Zman0's page

Here is the guidance I created for Bound Pathfinder 2nd in the Playtest, it worked well enough for the couple of months I ran it. I also had gone through and changed all the other static DCs that needed help by modifying editing the rulebook pdf. I also had edited the playtest bestiary with all the new and relevant values.

Bestiary Changes
Remove the monter's level from all calculations that include it: Perception, Skills, AC, TAC, Saves, To Hit, and Save DCs.

This also applies to Hazards and Traps.

Table 4- Creature XP and Role
Party's Level XP Suggested Role
Party's Level - 7-8 5 Trivial-threat Minion
Party's Level - 6 10 Minimum-threat Minion
Party's Level - 5 15 Minimum-threat Minion
Party's Level - 4 20 Low-threat minion
Party's Level - 3 25 Minion
Party's Level - 2 30 High-minion
Party's Level - 1 35 Any standard
Party's Level 40 Any standard
Party's Level + 1 50 Low-threat boss
Party's Level + 2 60 Boss
Party's Level + 3 80 High-threat boss
Party's Level + 4 100 Severe-threat solo boss
Party's Level + 5 120 Extreme-threat solo boss
Party's Level + 6 160 Extreme-threat solo boss
Party's Level + 7 240 Beyond Extreme-threat solo boss
Party's Level + 8 320 Beyond Extreme-threat solo boss
*Be cautious using any monster with a CR greater than double the party's level.

Calculating Average Party Level
Calculate the average party level rounded down.
Higher Level Characters
If a character is one level higher than the average party level they recieve half the expected experience. If a character is two levels higher than the average party level they recieve only one quarter the expected experience. If a character is more than two levels higher than the average party level the encounter is considered trivial and they receive no experience.

Lower Level Characters
If a character is one level lower than the average party level they recieve one and a half the expected experience. If a character is two levels lower than the average party level they recieve double the expected experience.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Zman0 wrote:

There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.

I'm gonna requote this because it is important and seems to be overlooked. A sturdy shield might be better than an adamantine shield or a Forge Warden, but it is not especially better than an adamantine Forge Warden.

Technically, it isn't a clear cut and dry case that the special shields are intended to be able to made from special materials. I think, in general they should be able to be, but by RAW, given the values of the shields as pointed out don't match the base Steel shield it claims to be made from . it would require judgment on how to modify them. Do you subtract the values from a steel shield and then add the values from the material's shield entry.

A steel shield is Level 0; 2gp; Bul1; H 5, HP 20, BT 10
A standard Adamantine shield, Level 8; 440gp; Bulk 1; H 10, HP 40, BT 20
A Lion's Shield, Level 6; 245gp; B 1; H6, HP 36, BT 18

So is a Adamantine Lion's shield=
Lion - steel shield + adamantine shield?
Level 8; 683gp; Bulk 1; H 11, HP 56, BT 28

The above opens up some opportunities where the Hardness and the HP are quite different, which seems contrary to normal design, so I'm inclined to think it isn't intended.

So maybe you should use the material to determine the Hardness and have the type of shield determine the multiplier between Hardness and HP/BT
So is a Adamantine Lion's shield=
Lion - steel shield + adamantine shield for hardness? Then use the lion shield's multipliers for HP and BT based on calculated hardness.
Level 8; 683gp; Bulk 1; H 11, HP 66, BT 33

In any case, it isn't necessarily clear cut exactly what you do if you were to find a adamantine arrow catching shield, presuming one is intended to be allowed. I'm surprised that the arrow catching shield doesn't have a...

We can't explain their discrepancies, but the rules tell us how to create them. Use the base material shield then add the costs together. The HP and Hardness etc are as the base material. We can't explain their errors, but we can use the rules to get a reasonable result.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Zman0 wrote:

There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.

I'm gonna requote this because it is important and seems to be overlooked. A sturdy shield might be better than an adamantine shield or a Forge Warden, but it is not especially better than an adamantine Forge Warden.

I could use a link, I have no idea how to figure those stats and it really changes the Shield game, at least until mid levels of play.

Pg 244, 263, 577-578, 586-587

As long as you have the Magical Crafting Feat and raw materials you can substitute out the basic steel shield from the magical shields etc with the base statistics for the precious material shield you crafted and used to make the magical item.

Meet requirements of all parts, add cost of precious material shield to cost of magic shield, then craft it. All shields late game will be made into Spellguard Shields or Spined Shields if they aren't Indestructible or Sturdy.

This does not tell us what happens when you try and craft a Sturdy Shield out of a Precious Material. Best interpretation is that Sturdy doesn't care about the material so make it out of the cheapest garbage available.

Higher level monsters will still obliterate low level characters etc. What removing +Proficiency does is stretch the viable opposition range from +/- 4 Levels to about +/- 8 Levels. The +/-10 Crit range still works, its just stretched. I played with this variant for months during the playtest and it works well.

There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.

