shade2077's page

Anyone who runs in with a gun, sword, whatever, relying on blind faith that what they do is right ... is not so much good as a servant of good.

That pretty much describes the majority of Paladins, who are by definition LG.

Gorum's anathema includes "prevent conflict through negotiation". It's pretty hard (i.e. probably impossible) to stay on the "good" side of the line if you are prevented from finding a way to resolve conflict other than violence.

Like if you come across two people arguing in the market about the price of fruit, the Gorumite can't do anything except egg them on towards throwing down.

Other options available to a Gorum Champion could be:

Per the Rulebook page 331: "To be absolutely certain of having a chance to detect any hazard or secret before walking into it requires an overland Speed no more than 100 feet per minute (1 mile per hour)".

So if you want to see the treasure hidden under the bush, or the partly covered ditch that may break a camel's leg, you will be moving at speed 10!

"If the group moves faster than that, a searching character should get a chance to attempt a Perception check to detect any secret that’s in a place that stands out (such as near a door or a turn in a corridor), but not one that’s in a more inconspicuous place (like a random point in a long hallway)"

But if you like complex systems for describing what makes your character special in the world of the game, its nice to start with what makes them special compared to their fellow party-mates. It also allows the GM to really tailor certain encounters and role playing opportunities to specific players... giving each a time to shine.

In the current Pathfinder, player choices in the expenditure of character building resources have far more weight in determining how good a character is at something than in Pathfinder 2. And since this is ostensibly a forum of Pathfinder players, its not surprising to see a lot of negativity around this issue.

Even great heroes have flaws and weaknesses. It makes them more interesting.

That's exactly my point. I look at the current rules and the lack of being able to increase skills more than at most +5 better (by 17th level) than anyone else in my party makes me feel like we are all from the same cardboard cut-out, with a just little bit of coloring in to distinguish us from each other.

In PF2 all high level characters are experts at everything just because of level, and with the almost complete removal of skill points as you level there is little to distinguish one's skills from another. This is not the game I have enjoyed playing for 20 years (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder) and not the game I want to play.

I’m currently trying to create a 7th level Bard that I want to have high Bluff (now called Deception) and Sense Motive (now Perception). Deception is a signature skill for Bards - great. Perception is no longer a skill and is defined by Class (Expert for Bard at first level).

As I level I want my character to be better in their skills compared to their untutored companions and I just can’t.

Rogues, Rangers and Fighters become Masters in Perception at 7th as a class ability, but this is not open to other classes. I could take the Alertness feat but that does not increase my Perception level - it only sets it to Expert. I could raise my Wisdom at 5th level but so would most PCs with 4 boosts across 6 stats, and if I started at 18 that brings it to 19 for no mechanical difference to anything.

I can raise by Deception from Trained to Expert to Master, but as I only get 3 skill points to allocate in total over 7 levels (after my initial allocation of Trained skills) this would be most of my available skill increases.

So compared to my companions my Deception improves by maybe +2 and my Perception will actually get worse if they are Fighter, Ranger or Rogue.

I’d suggest the following changes:
1. Either bring back allocating multiple skill points per level (I never heard anybody complain there were too many skill points per class and now we get less?) or make the proficiency levels actually provide a noticeable difference (like +2/+4/+6). I don’t feel +1/+2/+3 with anything above Expert gated by character level to be significant against a roll of D20.

2. Remove the +1 to everything at every level. This doesn’t allow people to tailor their characters in any way and forces them to be better at things they would never do. (“I would never tell a lie. You can trust me…” says the 10th level Paladin with +14 on Deception purely from level + charisma.) I like the idea of getting some auto-improvement but this could be reflected by +1 per 4 or 5 levels.

3. Allow a stat bump above 18 by spending 2 of the 4 ability points allocated at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20; The bump to odd numbers above 18 means no mechanical change from stats for 10 levels.

4. Change Alertness to give you a +2 to Perception, not set the level to Expert.

5. Remove the auto-allocation of Master and Legendary level Perception to Fighter, Ranger and Rogue. Let players decide if they want to spend a Feat on improving Perception or not; alternatively, give All classes a Perception proficiency bump at 7th and 15th levels.

The way classes are currently built and advanced makes me feel like they all come from the same cardboard cutout. They would all have basically the same underlying stats, with only minor variations allocated by the players that are overwhelmed by the giant D20 roll. This is against the design of Pathfinder 1E and leaves me feeling disenfranchised.

Despite running for his life through a million miles of dungeons, the Wizard has no ability to climb a rope?

Of course the wizard has no ability to climb a rope. They learnt Fly and have no need to indulge in mundane tasks...

Planar Lore is one of the examples in the Rulebook. I'm guessing this equates to the 1E Knowledge (Planes). So you could presumably have Dungeon Lore that gives information similar to 1E Knowledge (Dungeoneering).

