Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
This is a useful quick reference list. Remember the way Planar Ally works. The player asks the deity for a creature of X hit dice. The deity (the DM) selects the creature. The only restriction is that it must match the PC's alignment. The PC's, NOT the deity's -- this is a fine point that gets missed sometimes. So a LN worshipper of Asmodeus can get Inevitables, but not devils.
That restriction is "If you serve no particular deity, the spell is a general plea answered by a creature sharing your philosophical alignment."
I do hope that the Drow can be incorporated into the Elf heritage rather than making it a whole separate thing. But, there have been so many unique abilities attributed to make them powerful and formidable opponents, that I am not sure that a single feat would properly cover everything they have been depicted as being able to do.
You are a Drow you gain (X signs of heritage). Select two of the following benefits: Darkvision (with light blindness), Arcane Innate Spells, immunity to sleep, something like a dwarf's ancient's blood for resisting magic.
Additionally, you replace your Common racial language with Undercommon. Your starting language selection changes to: Common, [some other languages]
Special: You can select this feat twice. The second time, it loses the heritage trait and you gain the other two benefits.
Then leave Poisons to something else.
I'd like to note regarding alchemist resonance, they get +1/2 level, starting at 9, and Int instead of Cha starting at 1. So some classes who invest for high Cha and Int can snag that feat for +2.
Classes that can plausibly snag Alchemist:
Well, I suppose any of them COULD go for that option. But most of them will be hilariously underpowered. So, sure, they can get more Resonance than the Alchemist. But the Alchemist can turn around and, with just 12 Cha, snag Remarkable Resonance with a General Feat, and have all their Class Feats. (Yes, the other classes can, too, but then they're just a resonance build with not much to back them up.)
So, going back to Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard. Wizards are often associated with alchemy, though not as much as the Alchemist class itself. Sorcerers are also associated, depending on terminology. Also, Resonance is magic and they're primary casters.
Bards being able to get more Resonance for a time than an Alchemist is weird, I'll grant. (Other than Cha caster)
But all three of them get outpaced starting at level 9. Other classes could, with level advancements, get better Int. But then they'll have more resonance for a much shorter duration.
Workaround: The Arcanist gets neither bloodline nor school... or at least, no bonus spells from them (but some feats to choose the other powers)
Colette Brunel wrote:
Yes, I can definitely see bards and sorcerers multiclassing into paladin and actually following the code of conduct for that sweet, sweet Channel Life at 8th level. Channel Life is ridiculously good for bards and sorcerers to snatch up.
pg 109, Channel Life: "Prerequisites champion power (lay on hands)"pg 106: "Champion powers are available only to paladins, and they can’t be learned by other characters."
Though I would love for that option.
EDIT: I missed the Healing Touch feat for Lay on Hands. But it doesn't say that it gives Champion Powers, just Lay on Hands... I'd love if it worked.
Use Headbutt!! wrote:
In the current system it is impossible to release the arcanist as it was because it would completely overshadow the wizard. I am worried that there never will be a PF2 arcanist because what can you remove to go "sure the arcanist is better as spell prep but it is balanced because of _____"
That's easy. Just reduce the number of spells they can have prepared/known. And Sorcerer does have one more/level-day than Wizard, thanks to "Whenever you gain a spell from your bloodline, you also gain a spell slot of that level, which you can use to cast any sorcerer spell, not just the spell granted by your bloodline." So there's another thing to reduce.
Until level 10 anyway. Form Control.
Or just use the cat form to get close, then hide behind a pillar or wall or something. Nothing humanoid could have gotten there, right?
1) Multi-classing: This you are mostly correct on. However, not every caster wants to multiclass so I don't feel this is a win-win. Additionally, since you cannot reach the apex of 9th level spells it technically does harm your spell progression at its apex.
The implication of multiclassing was from caster, meaning a caster base. Martials multiclassing a caster don't get spells as fast, true, but they still have a martial base meaning they're going to be more of the 2/3-type caster in the first place. As for caster/caster multiclass, the current version is significantly stronger at any level than the old Mystic Theurge (except maybe at really high levels?)
2)That part is mostly true unless you are playing a dwarven sorcerer or a goblin cleric.
"Almost" any ancestry. Now it's only flaws that block maxed stats instead of simply lacking a bonus.
