paizo.com Favorited Posts by john salbpaizo.com Favorited Posts by john salb2020-09-15T00:32:45Z2020-09-15T00:32:45ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: What NEW classes do you hope 2e brings?john salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42kix&page=2?What-NEW-classes-do-you-hope-2e-brings#672019-05-29T12:59:37Z2019-05-23T17:23:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Pumpkinhead11 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">john salb wrote:</div><blockquote> Imagine a Rage Prophet archtype that requires the PC to be a Barbarian with X number of Sorcerer multiclass feats. </blockquote><p>That specific example sounds a little too strict considering you already have to dedicate 3 feats to multiclassing before you can choose another one.
<p>Having a couple of class specific ones, or requiring a class as a prerequisite could be nice so long as they were sprinkled in as the exception to the rule; but this might fall into Class Archetype territory. </blockquote><p>Shouldn't be too hard to work around.
<p>Rage Prophet
<br />
Prerequisites: Bloodline or Rage </p>
<p>Spells you cast gain the Rage tag.
<br />
Trigger: When you use the Rage action, you may activate a Bloodline power or make a Verbal Spell Action this round as a free action.
<br />
This feat counts as a Sorcerer or Barbarian Archetype feat.</p>Pumpkinhead11 wrote:john salb wrote: Imagine a Rage Prophet archtype that requires the PC to be a Barbarian with X number of Sorcerer multiclass feats.
That specific example sounds a little too strict considering you already have to dedicate 3 feats to multiclassing before you can choose another one. Having a couple of class specific ones, or requiring a class as a prerequisite could be nice so long as they were sprinkled in as the exception to the rule; but this might fall into Class...john salb2019-05-23T17:23:22ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: What NEW classes do you hope 2e brings?john salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42kix&page=2?What-NEW-classes-do-you-hope-2e-brings#652019-06-11T15:23:03Z2019-05-23T10:06:53Z<p>I don't loath Vancian casting the way others do, but I would really like to see some non-vancian magical classes. Maybe something to do with Words of Power or a Kineticist remake. Another option would be a Mechanic or Blacksmith class that forges its own magically imbued weapons and armor; each class feat adding a new power to your gear. Ooh! A true Arcane Theurge class!</p>
<p>A true gish class that melds fighting and casting would be cool, maybe something like the Swordmage from 4e. I also really loved the old Hexblade from 3.5, and I think a melee light-fighter with some debuffs, a small magic pool, and a summoned animal companion would be cool.</p>
<p>Stances were such a cool and overtaxed part of PF1, I think a Master-of-Many-Styles class could be great as either a full class or Archtype.</p>
<p>Rangers had the Trapper archetype that let them place and throw traps around the battlefield, which could be pretty cool.</p>
<p>I feel like the Witch would be a big contender for coming back as a full class, but with Bards/Sorcerers being a full Occultist caster, there's not a terrible amount of design space left for the Witch. Maybe make it an archtype?</p>
<p>Inquisitor on the other hand has a ton of design space. Judgements, banes, inquisitor domains, and a nice, tight spell list? You can also pile on with the Intimidation focus.</p>
<p>Slayer and Swashbuckler seem like prime targets for archtypes. Cavs, Oracle, Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Investigator, Shaman, Skald, and Warpriest all feel like they can be baked into existing classes to multiclasses (ie bloodrager being a simple barb/sorc multiclass).</p>
<p>Also cool would be to bring back the old multiclass PRCs like Nature Warded and Eldritch Knight that requires your character to already be multiclassed in certain classes. So, imagine a Rage Prophet archtype that requires the PC to be a Barbarian with X number of Sorcerer multiclass feats.</p>I don't loath Vancian casting the way others do, but I would really like to see some non-vancian magical classes. Maybe something to do with Words of Power or a Kineticist remake. Another option would be a Mechanic or Blacksmith class that forges its own magically imbued weapons and armor; each class feat adding a new power to your gear. Ooh! A true Arcane Theurge class!
