you keep rolls in front of the PCs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arcanist casting on Wizard just says, "I'm better than the Sorc at being a Sorc, because I can just change my spells known every day."

I am very glad Paizo is not making this error.

To be fair, there's not really such a thing as a dump stat in this chargen -- just stats you don't give a +2. You can't gut INT to get more points elsewhere, other than taking an ancestry with an INT flaw.

And there's enough enforced MAD with the inclusion of Resonance, probably.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vessa wrote:

First of all, 2e seems alright. There's problems but somethings are really cool and are a much needed update from 1e. Honestly I feel as if the playtest is, overall, a step in the right direction.

That being said one thing I'm praying to Nethys to change is the nerfing of spells and spellcasters. I've been following the playtest ever since it was announced and have read the rulebook. At first I was pretty apprehensive because I saw that every spellcaster was being limited to 3-4 spells per day. I then looked through the spells and noticed that they are so weak compared to a basic sword swing(an unlimited resource that only costs one action) and this was the case throughout the first few levels of spells. A perfect example of this is Barkskin, a really good spell in 1e that is unusable in 2e. Why does it have a downside when it basically doesn't do anything? Why does the downside then increase when you heighten it? Why does it only last for 1 minute? I'm genuinely confused by its existence.

Another thing is why not give wizard something to make up for the fact its not even trained in simple weapons, not trained in any armor and is the only prepared caster that can't heal others?

Cantrips are significantly better than 3.x to compensate.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
If you are using one handed agile weapons, how are you getting 1d12 damage dice?

It's called "I'm dumb/sloppy and edited my post later to hide how dumb/sloppy I was, but someone had already quoted it."

The mortal blow of forums

master_marshmallow wrote:

Not to spam, but one of my players was just trying to build a paladin and we realized the class is.... really really bad. And not just by a little bit.

We were looking at ways to increase damage by way of class features, and you simply can't do anything until level 14. Even then, you have to waste an action and a spell point to do Litany of Righteousness (which lasts 1 round and cannot be done to the same creature again) and another action to activate Blade of Justice, for the sole purpose of making a single attack that gets... 6-11 extra damage. If you have a holy weapon by taking the right feats, and take the other feat that gives you 1 good damage just cuz, then you can spend two actions for your one attack that round to do 1d6+ (7-12) extra damage based on how many weapon dice you already have.

Why would I ever waste two actions to get a damage boost that doesn't even come close to equaling my damage from just making an attack, and why do I have to waste 4 feats just to do it?

Action taxes, feat taxes, all for payoff so small that it's not even worth taking.

This is a serious problem with the design all over this book, my player told me he doesn't think we're going to be able to even play and I got told he doesn't even want to try this game.

This is bad.

Do you think they overestimated the DPR contribution of retributive strike at the table (which is either more reliable than AoO or never triggers, depending on your GM), and might've accidentally locked paladin into reach weapons to make it easier to proc?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Instead of having training wheels for new players and letting advanced players take them off, everyone has to use a tricycle all the time.

Does the book come with a free advanced player to help you out? It doesn't. The product should be playable for a group of total newbies without being a minefield of trap options.

If new people will be faced with a game that is "best played when you're advanced, else you might shoot yourself in the foot", they'll instead opt for a game that doesn't have that (say, 5E) or a board game.

Or the book could just be printed without trap options. For some reason you seem to be assuming that people WANT there to be bad options.

It's basically impossible to print a book with both a lot of options and no bad options. The best you can do is just aim for printing no options that are unplayably bad, because some are just guaranteed to be worse.

master_marshmallow wrote:
FLite wrote:
Except you are not modifying dual strike by chance to hit, you are just assuming both hit.

If you are using an agile weapon, the odds of hitting are exactly the same as with Power Attack, and the odds of landing crits are better because you get to make two attacks instead of one.

Just landing one crit with DS makes it mathematically superior to Power Attack. Landing two makes it roughly equal to a crit on Power Attack, which will happen less often.

