Single-action is for moving and doing one-round buffs.Single-action with Attack trait is for offensive actions
Single-action with the Press trait is for offensive actions that need to be performed at a penalty (not exactly sure why this is)
Single-action with the Flourish trait is for short tasks that shouldn't be spammed.
Double-action is for general spellcasting
Double-action with Attack trait is for offensive actions that can do double damage, that require a feat investment
Triple-action is for casting Some Spells that Need It (but I can't grasp a hard-and-fast rule), and for metamagiced spells.
Reactions are for stuff in opponent's turn, typically something that is situational.
Free actions, combined with triggers are for stuff that triggers off other stuff you do, that seems like something you should do, but only when the trigger goes off.
I think focusing too much on a recent trend (like streaming and the success of critical roll) when building a system is objectively a bad idea.
One problem is that the group who does Critical Roll would be able to make a great stream, regardless of which system they used. And if you're in such a group, I envy you.
Just over a decade ago, there was a recent trend of MMORPGs coming out - with millions of players each paying a significant monthly fee. One roleplaying game decided to alter its system to try to appeal to this crowd.
How did that work out?
Mark Seifter wrote:
Ultimately, the number of people who had a problem with advancing in their untrained skills was high-ish (often fueled by comparisons that wouldn't come up in gameplay but you can still imagine and feel to be off), but the number of people who wanted a 5e-style bounded math without level advancement was quite low.
This is one conclusion that can be drawn from that survey question.
However, as I recall the survey question was phrased such that those in favour of a point-based skill system (like in PF1) would have responded that they had a problem with untrained skills advancement.
This may be a result of not asking the right questions on the surveys.
You need to max out your dex, and you need to keep your bow fully upgraded. Because if you don't, the tight math of PF2 means that you'll fail.
The problem is that the scale required to be significant on a single roll is significantly different than the scale required for the aggregate of multiple rolls.
Different scaling methods are required.
Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm pretty sure the rules say the GM can say when a task is just flat out impossible. You aren't going to jump to the moon with an athletics check, and a level 1 character will never break adamantine manacles.
The rules actually say that jumping more than 8' is flat out impossible. On a critical success of a High Jump check - one of the few listed DCs that exist.
Is "Cat fall" really a "truly mighty feat of skill"?
Calling the ability to ignore falling damage "truly mighty" - at fifteenth level no less - seems almost an insult.
It's situational, is really unlikely to come up outside of contrived circumstances, and is largely negated by even a first-level spell in PF2. Or in Pathfinder. Or in 5e. Or in 3.5e. Or even in 4e (but it's accessed at second level there).
Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents?
By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.
As I stated upthread:
But while it opens the design space of "another way to harm someone in combat", it irreparably closes the design space of "having a skill's modifier being meaningful outside of combat".
This is the issue.
Does the game actually get better with more ways to harm someone in combat?
There seem to be three different statements going on here...
My point is that this being an option in PF2 is not necessarily a good thing. It limits non-combat uses of the skill. Luckily, PF2 is a new system. This should be open to change if the math doesn't work.
Moreover, imparting the Fleeing condition isn't exactly fun from a gameplay perspective. It causes combat to drag on more than anything else.
I can understand that it feels lazy, but for me it feels like there's an error in the system when taking Iron Will or having a Cloak of Resistance does not make you less likely to be intimidated, only less likely to be frightened by a dragon.
Now this sounds like an issue with PF1. It's not any stretch to believe that this won't be the case in PF2 - I don't believe that Iron Will or a Cloak of Resistance exist in PF2.
Also, should a dragon choose to intimidate you, your cloak and feat won't help.
This seems to be aimed at Pathfinder, rather than the Playtest.
Diplomacy isn't a combat-relevant skill. It doesn't work in-combat (the -10 to use Diplomacy as a full-round action rule from D&D3.5 wasn't brought over to Pathfinder).
The DCs of Intimidate and Bluff are an attempt to compensate for the fact that it's likely that the enemy doesn't have ranks in Sense Motive. Regardless, the end effect of the Intimidate and Bluff checks, while sometimes significant, isn't game-breaking even if it's certain to work.
The advantage of AC progression being markedly different to attack bonus progression is that it changes the dynamic of the game as levels increase, from one where accuracy is very important (because at low levels, two hits will knock you down), to one where damage becomes important (because at high levels, you can shrug off two hits without issue).
There's no such distinction. The difference is in the effect that a skill usage is able to produce in a combat situation.