A true gish class that melds fighting and casting would be cool, maybe something like the Swordmage from 4e. I also really...john salb2019-05-23T10:06:53ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder Second Edition: General Discussion: First class you'll tryjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42iag&page=2?First-class-youll-try#562019-03-20T18:48:02Z2019-03-20T11:51:43Z<p>Human Rogue with a multiclass into Wizard and Cleric, or maybe Divine Sorcerer. I've been wanting to play a Paramander ever since I read 'A Plethora of Paladins'!</p>Human Rogue with a multiclass into Wizard and Cleric, or maybe Divine Sorcerer. I've been wanting to play a Paramander ever since I read 'A Plethora of Paladins'!john salb2019-03-20T11:51:43ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previewsjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cov&page=3?Live-Stream-Notes-with-16-previews#1162018-11-03T11:14:03Z2018-11-03T09:13:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Rob Godfrey wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">john salb wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The problem with Paladins is that they are a Specific Thing to HWalsh types, and to others it's simply a bundle of features. Paladins, to me, are specifically Lawful (upholding order and the right of might of authority), and Good (promoting selflessness, being righteous, compassionate, and empathetic). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love a divine warrior of Asmodeus, Urgathoa, Irori, or Calistria!</p>
<p>Turning the class into Holy Warrior/Crusader/Champion and having Paladins be LG only seems to be an excellent compromise. My main problem is that the Paladin class, as-is, leans extraordinarily to the defensive and healing spectrum to the point that it wouldn't make sense for there to be a Champion of Rovagug.</p>
<p>Most of the people who wanted to nix the alignment requirement seem to want a more generic Divine Mage-Knight than what we currently have. I'd personally like to see Retributive strike be made less restrictive and more useful in more situations, and I'd also like to see more power point options like casting Bless or Doom or something. I suppose that's what splats are for, though. </blockquote>My wish was for Champions to match their patrons alignments, it never made sense that Serenrae could be the Patron of a Paladin, but incapable of being one herself (or Irori..or Abadar), also given paladins as experienced, and as portrayed in some of the stories, LG is the LEAST good alignment, not the super special 'lightning in the bottle' but barely hang in their, with more in common with LE than with NG or CG. </blockquote><p>The thing that makes a Paladin more interesting, in a way, than clerics, is the paladin's code (and also a point of contention). It makes sense that a CG/NG god can have paladins in that every god has a set of laws or guidelines to be followed, and the paladin's deal is that he both follows and enforces those laws in a way that a cleric wouldn't. You can think of it like a cleric being a spiritual leader, while a paladin is a spiritual enforcer.
<p>You could, in this manner, conceive of a Paladin of Calistria; someone who seeks vengeance for others, hunts down rapists, and protects those in revelry. While Calistria is not Lawful of Good, a Lawful and Good person could defend her principles. You could think of a Paladin as a sort of 'gift' to a deity's followers. Does a Paladin of Rovagug make sense? No, but that's what makes them different than clerics.</p>
<p>The main problem is that this is all fluff, and someone could very easily say "Hey, you're wrong!" and they'd have as much a point to make as I do. There's never going to be a consensus on the paladin because its thematics are not tied to mechanics (like a barbarian's rage).</p>Rob Godfrey wrote:john salb wrote:The problem with Paladins is that they are a Specific Thing to HWalsh types, and to others it's simply a bundle of features. Paladins, to me, are specifically Lawful (upholding order and the right of might of authority), and Good (promoting selflessness, being righteous, compassionate, and empathetic). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love a divine warrior of Asmodeus, Urgathoa, Irori, or Calistria!
Turning the class into Holy Warrior/Crusader/Champion and...john salb2018-11-03T09:13:54ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Live Stream Notes with 1.6 previewsjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cov&page=3?Live-Stream-Notes-with-16-previews#1092018-11-05T06:22:50Z2018-11-03T08:28:17Z<p>The problem with Paladins is that they are a Specific Thing to HWalsh types, and to others it's simply a bundle of features. Paladins, to me, are specifically Lawful (upholding order and the right of might of authority), and Good (promoting selflessness, being righteous, compassionate, and empathetic). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love a divine warrior of Asmodeus, Urgathoa, Irori, or Calistria!</p>
<p>Turning the class into Holy Warrior/Crusader/Champion and having Paladins be LG only seems to be an excellent compromise. My main problem is that the Paladin class, as-is, leans extraordinarily to the defensive and healing spectrum to the point that it wouldn't make sense for there to be a Champion of Rovagug.</p>
<p>Most of the people who wanted to nix the alignment requirement seem to want a more generic Divine Mage-Knight than what we currently have. I'd personally like to see Retributive strike be made less restrictive and more useful in more situations, and I'd also like to see more power point options like casting Bless or Doom or something. I suppose that's what splats are for, though.</p>The problem with Paladins is that they are a Specific Thing to HWalsh types, and to others it's simply a bundle of features. Paladins, to me, are specifically Lawful (upholding order and the right of might of authority), and Good (promoting selflessness, being righteous, compassionate, and empathetic). That doesn't mean I wouldn't love a divine warrior of Asmodeus, Urgathoa, Irori, or Calistria!
