tivadar27's page

**** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston 1,322 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 43 Organized Play characters.



1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So question for everyone, the elemental sorcerer blood magic reads:
"...or a target takes 1 damage per spell level..."

Do you all play this as the intent is to be "an affected creature"? Because if not, then that Blood Magic option works literally only for Elemental Toss, as none of the Granted Spells actually target anyone (minus resist energy, but probably not casting that to *do* fire damage...).

This strikes me as a clear mistake in the rules, but curious what others thought.

EDIT: Given the rules for base blood magic, I'm assuming it's the intended way: "If the spell has an area, you must designate yourself or one target in the area when you cast the spell to be the target of the blood magic effect. All references to spell level refer to the level of the spell you cast."

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

So I am up to 10 PF2 characters, and I had planned to do a rebuild of one of them later to be able to take eldritch archer at 6 then later rebuild so I'd take it at 8 but have a caster dedication before that. In the meantime, I decided to rebuild another character that I just wasn't feeling happy with.

Anyways, I noticed that the boon cost went up independent of the character I'm buying it for... While it does indicate the increased cost, my assumption had always been that was a per-character cost increase, not an overarching one tied to me as a player... If I'm wrong, that's unfortunate but I'll deal with it, but wanted to check to see if this was the intent before I go and purchase the second.


I've also sent an email, but it was suggested I post here as well. I recently received a couple of gift certificate codes from playing at a convention and they aren't redeeming properly (Seeing: "That code not recognized"). The event organizer spoke to Alex and he suggested reaching out to you. Please let me know how to proceed.

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

5 people marked this as a favorite.

This has been asked a few times in the context of other boons, but is probably more relevant for chronicle boons as they don't appear anywhere else... but it would be *extremely* helpful to get the full text of a boon prior to purchase rather than a summary. We have to choose how to assign these to characters, presumably, and doing so without knowing what specifically a boon does really doesn't feel good/could lead to purchasing boons you can't actually use on a character. Even some sort of external site with the text of the boons being linked would be fine.

EDIT: I had been operating under the assumption that moving things online would also expand how boons are potentially assigned to characters (e.g. you wouldn't have to assign to the character that played the adventure). It's been pointed out to me that that might not be true, which makes this much less of an issue.... Still, it sucks to get a good boon that you can't use just because you played with a character that can't use it.


So we're a year+ into second edition, and had printing with a bunch of regular archetypes as well as a couple new classes already added and a couple on the way. When the CRB originally came out, I saw the 2 or so sentences on class archetypes and though "oh that'll be a good way to add some additional customization".

However, at this point, Paizo's shown that even things like Swashbuckler and Magus, which could have very easily been class archetypes (for Fighter and Wizard respectively most likely), are going to be put into their own classes. At this point, adding class archetypes likely introduces a lot of additional complexity without really providing much additional potential for customization that isn't gained by adding additional archetypes and base classes as necessary.


I wasn't able to find this anywhere else, but the requirements for Flensing Slice are: "Requirements Your last action was a Double Slice, and both attacks hit the target." Can you Double Slice on one turn, end your turn, and assuming you don't take any sort of reaction/free action, then Flensing Slice at the start of your next turn?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So there's all this debate going on regarding Battle Medicine. I don't want to jump into that, but a decent number of people seem to be coming to the conclusion that requiring healer's tools and a free hand is the most practical way to go (if you don't agree, that's fine too, not stating it's unanimous...).

However, this leads to a weird corner case potentially, because healer's tools require 2 hands. I've heard takes that the healer's tools should need to be "held:, but not "worn", so they'd only take up a hand, and I hope that's not the way this is going, because it carves out a corner case that's likely completely unnecessary. Healer's tools should just be changed to require only one hand.

Why? Well, I've been playing for a while now, and honestly, I'm trying hard to remember the last time I/someone wanted to:
1. Stabilize someone, or
2. Treat poison on someone, or
3. Stop someone's bleeding
And the GM asked "do you have healer's tools at the ready and are both your hands free?" The fact is, this just creates an unnecessary barrier to performing actions that aid your party members and has a pretty steep cost. Most GMs I know just kinda let that happen, and honestly, I think that's the right thing to do. I think it's reasonable to expect someone to have a hand free, but for those with a shield, or dual wielding, dropping everything you have means that instead of 1 action, you've effectively given up a whole round.

So instead, just make healer's tools (and possibly rogue's tools) 1-handed. Let there be a marginal cost to having a hand free and requiring regripping/drawing, but don't make these tasks so burdensome that they're unusable unless a GM effectively ignores their requirements.

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

So... I've been scoping out a Leshy that I'd really like to play. ACP purchases have obviously been delayed, and right now I've got 2 tables of credit on my character (8xp). I'm playing some events at ConCurrent and wondering the following:

1) I'm assuming you can purchase a leshy boon on any 1st level character, and it doesn't need to be a fresh character?
2) If you also get a respec boon, can you purchase a leshy boon on a character that's higher level?

Asking mostly because I need to know if I need to *stop* playing this character (where I'm proxying Goblin for Leshy) because attaining level 2 would prevent me from actually playing a Leshy...


