tivadar27's page

Organized Play Member. 695 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 26 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 695 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Lanathar wrote:

I don’t want to come across as dismissive but there are some major flaws in the entire title / premise of this thread :

- as pointed out “classic fantasy builds” is the title and concept but then the list really isn’t made up of classics at all.

> I have never seen “Bard-barian” in any classic fantasy . Ever . And Skald as the name used in PF1 does not mean Skalds are a missing trope. Skalds are Norse poets and so largely covered by bards. Unless we have a very different idea of “classic” which seems likely

> sword and buckler men : this is a real world fighting style. Not often a classic idea . Indeed it is my understanding that both versions of pathfinder have misunderstood the real world purpose of a buckler

- there is the whole realisable / viable part thrown in which then has qualifiers attached to it seemed purely to try and discount the obvious counter that all of these builds are “realisable” in PF2 because they can all be made . So that part of the title is misleading even if it then changed in the into blurb

- as has already been addressed many of these work perfectly fine if not better under PF2 than PF1 unless significant mental gymnastics are performed or the goalposts changes mid discussion

All this really points to a very biased premise where hard work has gone into trying to find holes/deficiencies in the system that do not really exist .

And I don’t see how that is helpful as a discussion piece given it is set up solely bash the system. This is shown by the definitive statement “i effectively couldn’t” and no invitation from others to show how you can do these things (although that is of course implied and was such responses received anyway).

There are some gaps and potential errors in the proficiency system that point to some flaws in the system. But not being able to achieve these “classic” fantasy builds (when you can and they are not) is not one of the flaws - the topic of this thread

I have, in general, provided evidence as to why they're not viable in PF2 but either are or are not in other systems. If you'd like to refute some of that evidence, go ahead. If you're just going to make vague accusations and say "I don't mean to be offensive" but then go on and be offensive, I don't find this of much value.

Regarding some of your points, "Singing viking barbarians" are, at least in my mind, a classic fantasy build, and something that's been talked about enough online. Your argument that a sword and buckler build isn't "classic fantasy" is... odd. Sword and buckler fighting (or "small shield" style, really) is amazingly common, particularly in the pirate genre.

One note regarding builds, I do think the finesse fighter in 1e CRB (others have made this point) isn't really viable relative to other builds, so I'll admit I was wrong there, though in 5e, it still works completely fine.

Note: I have specifically defined what I mean by "realizable" in the opening paragraphs of my post. If you're going to ignore that and then claim that "any of these can be built", that's not really a valid criticism.

Also note: You say that that there's no invitation for others to show how this can be done, please note from my original post: "Note that my point here isn't strictly to poo-poo 2e, I just want to a) figure out if I'm wrong about these builds not being realizable, and b) if they're not, hopefully raise awareness that this should be addressed either through errata (where it's odd rules combinations that are prohibitive) or through additional content."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bardarok wrote:
Data Lore wrote:
Bardarok wrote:


I'd bet scaling proficiency will be "fixed" with more archetypes like Possible Cabbage suggests. Something to get expert armor proficiency without being religious is a must.
The Advanced Player's Guide will have a reported 60+ pages of archetypes.

Well I didn't say it was a radical prediction.

I'm worried this strategy will lead to rapid system bloat but hopefully I am wrong.

This is my worry as well. I feel if they did multiclassing properly (and it was properly modular) then they could avoid this problem. Given the way it was done, it seems as if they're going to need to rely on archetypes. I'd agree, this could be wrong, but if not, then something that could have been done in linear space is now going to be quadratic.

NOTE: Sorry if I'm getting mathy, but that's my background. Essentially, if you have multiclass abilities that combine well, then 10 classes gets you 10 pairwise combinations of classes, or around 50. Having to do all these individually leads to more strict control over them, but obvious rules bloat.


citricking wrote:

I'll post mine: big sword using monk.

A temple sword is just too small, there's no benefit to two handing it. In pf1 the benefits from +half strength and 3 for power attack made it more believable, but it still wasn't the best solution.

Completely viable in pillars of eternity.

There are a few feats (fighter mostly I believe) that do have some benefits for using a weapon with two hands, but in general, I'd agree... Also, your previous post gets a like simply for mentioning Pillars of Eternity :-P.


Edge93 wrote:


On the Dex Fighter, admittedly yeah the Fighter being able to get top AC without investing Dex makes it a little trickier to measure up to a 1h Str Duelist, but honestly it's not as bad as all that. Depending on how much Str you do take yeah, you might find your damage behind a bit. But your Dex contributes to other things as well, and the damage deficit isn't huge. If we say you make Str a tertiary (something you'd put one of your 4 free boosts in whenever you get them) then you start out 4 damage behind 1H Str (12 Str vs 18, 1d6 vs 1d8), or about half damage, which is notable, though you do have an extra trait or two on your weapon, some weapon picks might get you something interesting. If nothing else Agile is actually quite useful and makes up a little bit of the damage drop, and if you take Agile...

I just wanted to mention that with dual-handed assault, you *really* want to be comparing to the Bastard Sword. Your first attack with the bastard sword at higher levels will do 4d12+4+(other bonuses)...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Strill wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:


I consider a character 'viable' if it can be built to have the proper feel and if the player and the group will feel that the character is being reasonably effective in the gameplay.

Some of the critiques you have brought up of the various builds are simply that 'there is a better option available'. Which to me doesn't mean that the build that does represent the character is not viable. It just means that the character build isn't the best possible optimization for combat.

And? It still means that it's a flaw in the game which should be rectified. Better game balance doesn't hurt anyone.

Perfect balance in an asymmetric game system is effectively impossible. Good balance is what we currently have with PF2 - where less optimal choices and builds are still reasonable, effective, and fun.

So to answer your 'And?': If (for example) a finesse weapon fighter build is less damage per round than a two-handed weapon fighter, that isn't necessarily a flaw in the game. It certainly doesn't mean that fighters should be rules-bound forbidden from using finesse weapons. I definitely don't think that it means that a player who shows up to the table with a finesse weapon fighter should be criticized for choosing that build for their character. And I don't think it warrants someone complaining that the game is lacking or broken or that finesse weapons or the fighter class needs improvement just because the finesse weapon fighter isn't doing quite as much damage as possible.

I don't see the game as a competition between the players on who can do the most damage, kill the most NPC/monster sheets, and defeat the GM the fastest. So to me, sub-optimal is still viable, and the game is not broken as a result of printing things that are less advantageous than others.

So I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but in general, I agree with you. I think sub-optimal *can* still be viable. There are, of course, limits. If we both show up to the table with martials of the same level and under the best circumstances your martial does 2x the damage of mine, then that, I'm guessing, is *not* viable. If that number is 90%, then that largely gets lost in the noise.

I believe someone ran the numbers of a strength one-handed fighter vs dexterity one-handed fighter and suggested it was 50% the damage (see Edge93's post). That, to me, would indicate a design flaw...