Look at Pathfinder's usage of skills in-combat - Feint allows you to use Bluff to cause someone to become Flat-footed against your attack. But it requires a standard action. While that's not an insignificant effect, it's also not game-breaking. Even if you have a +150 to bluff.
Intimidate to demoralise too imparts the Shaken condition. Even if you're able to succeed 100% of the time, it's also not game-breaking.
Even most of the skill uses in PF2 don't have game-breaking effects if you can auto-succeed (critical success notwithstanding).
I can see why it's tempting to have a unified system where all the numbers are the same. To be honest it feels lazy. But they don't have the same degree of importance and it's folly to assume that they should.
I wish someone could explain what's going on.
In comparison to the Pathfinder Beta playtest, the designers are disseminating information everywhere except their own website. They will get on Twitch, they will speak on podcasts, they might even engage on Facebook.
But over the past two months, there has been very little feedback from the designers, either on blogs, or on the boards. The most we see is Jason Bulmahn locking threads.
For the record, this time last decade December 2008, on one day, the 20th of December, we got more posts from the designers than we have in the whole month of December 2018 - and half of November 2018.
I think it's extremely rude to call those who have been dissatisfied with the system as presented in the playtest as "toxic".
I understand that this does become an option. But at what cost?
Now skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".
Even a system known for its extremely tight math (D&D 5e) displays this: there are several class features that allow a character to double her "proficiency bonus" to skills (for example, the first-level Rogue's Expertise), and there are Uncommon items that offer +5 modifiers to skill usages (Gloves of Thievery).
The other way of trying to make these modifiers more noticeable is to require a social encounter to be resolved by multiple rolls. There are several examples of this, (Chase rules, Skill Challenges, Social Combat, etc), but they all "feel" like forcing a very "gamist" perspective on what should be a roleplaying effort. So far, none of them have been particularly good.
The problem is that items have to go to +5 because of legacy reasons related to weapons and armor. And that then has to go to extend to skill boosting items because having the numbers consistent allows for the interaction mentioned earlier.
I would argue that the interaction between skills, attacks and saves, while attractive on the surface, is the cause of a lot of problems and limits a lot of innovation and creativity.
Neither gating, nor +x/level to all numbers are at all innovative.
They have invariably been tried before to a lacklustre result.
Regarding Gating, when it appears, it tends to manifest in a way for a GM to say "no" to a player as a result of something that a player has little chance of improving in the short-term. Look at the outcry when the Technologist feat was printed.
Adding your level to Everything was tried too in several other systems. None of which received universal praise.
Could you explain what benefit this provides? Is it only for simplicity?
Matthew Downie wrote:
As an adventure writer, bemoaning the fact that a caster is required for the plot-specific "ritual" that you're written sounds like something that you could fix by writing it differently.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes. Schrödinger's wizard is a thing. Specifically a strawman used to unfairly "demonstrate" why a system is broken.
It's not a thing that happens outside theorycraft.
I would argue that 'more powerful spells', 'trinket powerlevel' and even 'item usage limits (resonance)' are all math-related issues.
Some people hate the idea that magical weapons are actually magical. They want them to slightly help with accuracy and add eh, a slight bit of damage.
I disagree with your premise. I doubt you'll find any Pathfinder player (or <insert pretty much any other system> player)* who wouldn't like their weapon to have a more interesting effects than "a bit of accuracy and a bit of damage".
That being said, I agree that a weakness of Pathfinder is that the most effective weapon at a given price is almost always the boring +x weapon.
Likewise, the problem with both PF2 magic weapons is that their main reason for existing is to keep damage output in line with designer expectations. This was also tried in D&D4e, and the result was that it simply made the weapon mandatory for your character to remain effective (and not fall back on the treadmill).
Adding 4d12 damage is no more interesting than adding 4 damage and 4 accuracy. They're just numbers. At least in Pathfinder, the +4 weapon now overcomes DR/silver, cold iron and adamantine.
And against a level-equivalent foe, a fighter with a non-magical weapon would most likely fare better in Pathfinder than PF2. This, I believe, is an issue as it makes removing characters' gear even more punitive.
*Magic: the Gathering and other TCGs might be an exception
You are making a lot of points; let's address them. I'll rearrange them to make more logical sense.
In August 2019, there will be one product, with the Pathfinder name, that will cease to be supported. There will be another product, with the Pathfinder name, that will replace it.
For a group currently playing Pathfinder that wishes to play a supported system, they will be making comparisons. The biggest question that they will ask themselves is "Is PF2 a suitable replacement for Pathfinder?"
And on a negative response, they will stop paying for PF2. They will either find another system or remain with Pathfinder. (And they will tell their friends...)