3) With the tight math you actually cripple yourself a great deal as a caster if you refuse to pump your primary stat since your save dc's fall behind. With the playtest monsters I have seen most easily make saves and its very hard to get them to crit fail with main caster stats pumped to 18 at first level and only getting another increase at 10th.
I agree, the tight math makes optimization basically mandatory.
4) Cantrips are terrible in this edition too. They take two actions, have incredibly short range and do feeble damage. When you still shoot once with your crossbow then cast a cantrip in a round you are NOT solving the crossbow toting wizard issue.
You're absolutely right about the range, but in a wizard's hands the crossbow is weaker except at very low levels, unless you put a lot of enchantments on it. Meanwhile, the cantrips target TAC (or a save, like Electric Arc, which hits two at once).
5) Powers are not upgraded from PF1 equivalents. Angelic halo is a joke. Magic dart from the evocation school is still the wimpy 1d4 from PF1.
I agree with this. I took a few looks at the advanced school powers (after previously failing to convince myself to take advanced domain powers for doomsday dawn), and I agree that the powers are mostly weak. Some of them look like they could be useful, but the pf1e powers were far better.
6) Channel Energy is much stronger than PF1. You are correct here.
I agree again.
7) Yes, spontaneous casters get same spell progression but sorcerers have to learn a new spell at each level and cannot cast a weaker spell in a higher level slot. Its a net negative for that class. I would much rather have spell acquisition at a higher level and spell scaling than this mess
I disagree with the end of this; the improved spell progression is good. That said, I agree that we should get more heightening options.
8)Yeah but those spells have been nerfed so hard and the monsters saves are so buffed that this is meaningless. Take paralyze. If a monster fails its save its paralyzed for 1 round. 3 on a crit save. Completely useless spell. Sleep has the same issues.
*nothing on crit save, slowed 1 on a save, paralyzed 1 round on a fail, and paralyzed 4 rounds on a crit fail.I assume you're comparing this to Hold Person/Fey/Monster spells? Yes, the spells do less on a normal failure than they used to, but they also do something nice on a normal success. Suddenly a very good save no longer wastes the caster's entire turn. This is more of a mixed bag that trends good, and not meaningless.
9) Most monsters I have seen have the exact same immunities in game. Demons & Devils have same resistances/immunties as before. They have just been scaled down since spell damage has been nerfed so heavily.
Nerfed? Fireball starts at 6d6 and gets +2d6 per heightening level. It starts at level 3 and is an AOE. Let's say 2d6 per spell level for aoe, which is about on par with before, leaning a little better than before. Cone of Cold starts at 11d6 / level 5, which is better. Searing Light is a 4d6 (8d6 vs its best targets) single-target, where before it was 1d8 per two levels (1d6 per level vs best targets).
I just checked Dragon Form vs Form of the Dragon, and your attacks are not only usually more accurate, but they do comparable damage (start with a higher damage die and elemental damage, +6 or +14 damage bonus). Though I know there are pf1e builds that rely on polymorph for damage, the base +20 accuracy (a normal pf1e sorc would have +6 level, +2 from the spell, and maybe +6 more from other buffs and starting strength) is normally an upgrade. And typical playtest sorc might have up to 14 str for +12 level and +2 str for... let's add in +4 conditional from lots of things for +18 to the +20 the spell gives.
I'll stop there. Spells are stronger when you first get them, and they fall off slower thanks to heightening. And their DC scales when it didn't before. In short, blasting has more raw damage, but still requires investment.
10) oh yeah, you forgot to add less spells per level and resonnance restrictions on item usage
I agree with the sentiments here, though I can agree Casters needed some sort of nerf and one fewer spell/level seems fair but not crippling.
Data Lore wrote:
So, not having proper multiclassing as an option needlessly restricts us from many options when an easy alternative (which simultaneously keeps the current option) exists.
The bigger issue is the system itself cheating, and requiring that people follow it in doing so.
Bonus feats are accounted for. They're not tied to having an Int score, which is why they don't get feats. Besides, players can get bonus feats , too - a whole lot of classes offer some. Some bonus feats (Ranger, and I know there's a Monk archetype, at least) can give bonus feats before the players qualify, which is much the same thing.
I'm not denying that, say, 1e's monsters have asymmetry - they get a different set of racial powers that players don't (without polymorph), more hit dice, higher ability scores. Meanwhile, players get items (which can raise their ability scores), and lots of class goodies. That is not what I'm against.