Three weeks after the release of the playtest. I designed a simple progression by level, unlike +1 per level it is +1 per three levels, that is for everything, the monsters, the character, the traps, the DC charts etc. This is very simple to accomplish by the way. Now, to those who want to remove the level bonus completely, that is to say make it a flat 0+prof, that is also a poor design. I wanted the level bonus to be closer to the other bonuses you get like attributes, prof, magic/buffs. The key is to have level matter, but you do not want it to trump everything in the game, my system accomplishes the perfect progression, I will show you my table on IMGUR : https://imgur.com/mfx0vcm

Now the other flawed design is 0/+2/+4/+6/+8, good designers do not make math for the norm, that is to say proficiency should be the base +0, non proficiency which is usually used way less than proficiency should be a negative (See prof in AD&D). IMO, here is what it should have been.

UTEML: U -2 T +0 E +1 M +2 L +3

This UTEML progression worked perfectly with my bounded level bonus, and other bonuses in the game.

Also I would have maintained Touch AC, as an example It makes no sense that a incorporeal creature has to penetrate physical plate male?!?!?! And do not say it makes it simpler with out it, this is not a simple game.

One other thing, they should have avoided making a level 2 feat that reduces the cooldown of Treat Wounds to 10 minutes, i.e. Continual Recovery.

I agree. The playtest's UTEML progression was better and seeing 0/2/4/6/8 in the final was, well, unfortunate. I kept arguing that underneath the needless level scaling of +level to proficiency the underlying game was a very solid bound one. I even ran a multi-month campaign using my bound rules that worked quite well. Monsters had more than enough scaling with their HP/Damage/Proficiency/Item scaling. Now, they had issues with the Item bonus and Monster Perception which they mostly solved, but the core changes to proficiency aren't good ones for running P2 Bound.

Zman0 wrote:

No one said they were infallible demi-gods. However, your insistence that you know the Correct Decision they should have made despite not having any data at all (not even fallible playtest data) means that you're positioning yourself as an infallible demi-god.

Your whole argument is boiling down to:

1. You don't believe the playtest data, but don't have any contradictory data to support that feeling.

2. The devs are worse at making games than you.

3. Catering to 5e players should have been a highly valued goal.

I never said I am infallible Demigod. But I am saying it is a legitimate argument to make about 5e style casting vs Vancian. Does the argument work the opposite way. Did Wizards drop Vancian because of their playtest data? Which is arguable going to be better than Paizo's. Or did they use all their big data to make 4e the perfect game for the market? Oops, that wasn't quite so good... How about 5e? Much better. Acting like Devs for major systems can't make mistakes and misread the market is ridiculous on its face, especially when we're discussing one particular subsystem of the whole game.

1. I am arguing that the playtest data is is flawed due to selection bias which in this particular case is nearly impossible to correct for.

2. I have never said that. Of the two P2 devs I've had any interactions with, I respect one of them immensely and do not think very highly of the other at all.

3. Only if converting 5e players to P2 is a goal and is contrasted to catering to P2 Playtesters who are arguably already a lock, regardless.

Also, got that link to the Playtest and focus group data analyzing Vancian Casting that utilized statistical modeling to account for their obvious and problematic selection bais?

Zman0 wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Zman0 wrote:

No, you take every result with a heaping pile of salt. The point of my comment is that using the survey results as if they represent all of Paizo's potential market and is the be all end all of useful data is inherently flawed. Given the asinine complexity and frustration factor of Vancian Casting, it isn't too big a leap to say it's likely more off-putting than attractive to new, non-Paizo, players.

Paizo could have say found a couple dozen people interested in playing RPGs and tried and teach them two different casting systems and then asked them for their feedback. In that situation, I'd bet money you get a different result and a 5e style of casting will vastly outperform P2's Vancian.

Of course I could be wrong, but I'll rely on years worth of experience teaching new people both Vancian and non-Vancian styles of casting,and teaching people transitioning form 3.P to 5e. Though to be fair, none of the people I know that disliked Vancian style casting and made the move to 5e are even considering switching back to P2, so there is that.

But they did do focus group testing. They also used statistical models to try to help account for biases in their playtester feedback. Crucially, they had to make a decision, and they made one based on feedback as well as their own experience and intuition. I guarantee you that they took an adequate amount of salt with each playtest survey.

Just because it doesn't align with what you would have done in their shoes, doesn't mean that they blindly followed faulty playtest data.

If you had actual data showing how their decision was wrong, and could show that they had that data back when they made their decision, then your point would make a lot of sense. Since you don't have that kind of info, all you're doing is backseat, hindsight, amateur game developing.

Oh, they focus tested Vancian vs 5e style prepared spellcasting? I must have missed the Devs discussing that. Care to point me

...

Actually, I was lucky enough to have pretty substantial private conversations with one of the Devs during the playtest about certain back-end issues, namely the above mentioned item bonus, item bonus assumptions, proficiency assumptions, and how they negatively affected Monster Skills and Perception. Even a good bit about legacy decisions and conventions and "sacred cows" got brought up. That afforded me substantial insight to how things work and don't work behind the scenes.

Now, I have no knowledge about their Vancian decisions, and I wish I did, but the Devs are not infallible Demi-gods acting with near omniscient survey information as some would lead us to believe. They're people, and people make bad decisions and mistakes sometimes. Taking the position that sticking with Vancian Casting is a mistake and alienates a great deal of potential customers is not an outrageous position to have.