Turning the class into Holy Warrior/Crusader/Champion and having Paladins be LG only seems to be...john salb2018-11-03T08:28:17ZRe: Forums: Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells: Shields, vis a vis Class Proficiencies and Featsjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cfv?Shields-vis-a-vis-Class-Proficiencies-and-Feats#102018-11-03T19:48:55Z2018-11-03T07:29:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">The Once and Future Kai wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">john salb wrote:</div><blockquote>Higher Level Shield Proficiencies: Paladins and Fighters get increased training in Shields. Fighters eventually get Master armor prof, gaining another +2AC from armor, and +2AC from shields. Paladins get a +3 bonus instead. Those multi-classing into Paladin can spend two feats to get Shield proficiency and Expert armor/shield training. Seems good.</blockquote><p>That's how I thought it worked... But it's not thanks to this clause, "<a href="http://pf2playtest.opengamingnetwork.com/equipment/armor-and-shields/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">If you’re using both armor and a shield, apply the lower of the two proficiency modifiers.</a>" So instead of adding proficiency bonuses together characters actually take the worst - when just carrying a shield. It's terrible to be a character with unmatched armor/shield proficiency and an unraised shield. I'm not even sure what the benefit of Shield proficiency is - it seems to exist solely to force players to invest twice as many feats.
<p><b>Sidenote:</b> One potentially funny loophole opened here is that, "If you’re using both armor and a shield, apply the lower of the two proficiency modifiers" is followed by "If you’re not wearing armor, substitute your proficiency in unarmored defense." Which, in my opinion, is unclear enough that it could be argued that Monks can benefit from Legendary Unarmored proficiency and wield a Shield? </blockquote><p>Alright, nevermind, shields are all garbage. Hopefully 1.7 will address them.The Once and Future Kai wrote:john salb wrote:Higher Level Shield Proficiencies: Paladins and Fighters get increased training in Shields. Fighters eventually get Master armor prof, gaining another +2AC from armor, and +2AC from shields. Paladins get a +3 bonus instead. Those multi-classing into Paladin can spend two feats to get Shield proficiency and Expert armor/shield training. Seems good.
That's how I thought it worked... But it's not thanks to this clause, "If you’re using both armor...john salb2018-11-03T07:29:43ZRe: Forums: Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells: Shields, vis a vis Class Proficiencies and Featsjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cfv?Shields-vis-a-vis-Class-Proficiencies-and-Feats#52018-10-30T20:29:06Z2018-10-30T11:22:31Z<p>The main problem is that shields are pretty bad unless heavily invested in. Compared to previous editions, there's also less differentiation between classes. What's the difference between a shield ranger, shield fighter, and a shield barbarian? Unless the talents are wildly diverging, it would just be a choice of Hunt, AoO, or Rage.</p>The main problem is that shields are pretty bad unless heavily invested in. Compared to previous editions, there's also less differentiation between classes. What's the difference between a shield ranger, shield fighter, and a shield barbarian? Unless the talents are wildly diverging, it would just be a choice of Hunt, AoO, or Rage.john salb2018-10-30T11:22:31ZForums: Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells: Shields, vis a vis Class Proficiencies and Featsjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cfv?Shields-vis-a-vis-Class-Proficiencies-and-Feats#12018-10-29T17:05:09Z2018-10-29T01:09:44Z<p>Thesis statement: Shields are bad at low levels, and more importantly, feel bad to play. We can make shields better and feel better by making making a number of small changes.</p>
<p>Author's note: This is a new system and like most I've yet to inter every single minute detail into my consciousness. If you see any errors or omissions, please voice them so I can make changes to my post.</p>
<p>Rules regarding shields:
<br />
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, and Paladins have natural proficiencies with shields. Bards may only use Light Shields, Druids may only use Wooden Shields.</p>
<p>Light Shields give +1AC and +1 TAC. They have Light bulk.
<br />
Heavy Shields give +2AC and +2 TAC. They have One (1) bulk.