I don't see it as a competition between players either, but it would be nice to be able to realize characters who are *effective* given a particular style relative to other characters.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Here I just straight-up disagree for a couple reasons. First, you still have an open hand when you have a shield monk, meaning you can use all the normal interacts. The shield cantrip gives 1 less AC than does and actual shield, and you can block at most once with it in any combat. Beyond this, dexterity based monks with shields are the *best* tanks in the game, bar-none (legendary proficiency, can get up to +7 from armor/dexterity, amazing saving throws made better by the spellguard shield assuming you can grab it at 6th level).

Let's say you're right about the shield/cantrip thing. That was a side issue from my main point, which was that you're usually better off just moving away. None of this addresses that point.

Also, everyone maxes out at +5 AC from Dex+Armor these days because Bracers of Armor, like Explorer's Clothing, have a +5 Dex Cap, and you need one of those two things to get the 'magic item' +3 AC/+3 to all Saves. Monks still have the highest AC in the game, even considering that, but having the highest AC, IMO, makes shields less necessary and useful for them rather than more in many ways.

Oh wow, I missed the max AC for Bracers of Armor, my bad there. I still don't see why the argument is that moving away is better... Regarding their AC (which, after what you've said, actually, Paladins are better...), the enemy is going to go after someone, and I'd argue if you're the monk with the best AC, it's better for you to stick around. Granted, the Barbarian does have resistance, and fighters and paladins are probably fine, but you're at least comparable with those 3 in terms of tanking, and probably better than all the rest.

If everyone moves away, sure, it means 2 attacks instead of 3, but the last attack is at a pretty hefty penalty and very likely to miss... what's the argument against that?

EDIT: I'm really curious what the strategies in combat will be in 2e, but don't imagine we'll know for sure until everyone gets more play under their belt. It could be everyone being constantly mobile is better, as you're seeming to suggest. My assumption was that those who can tank effectively, should, however. Granted, I'm arguing Monks can tank effectively, which is open to debate as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

Sword and Buckler, "why get 1 AC when you can use a shield and get 2?" Because it keeps the hand free if you need it. Need to drink a potion in combat? You can do that. Sword and Board can't. Want to pull out and use a magic item or Alchemical bomb? Go ahead. Caster Multiclass and want to keep a hand free for material and foci, scrolls, etc? Yep. (And yes caster MC likely has the Shield Cantrip available but this lets you take other options and a Buckler is better for consistent Shield Block USA anyway)

Neither is straight better, both have upsides and downsides.

And compared to using Duelist's Parry instead of Buckler, Buckler can shield block and doesn't cost a feat. Neither is straight better, both have upsides and downsides.

So good point on the free hand for pulling out potions and the like... That's a valid critique. I don't understand what you mean about buckler can shield block without costing a feat though... Also, the bonus from Dueling Parry doesn't stack with the bonus from the buckler, they're both circumstance bonuses...

Edge93 wrote:

On the Skald, I don't disagree it's hard to use, except via something you said in your PF1 comparison. You said for PF1 just focus on out of combat and buff spells. Can't you do this in PF2?

(I'm assuming that the missing bit here is that you could use Bardic Performance while raging in PF1 if in fact you could do that? And if so then fair point)

Yeah, performances aren't usable during a rage. Also, buff spells in general have been nerfed quite a bit especially in the duration department, so it's *harder* to pull off. If you want to just do buffing though, then you're going to go Occult Sorcerer rather than bard, because of the whole performance problem.

Edge93 wrote:
On the Dex Fighter, admittedly yeah the Fighter being able to get top AC without investing Dex makes it a little trickier to measure up to a 1h Str Duelist, but honestly it's not as bad as all that. Depending on how much Str you do take yeah, you might find your damage behind a bit. But your Dex contributes to other things as well, and the damage deficit isn't huge. If we say you make Str a tertiary (something you'd put one of your 4 free boosts in whenever you get them) then you start out 4 damage behind 1H Str (12 Str vs 18, 1d6 vs 1d8), or about half damage, which is notable, though you do have an extra trait or two on your weapon, some weapon picks might get you something interesting. If nothing else Agile is actually quite useful and makes up a little bit of the damage drop, and if you take Agile...

Agile helps a bit, but honestly, sweep effectively does the same thing as agile (though doesn't stack with flank...) for your second attack. If you're making 3x attacks, which is likely rare, then agile is going to be better, but with a free-hand fighter, you're probably not doing that much given you want to use dueling parry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
1. You just build this as a Rogue. I mean, they get Master in weapons and light armor, they're plenty martially inclined to reflect this concept, and make full use of high Dex.

I understand this, but I don't really consider this the same thing. Also, there really isn't a one-handed rogue without something in their off-hand build. Or are you suggesting that you build this as a rogue who MC's into fighter?

Deadmanwalking wrote:
5. I don't think this is as bad as you seem to. The Bo Staff has Reach as well as a lot of other very nice properties. It's raw damage is only 1d8, but Parry and Trip on top of Reach are very good indeed. Plus you can flurry with shuriken as well, which is very neat and a better ranged option than most other Monks. It is perhaps not quite optimal, but it's a pretty solid build with advantages as well as disadvantages.

Fair here! I hadn't considered bo-staff with reach or shuriken. However, they do feel like exceptions to the rule/niche builds. Dualing anything else still feels bad.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
6. Well, firstly, I think grabbing the Shield cantrip is probably better since it doesn't need to be improved with money and leaves both hands free. That's not available to everyone, though. Second...I just strongly disagree with this whole premise. You need to spend an action to use a shield. A Monk is almost always gonna be better served using that action to move away from their enemy, making them spend multiple actions to catch up or avoiding being attacked altogether.

Here I just straight-up disagree for a couple reasons. First, you still have an open hand when you have a shield monk, meaning you can use all the normal interacts. The shield cantrip gives 1 less AC than does and actual shield, and you can block at most once with it in any combat. Beyond this, dexterity based monks with shields are the *best* tanks in the game, bar-none (legendary proficiency, can get up to +7 from armor/dexterity, amazing saving throws made better by the spellguard shield assuming you can grab it at 6th level).

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I have no real help for #2, #3, or #4, though I'm not 100% sure I agree on the rules interpretation that makes #3 a problem, as I think it may be unintended.

Regarding #3, yeah, I don't know with the rules there. I mentioned it as a possible misprint/mistake in that thread, and curious what feedback will be (outside of one person who has taken it upon themselves to simply disagree with me no matter what...).