Zman0 wrote:

No, you take every result with a heaping pile of salt. The point of my comment is that using the survey results as if they represent all of Paizo's potential market and is the be all end all of useful data is inherently flawed. Given the asinine complexity and frustration factor of Vancian Casting, it isn't too big a leap to say it's likely more off-putting than attractive to new, non-Paizo, players.

Paizo could have say found a couple dozen people interested in playing RPGs and tried and teach them two different casting systems and then asked them for their feedback. In that situation, I'd bet money you get a different result and a 5e style of casting will vastly outperform P2's Vancian.

Of course I could be wrong, but I'll rely on years worth of experience teaching new people both Vancian and non-Vancian styles of casting,and teaching people transitioning form 3.P to 5e. Though to be fair, none of the people I know that disliked Vancian style casting and made the move to 5e are even considering switching back to P2, so there is that.

But they did do focus group testing. They also used statistical models to try to help account for biases in their playtester feedback. Crucially, they had to make a decision, and they made one based on feedback as well as their own experience and intuition. I guarantee you that they took an adequate amount of salt with each playtest survey.

Just because it doesn't align with what you would have done in their shoes, doesn't mean that they blindly followed faulty playtest data.

If you had actual data showing how their decision was wrong, and could show that they had that data back when they made their decision, then your point would make a lot of sense. Since you don't have that kind of info, all you're doing is backseat, hindsight, amateur game developing.

Oh, they focus tested Vancian vs 5e style prepared spellcasting? I must have missed the Devs discussing that. Care to point me to where that was discussed? I didn't accuse them of blindly following the playtest data, but accused the playtest data of being of little worth in relation to a legacy issue such a Vancian Casting.

I got a little peak behind the curtains to some of their decision making and honestly, they're human and fallible. Feedback needs to be interpreted and I have a feeling it was less their experience and intuition and more like personal preference, internal biases, and fear of changing legacy that drove some decisions. I mean, there is a reason they are still using ability scores when the only thing that matters are the modifiers, even if they've started moving towards getting rid of them with monsters. If you need other examples of fallibility, look to their botching of the Item bonus and assumptions of proficiency as it related to Monster Skills and especially Perception in the playtest. Those issues should have never made it to the playtest print.

Zman0 wrote:

Everyone keeps going back to the playtest survey and how the devs made decisions based on it. What I think Donovan Du Bois is getting at with his comments is that a survey's results are only as good as they are representative. Surveying only those players who are most likely P1 players already, already experienced with and invested in Vancian, and committed enough to partake in the playtest, is far from representative of all players, and certainly is not representative of potential players. Essentially those results are as limited as the the people they've surveyed and should not be relied upon.

What's the alternative? Hiring a polling company to cold-call random people to ask them about RPG design? Paizo used the best method available to them, which was always going to include opt-in participants.

No, you take every result with a heaping pile of salt. The point of my comment is that using the survey results as if they represent all of Paizo's potential market and is the be all end all of useful data is inherently flawed. Given the asinine complexity and frustration factor of Vancian Casting, it isn't too big a leap to say it's likely more off-putting than attractive to new, non-Paizo, players.

Paizo could have say found a couple dozen people interested in playing RPGs and tried and teach them two different casting systems and then asked them for their feedback. In that situation, I'd bet money you get a different result and a 5e style of casting will vastly outperform P2's Vancian.

Of course I could be wrong, but I'll rely on years worth of experience teaching new people both Vancian and non-Vancian styles of casting,and teaching people transitioning form 3.P to 5e. Though to be fair, none of the people I know that disliked Vancian style casting and made the move to 5e are even considering switching back to P2, so there is that.

Everyone keeps going back to the playtest survey and how the devs made decisions based on it. What I think Donovan Du Bois is getting at with his comments is that a survey's results are only as good as they are representative. Surveying only those players who are most likely P1 players already, already experienced with and invested in Vancian, and committed enough to partake in the playtest, is far from representative of all players, and certainly is not representative of potential players. Essentially those results are as limited as the the people they've surveyed and should not be relied upon.

Does anyone else think that Pathfinder second edition should have gone with the D&D 5e method of spell preparation?

For those of you that don't know, prepared spell casters get to prepare a number of spells, and then can spend a spell slot to cast any appropriately leveled spell. So instead of preparing three magic missiles, you just need to have magic missile prepared today to be able to spend spell slots to cast it.

I think this would have helped people who are coming over from 5e, as well as give prepared casters a little utility after the decrease in spell slots. What does everyone else think?

Agreed on all counts. With quite of experience both ways, I'm not sure I'd get the guy who played 5e casters for two years to play a P2 caster without house-ruling it. Literally the first day of the playtest for P2, he said something to the effect, "Ugg, casting is so annoying, why didn't they just use 5e casting, it's better?" We chucked that rule after about six hours of play and house-ruled it. It's kind of funny, when I met the guy he was a P1 guy, then swung completely to 5e. P2 is yet to be determined, but requires house-rules such as casting.