In the example taken from my other thread above, the fighter in question was level 12, and had a +22 to hit (the enemy had an AC of 29 requiring a 17 or better to crit). In that scenario, DS is better. In most scenarios DS is better, and if it isn't then you're doing your math wrong because DS will always have a smaller and thus more consistent probability distribution, and it will always have the same chance to hit as Power Attack-ing, if not better by virtue of rolling two attacks.

It's not my fault that some readers on these boards want to deny basic mathematics.

I still very much want to see these calculations done with weapon properties taken into account (charge, forceful, deadly, whatever else). I expect power attack will still end up kind of poor after, but I'd like to see it given a fairer shake.

I'd also like to see people start comparing full rounds wherein all actions are spent on level-appropriate actions. I haven't seen a single person take into account things like certain strike, desperate finisher (this especially seems big), brutal finish, etc. It's almost all just been "if I've got some d12 weapons or a d8/d6 set, what's the difference between double slice and power attack, or power attack and attacking twice?" And that's not actually what we're dealing with in-game when it comes to calculating our DPR.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Druid stuff.

Couldn't decide if I should include all the wild shape form spells you access with spell points... so I just did. Wild Order thus takes up a TON of space. Included reference to detect magic since Nature Sense references it.

BlackRazor77 wrote:

I loved playing PF 1 Fighters, Elven Curve Blade Human with power-attack. Yelling "FULL POWER-ATTACK!" ever round was great. I just don't see the same excitement here. (It is the same problem I have with 5E)

"cleave" damage usually is bad, and worst at higher levels.

Furious Focus, might be the only power you would use, it's a "you missed try again power". It is actually increases your critical hit chance.

You say this, but you get three attacks at level 1 now. You couldn't even full round for two attacks without TWF until level 6 in PF1e, and you didn't have three until level 11. There are also plenty of weapons thaat benefit from spamming multiple attacks in some way or another because of the new weapon traits.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bard composition powers, first by "spell level" and then roughly in order of their appearance in the feat list or class writeup.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quadratic W wrote:
Witch of Miracles wrote:
EDIT: BAsically, power attacking is the equivalent of going to Vegas, playing roulette, and calling a single number over just calling red or black.

Not quite. In that case, if your number comes up, there is a huge payoff.

It's more like being able to double your money by betting on the right color, black or red, and there's a green slot so the house can stay ahead. You're always betting on black.

Then someone takes the time to count the colors on the wheel.

"Uhhh...there are 70 reds and 30 blacks. You'll make money over the long run if you bet on red."

"Ahhh...but you won't know what it will land on until the wheel spins!"

This is what I get for being lazy with my examples LOL

But yeah, that's more what I wanted to convey. ^^

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladin champion powers.

Not sure what other stuff I should compile like this, since I haven't looked at all the classes terribly in-depth.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In general, their hope is to separate out people who are good at a skill by making them able to do things other people can't, instead of them having +30 over the next-best party member. They're aiming for Expert, Master, and Legendary characters to have more -breadth- of ability than characters that are merely trained.

In general, yeah, this doesn't fit with your vision as stated above. It does offer a few avenues to fix it, though.

1) As other people have said, fiddle with the math for proficiency on skills. Maybe only add your level if you're trained, or try any of the other proposed solutions here.

2) An alternate approach would be to gate skill uses further than they're gated RAW -- say, make walking a tightrope require trained or expert proficiency.

Superstition is still fairly strong, considering how nerfed a lot of buff spells are. I mean, you can only haste one person now. +2 Conditional to saves against magic is just nutty.

It's also important that it says on you, and not on your belongings. So, as far as I can tell, Magic Weapon and similar spells that buff your equipment should still work fine.

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Title. I was going crazy flipping around and made these. They're ugly, but they work.




Hope they're useful to someone else.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aviana wrote:
Really, my opinion is bolstered is the biggest problem. You used to be able to have your low level cleric giving people little bonuses when they didn't have anything better to do pretty much every battle, and the target being bolstered after one use shuts down that basic usefulness.