Thanks so much for all this feedback. I may try to re-imagine my swashbuckler as a rogue, though I *was* really hoping to go fighter... more feedback regarding that build would be appreciated.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So I want to get into specifics here and talk about classic builds that aren't realizable under 2e. I'll try to explain why each of these isn't possible, as well as look at whether these builds are possible under 1e and AD&D 5e. Note that I consider "possible" to mean statistically competitive to the close alternatives. I won't discard something because I think a caster is better than a martial, but I also won't consider making a charisma based wizard that dumps intelligence "viable". I'm also going to ignore Alchemist from 2e and Warlock from 5e, as those aren't comparable across editions. I'm curious to hear thoughts/if there's things I missed.

Note that my point here isn't strictly to poo-poo 2e, I just want to a) figure out if I'm wrong about these builds not being realizable, and b) if they're not, hopefully raise awareness that this should be addressed either through errata (where it's odd rules combinations that are prohibitive) or through additional content.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. A swashbuckling/dex-based fighter: This isn't possible because all of the single one-handed weapon feats provided to the fighter class are *significantly* better when you go the strenght route and simply wear heavy armor. The dexterity build simply doesn't compete.
Pathfinder 1e CRB: This was possible as a build, particularly when considering rapier, as it gave you the best critical range and could be finessed without a significant loss to damage.
D&D 5e PHB: Yep, you can definitely build a solid battlemaster fighter that runs entirely on Dexterity.

2. A Bard-barian (Skald): Nearly all of the bard boosting spells (inspire competence, courage, defense) have verbal components, which requires concentration. While it's *possible* to get this by spending an extra action to use moment of clarity every turn, that means spending 2/3 actions each turn, and that's not viable. Beyond this, these all require a focus pool, which Barbarians don't have.
Pathfinder 1e CRB: Yep, take 4 levels to get a basic performance or 8 levels for a slightly stronger one. Focus on buffing spells rather than in-combat spells. It's even better if you simply splash barbarian, but even ignoring that (it was far too splashable in 1e), it's totally doable.
D&D 5e PHB: Doable but harder here. Your inspiration works just fine, but any spell with concentration doesn't. However, it's still possible to build this and have it be effective.

3. A Fighter-bard (maestro): This is questionable given you might be able to get access to Maestro through Multifarious Muse, but that's an open rules question. Otherwise, pretty much any class that doesn't already have a focus pool can't be a multiclass maestro, because many/most of their notable abilities (lingering performance, inspire heroics) require a focus pool. Incidentally, this works *just fine* for paladins who get a Focus Pool by default.
Pathfinder 1e CRB: Once you started a performance, it just kept going, so this wasn't an issue.
D&D 5e PHB: Performance is just a fixed number of uses based on Charisma.

4. A Sword-and-Buckler build: Like any of them... The only thing the free hand gets you is the fighter feats, as mentioned above, and those all just work better with strength. Why get +1 AC when you can get +2 AC?
Pathfinder 1e CRB: Yes, though primarily due to the fact that rogues could use them without proficiency, which was a bit of a hack. Fighters were still better off using a heavy shield.
D&D 5e PHB: There are no bucklers, so not really, but kinda a moot point.

5. A monk who uses weapons: Weapons just aren't comparable to the unarmed fighting styles. Monk agile weapons go up to 1d6 damage, where agile unarmed goes up to 1d8. Non-agile weapons go up to 1d8, non-agile unarmed goes to 1d10. Not to mention there's no additonal weapon feats and the style feats all give something cooler.
Pathfinder 1e CRB: I didn't play a lot of monks, but my impression was that even in CRB, you could build with or without weapons and both builds worked.
D&D 5e PHB: Similar to pathfinder, I don't play a lot of monks, but get the impression that this generally works.

6. A monk who doesn't use a shield(?): This is a weird outlier, but monks are simply *better* when they're hefting around a heavy shield. Assuming bulk doesn't hurt, this is even true for dexterity-based monks. This... really breaks immersion for me.
Pathfinder 1e CRB: Monks don't use shields, it's in the rules.
D&D 5e PHB: Monks don't use shields, it's in the rules.

Note, these are all character concepts I had played around with, so they're not random things I'm coming up with, they're actually characters I was considering building and realized I effectively couldn't...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
I'm commenting on the design goals of the system and the fact that they limit "Character Diversity" (see my reply to GameDesignerDM).

Aren't we we actually more open to diverse build now than before? Granted PF1 has much more content but that aside, PF2 has a more modular base, especially with archetypes and multiclassing. Before, a caster who wanted armor needed to hop through a lot more hoops, dealing with both proficiency, spell failure if arcane, and check penalties on already low skills. Now with a bit of STR, you can negate the penalties, no spell failure, and you can dip into other classes without losing your casting progression, while also entirely bypassing low content of said class.

Before if you dipped into say, level 1 fighter, you'd only get content for that one level. Now if you dip at say 12th, you can pick feats up to Fighter 6, entirely bypassing 1-5 feats. Since casters use their casting stat for their attacks, they are open to alternative stats besides Dex as well? As a foundation, I like the new class features better. If both me and you went say, bard 12 with 3 feats into fighter, we'd end up day and night depending on party roles and aesthetical preferences.

So this is actually a fair debate regarding what I'd stated previously. The problem with that is that if you dip in at level 12, then your level 12 feat is the dedication, your level 14 feat is a level 1 or 2 feat for fighter, and your level 16 feat can be a feat up to level 8 (effectively). Yes, you *could* do it, but it'd probably be *much much* worse than the alternatives. I'd argue it's effectively a false choice/trap choice.

There's an exception to this if you're being human and getting the MC feat for free... but that's a very specific racial feat. What do you think? Effectively you're sinking 6 "levels" (3 feats) into fighter to have one fighter feat above 2nd level. There are clearly specific cases where this is good, but

...

Honestly, if the dedication feat wasn't a dead feat and simply gave you a level 1 (or maybe 1 or 2) class feat, I'd be totally okay with it. Paying 3 feats (roughly 30% of your class feats) to get a single feat from another class you want (that's not level 1 or 2) feels really steep/prohibitive to me... If those are your early feats, it hurts less. When it's later feats, I don't think it's really that viable of a build anymore in most cases.


You'd guess wrong. In the playtest, Lingering gave 2 Focus points straight-up. And when you misreading "a" vs "the" changes the entire meaning of a feat, then I'd say a clarification is warranted.

Note: You seem to be arguing that the only things allowed to be addressed in this thread are ambiguous rules, and not, potentially, rule oversights/misprints, yet there are plenty others of those throughout the thread (fighters not getting unarmed combat improvements consistently, abilities that should/shouldn't have the rage tag...)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So if the central issue is "classes are overly rigid" but the counterpoint is "some people like that" why isn't the option to appease everybody- "print more classes."

Sure, we have to wait for those classes to be printed, but we have to wait for a lot of things (you can't play an Aasimar yet, for example.)

Fair point, but one of the criticisms of Pathfinder was that it did Fighter/Wizard poorly (and Eldritch Knight for that matter), which is what caused them to *need* to make a Magus class... I think a lot of us hoped the CRB for 2e would solve this with a more elegant MC'ing.