<br />
Wooden Shields give 3 Hardness.
<br />
Steel Shields give 5 Hardness.</p>
<p>Shields give no benefits unless the wielding character uses the Raise Shield action. Shields have a Check Penalty of -1, which is not affected by its item quality (unlike armor). Items (including shields) can take two dents before becoming Broken. A broken item cannot be used further unless repaired.</p>
<p>(one action)Raise Shield
<br />
You position your shield to protect yourself. When you have Raised a Shield, you gain its listed bonuses to AC and TAC as circumstance bonuses and you can use the Shield Block reaction. Your shield remains raised until the start of your next turn</p>
<p>(reaction)Shield Block
<br />
Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you take damage from a physical attack.
<br />
You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness-the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken.</p>
<p>In essence, then, I can take one action to gain +1/2 armor and block 3/5 damage. If I take a second dent while blocking damage, I can no longer gain the +1/2 armor bonus. The trigger for the Shield Block reaction is "...you take damage from a physical attack.", so I could potentially choose to use the Shield Block AFTER I see the damage roll (this is my interpretation of the rules, I'd like clarification).</p>
<p>This means I should always use Shield Block if the damage I take is below the hardness of the shield, as it's not at risk of being dented/destroyed. At low levels this makes Steel shields infinitely more useful, as the likelihood of taking 2 damage (the maximum damage you can take without denting a wooden shield) is extremely low. Characters (IMO) should never use Light shields unless 1 bulk is important, or use Wooden shields unless they're a druid. Wooden shield users should probably never use the Shield block action more than once without repairing it. This makes Light Wooden Shields pretty useless.</p>
<p>Higher Level Shields:
<br />
Unlike magic armor, magic shields can’t be etched with runes granting potency or properties. All magic shields are specifc items with a wide variety of protective effects, as described in their entries.</p>
<p>Pg. 190: Item Quality Table 6-19
<br />
Expert Shield cost: 300sp +1 Hardness
<br />
Master Shield cost: 3,000sp +3 Hardness
<br />
Legendary Shield cost: 6,000sp +6 Hardness</p>
<p>Magic Items:
<br />
Sturdy Shields
<br />
Type expert light wooden; Level 2; Price 35 gp; Hardness 6
<br />
Type expert light steel; Level 4; Price 90 gp; Hardness 8
<br />
Type expert heavy wooden; Level 5; Price 140 gp; Hardness 8
<br />
Type expert heavy steel; Level 7; Price 340 gp; Hardness 10
<br />
Type master heavy steel; Level 9; Price 675 gp; Hardness 13
<br />
Type master light adamantine; Level 10 (Uncommon); Price 1,000 gp; Hardness 15
<br />
Type master heavy adamantine; Level 12 (Uncommon); Price 1,800 gp; Hardness 18
<br />
Type legendary heavy steel; Level 17; Price 14,000 gp; Hardness 17
<br />
Type legendary heavy adamantine; Level 18 (Uncommon); Price 22,500 gp; Hardness 21</p>
<p>Unfun: Paladin/Fighter/Cleric and Bards get nearly identical shields. At low levels, the Sturdy Light Wooden Shield and Expert Heavy Steel shield are almost identical (+1AC vs +1Dent). P/F/C pulls ahead at levels 7 and 9, but at level 10 the Bard again is on even footing for having the best shield available to him. This also applies to regular armor-Magic Light/Medium armor comes faster than magic Heavy armor, removing some of the value of having higher armor proficiency.</p>
<p>Higher Level Shield Proficiencies: Paladins and Fighters get increased training in Shields. Fighters eventually get Master armor prof, gaining another +2AC from armor, and +2AC from shields. Paladins get a +3 bonus instead. Those multi-classing into Paladin can spend two feats to get Shield proficiency and Expert armor/shield training. Seems good.</p>
<p>Shield Feats and class abilities:
<br />
While Druids, Clerics, and Bards have access to Shields, they have no access to shield feats outside of multiclassing. Of the two remaining classes, Fighter and Paladin, Fighter gets the bulk of the feats while the Paladin mostly gets +2 dents and Hardness from Shield Ally, and the rest of their feats are trying to fix the fact that Retributive Strike and Shield Block are both reactions.</p>
<p>Conclusion: The best shield user is a Legendary Crafter Paladin/Fighter multi-class with Quick Repair, Shield Ally, Shield of Reckoning, Quick Shield Block, and Shield Champion. With this build you can Shield Block allies, and then Retributive Strike the enemy twice per round. Your shield has 5 dents before it breaks at 23 Hardness, and you can repair a dent in a single action. Your shield also provides a +5 bonus to (T)AC. A Fighter (with no multiclass) can take Quick Shield Block and Shield Paragon to trade a hand for increased defenses. Aside from that, every other shield user is better off getting access to the Shield cantrip or doing something more useful with their hands/actions.</p>