Guidance spam was a very real and annoying issue imo

If it's optimal to just have it on everyone until you get into combat, you just need to kill the option. Either remove it, or give people a more intuitive way to get the bonuses.

As it stood, you basically had to count rounds between everything at low levels because there was no reason to not have guidance up on everyone at all times

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
FTracer wrote:
There probably are some rough parts, but I was amazed at how many people thought they knew how to do it better in one day than two years of development.
Some people do.

It is worth noting that a lot of people, myself included, are still often reading the rules assuming things are true about the system that just aren't anymore. Our experience with PF1 is actually making it -harder- to understand PF2, because a lot of things we expect to be rules aren't anymore, or were subtlely changed to function a different way. (A really good example is rogue getting sneak on their first attack in combat -- it took a good two days for someone to point out that Surprise Attack + the new initiative system replicates this functionality. Almost all of us were getting hung up on how it seems like you can't attack without breaking Stealth as per hide and sneak.)

Having a lot of experience can sometimes be a detriment to understanding a new ruleset.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mnemaxa wrote:

I have seen this come up on another forum.

A lot of the problem with this type of 'math' and other 'white room theorycraft' is it ignores 3 major variables.

1: Player choices outside of the targeted math.
Certainly power attack compared to magic weapons seems to be lackluster. What about 'Assists' from another player? If they are aware you are a power attacker and you don't hit often as you might want to, you can receive assists from characters who don't do much else during their turns. There are even ranged assists from other fighters, rangers, and rogues that take only a single action. This is a critical kind of variable.

2: GM actions.
Monsters aren't static piles of hit points in tabletop games. Every times i see something like this I have to wonder, "what if the monster is X and does Y?" What if the enemy is another PC based class? that changes variables wildly. No damage done is wasted against a monster because you may be facing weaker or stronger versions of the monster, and not all monsters of a given level will ahve the same hit points in any case. Resistance is a very real issue in the playtest.

3: Dice.
No math like this ever stands up to the actual test of rolling dice, because it can't. You can say "the probability of rolling this is this" but that doesn't matter because until the die is actually rolled, it's just a possibility - one of twenty of them as a matter of fact, and no amount of math and statistics is really going to change that.

There are plenty of people who can do this kind of math everywhere, but no one can say with absolute certainty what the players, GM, or dice will actually DO.

I know I'm not going to convince anyone who believes this of anything, but statistical averages are all you can use to balance a mechanic by in a game like this. You want to know how the mechanic will perform over the vast majority of cases; how well it performs in outlier cases isn't a good indication of its strength at all, since those outlier cases almost never occur.

BEsides, if you have to choose what to do, are you going to choose what might get you better results a very miniscule percent of the time but is worse the rest of the time? Not only that, will you choose an option that potentially locks you out of better choices? Power attack, -based on this math-, is both of those.

EDIT: BAsically, power attacking is the equivalent of going to Vegas, playing roulette, and calling a single number over just calling red or black

Cruel Deceiver, the L7 Deception feat, lets you stay unseen while striking after making a diversion:


You’ve mastered the art of distracting your foes

to leave them exposed to your attack. When you Create a
Diversion, if you use a Strike action, you remain unseen until
after the end of the action, instead of becoming seen before
the action.

Also note that sneak attack no longer has a 30 ft range restriction, so you can just stay in a hidden spot and snipe from distance to proc sneak

EDIT: And as other people have indirectly pointed out, the rogue's surprise attack feature, plus stealth being an initiative roll vs. perception, means that the initiative system -itself- does the work of getting sneak at the start of encounters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Maybe there's a middle-ground, Class Feats could be called Talents, Ancestry Feats could be called Traits, or something, as has been suggested many times, mix it up a bit.

I don't see much of a point when they're all the same thing at bottom. It might be more to your current sensibilities to have them named differently, but I look at PFs talents/exploits/tricks/discoveries and just go, "oh, these are class-specific feats." And all the racial stuff you get works out to feats in some way, etc.