So, I was looking into making a mounted character, assuming that being on a mount would simply give the benefit of using a command action to get them to move around. However, the mounted combat rules, it turns out, have a lot of additional complications to them, and I think many of them just feel overly complicated for not a good reason. Curious others opinions.
1) When mounted on a size large mount with a reach weapon, you don't get the benefit of reach, as your mounts reach is greater than yours. My Opinion: I get this one, because mounts with reach was such a *huge* advantage previously. I'll take this addition without complaining.
2) When mounted, you share your mounts MAP. My Opinion: Sure, okay, so they don't want you to abuse the whole "we both move for one action and both get a bunch of attacks". But, this has lead to a lot of open questions as well. What if I mount mid-turn after myself/my companion have attacked, or dismount after we have attacked. What happens next? I don't mind this one, but they need a lot of clarification here.
3) When mounted, you have soft cover from attacks "where your mount would be in the way". My opinion: ... Why? First off, this is ambiguous, secondly, it feels like an addition that's unnecessary and needlessly requires remembering something new.
4) When mounted, you take a -2 penalty on reflex saves. My opinion: See #3 above. This just feels like more mechanics to remember. It might be realistic, but it's burdensome.

I'm also curious how many people play with mounts, and how many people actually knew these rules, in particular the last couple. I know I've been at tables where others had mounts and weren't following them. Generally I didn't overly care and didn't point them out, but it's happened a couple of times.

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

So I heard that Paizo will be limiting Organized Play tables to 6 people rather than 7 starting in June. While I understand why this is being done, and, honestly, do find 7 person tables overwhelming much of the time, I also think this is a *really* bad time to implement this. With everything going on, finding a table (now online) can be really hard. Not to mention, when things *do* open up, gaming stores are going to be really struggling and most of the ones I know charge per player for events.

Has Paizo considered pushing this back given the current real-world situation?

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

This recently came up in a scenario we were playing, but we finished missing a Treasure Bundle and a Grand Archive player wanted to use Meticulous Appraisal to help out the party. However, they had filled all their boon slots, and:
"To gain the benefit of a boon, the character must “activate” it by “slotting” it into one of these slots. The GM will tell the players when to slot boons. Usually this will happen after the GM has given the players their initial briefing or introduction."

Now, it was ruled at the time, because there was some uncertainty, that the player would have had to leave a slot open to be able to use a Service boon, because they'd need to slot it. However, even under that ruling, it doesn't make a lot of sense, as you slot boons at the start of an adventure and there's no way to slot them at the end (unless your GM just arbitrarily tells you to slot your boons a second time...).

I think this should be obvious, but it would be good to have it explicitly stated by a Dev that Service boons can be used even when unslotted...

Note, if this *isn't* the case, then effectively most players will have one less slot available through most of their play, as dying and not being able to use Resurrection Plan just seems rather horrible...


So, turns out Unconventional Weaponry could turn out to be a huge burden. Basically, there's now been clarification that katanas can be selected with Unconventional Weaponry. Why? Because *arbitrary decision*. This seems like it could lead to some heavy developer burden in maintaining a list of what is and isn't common in cultures, or GM burden in making this decisiion. Beyond this, we *have* a rarity system, and that system, by and large, was not fully used when it comes to weapons. So, my suggestion is this:

*Common* weapons are weapons that are common in the default culture/large area.
*Uncommon* weapons are weapons that are common in some culture/large area.
*Rare* weapons are weapons that aren't common anywhere.

If you're designing a custom campaign world, now you can choose which common/uncommon weapons you want to choose from. Beyond this, it makes it obvious what weapons are available for Unconventional Weaponry. And it has the advantage that it would likely require very few changes to the existing books. You'd just need to add a sentence saying how the rarities were derived, and then maybe alter a few things that are currently uncommon to be rare (I'm guessing this list would be pretty small...).

What do people think?


So there isn't a lot of clarification around mounts during exploration mode. Lots of things, for example, say you move half your speed while performing an activity. Presumably that's half your mounted speed if mounted? And is there anything you can't/shouldn't be able to do during exploration mode while mounted? Can you Avoid Notice? It would seem as if this was just another exploration activity, but it's also one that seems a bit off in some ways.

I believe the answer is, effectively, you make what checks you would normally make but use your mounts movement speed while mounted. Is that other people's interpretation here or no?


So.... Lots of skill checks specify that you can try again a day/hour/level later. Lots are obvious to give retries (seek, athletics...), however, Recall Knowledge has no fundamental rules stating you can't try it multiple times, and, maybe in the case of live combat, that's fine. But... it still feels wrong. Should this be something that's in the rules and spelled out?


Am I right in assuming that unless otherwise specified, when something is triggered by a failure/success, it's also triggered by a critical failure/critical success? It seems as if this is the intent of the rules, as there are rules that state "you fail but do not critically fail" (Cognitive Loophole).

However, there's also "failure effect", which I assume triggers only on a failure specifically (Certain Strike, for example). This seems to override the default failure state and replace it with the prerequisite text, but it also seems confusing, as it implies "Failure" isn't inclusive of "Critical Failure", which I think is not the intention for most things?

Beyond this, there's "Greater Juggernaut", which states "when you fail a fortitude save...". That seems to imply not critically failing, for example.

All-in-all, these rules seem somewhat contradictory. Is there a straight-forward way to parse this?