I don't disagree that printing more classes is a viable solution, it's just one that's going to be hard to maintain, because then instead of 10 classes that MC well that lead to about 50 pairwise combinations, you're talking about them having to make 50 classes... Granted, I don't imagine it will be *that* bad, but hopefully you understand my point.


Rysky wrote:

Ah okay, I see what's going on, I actually did read that as "the", not "a". My sincere apologies.

In that case back to the beginning, no you could not select LC until you had a Focus Pool.

And this is in part why I'm asking if this was a mistake/oversight... As I said, this worked differently in the playtest and it's unclear, at least to me, if it's intentionally this way now. Not to mention, it took a good 3-4 back-and-forths between us for you to understand how this *should* work... so at the very least, additional clarity there would be good (such as explicitly stating you have to meet the pre-requisites).


Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Can you provide a rules reference that when something lets me choose a feat, I don't need to meet that feat's prerequisites?

Multifarious Muse does not have any prerequisites other than being a Level 2 Bard Feat.

MULTIFARIOUS MUSE wrote:
FEAT 2 BARD Your muse doesn’t fall into a single label. Choose a type of muse other than that of your own. You gain a 1st-level feat that requires that muse, and your muse is now also a muse of that type, allowing you to take feats with the other muse as a prerequisite. You don’t gain any of the other effects of the muse you chose. Special You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you must choose a different type of muse other than that of your own.

Emphasis bolded.

You take Multifarious Muse (no prereqs), you pick Maestro (no prereqs), you get Lingering Compostion, it wouldn't matter how many prerequisites Lingering Composition might have. You're not picking it. You're picking Maestro and Maestro gives you Lingering Composition.

No, you "gain *a* first level feat", not "you gain *the* first level feat". You're selecting it from a limited list (which, currently, is of size 1). In 1e, this would definitely *not* work as you say it does RAW. You could only take a feat without the pre-reqs when it was given specifically by name. It's unclear what the intentions are for 2e.


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
I'm commenting on the design goals of the system and the fact that they limit "Character Diversity" (see my reply to GameDesignerDM).

Aren't we we actually more open to diverse build now than before? Granted PF1 has much more content but that aside, PF2 has a more modular base, especially with archetypes and multiclassing. Before, a caster who wanted armor needed to hop through a lot more hoops, dealing with both proficiency, spell failure if arcane, and check penalties on already low skills. Now with a bit of STR, you can negate the penalties, no spell failure, and you can dip into other classes without losing your casting progression, while also entirely bypassing low content of said class.

Before if you dipped into say, level 1 fighter, you'd only get content for that one level. Now if you dip at say 12th, you can pick feats up to Fighter 6, entirely bypassing 1-5 feats. Since casters use their casting stat for their attacks, they are open to alternative stats besides Dex as well? As a foundation, I like the new class features better. If both me and you went say, bard 12 with 3 feats into fighter, we'd end up day and night depending on party roles and aesthetical preferences.

So this is actually a fair debate regarding what I'd stated previously. The problem with that is that if you dip in at level 12, then your level 12 feat is the dedication, your level 14 feat is a level 1 or 2 feat for fighter, and your level 16 feat can be a feat up to level 8 (effectively). Yes, you *could* do it, but it'd probably be *much much* worse than the alternatives. I'd argue it's effectively a false choice/trap choice.

There's an exception to this if you're being human and getting the MC feat for free... but that's a very specific racial feat. What do you think? Effectively you're sinking 6 "levels" (3 feats) into fighter to have one fighter feat above 2nd level. There are clearly specific cases where this is good, but higher level feats will, in general, be better.


Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

I think the bard's "lingering performance" probably shouldn't have the "focus pool" prerequisite. While playing in bard you'll always have a focus pool, if you're MC'ing in, this is a first level feat that doesn't seem like it should be prohibited from MC (all the other bard schools aren't...).

On top of this, if things do stay the same, clarification on whether as an MC bard if you take the "Multifarious Muse" feat and go maestro, if you are still required to have the prerequisites.

1) Lingering Composition is a Focus Spell, so you need Focus Points to even use it.

2) You'd get it, but couldn't use it without Focus Points.

3) This thread is for collecting typos and mistakes, not discussing the altering of abilities to be more appealing.

2) You're wrong, it's unclear whether you'd get it. The prerequisite is "Focus Pool", it's unclear whether it could be selected without meeting that prerequisite. Once selected, however, it would clearly "increase your focus pool by 1" so from 1 to 0.

3) It's for discussing mistakes. I think it's worth asking if that was a mistake vs a design decision. In the playtest the feat worked differently, so it's a fair question to ask...

Please consider what I've said before you accuse me of trying to make something more appealing and not contributing to the actual topic...

2) It's not unclear at all, you pick Maestro Muse through Multifarious you get it, there's no Focus Pool prerequisite for it. Cut and dry.

3) Again, this is a thread is for collecting typos and mistakes. "I don't like this/i think it should work like this" deserves its own thread.

Can you provide a rules reference that when something lets me choose a feat, I don't need to meet that feat's prerequisites? To your second point... again, if you want to read my previous response, feel free...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@GameDesignerDM: You may be right about this. I had read the original poster's comments, where he had defined player agency differently. I was responding to that definition, which may actually have more to do with Character Diversity. Acknowledged though, the players have as much ability to impact the story as they did previously.

@Rysky: I'm sorry you don't like my opinions. I have no problem with players being happy with the system, I'm commenting on the design goals of the system and the fact that they limit "Character Diversity" (see my reply to GameDesignerDM). Now you're choosing to be directly antagonistic without actually debating any of my actual points... But sure. If you're arguing what GameDesignerDM is, I concede that point. I was addressing the original comment, where they likely used somewhat incorrect terms for what they were trying to express.

EDIT: Note: I don't care that a bunch of people are happy with the resulting system. On the whole, I think it made more positive changes than negative. I do take issue with those who refuse to admit there are things wrong with it/things it made "worse" or harder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

I think the bard's "lingering performance" probably shouldn't have the "focus pool" prerequisite. While playing in bard you'll always have a focus pool, if you're MC'ing in, this is a first level feat that doesn't seem like it should be prohibited from MC (all the other bard schools aren't...).

On top of this, if things do stay the same, clarification on whether as an MC bard if you take the "Multifarious Muse" feat and go maestro, if you are still required to have the prerequisites.

1) Lingering Composition is a Focus Spell, so you need Focus Points to even use it.

2) You'd get it, but couldn't use it without Focus Points.

3) This thread is for collecting typos and mistakes, not discussing the altering of abilities to be more appealing.

2) You're wrong, it's unclear whether you'd get it. The prerequisite is "Focus Pool", it's unclear whether it could be selected without meeting that prerequisite. Once selected, however, it would clearly "increase your focus pool by 1" so from 1 to 0.