It's just being more transparent about the guts of the system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the only big variable missing from the calculation, on second thought, is how all this interacts with the new weapon properties like fatal, deadly, forceful, charge, and the like.

I'm not good at probability math, so I don't know how to calculate all this, but I'm curious if said properties make any differences.

EDIT: Well, that, and I think it's important to compare full-round output using good press attack options, rather than just the first two attacks. Weapon properties have a small effect on this, as well, but it's also important for comparing power attack to double slice etc.

Gug on the Silver Mountain wrote:


Firstly, I'd like clarification as to how that interacts with multi-attack penalties (are both made with the same penalty, -0 if they are the first attack? If so how does that affect other attacks you make this round, counting as one or two attacks? Or does the second suffer a penalty as a second attack?).

0, -4, -8, -8; compare the wording of double slice and it's a bit clearer what the intent is.

It's a net nerf that serves a few purposes.

1) Lowers the potency of the "quadratic wizard" problem (though doesn't wholly eliminate it)

2) Supports more melee-focused offbuilds of Sorc/Wiz/Cleric innately, since you don't have to commit as hard to your casting stat to be a good caster (no extra spells/day, don't need 10+spell level casting stat to cast a spell)

3) Melee buff spells are actually higher value at lower levels because of new action economy, so lowering the amount of buff spells available limits the availability of that power creep. Bless going onto 3 attacks in a turn over 1 attack in a turn is a huge difference.


4. Sorcerers must keep learning the same spell at higher levels.

Why does a Sorcerer need to keep relearning Fireball at every level up in order to be able to consistently blast with good damage? Sorcerers already have limited spells known, all this change does is make Wizards more unholy powerful by comparison by effectively making Sorcerers less able to efficiently utilize said spells known.
Metamagic in the past did a fine job of making higher level spell slots more powerful. This just makes wizards stand out as powerhouses more than they already were.

I know I've been a broken record about this, but combined with spontaneous heighten, I'm pretty sure this works out to a net buff over PF1. Many spells that get value from heightening used to be a line of spells or have lesser/greater versions (e.g. Invis, Summon). Using spontaneous heighten, you can effectively get nine levels of summon X for the low price of one spell known in the best case, and two or three spells known for the price of one in others.

Spontaneous heighten's two picks are also generally enough to support your main sorc gameplan (e.g. summonbot, fireball bot), negating the restriction on the spells you need most.

Velisruna wrote:
While this is interesting and useful, another analysis that could be informative is if you are spending all your actions to attack. Either doing a power attack and an attack at -5, or three attacks at -0/-5/-10.

The attack after PA is at a -10, unfortunately.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is exactly the kind of thing I wanted to see. Amazing work.

Aku-Arkaine wrote:

Action economy has become far more complex than I think it needs to be. Swift actions for instance I felt were a good thing, but now they are gone. Action, action, action may seem simple, but in reality it leaves you with a mess of options requiring a chart to figure out; it's especially so for casters.

It's not really hard to understand what happened. In essence:

2 actions = standard

1 action = move

reaction = swift/immediate (which are actually the same action cost anyways)

And martial is just target buffed by getting access to more attacks after moving without feat taxes/getting more attacks at lower levels.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ronnam wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time on the Paizo forums, so I've missed a lot, but I'm curious: did people dislike the process of investing in Skill Ranks each level? Was that unpopular? Thanks

I think they were trying to keep the party from being autolocked out of certain skill-based approaches to encounters and challenges. E.G., being unable to sneak into the dungeon because everyone is at like +3 (if that) except the rogue, who is at +27 between feats and items and a bunch of other stuff.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Anecdotally I've lost 5 players out of 20 to 5e, and the ones who remain keep nagging me to switch to 5e.

That's unfortunate. 5e is smoother and all, but I really felt like I had almost no control over the outcome of the game compared to PF. Seemed like I had to petition the GM to keep the game outcome from falling to the dice all too often.

5e does some good things, but it's definitely not what I hoped it would be from its popularity.

1 to 50 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>