I thought that one of the devs had mentioned you could do this (for no mechanical bonus) during the playtest, but looking at the rules, I don't see anything indicating it's possible:

I'm a spontaneous caster and I have 4th level restoration in my repertoire. I'm out of 4th level slots but I have a 5th level slot. Can I cast restoration at 4th level with a 5th level slot?

Beyond the basics, it also doesn't allow you to downcast cantrips ever (not that you'd frequently want to, but things like spell storing and spellstrike ammunition means it might be desirable). Am I wrong here?


So I realized that at a quick glance, at least, it seems like at higher levels, combats will take longer than at lower levels. Probably a reversal from what we saw in PF1. Let me explain why I think this is, and curious to hear if other people think the same/different, or, more importantly, if they've experienced the same/different:

Let's look at level 3 and level 19 for comparison's sake:
* Assume most battles are won by causing damage.
* Assume chance to hit remains approximately static as you level up (given enemy scaling).
* Assume base fighter for looking at potential damage, could look at other classes, but I've seen enough analysis that damage scales somewhat similarly, and fighter is probably on the higher end here.
* At level 3, a 2H fighter will do around 17 damage (d12 power attack plus 18 str)
* At level 3, an enemy has around 45 HP, it dies in just under 3 hits.
* At level 19, a 2H fighter will do around 70 damage (d12 power attack with max striking rune plus 22 str plus 8 Weapon Master plus 3 damage runes)
* At level 19, an enemy has around 400 HP, it dies in just under 6 hits.

That seems to indicate that combats get longer later into the game. And note, the above numbers were even considering optimal levels for damage for the fighter (at 19 they've got 2d12 damage over level 17 and I was assuming *all* damage runes). Yes, you'll be able to use actions slightly more efficiently later, but it doesn't seem to account for the nearly double HP to damage ratio that happens at higher levels.

Thoughts?

4/5 *** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, we were told that LOWG would get sanctioned in a few weeks in roughly late October (right around when the errata came out). Is there any further update here/new timeline for this?


I brought this up in a previous thread, but I've seen it creeping into discussions both on here as well as on the Facebook Group for PF2. Basically, DPR as a metric for character effectiveness often leads to people misevaluating the effectiveness of their character because they're used to how things worked in PF1.

To bring up a concrete example, this came up in the context of "building the best barbarian", where someone stated that they'd go Giant Instinct, because it did the most damage/had the highest DPR. But let's take a closer look:

Giant instinct gives you:
* +18 to damage.
* -1 additional AC while raging.
* Feats that increase your reach by also increasing your size.

Now let's look at Animal Instinct:
* +12 to damage.
* A one-handed weapon that does 1d12 damage.
* A feat that nets you +2 AC over standard barbarians at lower levels, +1 at higher levels.
* A feat that lets you stride and strike as a single action.

So what are the trade-offs here, how does giant instinct compare to Animal Instinct at higher levels:
* +6 damage while raging.
* Either
* -8 damage and -2 AC (shield) while raging as compared to Animal Instinct.
* -4 AC (Greatsword) while raging as compared to Animal Instinct.
* Increased reach vs ability to move and strike as a single action, approximately equivalent, though in fairness, Giant Instinct has more potential uses for AoO's.

Yes, Giant Instinct has better DPR as compared to Animal Instinct, but you have to decide whether +6 damage is worth -4 AC in PF2 (hint: the author thinks it's not :-P). In addition, there's also Dragon Instinct, which gives you an awesome ranged breath weapon, and suffers only a -2 damage vs +1 AC.

Note: this isn't the only post I've seen that has operated on the assumption that DPR is king. However, there are plenty of people out there as well that realize that this is not actually the case. I'm not saying DPR is worthless, we just should try to do a better job at analyzing other abilities as a community, as well as pointing out to those looking for character build advice that these other things really matter in PF2 as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Kicking off a thread to re-raise typos or clarifications still needed in the CRB specifically. If people want to discuss other books, I think separate threads are a good way to go.


So I realized that the rules around this are confusing, namely if you keep the benefits of the buckler if the hand becomes occupied. Looking up "Raise a Shield", you see this:

CRB p.472 wrote:

You position your shield to protect yourself. When you have

Raised a Shield, you gain its listed circumstance bonus to AC.
Your shield remains raised until the start of your next turn.

Okay, great, sounds good so far, so let's go look at bucklers:

CRB p.277 wrote:

Buckler: This very small shield is a favorite of duelists

and quick, lightly armored warriors. It’s typically made of
steel and strapped to your forearm. You can Raise a Shield
with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or
are holding a light object that’s not a weapon in that hand.

Okay, great, we're all set! You can't raise the shield if the hand is occupied, but once you raise it, you're good, you can then grab that Greatsword with a second hand and go to town!

But wait, now let's jump to the top of the section on the description of shields that provides the overview:

CRB p.277" wrote:

A buckler, however, doesn’t take up your hand, so you can

Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free (or, at
the GM’s discretion, if it’s holding a simple, lightweight
object that’s not a weapon). You lose the benefits of Raise
a Shield if that hand is no longer free.

Seriously? Please address this. I assume the text at the beginning of the shields chapter is definitive, but why isn't that stated either specifically with bucklers or with the Raise a Shield action? It's possible the intent is otherwise and the rules got left in, but this is pretty bad in terms of organization/trying to look things up.