3) It's for discussing mistakes. I think it's worth asking if that was a mistake vs a design decision. In the playtest the feat worked differently, so it's a fair question to ask...

Please consider what I've said before you accuse me of trying to make something more appealing and not contributing to the actual topic...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
There's no debating this
The very existence of this thread disagrees with this.

Fine, there's no reasonable debate once rose-colored glasses are removed... Sorry, but one of the design goals for 2e was to reign in hyper-specialization, which is effectively what player agency is, the ability to change what your character specializes in to distinguish them in a large degree from another player or player of your clas who's not specialized in that thing...

Listen, I'm not arguing it's necessarily a bad thing. I personally think they went a bit too far in the narrowing of lanes, but I'd also agree something needed to be done. Yes, I'm being confrontational with my post, but I've seen far too many posts in the opposite direction, where people want to put on blinders regarding the weaknesses of the design goals, but are fully willing to play up the strengths...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Going to the original post: Yes, player agency has taken a big hit from 1e. There's no debating this when considering how MC'ing works. You're essentially forced to stay in your class roles and, especially for martials, the best you're doing proficiency-wise through MC'ing is expert. I'll agree that 1e essentially had *too much* diversity with the amount of dips you could do to abuse the system, but any argument that 2e hasn't limited player (character really?) diversity is effectively confirmation bias.

I think it's more interesting how it relates to 5e, which is its main competitor at this point. You get more feats in 2e than in 5e, but you're not allowed to fully multiclass... Feats give you some diversity, but only a limited amount. They effectively improve on what you're already good at doing, and don't really give you access to new things. It's seriously debatable whether there's more character diversity in 5e than in 2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the bard's "lingering performance" probably shouldn't have the "focus pool" prerequisite. While playing in bard you'll always have a focus pool, if you're MC'ing in, this is a first level feat that doesn't seem like it should be prohibited from MC (all the other bard schools aren't...).

On top of this, if things do stay the same, clarification on whether as an MC bard if you take the "Multifarious Muse" feat and go maestro, if you are still required to have the prerequisites.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters seem to jump from expert to legendary (level 19) proficiency in unarmed attacks. None of their other abilities improve it and even their weapon groups state that their proficiency improves for "simple and martial weapons".


Xenocrat wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I figure multiclassing monk to get one of the d8 (or d10) unarmed styles available at level 1, and flurry at level 12 (I believe) will work well for anybody else who wants to punch people.

I'm not sure how proficiency in unarmed strikes is figured though. Do rangers, barbarians, and champions all get master unarmed?

According to an allegedly comprehensive proficiency chart, fighters get legendary, barbarians, monks and mutagen alchemists get master, druids get expert, and everyone else is trained in unarmed attacks.

Important note regarding fighters: It's only *ever* versatile legend (level 19) that improves fighter's unarmed strikes, the rest all say simple/martial weapons, and you improve with all of the weapons in a weapon group... seems like an oversight.


MongrelHorde wrote:
shroudb wrote:

i also feel that a straight up ranger two wielding is pretty crazy in pure dpr numbers.

i mean, 6 attacks at -2, 7 attacks if hasted, is no joke.

and even before that, having only -1/-2 MAP is pretty insane.

as for burst, i think that paladin can do a nasty 2 turn setup if he chooses to use his focus on litanies, but not sure.

How is the Ranger getting 6 attacks? Twin Takedown is flourish, so only 1 per turn = (

Level 18 impossible flurry does it... It's a 3 action for 3 attack with each weapon at your maximum MAP.


shroudb wrote:

i also feel that a straight up ranger two wielding is pretty crazy in pure dpr numbers.

i mean, 6 attacks at -2, 7 attacks if hasted, is no joke.

and even before that, having only -1/-2 MAP is pretty insane.4

as for burst, i think that paladin can do a nasty 2 turn setup if he chooses to use his focus on litanies, but not sure.

I'm actually curious about the ranger thing. The problem, besides pulling it off (3 actions without moving...), is going to be that you'll be doing 1d6 damage die, which means 4d6 with runes vs 4d12. Elemental damage runes, I'd imagine, do help make up for this, but still, compare that to a Barbarian who gets half as many attacks but can have up to +18 damage on each of them...

Sadly multiclassing into monk doesn't work to help out here, as your proficiency for unarmed strikes never improves...


Syries wrote:

Nope, I was wrong.

Retraining wrote:
...For instance, you can’t exchange a 2nd-level skill feat for a 4th-level one, or for one that requires prerequisites you didn’t meet at the time you took the original feat.
This has two very unfortunate consequences; the latter of which I’m not sure the game designers intended. First, you can’t use your current ability scores to determine feat prereqs, you MUST remember your characters feats and ability scores from the level at which you wish to retrain. Secondly, and even more troublesome- you cannot use a lower level retrained feat as a prereq for a higher level retrained feat. so let’s say you’re a 5th level Ranger with Monster Hunter picked at 1st, Monster Warden at 2nd, and Disrupt Prey at 4th. But you decide you actually want to be more focused on animal companions so you retrain. You want Animal Companion and Companions Cry now. Thinking you could do so, you retrain Monster Hunter for Animal Companion. Congrats, you now have a fuzzy black bear you’ve named Teddy. You start to retrain Disrupt Prey but wait! Your GM is a huge stickler for the RAW and points out you didn’t have the Animal Companion feat when you took Disrupt Prey, therefore you don’t qualify to retrain for Companions Call. So now instead of having two animal companion feats and another 1st or 2nd level feat from retraining Monster Warden, you’re only at 1 Companion feat and two feats you didn’t even necessarily want.

Yeah I pointed this out in the bug/typos thread :). I assume the ability score thing is RAI, but I don't assume the retrained prerequisites thing is. I think the easiest fix is to state "when you retrain a feat, you treat the new feat as if you acquired it at the time you took the feat you trained out of, and you are not considered to have acquired the previous feat at that time."


Paradozen wrote:
The shield has 1 bulk, costs increasing amounts of money to keep up with levels, needs a feat to block with, needs time dedicated to repairing it. The cantrip costs 0 bulk, 0 gold, 0 feats to block, can block magic missile, and recharges automatically so you can instead refocus or treat wounds or whatever. Both have their ups and downs, real shields are better but cost an awful lot more to use. If you don't have the strength and the feat and the wealth and the craft skill and the time to repair reliably, you're better off with the cantrip, it is far lower maintenance.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but yeah, I think shields are significantly better for casters. Particularly once the spellguard shield comes into play. Then I basically *never* want to use shield block, as a +2 circumstance bonus to saves is a huge advantage.