But I currently see no maths in the bestiary or rulebook for monsters creation. And the monsters currently have unaccounted arbitrary +X. I don't mind arbitrary to bring something into balance with PC abilities. What I mind is that there is currently *no accounting of it*. Looking at the monsters right now, that one colossal issue, accounting for it openly... is the only thing that currently separates "monsters, but they have a different advancement track" from "pcs".
Pick a monster from PF1, let's say a hill giant - it's pretty basic - please explain how it is built using the same rules as PCs.
It gets feats, skill ranks, and saves based on the progression and hit dice and creature type (like level and class), it also gets class skills.
Because at some point someone sat down and said* "it needs to be large, more HD than an ogre, we'll need some kind of rock throwing as all giants have that ability and it needs to be CR7", and someone else telling them "well it's AC needs to be about 21, how much of that should be natural?", "well if we give it 8 dex, so increase it's natural AC by 1, let's not worry about the hit to init. now it needs to be doing nearly 20 damage on average how do we want to break that down?"
As I've said before, monsters getting bonuses because they don't have wealth by level is fine with me. Those bonuses are accounted for, such as their given Natural Armor value or any bonus feats. Is it equal to the players? No. Is it the same system? Yes.
And different baselines (such as Hill Giant vs a PC) is little more within the system than Dwarf vs Elf vs Human vs Halfling vs etc.
And besides, players can do things like that to their characters (replacing "nearly 20" with "as much as possible") with damage dice and strength scores.
For your specific example, lowering dex and getting more natural armor - you mean, Minmaxing like players are able to do? The giant uses a different part of the armor class computation to do that than most PC races, but it's still part of the same system, which even some player characters can use under the right circumstances, and everything is accounted for.
Curiously, reduced CR due to lack of gear is in the rules. It's one of the most eyebally-type adjustments, but it's there. Most monsters don't have much wealth, and their CR is lower than their hit dice. They still use the same rules. They don't get as much per hit die as players do, but that is still the same rules set. Getting more hit dice is simply a compensation for their CR, which is accounted for.
Yeah, if anything is cheating, it's PF1 with its arbitrary adjustments, frequently made to ensure that the monster/NPC actually works.
Weapon Focus, Dodge, Power Attack, Toughness. All of those might as well be, too. Adjustments to a monster which are accounted for within the rule set are not cheating. After all, players get lots of goodies from leveling up, too. The ability score and natural armor increases from Dragon Disciple might as well be arbitrary, but are those cheating? If they aren't, then monsters aren't, either.
Remember 3.5? Remember every sane developer cheating high-CR undead by arbitrarily giving them +Cha to HP so that they won't be made out of paper OR have insanely inflated HD. Remember 3.5 Ileosa? She got a "you can cast spells while performing feat" to cheat her out of one of crippling weaknesses of 3.5 Bards.
I never played 3.5 and from what I've seen, I'd rather stick with pf1e than try d&d3.5. Regardless, this is about pf1e vs pf2e, not d&d3.5.
You mean stuff like (Anti)Paladin's Smite Good(Evil), Cavalier's Challenge, Fighter's Weapon and Armor Training, Shifter Feat Shifter's Claws, Ranger's Instant Enemy, Inquisitor's Bane, Magus Arcana Bane Blade, or Slayer's Studied Target? Okay, fine. The Wild Hunt Monarch has those as constants rather than needing to use that power. So, that's a power it got to compensate for not having PC levels. That is not cheating. That is accounted for and uses the rules players use. Yes, it changes things a little, but the players demonstrably have the option to change the rules, too, so it can't be cheating.
First, that's a cherry-pick (Edit: /strawman) from my argument, which is for consistency in the system.
Second, your post is about balance, not using the same system. I'm not saying that 1e is balanced. It's not. But everyone was choosing their powers from the same pool. Yes, Monsters and NPCS (that don't have player-equivalent builds) were in different parts of it, but so were different PCs, like a Fighter choosing from combat feats while their Wizard buddy chooses from Metamagic and Item Crafting, and the party Cleric from Item Crafting or Channeling. (Yes, this is an incomplete example, even just for those classes, but PF1E is very big.)
The system here? It's not the same pool. It only bears a resemblance in results only to the system the players use.