So goblin song says that "you sing annoying goblin songs, distracting your foes with silly and repetitive lyrics". This obviously provides some flavor. It then goes on to say "Attempt a Performance check... This has all the usual traits and restrictions of a Performance check."

So the question here is if the initial description is intended to be rules or merely flavor? If I come across some wild boars that obviously can't understand my singing lyrics, can I do an annoying dance for them instead and effectively have the "Song" take on the move and visual traits rather than auditory and linguistic?


So, let's be clear and upfront: RAW is definitely something that exists and is referenced, particularly in the PFS guide:
"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to the number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons."
"As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com."

Still, that leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation, so I'd like to discuss the various levels of what I see as RAW vs RAI. First, I'll provide an example of each of these:
1. Clearly RAW: The game says to roll 1d20 on attacks, but your GM decides they want you to use 1d10 instead.
2. IMO RAW: I believe it's clear in the rules that Battle Medicine doesn't require a Healer's Kit, but enough people think that I'm wrong to create doubt.
3. IMO Ambiguous, but likely RAI: I think Telekinetic Projectile was intended to be a ranged spell attack, but it doesn't say so explicitly in the rules.
4. Clearly Ambiguous: What's the DC to Climb a Dragon?

Okay, so this last one really doesn't matter. It's effectively something that everyone agrees is odd, and make it up as you see fit, but for the rest, I adjudicate in very distinct ways.

For 1: I will always follow this as a GM. If I see a GM *not* following this and I point it out to them, I expect them to fix it or give me a good argument for why it's not RAW. If they don't and keep playing this way, I might actually consider reporting them to an event coordinator (note: this has never actually happened).

For 2: I will always follow this as a GM. If I see a GM *not* following it, well, that's okay. I might let them know later that I don't think that's how things are supposed to be and why, but I acknowledge it's ambiguous. I might make an exception as a GM if it clearly breaks a character's build and I don't think it's overly egregious.

For 3: I will always allow whatever interpretation the player prefers/is most advantageous to them. As a player, I will typically ask what the GM does before trying to do the thing.

Curious how others run this/treat the situation? It seems as if #2 and #3 are probably the most contentious here. Given RAW has come up a couple times throughout these threads (and whether it exists at all...), I thought it useful to have an actual discussion about the somewhat meta-topic. Also, people might disagree with my classifications entirely, and define RAW in a somewhat different way.


So at least given RAW, all of the ways to make a weapon beyond a +1 weapon require explicit crafting checks. This includes transferring runes. If your party doesn't have someone with the Craft skill, how exactly would you get these items?

Sure, you can potentially sell your +2 sword and then buy a +3 sword in its place, but the rules around runes seem to be structured so as to avoid this cost overhead. You could also pay someone to do it.... but the only hirelings you can hire are at best +4 in a skill, which isn't going to get the job done.

Seems like more concrete rules for this are needed. For a home game, it's fine to rule that there's some base cost for a blacksmith to transfer a rune. For Society play, it seems like this is going to create big headaches...

Did I miss something here?


So, I've been trying to sort through the logic on how this all works, and I think I've come to the following, given the rules and previous discussions:

1. Any ability that says "you start with a focus pool of 1 Focus Point", such as Cleric's domain initiate, either gives you a focus pool or increases it by one.
-> Due to "If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool." on page 302.

2. Any ability that says "If you don’t already have one, you gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point" (such as Healing Touch for the Champion multiclass) is the equivalent of 1 above, it will grant you a focus pool or increase it by one.
-> Due to the specific example "For instance, if you were a cleric with the Domain Initiate feat, you would have a pool with 1 Focus Point. Let’s say you then took the champion multiclass archetype and the Healing Touch feat. Normally, this feat would give you a focus pool. Since you already have one, it instead increases your existing pool’s capacity by 1" on page 302.

3. Any ability that says "Increase the number of Focus Points in your focus pool by 1" (such as Advanced Domain for Cleric) increases an existing focus pool. It should never be selectable if you don't have one.
-> Due to "Some abilities allow you to increase the Focus Points in your pool beyond 1. Typically, these are feats that give you a new focus spell and increase the number of points in your pool by 1" on page 300.

4. Any ability that doesn't mention focus pools at all (such as Deity's Domain from Champion) will, if you already have one, not increase your focus pool, but if you don't have one, will grant one to you.
-> A combination of not explicitly stating it grants you a focus pool and "You automatically gain a focus pool of 1 Focus Point the first time you gain an ability that gives you a focus spell" on page 300.

My thoughts:
* Numbers 1 and 3 make sense as written.
* Number 2 seems suspect, because of the wording of these abilities, but there's a specific example that seems to indicate it works.
* Number 3, if correct, is an absolute headache. It means that if you are, for example, a cleric that takes champion multi, if you select domain initiate then Deity's domain, you'll have a focus pool of 1. If you select them in the other order you'll have a focus pool of 2. That seems like really poor design and makes me think that it actually falls under the clause of "granting you a focus pool" and therefor would increase your focus pool as well.

Thoughts all?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

EDIT: Note that I'm good at overstating things. DPR isn't a useless metric, it's just not a useful metric in a vacuum anymore, see rest of post...