Let them just prepare spells and cast them as many times as slots allow. Let the spontaneous casters spontaneously heighten for free and make the prepared casters prepare any heightened spells they want. We playtested about five to six months like that.

IMO, good old Vancian Casting is just terribly frustrating, cumbersome, and annoying to play with.

Zman0 wrote:

There are no rules for it whatsoever. The magical shields are as presented. It would have been painfully simple to have added those rules.

Since you said "no rules for it whatsoever" I had to go looking because I thought I had seen something on the topic.

Here are things I've found:
1. The shields section lists special materials, including the various grades of quality that they can be.
2. The materials section says "An item can be made with no more than one precious material, and only an expert in Crafting can create it." which doesn't exclude shields.
3. That section continues on to say "...creating higher-level items and more powerful magic runes with precious material requires greater purity." which implies combining a higher-grade material with higher-level item type.
4. There is a sub-section called "Crafting with Precious Materials" which says "Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes."

Note how "creation of magic items" and "hold runes" are separate, showing that special materials aren't just limited to usage in magical items that derive their traits from runes - meaning any magic item, so long as there is not a specific exception listed, can be made from special materials.

That same section covers how much of the special material is needed for the creation of a particular item.
5. The crafting rules cover the rest, except for explicitly stating that you just combine the prices of the special material and the magic item you are making out of it to determine the costs.

So "no rules for it whatsoever" seems to be an overstatement... since I appear to have scrounged up enough rules on the topic to get the job done. Would have been nice...

I intended mild hyperbole, believing the rules inadequate.

I stand corrected, upon further inspection, you can build the magic items out of the higher quality materials and it works for all but the Sturdy Shield which overrides the stats. Doesn't tell us how to make an Adamantine Sturdy shield that has any benefits over the steel one.

Gotta make every shield mid level and higher a Spellguard or Spined Shield.

shroudb wrote:

At the very least, you should have been able to make the non-sturdy shields out of any material you could afford to.

...is making a magical shield out of a special material against the rules? did I miss that somehow?

There are no rules for it whatsoever. The magical shields are as presented. It would have been painfully simple to have added those rules.

Yep. There were serious issues in line with these in the playtest as well and they did absolutely nothing to fix them. Worse, they just updated them to the new shield format without fixing them. Shields were based off the early shields and did not scale with level and still don't. IMO, it is kind of ridiculous that they would fail to address this absolutely glaring error. I mean, it was a known issue, and is pretty obvious, and less than nothing was done about it. This is the kind of thing that makes this book look like an unfinished product.

They have plans to release a new rulebook with all the errata and even more. I'm pretty sure its slated for August of 2019. ;)

Heavy armor is the worst of the three classifications, and in my opinion needs to be addressed.

The proficient restrictions and low dex requirement are not balanced against the ACP and Speed reductions. We also have an certain AC/TAC balance that low dex heavy armor wearers suffer as well.

My suggestions are twofold, address the Armor Check Penalty and Address the Heavy Armor speed penalty.

First, ACP is too punishing at low levels and complicated to remember with the varying numbers modified by varying levels. Mithril is necessary for medium armor. I suggest removing all ACP for light armor, all Medium Armor has an ACP of -1, and Heavy armor has an ACP of -2. I also suggest eliminating the ACP for light shields, the balance between light shields and heavy shields is quite poor. Also, this requires removing armor quality from affecting ACP, instead make them like weapons, they get a relevant +1 at the appropriate levels. So Expert armor has +1 AC etc.

As for speed, cap out the armor speed penalty at -5ft. Being forced into a 15' speed is just too debilitating and mandates Fleet at the first opportunity.

Also, remove the lvl restrictions on heavy armors and lower the cost of Splint mail to 100sp so a character can actually start the game in it. Treat Heavy like Light and Medium for cost etc of enhancements at low levels, its unnecessary.

Now, we have a situation where the benefits of dumping Dex and getting access to higher levels of proficiency is balanced against a moderate ACP(-2 or -1 with Mithril armor), reasonable speed decrease -5ft, and the poorer AC/TAC. We also end up with a balance point that always incentivizes Mithril armor for all metal Medium and Heavy armors.

Most damage now comes from damage die scaling, so all a melee bard needs to be effectively competent in melee is possessing a maxed potency weapon. It is one benefit of damage scaling in P2.

I would suggest either picking up Expert proficiency in his weapon at 13th vs ancestry feats, or picking it up at 12th level with Fighter dedication. True Strike is going to have plenty of uses, I wouldn't look past self haste, blurr, blink, etc etc for self buffing. Inspire Courage with Lingering composition will also be effective, for you and everybody else and lingering composition means it will cost you an action every other turn if you're lucky.

I think this one is ambiguous, though, since Double Slice is an activity which is kind of a logical wrapping, and it does have single attack language for resistances etc and sneak references "attack"...

Though the situation is technically ambiguous, I would rule that both strikes as part of the double slice activity constitute the "attack" and would benefit from the sneak attack flatfooted condition.

I don't think you'll get an "official" answer for this one.

Interesting questions. It really boils down to is Double Slice considered a Strike for the purposes of Quick.