Either way, it won't be a benefit to Paizo.
No, we're here because Paizo thinks that by having a Playtest they'll be able to ultimately gain more sales of PF2 - by taking feedback into account and producing a better product, and by the marketing hype that the Playtest causes.
Through this lens, the worst thing that Paizo could do right now is shut down these forums and go through with releasing PF2. It would be a terrible marketing failure.
But this specific forum, these threads under the banner "Pathfinder Playtest" are here to test, discuss, and improve what will be the Second Edition of Pathfinder. So please stop comparing the two and instead focus on what you'd like to see adjusted about this new system.
One system is leaving, another is replacing it. If the new system is unable to satisfactorily replace it, then it is a failure.
To determine this, comparing the two systems is mandatory.
I would argue that suggesting new content such as feats and classes is actually counterproductive at this stage, as there is no scope in the playtest to add new classes, and I'm unsure that poster-provided feats are actually within scope too.
Marvin's post had no complaints about the Core Rulebook being unbalanced. Their complaints were directed at the splatbooks.
Whether the Core Rulebook issues were actually issues is immaterial to this discussion (but has been discussed at length elsewhere).
I might be late to respond, but I think Marvin's points are very salient. And as such, they deserve a response.
Marvin the Marvellous wrote:
Noone, not even the designers back when it was released, believed it was perfect.
Marvin the Marvellous wrote:
Bolding has been added for emphasis. I feel exactly the same way. It's actually possible to point to the publication that started this trend.
The Advanced Player's Guide. Specifically the Witch, Alchemist and Oracle.
But when you're releasing a new system, it stands to reason that existing material should not be automatically included.
Marvin the Marvellous wrote:
There are checks built into Pathfinder. They were ignored. Notice how it's almost impossible to get Dex-to-Damage in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder. Notice how it's very difficult to get high-DC at-will abilities in D&D3.5 and core Pathfinder.
The checks were there. That they weren't followed is a lesson that hopefully the developers have learnt. And any revision that doesn't carte blanc allow all the existing splatbooks would have the same effect.
Marvin the Marvellous wrote:
And here lies the problem. You're comparing the "bad parts" of Pathfinder (that the splatbooks cause imbalance) with the "good parts" of PF2 (that there are no splatbooks to cause imbalance).
Which of these options allows you to tell a story where a king has been dominated and needs to be saved?
Skill Gating, in my opinion, is a horrible way of differentiating levels of training.
As currently written, an optimised character has around a 70% chance of success, a trained but not optimised character has around a 50% chance of success, and an untrained character has around a 30% chance of success. While these differences do become apparent when aggregated over rolling many times, the times when this is happens is typically Combat and Perception - both of which actually have narrower spreads.
Conversely, skill checks are simply not rolled as often. Rather than rolling two, maybe four a minute as would happen in combat, you might roll a skill check four or five times a session if you're lucky.
This causes the problem where 15% of the time, the expert does not succeed and those less invested do.
Gating does seem like an obvious solution - it prevents the situation where the non-expert succeeds. Unfortunately, it replaces these 15% situations with a 30% situation where the party flat out fails for no reason other than a single poor roll.
The best solution I can see is de-unifying the proficiency maths and allowing character to excel at what they're doing.
The bigger problem is that critically failing an attack becomes much more likely when MAP comes into play. At the moment, your second attack would critically fail 20% of the time and your third attack would critically fail 45% of the time.
And that rate of failure just makes the PC appear incompetent.
I'm genuinely curious as to what sort of game you're running that can be destroyed by this sort of thing. Could you enlighten us?
This is the case for Gestalt For All. If you'd rather not take a second class, you could Gestalt your own class and play a Cleric//Cleric with twice as many spell slots and two domains.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
They didn't get sued over P1. The OGL pretty much makes sure that won't happen. Why do you assume that another variant of that system would suddenly get in trouble?
I'm not a lawyer, but D&D 4e wasn't OGL. If PF2 looks to much like it, I'm sure Hasbro could take them to court on the grounds that they hired their developers and copied their system.
I'm sure that this is a risk.
At the least it could be very costly.
What's wrong with a twenty year old chassis?
The computer I'm typing this on is using a forty-year-old architecture. The OS I'm using is based on a twenty-seven year old architecture. And it's connecting using a thirty-five year old protocol.
And what are the DCs of these checks?
What chance does my character (with +11 to the relevant skill) have?
Sara Marie wrote:
With all due respect, if this is the case, why are the Designers of PF2 literally posting how they themselves are doing much of their discussions on other sites?