PF2 got me to thinking quite a bit about our assumptions about how PF2 "doesn't work" for "theorycrafting" and "whiteboarding". There have been previous comments of a similar vein and I want to state that flat-out, these are wrong. There are a few things coming into play here:
1. Because the numbers are much tighter in 2e, variance plays a much bigger role.
2. Because of the way the action economy works, looking at "full attack every round" for computing efficacy is no longer the way to go about it (I'm looking at you Impossible Flurry!).
3. Because you can no longer one-round shot an enemy, and mobility has improved, DPR is no longer a useful metric by itself. Defenses *really do* matter.

So there's not much to do about the first item on the list here. Previously you could pretty much guarantee a hit on your first attack via attack bonuses and whatnot. Now, the best you can do against a decent opponent is probably closer to 70-75% (buffs/flanking and legendary proficiency). But the rest, well, the rest is manageable, and I think it's worth looking at new approaches to discuss the efficacy of builds. This is still mathfinder, but I think our math just got a lot harder :-P.

Honestly I don't know what makes the most sense, but some thoughts:
1. Look at combinations of 1/2/3 action sets (some of this is happening).
2. Look for action economy "wins" (things like flurry of blows, sudden charge).
3. In evaulating a character numerically, consider standard deviation of AC, and average damage from the "average". Maybe include saving throws in these numbers...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So around a month ago a bunch of the developers came on video and indicated that a rules update was in the works. A few things were mentioned that were being fixed. To my knowledge, since that time we haven't gotten any information as to this update. My question is basically two-fold:
1) Did I miss something/was a timeline for when we can expect either a FAQ or clarifications mentioned at some point?
2) If not, can we get some indication from Paizo about when this is expected? I'm fortunately not trying to play an alchemist right now, but I do have a couple of characters (for PFS) where I'm not sure if something I'm doing is legal/the way things are supposed to work, and it would be good to have clarification around this.

Extra credit: An anticipated frequency of updating "Character Options" for PFS play would also be nice. Towards the end, I know this document was being updated approximately twice a year, and with 3+ hardcover books of material coming out in the first 3 months of the game, that rate feels fairly slow.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

One problem I've been having is that in some cases, specifically the non-human ones, there feels like there's not really enough racial feats to provide good options, particularly at later levels. To look at a specific example, consider elves:
* 1st level: Lots of options, yay!
* 5th level: 2 options, 1 requires you to take one specific 1st level option.
* 9th level: 2 options, 1 requires you to take one specific 1st level option.
* 13th level: 2 options, both require you to have taken specific earlier options.

Sure, you can opt to take a 1st level feat for some of these, but sometimes they're underwhelming/don't fit your character concept. I think this leads to a lot of people taking "Adopted Ancestry" simply to open up their options to racial feats (not trying to game the system, just have an option that is reasonable).

I realize some of this will get fixed as more books come out, but it's rather unfortunate as things stand now that there really aren't a lot of options in some cases. I do feel like Humans in general avoid this, as they have more feats and can also just take a 1st level general feat if they'd like, of which there are a lot, so it provides a good range.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Healing Hands" should also work for scrolls RAW. The wording on healing hands says "When you cast heal" and doesn't say anything about using a spell slot or casting *your* heal. This implies to me that the only requirements are you are using the the Cast a Spell action to cast Heal. Scrolls use the Cast a Spell action, and therefor should qualify?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the Rogue Scoundrel archetype, I think it has one fairly big problem: The archetype is far too MAD overall, and especially when compared to the other rogue archetypes. Let me explain why:

Ruffian: Can dump Dexerity. They'll suffer a bit to Reflex saves, but they're already fairly good at those. Still need Strength, which can be their key, Constitution and Wisdom for obvious reasons, Charisma optional.
Thief: Can dump Strength. No real down-side to this minus athletics. Still need Dexterity, which is their key ability, Constitution and Wisdom for obvious reasons, Charisma is optional.
Scoundrel: Need Charisma, or else, why bother going scoundrel? Need Dexterity unless ranged, but feint only works in melee. Need some Strength for damage, Constitution and Wisdom for obvious reasons.

So really, Both Ruffian and Thief have an obvious dump stat/stat they don't need to boost beyond 12 as well as having a singular primary stat. Scoundrel has two primary stats and no obvious dump stat. While you *could* not maximize Charisma, Perception bonuses for monsters are basically *never* a weak "save" (so far as I've seen), and your key ability kinda relies on you to do those well.

Thoughts? Has anyone else had any luck playing a scoundrel? I love the idea of them, I just don't really see how they're feasible given the number of boosts they need to stay competitive.


6 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...


31 people marked this as a favorite.

EDIT: As someone pointed out, this is more a discussion of trust rather than good-faith (outside of point #3 below). I apologize for using the wrong term here, and have changed the title.

This came up in the forums, and I think it's only fair to state, from my perspective, why Paizo no longer has trust of their product from me. For me, that means that about 6 months ago, if they had released 2e directly, I probably would have bought it sight-unseen, and trusted that Paizo made the right decisions based on good feedback. I will not be buying 2e sight unseen after seeing the Playtest and also seeing Paizo's general response/handling of it. And, as a precursor, yes, I know I'm only one person, and this is only my feedback. I mean, what else could it be? On to the list:

1. Layout/Readability of the Playtest book: In my opinion, this is a mistake that should have been easy to detect prior to publishing. The Playtest is a Playtest, yes, but it's also Paizo's opportunity to make a first impression with their new system. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been all the hype and spoilers leading up to it. They are *marketing* this, make no mistake. Any quick scan by an outsider should have told them that the Playtest book was extremely unwelcoming, particularly to newbies. It should not have reached print in that form.