Now, I expected this to be pretty ambiguous and was leaning to the RAW not allowing it, but luckily I found a passage in an unlikily spot that coveres exactly this kind of scenario.

Activities pg 296
"An activity doesn’t count as any of its dependent actions
or other abilities. For example, the quick condition you
get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action
each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the
extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike."

So, its pretty clear, the Double Strike activity does not count as a Strike that can be used by the Action granted by Quick.

I am not a terribly big fan of Hero Points as written. I have houseruled them as such...

Each adventuring day the Heroes start with one, they reset to one at the end of the day. There are no out of game Hero Point rewards. Our table is a bit irked by the idea of trying to modulate player behavior.

All actions now cost only one Hero Points.

Heroic Recovery: As written
Reroll: As written, no refund.
Extra Action: As written.

Added two new Heroic Actions

Heroic Resolve: Outside of Encounter mode spend a Hero Point to recover half the hit points you are down. This helps offset toning down Treat Wounds.

Heroic Defense: Gain benefit of appropriate leveled Mage Armor, last one hour. Its literally plot armor for those times out heroes aren't in their armor etc.

The answer is no for a couple of reasons. Firstly, both Double Slice and Sudden charge require two actions for a total of four actions and your fighter only has three actions. Secondly, Sudden Charge lets you make a melee strike, it doesn't give you permission to use anything but a basic Melee Strike action.

Zman0 wrote:

But, as long as they keep it, its easy to houserule out and I'll deal. And my couple months of playtesting has led me to believe that it is indeed the playstyle for me. It just means that instead of buying a physical rulebook, I have to buy the cheaper pdf, modify the things that need it, and print it off and bind it with the remainder of the money I saved. Same for the Bestiary.

I know this isn't on the topic, but I don't think this forum has a way to DM people, so I'm sorry for that. How exactly do you modify things in the PDF before printing it? I would really like to do that, but I though PDFs were made to be uneditable.

I've just been adding comment txt boxes in foxit. When you print, it'll print the comment txtbox over what was there. You can't really modify the pdf itself, or at least not easily. But, so far, this has worked very well.

I've also been using the snapshot feature for errata updates etc, so my group is using just the printed rulebook in front of them, no reference sheets at all. When something needs changing or gets errata, I just reprint it and replace the sheets. With tabs in multiple binders(characters, GM/Playing, Spells) it has worked really well so far.

People have really been losing sight of the topic of the thread. Having Bound or +level be an optional rule for P2.

So much talk about how you can't tell those two kinds of stories in one system. Well, by making the removal of +level and optional rule, you definitely can tell those two kinds of stories in the same base system. Bound P2 tells stories in the same way 5e does, Unbound or stock P2 tells them very much the same way that P1 does. I see the opportunity to do both in the same base system incredibly appealing.

IMO, an official variant rules making it acceptable would go a long way. Some official support, ie a separate bestiary is probably too much to ask. Having the alternate lower values in parentheses or something seems more reasonable.

I find it fun, this is still a topic of conversation, literally one of my first threads on the forums was asking for two Pathfinders, a Bound and Unbound one. Still looking for official recognition of the play-style and bestiary support would be amazing.

But, as long as they keep it, its easy to houserule out and I'll deal. And my couple months of playtesting has led me to believe that it is indeed the playstyle for me. It just means that instead of buying a physical rulebook, I have to buy the cheaper pdf, modify the things that need it, and print it off and bind it with the remainder of the money I saved. Same for the Bestiary.

So much misinformation going on in this thread, I'm glaring at you, BryonD, in particular.

Removing the +Level scaling from P2 isn't difficult, it is quite easy to do. Yes, it does change encounter design, but largely lower level threats being a bit tougher and the higher level threats being a bit easier will balance out. The default +/-4 Level threat range effectively expands to +/-6 with a usable, albeit touchy, tail of +/-8 levels.

Remember, there is no change against equal level enemies. Because of HP, Damage Scaling, and inherent Potency bonuses, and proficiency increases there still exists a large amount of scaling as monsters level. This still constrains appropriate levels to a reasonable range. The super tight "ideal" +/- 2 Level Monster range from default is doubled to an ideal range of +/-4 Levels. By ideal range, I mean monsters that are most often going to be used and most appropriate to run against your party. Running the game without +Level means a monster that is 6 levels higher than your party is going to be a serious threat.

Sure, a horde of goblins with a bow can be a threat to a dragon, but mathematically because of auto hit 20s, than stock, and IMO its up to the DM to make that not a thing. And before we hear the arguments about there don't exist fantasy settings where that is a thing, I'll point out that it is so in the Witcher series. Hell, the "adventurers and heroes" there conspire to stop the peasants from figuring out they could take on the threats by themselves. Want to "fix" this problem, give every monster CR8+ or CR10+ DR5(or half level) to non magical damage, done, low level archers aren't killing your dragons now.

Yes, a couple of feats don't work, and listed DCs in spells etc need the same kind of adjustment as the bestiary, and some items like locks need new DCs. But, it comes with the huge advantage of being able to effectively remove the 10-2 Table. You get to use static DCs, and man that is easier. Numbers always mean something.