<p>TL/DR and Suggestions: Paladins have a hard time of it because Shield Block and Retributive Strike are at odds until level 10 or so. They should have some way to fix this as early as level 2 IMO. Maybe replace those garbage Oath feats. Bard and Druid really don't need shield proficiency, they don't have any synergy with it and it's not terribly well tied to either class's fiction (I'd sooner see a Barbarian with a shield than a Bard). The differentiation between Light/Heavy and Wooden/Steel is just too much complication for zero benefit. </p>
<p>I'd be fine with a single 'Shield: +2AC +1TAC 5 Hardness' option, where you add half your level to the hardness and item quality gave +3/6/9 hardness on top. Get rid of the Sturdy Shields and just have cool stuff like the Lion Shield and Indestructible Shield. Allow dents to be removed between fights without a skill check. Fighters and Paladins should both have access to 5 dent shields.</p>Thesis statement: Shields are bad at low levels, and more importantly, feel bad to play. We can make shields better and feel better by making making a number of small changes.
Author's note: This is a new system and like most I've yet to inter every single minute detail into my consciousness. If you see any errors or omissions, please voice them so I can make changes to my post.
Rules regarding shields:
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, and Paladins have natural proficiencies with shields....john salb2018-10-29T01:09:44ZRe: Forums: Classes: Quick Draw and Reload 1 Weaponsjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42c2f?Quick-Draw-and-Reload-1-Weapons#32018-10-21T08:36:47Z2018-10-21T01:37:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mathmuse wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Drawing is not loading. Even if the ammunition counts as a weapon, as shuriken do in PF1, drawing it won't load it into the projectile weapon.</p>
<p>Since this is a playtest, the next obvious question is whether Quick Draw should be reworded to allow quick loading, too. And I think the answer is no. Reloading would be done repeatedly, but drawing is essentially once per combat, except for thrown weapons. A Quick Reload would be a stronger feat than Quick Draw, so it should not be tacked onto Quick Draw as an afterthought.</p>
<p>However, you could argue that you can store a crossbow or sling loaded, so instead of reloading your first sling staff, you could drop it and Quick Draw a second loaded sling staff.</blockquote><p>Unless you can't stow a loaded weapon, yeah, I don't see a reason I couldn't stash multiple slings/crossbows and simply drop them after I use them.
<p>Seems pretty lame that even among the few ranged feats there are, most of them don't apply to weapons with reload 1.</p>Mathmuse wrote:Drawing is not loading. Even if the ammunition counts as a weapon, as shuriken do in PF1, drawing it won't load it into the projectile weapon.
Since this is a playtest, the next obvious question is whether Quick Draw should be reworded to allow quick loading, too. And I think the answer is no. Reloading would be done repeatedly, but drawing is essentially once per combat, except for thrown weapons. A Quick Reload would be a stronger feat than Quick Draw, so it should not be...john salb2018-10-21T01:37:56ZRe: Forums: Ancestries & Backgrounds: Usefulness of attributesjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42bq5?Usefulness-of-attributes#142018-10-17T20:42:37Z2018-10-17T19:54:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ediwir wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Critical failures still happen, and if they roll in before you're full, end of the line and what you have you have.
</p>
Plus there might be time constraints on occasion, and -let's be honest- who wants to keep rolling 10 checks in a row for 5hp? </blockquote><p>The same people who use wands of CLW, I imagine.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Snickersnax wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">john salb wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Dexterity now becomes the most important defensive stat for all characters due to the importance of AC in an enviroment where attack bonuses and AC are more bounded together, and the lowered importance of constitution. Melee characters need at least 14Dex to make the most of Half-Plate armor.
<br />
</blockquote><p>I think dexterity is less important for AC, because it really just determines what type of armor you are going to wear. In fact, armor now becomes an outward symbol of what your dexterity is.