2. Quality of the surveys/conclusions drawn from them: The surveys, at least up to part 4 of the playtest, were extremely incomplete in the questions they asked to gather structured feedback. In my opinion, this lead them to infer things from their data that, bluntly put, were false. For two quick examples, Jason Buhlman commented that they were looking at remaining silver after character creation in Part 1 to infer if you had enough starting money... They didn't think (or think to ask) that remaining silver might have indicated that buying basic items was too tedious and that was the underlying cause of people having extra wealth. Second, Jason Buhlman, in that same interview, indicated they were going to look at character creation time over the course of the adventures to determine the learning curve. There's both no questions ensuring that someone who played part 4 actually played part 1, and no questions asking how much time it took to create the base character vs. leveling up. These are just two examples, but I'm sure there's more, and the surveys, in a lot of cases, didn't ask for opinions on the various core systems of the game. It showed a huge gulf, in my opinion, for Paizo to be able to infer reasonable information from their playtest data.

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.

4. Declaration of, and no indication of considering changing, their "1 year" playtest: It's actually 9 months, realistically, before they need to ship to the publisher. And that's not enough time. I said this upfront prior to the playtest being released, and it's even more evident given the number of holes in the playtest itself. They've essentially pinned themselves into a corner and at least on the surface, seem unwilling to bend from that. Perhaps there are marketing forces, and perhaps they *can* make multiple changes (and playtest *those* changes) to the system to address a lot of this, but printing before ready and having to errata their CRB for 2e significantly seems like a huge mistake.

These are my 4 primary reasons why I've lost faith in Paizo to produce a good 2nd edition. Note that I said *nothing* about the underlying 2e system. Yes, I think there are problems there, though I do like the core system, but if Paizo had handled the above correctly, I'd be confident in their ability to address these prior to release. To people suggesting that I should just trust Paizo, well, essentially the above is why I no longer do.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've given up on the existing critical system for the homebrew, because from all of the experiences I've had with it, the math behind it doesn't work. For the record, I'm going to the following system:

Rather than +/-10, it will now be based on your proficiency with the attack/ability.
You Critically Succeed... The Enemy Critically Fails...
Untrained No chance No chance
Trained: Natural 20 Natural 1
Expert: Natural 19-20 Natural 1-2
Master: Natural 18-20 Natural 1-3
Legendary: Natural 17-20 Natural 1-4
Note that you still must succeed/fail to critically succeed/fail.

This affects the following:
Skills: You critically succeed based on your skill training, critical failure is based on the task difficulty (easy->untrained, medium->trained, hard->expert, incredible->master, ultimate->legendary)
Saves: You critically succeed based on your saving throw proficiency, critical failure based on the proficiency of the ability/spell or level of the trap.
Attacks: You critically succeed based on your weapon proficiency, critically fail (where it applies) based on the target's armor proficiency.

The reasoning for this change follows:
* Due to balancing reasons, against challenges that are your level or higher, your chance of success is almost always 50% or lower. This essentially eliminates the critical system for challenging encounters, which is where it matters most.
* This allows both ends of the critical system to come into play a bit more often on any given roll, making for a wider array of outcomes.
* This is less math. If you roll really high, you likely hit, really low and you likely miss. The actual number on the die tells you if it's a critical or not.
* This gives more weight to actual proficiency outside of the +/-1, as they now dictate critical ranges.
* Easy tasks are now impossible to critically fail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So you'd figure that something you were burning either a feat or a racial feat to access would be a better option as a weapon than some of the standard ones... Turns out that that's not true for the Elven Curve Blade. For some reason, this got changed from 1d10 damage to 1d8. And that's a *big* jump when you consider the following:
1. It's not deadly anymore, so comparing it to the rapier, you lose use of one hand, get +1 damage (1d6 to 1d8) and lose deadly. That doesn't sound like a very good trade to me.
2. Even worse, Rogue's Finesse Striker only works with one-handed weapons, so it's strictly worse for Rogues.
3. It actually doesn't do more damage than the best martial one-handed weapons, such as the longsword or warhammer (both of which have other relevant properties.
4. It... operates weirdly with rogue abilities/proficiencies. I've described this elsewhere, so not going to go into more details here.

Personally, I'm not against this not getting Dexterity to Damage, as encouraging 2-statted rogue builds is a good thing, but in order to make it even close to viable, it needs to be doing 1d10 damage, and probably *also* be deadly. Taking up an extra hand in PF2e is a *big* deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We know from PF1 that a +1 to hit is worth about the same as a +2 to damage. Given critical ranges in PF2, it’s safe to say that a +1 to hit is worth more than a +2 to damage. Enlarge gives you a +2 to damage, but also sluggish 1, which is -1 to hit, AC, and reflex saves. The reach is nice, but this spell actually hurts more than it helps.


I raised this before but there's been no response. There are two sets of critical rules, on page 293 (Doubling and Halving) and page 308 (Critical Hit Damage). They say different things. The first indicates you double *all* dice and bonuses, the second indicates *specific* dice and bonuses (and whether those dice include things like sneak attack is unclear).