I've been running this houserule in effective playtest for over two months already. It works, and most of the kinks have been worked out. It isn't that difficult to use in practice. As far as I am concerned, it is is far better of a game than stock P2, P1, 3.5, and 5e. P2, with level scaling removed, is the game I want to be playing and the one I will be playing.

I'd love official support for that playstyle, the sooner the better.

Zman0 wrote:

We should get it as an official variant rule at some point. Mark told me doing so was a "no-brainer" in a supplement dealing with grittier realism rules. Doubt we'll see it in the rulebook, but hopefully in one of supplements and gamemaster guides that comes out within a reasonable timeframe. Cross our fingers. The underlying game is a solid bound framework, itd be a shame to not take official advantage of that.

Luckily, it is quite easy to houserule, and I'm already running a homegame without +level and loving it. Only really pain in the ass part is modifying all the relevant values. I've already modified the entire playtest pdf to run without +level, adjust the things it really breaks, and printed it off for the group. I've modified all the monsters int he bestiary I'll need in the foreseeable future, and will wait for that entire project until the official game is released, especially considering monster skills and perception are still a mess due to their poor assumptions and the problematic item bonus.

Why should I play a game where I have to modify nearly all the math? Why not just play PF1, or another current edition of a game then?

It's just removing the level scaling revealing a very solid bound system. The modification is very straightforward and easy to accomplish.

Why? Well because P1 is not a bound system and is something I personall loath, nearly as much as 3.5. If you look for a bound alternative, that leave the stripped down overly simplistic 5e that is in need of more modification in the form of depth.

We should get it as an official variant rule at some point. Mark told me doing so was a "no-brainer" in a supplement dealing with grittier realism rules. Doubt we'll see it in the rulebook, but hopefully in one of supplements and gamemaster guides that comes out within a reasonable timeframe. Cross our fingers. The underlying game is a solid bound framework, itd be a shame to not take official advantage of that.

Luckily, it is quite easy to houserule, and I'm already running a homegame without +level and loving it. Only really pain in the ass part is modifying all the relevant values. I've already modified the entire playtest pdf to run without +level, adjust the things it really breaks, and printed it off for the group. I've modified all the monsters int he bestiary I'll need in the foreseeable future, and will wait for that entire project until the official game is released, especially considering monster skills and perception are still a mess due to their poor assumptions and the problematic item bonus.

Tridus wrote:

Blasting is going to be strictly a high spell slot thing, yes. Your lower ones will be better used for buffs and debuffs.

Heal has the same problem, at higher level play a low level Heal does basically nothing against player HP (except to get someone out of dying).

What if you're playing a spontaneous caster and your low level spells are all attack spells rather than buffs and debuffs?

Retrain them.

Persistent Damage is one thing I'm not a huge fan of. On some level, I like the concept, but I'm not sold on the flat 20 check. IMO, I'd like to see the flat check be reduced by 1 for every turn you've had it, IE not possible it goes on for ever.

Love
1. 3 Action Economy
2. UTEML + Proficiency Gating
3. Bound System underneath +level scaling
*Really could add more

Hate
1. +Level Scaling
2. Unlimited Treat Wounds
3. Magic Weapon Potency Damage Dice
*The Rest is really minor

House Rules
1. Omit +Level Scaling
2. Restrain Treat Wounds.
3. Extra Damage Dice at level 4/8/12/16/20
4. Potency for Shields adding +1 Dend and +1 Hardness for Potency.
5. Hero Points. Per Adventuring Day instead of Session. No OOC awarding. All cost 1 HP. Add Defense(Leveled Mage Armor for 1 hr), Add Resolve(Heal half lost Hit Points out of combat)

Overall, P2 is the system I want to be running, even if it takes some tweaking, at least its easy to tweak. I don't come from the standard Pathfinder background, I loathed 3.5 and P1, and have been playing 5e for since it released, albeit with added content and effectively E10.

There definitely are some rough edges where the power fueled classes are concerned.

I wonder if those classes need a ability that grants them a bonus Focus if their primary stat is higher than their Char. IE your Wizard who had an 18 Int and 12 Charisma and has powers.

Under stock, they would have had 4 Spell Points and would have had level +1 Resonance.

Now, they would have only 1 Focus. With my suggestion, since their Int is higher than their Cha, they'd net a +1 Focus for a total of 2.

IMO this is good because it still gives the reason to boost Cha to Int -2 to maximize their Focus, but if they don't increase Cha much, they still are a bit better off because of their specialty. It maintains an incentive to boost Cha, and it smooths that rough edge a bit.

PS About the Harry Dresden argument, he definitely was a charismatic jerk, look at the loyalty he can inspire in others. Look at all the people who answered his call to get his daughter back from the red court.

I shifted cantrip damage scaling from odd levels up one to even levels and added a 10th level option.

Monster skills will be less than what is currently listed for a number of reasons. But, it doesn't look like they are going to errata the bestiary during the playtest so we're stuck with higher numbers for a while.

For final release, expect a better balancing of the item bonus in general, how it is calculated in Monster assumptions and PC DCs etc. Expect monster perception to be fixed, its currently being treated like a skill, but it isn't one.