<p>See someone in full plate.... they have a dexterity bonus of 1 or maybe 0
<br />
half-plate, their dexterity is 14.</p>
<p>breast plate: they have a 16 dexterity.</p>
<p>No other stat allows you to normalize its benefits by wearing equipment as much as dexterity does.</p>
<p>Every one of my characters maximizes their AC not by dexterity, but by armor.</blockquote><p>The difference between 16 armor and 18 armor is often the difference between getting crit on a 20, or being crit on 18s, 19s, and 20s. Pumping AC is relatively more important due to this fact. Heavy/medium armor is basically something that lets you get around having a low DEX, rather being its own boon. The AC of a non-shield Fighter and a Rogue are pretty similar.Ediwir wrote:Critical failures still happen, and if they roll in before you're full, end of the line and what you have you have.
Plus there might be time constraints on occasion, and -let's be honest- who wants to keep rolling 10 checks in a row for 5hp?
The same people who use wands of CLW, I imagine. Snickersnax wrote:john salb wrote:
Dexterity now becomes the most important defensive stat for all characters due to the importance of AC in an enviroment where attack bonuses and AC are...john salb2018-10-17T19:54:59ZForums: Ancestries & Backgrounds: Usefulness of attributesjohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42bq5?Usefulness-of-attributes#12018-10-17T02:26:54Z2018-10-15T02:10:33Z<p>Not sure if this should go here or another subsection, my apologies if I'm off. I'll try to be brief for the benefit of those reading. It is possible that I am off in my assessments due to the newness of the content.</p>
<p>Compared to previous editions of similar games, Strength and Constitution do not give as much relative benefit when compared to other attributes. Mental ability scores have either remained the same in value or increased. The value of Dexterity has increased.</p>
<p>In PF1e, Constitution gave +1hp per modifier bonus, and HP totals averaged between 3.5/HD (Wizard) to 6.5/HD (Barbarian). In PF2e, HP totals have nearly doubled from 6/HD to 12/HD. The relative value of Constitution is halved. </p>
<p>The number of attacks and damage multipliers in PF2 have decreased. Gone are the x4 criticals and 1.5xSTR bonuses. Criticals are now governed by attack roll total rather than natural die results, making them much harder to optimize for. It is also less likely (impossible?) to get more than four attacks in a round, whereas in PF1e two-weapon fighting and extra attacks were commonplace. Though less noticeable than Con, Str no longer gives as much damage output as it did in PF1e.</p>
<p>The benefit of higher DCs on spells is more pronounced now that nearly every offensive spell is both weaker and can now crit. </p>
<p>Intelligence still gives one skill per modifier, but each skill training is relatively more useful due to the smaller skill list (as you require fewer total skills training to learn every skill). Charisma now gives resonance in addition to its previous bonuses, and Wisdom still governs the most important saving throw.</p>
<p>Dexterity now becomes the most important defensive stat for all characters due to the importance of AC in an enviroment where attack bonuses and AC are more bounded together, and the lowered importance of constitution. Melee characters need at least 14Dex to make the most of Half-Plate armor.</p>
<p>My recommendation: Remove Ancestry based HP and replace it with your Con score, or Con/2. An 18 Con Barbarian would have 34/25hp at level 1, and a 10Con Wizard would have 16/11hp. Not sure for Strength, maybe have successive attacks add more strength damage?</p>Not sure if this should go here or another subsection, my apologies if I'm off. I'll try to be brief for the benefit of those reading. It is possible that I am off in my assessments due to the newness of the content.
Compared to previous editions of similar games, Strength and Constitution do not give as much relative benefit when compared to other attributes. Mental ability scores have either remained the same in value or increased. The value of Dexterity has increased.
In PF1e,...john salb2018-10-15T02:10:33ZRe: Forums: Magic Items: Magic Weapons Damage Dominancejohn salbhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs42bkm?Magic-Weapons-Damage-Dominance#52018-10-12T02:00:51Z2018-10-12T00:35:20Z<p>Remember that Paizo can (and do, and will) release new spells, more powerful spells, with every single book. It's impossible to fix non-casters once mages can deal equal/better damage on top of having infinite utility.</p>Remember that Paizo can (and do, and will) release new spells, more powerful spells, with every single book. It's impossible to fix non-casters once mages can deal equal/better damage on top of having infinite utility.john salb2018-10-12T00:35:20Z