Anyway, back to your example: I'm not denying that a GM needs to sanity-check things. But some things getting more power than others is something that applies to both players and monsters. See: Dragons vs most other things of their CR. I'm not denying that there needs to be a rebalance for level/CR.
But rebalance =/= ripping out a system and making the GM cheat by not even using the same system.
I'd content that everything in what you mentioned is covered by "different progression," which is fine by me. It's just that their level is rated according to the value and type of their hit dice. Player Classes are simply a subset of the system, rated at a ratio of 1 level in the class = 1 CR.
They're not even the same build SYSTEM. IF they were the same system, but NPCs or monsters get different progression because they're totally different creatures, that's one thing. It's no different from choosing Elf vs Dwarf or Ranger vs Wizard. I expect the GM to have more of the total options to choose, while players are limited for inter-party balance and not causing conflict (and narrative reasons). What's cheating about it is that they're not even on the same build system as players.
..but as a DM I cherish consistency in the beastiary, so I can easily tailor certain monsters as I see fit, within the rules of the game. If I want the final boss to be a lvl 20 Fighter Pig, it's kinda important to know where his final +5 hit came from.
As do I. If monsters have a rule like "Unlike humanoids, most monsters don't get to use most treasure, and as such have bonuses to compensate" then I'd like to know the bonuses (and have them spelled out, and maybe in the front where more will see it, and not the back). And for anything which could be legal for a player to use player-legal rules (looking at the Drow, though they're not legal yet, and the NPCs in the back). Also, reworking monsters is important
Note: I've seen this system compared to Starfinder monsters, especially by Jason Bulmahn. I really hope this changes. I very nearly swore off Starfinder (and did swear off hosting it for my group) JUST over that system's bestiary cheating up each and every monster, because I refuse to cheat at all (for deliberate deviations from the rules as given to players undermines the social contract and the trust players put in their GM).
(Note, for some reference: In 1e, when I make a houserule like "use background skills" or "weapon finesse for free", I take any stock NPC I was going to use and apply the houserules to it, even though no one will notice, just because I feel rules should be consistent and fair.)
I sincerely hope that in the full version, monsters are not purely arbitrary. Arbitrary abilities that are in theme, sure. Arbitrary stats for fantasy creatures, also sure. But I sincerely hope that there is a way to reverse-engineer the monsters purely from their level and their stats.
Reasons: Monster advancement (especially adding class levels), templates (I only saw Vampire as a true monster-changing template in the bestiary, despite there being werewolf), variant monsters (changing feats and skills around).
As it appears others have touched upon earlier, Bulk as written is way too restrictive. Carrying Capacity in 1e was actually realistic (and, IMO, not hard to use) My groups always enforced it, and tracking it was easy, except for the quantity of items. Now, with bulk? My character that used to be able to carry a reasonable amount of stuff in their backpack is suddenly unable to handle much more than the absolute essentials. Bulk as written has ripped most of the player's ability for flavor out of it. Gone is the time when I could reasonably, after buying the essentials, stock up on background items, like some art tools for a Shelynite or the like.
On a personal note, having so many things have the same weight value damages my immersion and makes no sense.
Please. As others have said, consumables are already an opportunity cost. We shouldn't have to pay the price TWICE for this.
A better fix to the CLW wands is fixing the *pricing* system, since if better wands weren't absurdly expensive in 1e for what they do, my parties would have gone for them faster.
Fine, a guy who is *magically enhanced* and *in a field that similarly requires dexterity* and had *lots more experience in general* is *15% better (only 5% to not be noticed by OTHER people)* in a *small array* of *general tasks* than the specialist (and flat-out cannot do many other tasks involved in it - such as swiping closely attended objects). Namely, stealing a mostly unguarded object. Which makes sense for five levels and ALSO a Dex-investor given that this one task doesn't need training to do.
EDIT: and while you're quick to point out that Subtle Theft doesn't reduce the DC of the target... "Additionally, if you first Create a Diversion using Deception, taking a single Palm an Object or Steal an Object action doesn’t end your unseen condition."
EDIT 2: I might have gotten the percent slightly off. I think 10% is more accurate? And unless you're stealing from the most attentive in the area, Subtle Theft is still a bonus the Acrobat doesn't have.