If you're running a home game, I'd go right ahead and make that adjustment. You also wouldn't be far off subtracting 1 from skills and perception levels 1-10, and 2 from levels 11-20.

Basically, Monster skills are a known problem and will be addressed, its just they most likely won't be adjusting them in the playtest.

People are going to have differing experiences. Our group just ended our long running 5e game and are moving over to P2. We all enjoyed 5e. Some in our group were fans of P1, others weren't. One player after one Pathfinder experience with a different group in the past had to be begged to give P2 a chance. She was beyond resistant simply because it shared the name Pathfinder. Yes, she hated her Pathfinder experience that much, but we got her to give it a go and she seems to like P2 so far. It took two years of good will built up in two very successful 5e games, and my personal assurance that I too hated Pathfinder and 3.5, and that P2 was very different.

We're starting our own P2 campaign, albeit with a few variant rules, most notable running the system Bound.

As far as the playtest process goes, the scenarios are very different from a "fun" perspective than adventure paths or homebrew campaigns. Not to mention the options are pruned down etc etc.

Specific trumps general. RAW I see a strong case for allowing swapping bloodline spells. I see a weak case against it. RAI is less clear. Without a FAQ I’d let it happen. Plus, Sorxerers need a little love now and then.

IMO general feats are about where they need to be and should have roughly equal power to each other. Class feats on the other hand need to escalate in power proportionally corresponding to their level. IMO a General Feats should be roughly equivalent to a low level class feat, and should not equal a mid to higher level feat.

Essentially general feats can’t be equally powered compared to class feats because class feats are a moving target with a wide and escalating range of power.

I wouldn’t mind general feats, especially the ability to pick up expert in weapons proficiency making the fighter version expert or upgrade expert to master.

Bard is my favorite of the classes so far. I've just built a melee Bard who yells(inspire courage) at his companions and is a reasonable combatant. He can multiclass to fighter or rogue for tons more fun. Add in tons of skills and I'm happy as a clam. Only thing that i wish I had was a Ring of Wizardry that worked with Occultism not just Arcane so I can get more True Strikes in. Oh, and no easy access to magical striker. I did consider a Bard Sorcerer Gish for more spells, Arcane access to True Strike, and Magical Striker, but the feat load is brutal.

How important is balance? IMO, very.

How people define balance gets tricky, for me it means relatively meaningful choices with opportunity cost with only moderate differences between optimized and casual centered around meaningful baseline assumptions.

It is a very large reason I stopped spending anything on 3.5, spent nothing on Pathfinder, while spending hundreds on 5e even if it still needed some balance tweaking. And it is the reason I am planning on buy essentially every P2 product. With relatively small changes(most importantly removing +level) P2 will be the best system for the kind of games I want to run.

I’ve modified one with all the annotations, I’ve also make a few housefuls ie making it bound, etc. and I’ve printed it for my home game that’s starting up. Now i can just tweak things with the future updates and reprint the relevant pages.

For my non play test gaming I’ve already gone through and dropped them from odd levels to even, starting at 2, and added a 10th level heightening. Damage scales better that way.

There is definitely a wealth of potential Backgrounds out there and I like a lot of he suggestions.

One thing I am doing at my table is allowing every character to pick two backgrounds, though each one only grants one ability boost in the named abilities, they no longer give a free boost. You get the skill feat and lore from each.

Using that houserule we now have the potential for Noble Warriors, or Noble Scholars or Merchant Sailors, or Criminal Sailors, or Criminal Laborers, etc etc. IMO it gives them more background flavor and diversity.

The RAI seems pretty clear by its pricing etc that it comes back as Ghost Ammunition. But, they haven't been clear enough in specifying that it ignores the more general rule of losing magical properties after being fired. So, you could argue RAW that it reappears in your quiver as nonmagical, but RAI is pretty clear.

Its a 550gp normal arrow that benefits from a level 4 rune. It is intended to be permanent, and reusable, always coming back a d4 days later.

Here is how I would write a Tower Shield for P2

As Shield, ie +2 AC. -2 ACP, 2 Bulk. Allows the player to "take cover" action behind it for the +4 circumstance bonus to AC vs ranged attacks. Functions as well as a normal shield in melee at the cost of ACP and Bulk, shines as portable cover for the bearer against range.

The problem is, if a Fighter who invests everything into combat stays the same relative to the enemies, that means a Fighter who doesn't invest solely in combat will get weaker every level.

This isn't really true. By nature of its chassis, the Fighter pulls ahead of the average monster on combat stats and keeps pace with specialized monsters.

I agree, with Fighter only giving an armor upgrade, it make Paladin feel pretty jarring. I wouldn't have been opposed to Paladin being Medium armor, or upgrading Medium to Heavy.

I mean Paladin already grants shields and more armor than the fighter at the exchange of martial weapons. IMO Fighter dedication could be brought up to medium+ or Paladin could be brought down to Medium +.

Right now it looks like Paladin is straight up better mechanically, with a no enforcement code that people will want to disregard.