I'd argue that as a caster you *probably* want to use a regular shield for +2 AC and never shield block vs casting shield for +1 AC with shield block assuming you're attacked 3 or so times on average in a combat, and that's before the spellguard shield. Note, there's also no reason you can't have the shield spell and *also* a regular shield for after you block...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The point of that rule is that you can't retrain a Feat you took at 2nd level with a 6 level feat when you're 6th level.
Too bad it doesn't say that: with it's current form, you'd have to keep a sheet for each and every level so you know exactly what stats, feats, proficiency ranks, ect you had so you don't "make choices you couldn't make when you selected the original option". Sounds fun. :P
Or, to save on postage, we shall read it in a way that makes sense.

Or, rather than having the rule say the wrong thing they could have it say the right thing or have an errata. Maybe you're not familiar with "rules as written"? Given the way Pathfinder Society is run, there's no room for interpretation, and everyone would have to follow by the letter of the rule rather than the spirit, as you suggest.

I even said as much in my original post, but this is a thread for rules erratas/clarifications... so what is it you're trying to get at here? Is there some parsing of that rule that I'm missing?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Understand I have lots and lots and lots of bias about this. MC'ing was the thing I was waiting to see how it worked in the playtest spoiler announcments. Basically, I think they're pretty bad for the following reasons:
1. You effectively can't do 50/50 class splits, and essentially can *only* dip into other classes. I realize this is what a lot of people did in 1e, but for those who weren't min/maxing and actually want to play a mixed character, that option is no longer available.
2. Access to feats is great, but there's 0 access to class abilities. Given you can only go up to level 10 feats, this means that you have access to around 25% of the things as options from the class you dip into (0% abilities, 50% feats).
3. Many of the *feats* are not accessible because they have prerequisites that involve the class abilities that aren't available (see healing/harming font, no Fighters with Channel Smite).
4. There's no way to halt your progression in a class. Want to be a rogue who halfway through the campaign decides to reform and become a paladin? Too bad, unless your GM is willing to let you entirely rebuild the character.
5. (new) The prerequisites into the multiclassing archetypes are *worse* than the playtest, now requiring 4 ability boosts rather than 3, and oftentimes requiring you to boost into an ability score you weren't planning to (no more Rogue/Fighters, for example).
6. (new) The dedication feats for the multiclasses are essentially feat taxes, as they are significantly weaker than regular class feats, effectively giving you a few trained proficiencies and nothing more. This hurts a bit at low levels, and makes multiclassing significantly worse with your higher level feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The retraining rules likely aren't behaving as they should:
"When retraining, you generally can't make choices you couldn't make when you selected the original option..."

This suggests that if I want to retrain my 1st level Monk Feat into Crane Stance, I can do it, but then if I want to retrain my 6th level monk feat into Crane Flutter I can't, because when I selected the original option (before retraining my 6th level feat), I didn't have Crane Stance.

I'm assuming this isn't RAI, though I could be wrong, but it's clearly RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syries wrote:
Well with the way retraining works out I think you could use your 5th level ability boosts to meet prereqs and then retrain 2nd level feat for dedication- because while you treat yourself as level 2 for the purposes of what feat you can retrain I didn’t see anything about how you can’t use your current scores to determine whether or not you meet prerequisites.

This is incorrect: "When you retrain you generally can't make choices you couldn't make when you selected the original option. For instance, ... (info about retraining 2nd level feat)"

The example involves retraining a second level feat, but the rule is that you can't make choices you couldn't make at the previous point in time. If you didn't qualify for the prestige class then, you can't retrain into it with that feat at any point.

Though note that this actually contradicts itself to some extent later. It suggests that if I legitimately retrain my 2nd level feat to something, and then want to retrain my 4th level feat to something which has that as a prerequisite, I can't do it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I had a rogue who MC'ed into fighter during the playtest. That's now completely impossible given their build, because what rogue is realistically sinking points into Strength?


MongrelHorde wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

Problem is that channel smite also operates on your melee attack proficiency, which is at best expert, that's effectively a -2 to hit as compared to normal melees. If you consider that you get legendary proficiency in spells from cloistered cleric, it's -4 relative to that...

There's also no way to get this as a multiclass I believe, as it requires harming/healing font, and multiclassing, as it turns out, really can't give you what you want from another class sometimes.

We're comparing a cleric to a cleric, not a cleric that's comparing themselves to another Martial. So I think the fact they only get "expert" in a weapon is moot.

...

Comparing cleric to cleric is great and all, but enemy ACs are based off of martial classes in all likelyhood. And if you want to compare cleric to cleric, then you're comparing expert proficiency to hit vs legendary proficiency for the saving throw, or a net difference of +4 for the non-channel-smite route...

I don't disagree that if you go the low-wisdom/high-strength route for a cleric, that this could work/be better than the alternative, but I also think if you go this route, you're going to have a *really* bad character...

I also agree that situationally this could be good when enemies have low AC but high fortitude saves. That being said, for the average case, I think it's a bad feat.


Problem is that channel smite also operates on your melee attack proficiency, which is at best expert, that's effectively a -2 to hit as compared to normal melees. If you consider that you get legendary proficiency in spells from cloistered cleric, it's -4 relative to that...

There's also no way to get this as a multiclass I believe, as it requires harming/healing font, and multiclassing, as it turns out, really can't give you what you want from another class sometimes.


I think bards are pretty bad in this edition TBH. They can't realistically be fighting types, as at best they're getting Expert rank in weapons. And while their casting can be helpful, I think, by and large, casting their cantrips is wasted action economy. You have to do it every round, and the bonuses it grants don't stack with other buff spells your party may have. Honestly, a war cleric casting bless once (or heroism before a battle) is probably going to be better than the bard.

Bards used to be reasonably effective across the board, and they could choose to focus to be good at something in particular. In this edition, they can serve as strictly knowledge gurus, which works fine out of combat, and if you don't have a buffer/debuffer, they can fill that gap, but their signature abilities are basically wasted if you have these and they'll spend a lot of time sitting on their hands outside of that.


Also: Note the rise of the Shield Monk build :-P. Seriously, now that Shield's don't have proficiency associated with them, RAW monks can use them with unarmored defense.


Eltacolibre wrote:

The small amount of AC from the Shield is nice but honestly, Shield Block is more important than the circumstance bonus to AC. The spell shield also doesn't care if it gets broken, unlike a regular shield.

Actually I'm fairly convinced this is incorrect, though I haven't run the numbers. A +2 AC bonus for the entire battle vs a +1 AC bonus and the ability to prevent 10 damage once (once you shield block with the spell, you can't cast it again for 10 minutes...).

Either way, without actually running the numbers, I don't think either of us can make definitive statements here.


Hmm, I don't mind this, but I also don't really understand the point of the Shield spell with this being the case... Sure, you can block with it once every 10 minutes. Doesn't really seem worth it, particulary when it grants a +1 vs +2 AC.