Please simplify this. I'd prefer the first set of rules, because the second seems needlessly complicated, but either way, there should be *one* set of rules...


It seems a bit odd/strange/bad that when a barbarian rages, they can't benefit from the effects of an enlarge spell (or get a damage boost from inspire courage) because they give the same type of bonus. I think fundamentally bonuses from spells and class abilities should be two separate groups.

Also, I think it might be worth rethinking some of these and not having *every* spell give competence. I'm looking primarily at Inspire Courage, which I think should be an untyped bonus and stack with other spells. In addition, I'd consider having Enlarge just increase the damage dice one step... like it does for Barbarians.

NOTE: Untyped bonuses don't multiply on critical hits!?!?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm working on building my level 4 character for Doomsday Dawn, Part 2, having finished the first part, and have run across many issues. I was debating posting them separately, but the truth is, they all probably warrant discussion together, because, in my point of view, the entire class system needs an overhaul/full replacement. I've also looked at higher levels, but obviously have not actually built these characters yet.

Note: I don't mean the generic "You get 1 class feat every other level", that's totally fine. I'm speaking to the class feats themselves, access to them, archetypes, weapon and armor proficiencies... Everything beyond that.

Some of the issues:
1) Multiclass archetypes lock class abilities behind what is, in many cases, a useless feat. In particular, archetyping martial to martial is discouraged, as you have to waste a feat to get access to another set of combat abilities. Probably the entry feat for each class should give something interesting (note: Fighter might be okay with the proficiencies).
2) Combat styles are locked into classes, rather than being globally accessible, and based off weapon proficiency.
3) Weapon and armor proficiency progress at the same rates, meaning all this whiffing you do at level 1 is going to continue to level 20. At first level, when you need 1-2 hits to bring down an enemy, that might be okay. It's not at level 20 when you probably need 10 or so hits.
4) Classes *don't* feel the way they used to. Rangers are now much better with crossbows, and choosing bow feels like an inferior choice. Bards, which used to be the only Core 3/4BAB class that could cast in armor, now are the only caster class that don't get Magical Striker, the one thing you truly want as a Gish.
5) Feats per class are widely disparate, giving some classes much more "choice" than others. Sorcerers get 6, Fighters and Rogues get 11.
6) Skill rank progression doesn't seem to work. While I don't want to be "master of 10 skills", it'd be nice to be "master of 5", and that's *extremely* hard you in when you get exactly 9 skill boosts as a non-rogue after level 1 and can't start at anything but trained. Not to mention, classes feel like they start out with a ton of trained skills, in general, but basically never progress beyond.
7) Skill feats themselves are... bad. Skill abilities are all only locked to trained, and the higher level feats are rather mediocre. You don't get anything useful for unlocking the next skill rank, except the ability to later buy an okay skill feat.
8) Signature skills also feel stifling for character concept ideas.

Honestly, I feel like a lot of this needs to be scrapped/wholly replaced. The gameplay experience in 2e is awesome, I can testify to that, but building higher level characters is painful and extremely limiting, and while it might be fun to play the game once or twice, after that, there's not much to keep me coming back.


A big problem with 2nd edition is that weapon combat styles are gated behind class walls, and that weapon proficiency level really doesn't mean much. These two problems can be solved together by adding a new type of class feat, the weapon style feat, that would be available to all classes. These feats would give some decent base ability, but also scale up to be even better as you gained proficiency. I've come up with some ideas for these:

Melee Power Attack Weapon Feat 2
Trained in weapon: 1 extra damage die
Expert in weapon: Increase the Damage Dice for the Weapon One Step (this does not affect deadly and the like)
Master in weapon: 2 extra damage die
Legendary in weapon: 3 extra damage die

Two-Handed Melee Cleave Weapon Feat 2
Trained in weapon: One Action: Attack, if you hit, attack adjacent enemy at a -2
Expert in weapon: Two Actions: Attack, if you hit, attack enemy in reach at -2, continue to do so for other enemies in reach so long as you hit (no enemy twice)
Master in weapon: Two Actions: Same as above, though you may choose to add an action to this to Step during the process (choose when you start to move).
Legendary in weapon: Two Actions: Same as above, though you may choose to add an action to this to Stride during the process (choose when you start to move).

Ranged Multishot Weapon Feat 2*
Trained in weapon: Two Actions: Make two attack rolls at a -2 on same target
Expert in weapon: Two Actions: Make two attack rolls at a -2 on any target, may choose to add an action to make one additional attack at a -4.
Master in weapon: Two Actions: Make two attack rolls at a -2 on any target, may choose to add an action to make two additional attack at a -4.
Legendary in weapon: Two Actions: Make two attack rolls at a -2 on any target, may choose to add an action to make three additional attack at a -4.

Two-weapons Multislice* Weapon Feat 2
Trained in weapons: Two Actions: Make two attack rolls at a -2 on same target.
Expert in weapons: Two Actions: Make two attack rolls at a -2 on any target, may choose to add an action to make one additional attack at a -4, may combine the damage.
Master in weapons: Two Actions: Make two attack rolls at a -2 on any target, may choose to add an action to make two additional attack at a -4, may combine the damage.
Legendary in weapons: Two Actions: Make two attack rolls at a -2 on any target, may choose to add an action to make two additional attacks at a -4 and take a single Step Action, may combine the damage.
* For Agile Weapons, reduce the -4 penalty to -3.