Out of all the options, I probably prefer making fighter Medium armor or heavy if you already had medium.

The new rules for Treat Wounds have one major unintended consequence, they absolutely obsolete Natural Medicine as a feat.

My suggestion is this...

Natural Medicine:
You can use Treat Wounds and Administer First Aid with Nature instead of Medicine. If you are in the wilderness, you do not require a Healer's Kit. If you are a Master of Nature you can Treat Poison using Nature instead of Medicine. If you are Legendary of Nature you can Treat Disease using Nature instead of Medicine.

Note: I have problems with Treat Wounds in general, ie magnitude of healing, time, number of patients, removing Wounded condition etc. But, this isn't a thread for that, its to specifically point out how Natural Medicine is now obsolete and a ruined feat.

Byeeee.

Some won't like the ruleset, that is just the way of things. There are people it'll push away, and others like me that it has drawn in. I hated 3.P and refused to play them, I played a lot of 5e finding it decent but in need of depth and tweaking. Now, I'm looking at P2 and seeing a ruleset that requires less work than 5e. Just yank out +lvl(which a dev told me is a no-brainer variant rule for gritty realism at some point, so it'll even be official at some point), make a couple other minor tweaks like making extra damage dice based on level instead of potency and I'm basically there. Tweak Treat Wounds, Wounded Condition, and Hero Points for more "gritty realism". Add in a couple of other tweaks of varying lower importance and I'm good to go.

For those that really don't like P2 but liked P1. Keep playing P1 then and either wait till P2 grows on you, or another company produces a product you want. Because, if you were playing P1 over 5e still, I'm guessing you aren't switching to a Wizards product for white a while, and I'm also guessing the 5e successor won't be to your liking either. But, coming from the perspective of a 5e player that disliked P1, I'm switching to P2.

I too am not a fan of Treat Wounds as written for many of the reasons you have listed.

Here is my solution, it also functions as a gritty realism mod.

Treat Wounds: Only affects 1 target in 10 minutes. Creature can only be affected once per hour. Heal is Con mod x level or 3 x level, whichever is higher.

I also changed Hero Points, characters now receive two after finishing a long rest. Each options only costs one. Heroic Recovery gets them up at 1hp, and stops them from gaining or increasing the wounded condition. They also have a Heroic Resolve option that takes a minute outside of combat, it allows them to heal half their HP.

This is where the gritty realism comes in.

Treat Wounds no longer removes the wounded condition, wounded is reduced by one after a long rest with a successful fort save.

Essentially, my solution allows for a heroic version of healing where the heroes can take a couple of deep breaths, recover a big chunk of hp(at a cost of other heroics including Heroic Recovery) and get back in the fight. Treat Wounds lets them top off after combats for the day, or a moderate amount with little cost ie the whole party take a 10min break, and each gets a decent chance to heal 3xlevel or more hp. Getting dropped is scary because it results in a lasting injury. Getting really hurt means you might be feeling that nearly lethal wound for a day or more. Even if you are wounded, you can still function to full affect, just with added fear of being dropped again.

IMO, it just fills all the needed pieces of the healing puzzle, and also fills the vermisillitude realism niche I'm looking for.

Zman0 wrote:

Luceon wrote:

Zman0 wrote:

Why not just run it full Bounded, with +0/lvl. The scaling built into magic items, hp, and damage are enough to push the effective encounter bubble from +/-4 to +/-6 and stretches towards +/-8ish. If your goal is ~7ish level difference your math is closer to +/-(5-6)

It ends up being way less work to convert the bestiary. It just works, and will work better for your stated goals.

This has the DCs that need to change etc, and a new encounter table and xp progression supporting mixed level parties.

Hey thanks for making that varient rules PDF, it’s very well done and professional. I was wondering if we could have a discussion about it on some type of voice app?

No problem. Having a discussion is possible, I think I have PMs enabled. But via message might still be easier.

Hey Zman0, I have PMs enabled, you do not, I want to send you a discord link.

Apparently never confirmed the changes.

You're usually better off taking fighter dedication at 2nd instead of taking weapon and armor proficiency separately as general feats. While Sorcerers are extremely feat-starved, as a human you can take natural ambition to alleviate that.

With regards to the draconic vs imperial debate, I feel that draconic is better at low levels while imperial is better at high levels. You don't have the ability to trigger magical striker with imperial bloodline powers until 6th (unless you want to trigger ancestral surge just for magical striker... which is actually viable IMO, but obviously inferior to any other 1-action bloodline power), and the fact that you need a metamagic feat to actually make use of that power just exacerbates the sorcerer's feat starvation. However, the draconic bloodline powers just don't scale very well, and once you have a +2 weapon the claws are simply too weak to be worth using anymore. The wings are pretty good, though (decent fly speeds are really hard to get this edition).

Grabbing Fighter to snag heavy armor will likely be a thing of the past come tomorrow. It is supposed to just upgrade you one step, ie Medium to Heavy, Light to Medium, and I'm assuming it grants only Light. I guess Paladin will grant heavier armors, so maybe the new Paladin archetype will grant Medium armor. Not sure what the granting of weapon proficiencies will change to.