LuniasM wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

Caaaan you back this up with numbers? I'll argue it's literally impossible levels 1-5 for the following reasons, assuming stats are 1-off

Dex Rogue: xd6 + xd6 + y damage (approximately)
Str Rogue: xd8 + xd6 + y+1 damage (approximately)
Early on, the Dex rogue is clearly better, as (1d6+1 = 1d8) and they have a better chance to hit. At higher levels, this might not pan out, but having a low dexterity comes with other downsides besides damage, and having a low strength really doesn't.
All my numbers come from the spreadsheets on my other threads, in this case the Hit Rates by Class spreadsheet (link goes to the thread). Agile weapons may give DEX Rogues a slight advantage when multiple Strikes can be made, but it shouldn't be a significant increase.

Actually looking at your numbers, it shows the Rogue (Str 2H+SA) vs (Dex 1H+SA) being approximately equal:

Levels 1-10: Strength Rogue superior 5.5/10 times (one tie)
Levels 11-20: Dexterity Rogue superior 7/10 times
This gives the edge to the Dexterity rogue, though, I'd agree, it's very close.

Beyond this, however, even if it was a "tie", Dexerity is going to be a *much* more useful stat to a Rogue than Strength. Sure, you can go the Strength route, but I think it's vastly inferior, and that actually has very little to do with damage output from melee attacks (consider what happens once the enemy is at range and the Strength Rogue is forced to use a ranged weapon...).

My opinions here might change if they make heavy armor better (though there's nothing stopping a Dex based rogue from wearing it if they have proficiency), or have Strength matter for more than carrying capacity and Athletics checks...

EDIT: Note that I'm assuming you don't consider dogslicer, which is +1-3 damage per flat-footed hit vs rapier, and almost definitely better damage on the average for an optimized build, though, in fairness, niche in that only goblins can get it easily.


LuniasM wrote:

The numbers don't support the assertion that Brute Rogues deal less damage than DEX Rogues, so long as both are optimized (d8 weapon on Brute, d6 on DEX, maxed-out ability score). They're pretty much even, despite losing out on a +1 bonus on 10 levels. There's also a common assertion that you'll never crit on anything below a 20 unless you're a Fighter, which is strictly not true - any class can crit, but it requires good positioning, buffs, and debuffs on enemies. Fighters are one of 4 classes that can pull it off more consistently than others, and sometimes can do so unaided, but they're simply the best at landing crits, not the only ones capable of it.

Where this build runs into issues is weapon choice - d4 weapons fall behind in damage with every die rolled, and Brute Rogues already have slightly less accuracy. The Deadly property makes them more evenly-matched than other similar weapons, but they're still a step behind. The Rogue also has no feats to support the two-weapon fighting style at the moment. Multiclassing into Monk for Flurry of Blows may help with that, but if you're looking for crits I suggest Multiclassing Fighter for Double Slice - this gives you an increased hit and crit chance on your second attack of the turn and totals damage before resistance, so your lower damage won't be hampered as much by enemy defenses.

Caaaan you back this up with numbers? I'll argue it's literally impossible levels 1-5 for the following reasons, assuming stats are 1-off

Dex Rogue: xd6 + xd6 + y damage (approximately)
Str Rogue: xd8 + xd6 + y+1 damage (approximately)
Early on, the Dex rogue is clearly better, as (1d6+1 = 1d8) and they have a better chance to hit. At higher levels, this might not pan out, but having a low dexterity comes with other downsides besides damage, and having a low strength really doesn't.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ephialtes wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Yeah, if it came down to choosing between P2 and 5e, it would be 5e. And I don't like 5e.

I always wonder why those, who critisize the lack of char options in PF2 are swooning over 5e, one of the most simplified and dumped down systems without any character individualization at all, where feats are just a rare option for attribute enhancements. Why not Conan 2D20 with its talent trees or other Systems with enhanced character or simply staying with PF1 which already has more supporting material than 5e will ever have?

Please enlighten me why 5e character developement has more options for customization than PF2, I am very curious.

So... in my opinion, PF2e has more character choices, but 5e has more character diversity. Sounds strange, right? But options don't equate to meaningful diversity one-to-one, and your options in 2e, particularly when it comes to combat, are *heavily* restricted to your class, where you effectively get to make between 8-11 choices. So what can you do with these?

Firstly: In 5e, you can effectively choose a new class every 4 levels (it's actually more than this, but for purposes of optimization, this is a good approximation). This isn't really possible in 2e, where at best, you can choose a new class every 8 levels (3 feats before a new dedication), and you only get minor access to that class.

Secondly: In 5e, feats give you access to key fighting styles. While *some* are class-locked, you need a very shallow dip (1-2 levels) to access them. In 2e, you're spending 2 feats to get access to a combat style from another class, which is effectively 4 levels assuming you only need 1 class.

So yeah, it's a much simpler game, but 5e has more character diversity than does 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Someone said wrote:

Any chance of starting new threads for the increasingly tangential discussions here and circling back to the OP's points?

Layout/Readability of the Playtest book

Quality of the surveys/conclusions drawn from them

"Confirmation bias" and inauthentic responses on the forums

Declaration of, and no indication of considering changing, their timetable.

I think the developers might get some useful mechanic feedback out of the archery discussion - for instance - but it's buried in the back of this thread. Also it's drifting into the rambling territory where threads get closed.

Well that can only be discussed until a certain point. Almost all of the questions have been answered by the Paizo staff already. Having a thread to suggest that the amount of browsing of the rulebook between classes, powers, feats etc is a dime a dozen. They have talked about survey data in several twitch cast. Would it be good for us if Paizo had a better presence on the forums, sure, (including a blue post like system like blizzard) but you don't need several pages of discussion to get the point across.

Regarding the deadline Paizo have stated that if they aren't where they hope to be in terms of writing the final core book they will have to postpone, but they don't think there are indications that it is necessary yet.

While I do agree, even as the OP, that this thread has run its course, I think it's pretty far off to say that "almost all of the questions have been answered by the Paizo staff already".

1. I've yet to hear them talk about survey quality (which is a separate thing from talking about survey results).
2. They've mentioned initial formatting being a problem, but to my knowledge haven't indicated what they plan to do about it outside of general "make it better".
3. There's been no talk of deadline and how on/off track they think they are with respect to it.
4. I can't attest to dev responses on the boards more recently, as I've been away. I will say the *only* response this thread got was one from Jason when it was essentially clickbait because I used the wrong words...

NOTE: Acknowledging I could be wrong on any of these points because, as has been pointed out, information comes over a lot of channels. Please do let me know if they have spoken on these things. I'd appreciate it, particularly if there's a link involved :).