In theory, if a lock is supposed to be difficult for a 10th level character to pick, it would be nigh impossible for a 3rd level character to pick. A merchant wanting to keep people from looting their warehouse might select security measures based on "who is actually likely to rob this place" (i.e. "what is the maximum level of anybody in the local thieves guild, excepting the PCs.)

Who is going to be constructing these locks that are a challenge for a level 10 character to pick? Certainly not your person who has spent their entire life becoming a level 5 expert locksmith because they don't have the 'levels' to create an appropriate challenge. Means we are going to have to populate the world with level 10 experts to create anything of worth that can't be outdone by level 10 characters who have spent their life smashing things to pieces. Bleh!

Please please please remove this 'higher level beats everything' rubbish!

You're bothered that an 8th level character is harder to hit than a 1st level one? To that I say, "No duh." The first level character is a scrub. The eighth level one is an experienced hero who's seen more action than most people ever will.

That's why an 8th level character has a ton more hit points, better armor, better spells, etc. Adding +1 per level to AC is double dipping.

The example ability arrays in the playtest rulebook aren't that different form the expected array for 4d6 drop lowest: 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. Having a series of boosts is a nice middle ground that avoids points but keeps it controlled and locks the abilities to values have meaningful consequences (multiples of 2). It ain't bad at all.

Stormbinder wrote:

The stat design and the way PCs are built is one of the most enjoyable aspects of PF2 I have seen thus far. I think for DMs who want weaker PCs they can enforce the rolling rule or maybe they can include somehow 3 modes of play in the final product: Gritty fantasy/ Heroic fantasy/ and Legendary Fantasy. Each of these would reflect different schools of thought regarding PCS. Gritty is mundane/Tolkien fantasy, military style fantasy and/or historical fiction, Heroic Fantasy would be Sword & Sorcery more Howardian style heroes and default D&D style heroes and Legendary would be mythic style fantasy where PCs are scions of like Hercules was and so forth.

This could be implemented with a short mention in the GMing section about adjusting the overall power level by adjusting the base ability block before any boosts. Like if you want everyone to start out "normal" the abilities all start at 8 instead.

This sounds like a great idea to me. Have a starting number of 8 in all stats for Gritty fantasy; a starting number in all stats of 10 for Heroic fantasy; and a starting number in all stats of 12 for Legendary Fantasy. When creating NPCs you could use the tier 1 down from that used for PCs. Then you add the ancestry/background/class adjustments to the base array.

Oh no!

Not this again.

Now it is on AC also?

I thing that this will give too much power to higher level characters over lower level encounters.

They will become too trivial.

the +1 per level needs to go ASAP.

flatten it down to +1 per 4 or 5 levels.

And remove it from AC.

I agree totally with the above. I often play at tables where there can be 4 levels different between the top level PC and bottom. With the +1/level to everything the low level PC is really going to suffer in achieving anything meaningful. The low level wizard is going to be outclassed on knowledge skills by the higher level uneducated barbarian. The low level barbarian is going to be outclassed on physical tests by the high level weakling wizard. This is bad for player satisfaction.

Pathfinder is supposed to be a group game where obstacles are overcome by teamwork. Not everyone needs to be good at everything and character choices should matter. The low strength character gets hauled over obstacles by the strong. The intellectual character solves the research project while the person only trained in fighting stands guard. If you need a diplomat, bring a person trained in diplomacy not just j random person with a higher level.

I would like to see more skill points than 2 per class (as per Edition 1 with many classes) but I believe adding +1 to all skills per level ruins character adaptability and makes a sameness to all PCs. IMO it also removes the need for player cooperation, which should be an integral part of the game, because at higher levels everyone becomes great at everything.

GrandReaper wrote:

I would rather see level drop to lvl/2 or so and increase the gap in the proficiency tiers (maybe -3/0/+1/+3/+5).

+1 to this, though I'd be fine with keeping it at a full level if the difference between tiers is still something you can feel in your die rolls. I'm fine with my angry anarchist Barbarian picking up enough decorum over time to be able to hold a conversation with a noble, but I'm not fine with a Barbarian with 6 Charisma and untrained Diplomacy being able to potentially beat a Legendary diplomat Bard with 22 Charisma and a Circlet of Persuasion with a roll of 16+

I also think the +1 per level is way too much and offsets any difference that untrained/trained/expert provides. IMO the lvl/2 is plenty sufficient (may be even too generous) and I would also increase the gap in the proficiency tiers as suggested above (-3/0/+1/+3/+5).

I find it totally unbelievable that an Untrained level 4 character (skills at -1+4=3) is better than a Trained level 1 character (skills at +1+1=2). Try equating that to a person trained in a musical instrument - a level 10 PC should not be getting bonuses to Perform without ever investing any effort (i.e. skill training) into it.

I tried to prep this for a game tomorrow night but have failed. There is a whole set of complicated new rules that I am unable to understand, let alone try to explain to the players. I hope other people have better luck.

I just played this one. I'd advise holding off on playing it. The module is obviously unfinished, leaving the conclusion for many players left up to the discretion of the GM as the module does not address the most obvious conclusion.