These are just proposals, but they make getting the next level of proficiency *exciting*, and not just a bland +1 to your attacks. They also serve the purpose of opening up combat styles across the board (though those with lower proficiency won't be *as* good).

Note that there's a couple styles missing here (one-handed and sword and shield, namely), and I think the same thing needs to be done with Armor proficiencies as well, and probably also spellcasting proficiency (making metamagic tied to your training in a particular spell area).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So there's a few issues here. The way wealth is listed, you get a few items based on level and some gold to spend. However:
* Permanent items and wands are worth 10x what consumables are, but they're listed at the same level.
* As a level 4, I can get a +1 suit of light/medium armor (level 3), 2 level 2 items, and 1 level 1 item. I can't forgo the level 3 light/medium armor +1 and a level 2 item to get a suit of heavy armor +1, even though they have the same value.

These seem like big holes in the system. Can we just indicate wealth by level and limit item levels to your current level?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The light shield is essentially a worse heavy shield in all but Bulk, and Bulk, for most characters, is easily managed. Note that without weapon/armor description, it's entirely impossible to know this for sure, but it seems as if both of these items take up two hands, and Light Shields provide 1 less AC.

My suggestion is for a light shield to work *similar* to a bucker in 1e. Allow people to use that hand (perhaps with a circumstance penalty for actions with the attack trait), but also still be able to raise their shield (no need for all the extra verbiage with "raise shield" being an action). This would put it on par (but not really better than) the shield spell, which requires 0 hands entirely.


Scenario:
I swing at an enemy, then I ready to move away when they start to swing at me... The enemy starts to swing, I move away, they've wasted his first attack action on someone who's no longer in their reach.

These scenarios could crop up in 1st edition too, though it's a bit more pronounced here as you can take a single regular action, then ready. It'd be nice if this was fixed as part of the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The fighter archetype "weapon expert" available at level 12 is great if you're a low-proficiency class, but for rogues, a lot of clerics, rangers... it is a wasted feat. Clerics get expert with criticals in their deities favored weapon at 14, rogues get this at 13 (no criticals), and so on.

I'd suggest making this feat improve your proficiency with weapons in that group by one step (to a maximum of master). *Possibly* also giving out critical specializations for all weapons you have master proficiency in. This would make the feat equally valuable to pretty much all the classes, rather than being useless to other martials.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So this occurred to me: Part of the problem with PF2 is that feats are hidden behind class walls, rather than having universal lists that any class can take from. It turns out, PF1e did this right. They measured your fighting prowess based on a single number, that advanced at different rates for different classes, and accounted for multiclassing, and they used this number to gate combat-type feats. Namely, PF1e used BAB.

Yes, BAB gets a lot of hate, big tables of numbers that make things unreadable. But what it did behind the scenes was enable the ability to make generic feat lists where they didn't need to list level requirements on a per-class basis.

The same *could* be said for Caster Level, but the problem with that is that it didn't handle multiclassing properly/at all.

So... how do we enable this sort of thing in PF2? We want flatter proficiency modifiers, and that's fine, but the problem is, the levels of training are too coarse to really be useful in feat gating. Casters get absolutely no training in weapons, so it'd be impossible for them to get combat feats as things are currently organized. Rogues gain Expert, but only at level 13, which is pretty high. Fighters *start* at expert and rapidly gain master. Basically, there's no rhyme or reason to it, and everything is organized as granting a particular level of mastery, rather Mthan increasing your currently level of mastery.

MAYBE something like this could be done in PF2, but it would require serious re-thinking of both weapon proficiency and likely spell proficiency (if we want to make metamagic globally accessible as well). I likely think this is a good idea, as it's both less lists to maintain, and less feat names to duplicate among the classes and when adding new classes. But I'm curious what others think as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

A spell that was mediocre in 1st edition, and used for some corner case builds, has become a keystone to many builds in 2e, particularly Gish builds. A few reasons for this:
1. One action spells are *extremely* important, when many other spells, and power attacks, require two actions.
2. Magical striker combines extremely well with it.
3. Verbal-only component means no AoO's.
4. It combines with other spell bonuses, not being a conditional bonus.
5. It combines well with a lot of fighter abilities. Obviously Power Attack, but also consider Swipe, which essentially lets you use True Strike against two opponents for two actions.

I take no issue to this, and it's nice to see that, particularly in an edition where a lot of the buffing spells were severely nerfed (alas Heroism, we shall miss thee!), there are other advantages provided to Gish characters.

Either way, if you haven't seen True Strike, be ready to see a lot of it once 2e starts getting played in your area ;).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

10 minute duration spells don’t really fit the encounter modes. 1 round spells last a portion of a fight, 1 minute spells last a whole fight, 1 hour spells last multiple encounters in the same area, and obviously 1 day spells last until you memorize again. The problem is that exploration mode is rounded to within 10 minutes, so pretty much 10 minute spells aren’t going to survive that time (aren't really any better than 1 minute spells). I’d suggest doing away with these and deciding whether they should, in fact, last one battle (1 minute), or multiple battels (1 hour).

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>