Until level 20, the acrobat can't have a higher dex mod than a master thief, but can match it and probably will. So, ignoring dex.Acrobat untrained in thievery: 13 from level + untrained
Cutpurse, let's say they're maxing this: 12 from level + master
It's one point of difference (assuming the same starting stats)
And that's BEFORE the thievery skill feats like Pickpocket the Acrobat won't have (if the Acrobat has such skills/feats, then they're not JUST an acrobat but ALSO a EDIT: Cutpurse. STILL EDIT: Also I'm assuming that comparing Cutpurse to Acrobat means the Acrobat doesn't have any Cutpurse investment, or else it'd be an elite who trained some in many things vs a newer specialist, which is a less fair comparison in this context.)
Or Subtle Theft which means sure the Cutpurse has 1 less to their check (ONLY 1 with a full 5 levels of penalty!) BUT they're up against a DC 2 less than normal, which means they actually have +1.
And then there's training-locked applications of skills.
I have a distinct preference for Imperial units, but would rather Kilograms over Bulk. Carry capacity is far more nonsensical under this system than it was for PF1e. A few people here have already chimed in why (18 str, fireman's carry; shortsword vs scimitar...)
Time to compute lbs or kilos: ram numbers together, look up on table.
The only thing I can see Bulk having for it is adjusting weight for items that don't carry well. But kilograms or lbs could just have a "bulky X" option to multiply effective weight.
Short answer: YES!!!
Long answer: I am in a campaign right now where the Monster races are allowed. A NO here would remove that option. I also want to be able to reverse-engineer the monsters and be able to tweak them as needed according to more static rules (and closer to PCs means fewer rule systems to learn, or at least fewer differences). Finally, it feels wrong for the game's arbiter to be held a LOWER standard than the players.
(TL;DR: I want an accounting of feats and which ability scores are odd/even for advancement and deviations-from-species purposes.)
I believe that a more Pathfinder 1e-style version of NPC building (as in, any ancestries that are/can become valid for players) would be better than more arbitrary versions.
1) Promotion of an NPC to PC for narrative reasons. Something similar has happened in at least my group and I've seen some talk of it elsewhere.
Note: In this, I'm not asking this for monsters, just the player-available ancestries (and likely-to-be-available-later, like Darklands and Planetouched).
While this could take longer than the current system, it feels like a variant of the set of guidelines for NPCs in PF1, such as feats or skills to take, could streamline it a fair bit.
I, too, want the option of dual classing / true multiclassing.
Not instead of the current system, which is good. Just in addition to, due to a couple niches (both RP and mechanical) that this can fill.
Namely, old multiclassing trades advancement in a class for keeping the feats. Feat-intensive builds might like that down the line.
It took me just over half an hour to make a half-elf wild druid level 1. When leveling it up for DD, I'm not sure how I'll count the time I spent idly looking up feats for Druids before actually working on it. And I consider myself to be a fast character builder, and that's not counting the hours I spent trying to familiarize myself with the rules first.
While I quite like the multiclass dedications as a better VMC, they don't feel like a COMPLETE replacement for multiclassing to me. They cost feats, for one, and you have to spend 3 feats total before you can go to another class. One thing I liked in 1e doesn't seem to be here is the *option* of old multiclassing, or actually taking a hit to class advancement but not losing out of feats.
In general, I like the new system a fair bit. But, I think it would be better both mechanically and RP-wise to also have the option of multiclassing.
Mechanically: There are some niches that this can fill that other things can't. By way of example, getting Attack of Opportunity requires Fighter 1 OR level 6 and 2 class feats. A Fighter level dip would sacrifice advancement of other powers to do this in exchange for freeing up a pair of feats.
RP-wise: Abandoning a class would allow playing someone having a change of heart about their methods. A Barbarian trying to put aside his rage or a Rogue trying to abandon their deception to be an honest soldier.
Yes, I know this would require a couple new rules for Proficiency interaction and possibly consulting two tables for leveling up (one with things all classes have, one with the class you're taking), but there are a few important niches I think having the option for old multiclassing could fill.
Trading feats for what looks to be a stronger version of VMC? I'm intrigued. I hope this successfully enables far more niche builds.
I'm interested to see what will become of the prestige classes that required multiclassing. Well, except I think we already saw that with the Gray Maiden thing.
What about true multiclassing, though? Will that be viable for others?