As an aside, I *believe* there are currently 5 types of flat modifiers in the game:
* item
* conditional
* circumstance
* precision (only for backstabber weapons)
* untyped (only for penalties)

I'm pretty sure the precision thing is in error, given precision is normally a die bonus rather than a flat bonus, but it creates confusion either way. Note that any item or precision bonuses that apply to damage don't get applied to criticals RAW (page 308). Most don't realize this, and it's been the cause of lots of confusion and still hasn't been clarified. For reference (page 308 explanation on criticals):
• Roll double the usual number of damage dice for your weapon or unarmed attack.
• Add double your ability modifier to damage, if one applies.
• Add double any circumstance and conditional bonuses and penalties to damage.


Starfox wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

Same here, I still get them confused. I'd actually suggest 3 types of bonuses:

* situational: For flanking/advantageous situations.
* competence: For core competence, such as a barbarian's bonus for rage, or point blank shot for fighter.
* magic: From spells.
I feel "core competence" bonuses should be unnamed. Having it otherwise creates anti-synergies, where some classes (barbarian and bard, for example) just don't play well together, ever.

I wouldn't mind if this was the case.... but it seems to fly in the face of their whole bounded accuracy thing. Not that I *agree* with bounded accuracy as presented in PF2, but untyped bonuses (which don't exist in the game as-is) essentially create a run-away train when it comes to that.


tmncx0 wrote:
Are you your own ally? Has this been definitively answered for this edition, or not? Because I’ve been letting my Paladins Retributive Strike enemies that hit them based on the ruling that “yes, you are your own ally”.

I don't know if this has been "officially" answered, but I spoke to a dev (Mark) and the answer is "no". Ally refers to someone who's not you who's on your side.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Umm, no, not really in my experience. When *a fighter* has approximately a 50% chance (maybe 60%) to hit an enemy on a first attack in something they're specialized in, you're looking at a random person picking up a bow having around a 30-40% chance or less, while only criticalling on a 20. Not to mention, if it's a non-magical bow at higher levels, it's pretty much worthless... Despite "level to everything" the numbers are so tight in PF2 that you *need* that +4 to hit bonus or else you're going to be pretty ineffective.

50% chance if you are fighting a monster of equal level.

PF2e is fairly clearly built on the assumption that the majority of your encounters will be against multiple creatures lower level than you - in which case you are hitting much more reliably - or single creatures of your level - in which case action economy is in your favor enough that a 50% miss chance is fine.

Keep in mind that Doomsday Door is an overspecced, intentionally brutal module that shouldn't be representative of what typical challenges in an Adventure Path will be.

EDIT: It's also fairly unfair to assume that the person who is building their character as an archer won't have a magical bow.

You could be correct that this is the expectation. If so, I don't understand why they're playtesting largely something that's *not* the expectation/not a relevant mode of play. Doomsday Dawn has about half the encounters with opponents that are at or above your level, which you seem to be pointing out. Has your point here been stated anywhere?

Also, seeing as we were promised "you can tell the same stories you used to tell in PF1", then I think it's valid to be mislead about this. One big boss with a couple low level minions against a party of 4-6 was a pretty common paradigm in PF1e, and it'd be a shame if 2e doesn't allow this narrative to continue naturally.

EDIT: The initial argument was "anyone who picks up a bow can be an archer", if you were building an archer already, that's not really what was being discussed.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
Every archer gets point blank shot... Wow so much variance.

I agree that all Core Archers get Point blank shot.

But my Cleric of Erastil Archer is quite different than my shapeshifting druid archer who is, in turn, different from my Ranger Archer. I found the Core Fighter too boring to ever make a fighter archer but he'd be different too :-).

I can make more different viable Archers in PF1 than I can in PF2 Playtest.

I would agree if you replace "viable" with "optimal".

However, my impression of PF2e is that any character with a Dex of 16+ who picks up a bow they are trained in is viable as an archer. That seems to be an intentional conceit of the system.

Umm, no, not really in my experience. When *a fighter* has approximately a 50% chance (maybe 60%) to hit an enemy on a first attack in something they're specialized in, you're looking at a random person picking up a bow having around a 30-40% chance or less, while only criticalling on a 20. Not to mention, if it's a non-magical bow at higher levels, it's pretty much worthless... Despite "level to everything" the numbers are so tight in PF2 that you *need* that +4 to hit bonus or else you're going to be pretty ineffective.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Shishumo: Just saw this, the one thing that stuck out is Jason's comment that they're at least looking at archetypes related to combat styles (I'm assuming something like two-weapon fighting). That addresses a bit of the siloing concern, which I appreciate.

Regarding the surveys, they've addressed some questions, but the problem largely is about questions they *didn't* ask, and that's a large part of the problem. Also, I'm totally on board with Linda explaining questions to 5 year olds!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
3. "Confirmation bias" and inauthentic responses on the forums: I'm not naming names here, but I've seen Developers handwave valid concerns regarding the game on these forums, indicating that they have playtest data. I've also seen them give responses like "well, you just don't understand/you just need to look at it a different way". Given #2 above, this is deeply concerning to me, and not just because of the tone of these posts. They seem to be taking the surveys as their One True Data, and ignoring/not giving weight to long-time customers/general consumer sentiment from people invested in their game. There are many concerns that have been raised repeatedly on the forums that haven't even warranted a comment
Confirmation bias isn't just an issue for the developers. Earlier in the playtest, there was clearly a healing problem. I proposed a One Hour Healing Ritual solution that I thought was nifty and that many people seemed to like. Instead Paizo went with Treat Wounds. My reaction was "my idea was much better than this because this doesn't resolve xyz!" In the end, Treat Wounds works well for the community (except for the scaling DC issue) and neatly resolved the problem with an existing mechanic. It's a mistake to assume that Paizo isn't working to address problems just because they're not engaging customers on an individual level. Which, frankly, would be a full time job in and of itself. It remains to be seen how this data heavy approach will work out but claiming that the developers are not working to resolve issues because they're not engaging one to one with every customer is unhelpful.

I'd agree that it's not only an issue for the developers. I don't deny that me 'seeing' posts that are skewed towards what I say is more likely. That being said, I've found the tone of developers in previous threads to be rather dismissive. And I've found that there's been very little said or done about some of the key issues that get raised on here repeatedly (class feat siloing and the +/-10 critical system for example). Do I expect them to immediately make a change, no, as there *are* people on both sides of this issue, but it'd be nice to have them speak to some of these issues more, and, in addition, see them reflected in the surveys, as these are issues that have come up repeatedly on the forums.

Note that it's possible they have heard and are working on these things, but just not saying anything. In that case, a *bit* more transparency here would probably go a long way.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to reiterate this, but I am sincerely sorry, particularly to Jason, since I mentioned his name directly, for the initial title of my post. I unintentionally used words that I shouldn't have regarding the Paizo staff, as I meant something different from what I said, and people were justified to react as they did.

While I obviously have a lot invested in this game and may think that Paizo is mistepping in areas, by no means do I think that they're not trying to make a good product that their customers will enjoy, and I mistakenly said that.

1 to 50 of 695 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>