paizo.com Favorited Posts by tmncx0paizo.com Favorited Posts by tmncx02024-01-03T19:38:08Z2024-01-03T19:38:08ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Feedback and concerns on the math of Pathfinder 2tmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cyi&page=2?Feedback-and-concerns-on-the-math-of#592018-11-15T15:17:28Z2018-11-12T22:31:28Z<p><b>@Mathmuse</b></p>
<p>Numenera uses a similar advancement system to what you've proposed with the bilevel and dividend system - that game is divided into 6 "Tiers" that serve as a gateway to more advanced skills and features. When you reach a new Tier, you gain new class features for that tier. Within a tier, characters spend XP to purchase four advancements: Extra Stats, Extra Edge, Skill Increase, Extra Effort. You progress to the next tier only after you gain all four advancements within the tier. The price of an individual advancement is about equivalent to a "level", though that's kinda hard to gauge because Numenera allows players to spend XP just like PF2e's Hero Points, to reroll dice and perform other heroic feats. The system expects players to take an even split of spending XP in-play to banking XP for advancement. In general, players should be able to purchase new advancements around once a session.</p>
<p>It works, is easy to understand, is simple to execute, and it provides plenty of opportunity for players to see their characters improve outside of a 1-20 "D&D-style" leveling system. I could see such a system working out for PF2e as well.</p>@Mathmuse
Numenera uses a similar advancement system to what you've proposed with the bilevel and dividend system - that game is divided into 6 "Tiers" that serve as a gateway to more advanced skills and features. When you reach a new Tier, you gain new class features for that tier. Within a tier, characters spend XP to purchase four advancements: Extra Stats, Extra Edge, Skill Increase, Extra Effort. You progress to the next tier only after you gain all four advancements within the tier....tmncx02018-11-12T22:31:28ZRe: Forums: Ancestries & Backgrounds: Proposal: Broader, more customized Backgrounds.tmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cyr?Proposal-Broader-more-customized-Backgrounds#22018-11-26T23:50:41Z2018-11-09T15:59:09Z<p>I love this idea. It really allows flexibility in Backgrounds and it hits on all of the fun little narrative bits that PF1e’s trait system enabled, that the current Background system doesn’t quite match.</p>I love this idea. It really allows flexibility in Backgrounds and it hits on all of the fun little narrative bits that PF1e’s trait system enabled, that the current Background system doesn’t quite match.tmncx02018-11-09T15:59:09ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Liberator and Channel Life problems: now with more mechanics and less code of conducttmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42cui?Liberator-and-Channel-Life-problems-now-with#92018-11-07T14:01:12Z2018-11-07T13:02:28Z<p>You aren’t even quoting the entire ability text. If you read the paragraph as a whole, an attack is not never excluded from the clause of escaping from hindering effects like you’re implying.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Update 1.6 p17 wrote:</div><blockquote>After suffering the effects of the <b>attack, Grab, or Grapple</b>, the ally can attempt to break free of effects entangling, grabbing, immobilizing, or restraining them. They can either attempt a new saving throw against any one such effect that had a saving throw, or as a free action they can attempt to Break Free or Escape from any one effect that allows such attempts. Finally, if the ally can move, they can Step as a free action, even if the ally didn’t have any hindrance to escape from.</blockquote><p>I can’t see where you’re getting that attacks are excluded from any clause here, the text explicitly says that you may attempt the escape even if you only suffered an attack - and not a Grab or Grapple - this also allows the ally to escape or save from other effects that are restraining them that were not caused by the triggering attack.
<p>Then, the final sentence stipulates that the ally may always take a step even if there were no saving throws or escape attempts due to the secondary effect. Again, the first sentence of the quoted text means that the following text applies to all triggering attacks, Grabs, and Grapples.</p>You aren’t even quoting the entire ability text. If you read the paragraph as a whole, an attack is not never excluded from the clause of escaping from hindering effects like you’re implying.
Update 1.6 p17 wrote:After suffering the effects of the attack, Grab, or Grapple, the ally can attempt to break free of effects entangling, grabbing, immobilizing, or restraining them. They can either attempt a new saving throw against any one such effect that had a saving throw, or as a free action...tmncx02018-11-07T13:02:28ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Paizo Blog: Raising the Flagtmncx0https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgc9&page=2?Raising-the-Flag#662018-10-23T18:02:38Z2018-10-23T12:29:46Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote>And right there is the issue: the best way to play a caster is to fire off a bow with your off actions. All people are pointing out is that fact, that having a minimum of 2 actions for a spell and 1 for a weapon in a 3 action system incentivises the use weapons in any round that they cast and quite a few people seem to want a casting option that competes for... </blockquote><p>You’re right. Variable-action spells are woefully underutilized. I hope many more spells will gain this treatment in a future pass, and I hope most attack cantrips change to work this way. Someone else said it - the new action economy is a strong point for 2e, yet casters do not get to interact with it very much due to the dearth of 1 action spells.graystone wrote:And right there is the issue: the best way to play a caster is to fire off a bow with your off actions. All people are pointing out is that fact, that having a minimum of 2 actions for a spell and 1 for a weapon in a 3 action system incentivises the use weapons in any round that they cast and quite a few people seem to want a casting option that competes for...
You’re right. Variable-action spells are woefully underutilized. I hope many more spells will gain this treatment in...tmncx02018-10-23T12:29:46ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Spoilers on Update 1.5 from the Twitch Streamtmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42c0z&page=4?Spoilers-on-Update-15-from-the-Twitch-Stream#1972018-10-23T18:04:51Z2018-10-22T22:09:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Midnightoker wrote:</div><blockquote>snip</blockquote><p>My favorite part was when you took offense to his implication that your gms and players are unprepared, and then in turn implied that his tables don't have dynamic play. Assumptions all around are bad, can we stop that?Midnightoker wrote:snip
My favorite part was when you took offense to his implication that your gms and players are unprepared, and then in turn implied that his tables don't have dynamic play. Assumptions all around are bad, can we stop that?tmncx02018-10-22T22:09:06ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Spoilers on Update 1.5 from the Twitch Streamtmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42c0z&page=4?Spoilers-on-Update-15-from-the-Twitch-Stream#1692018-10-22T16:44:20Z2018-10-22T16:36:35Z<p>I'm excited that 2e expands the list of viable encounters to APL +/- 4, this is a much wider range of level-appropriate challenges for GMs to design with. I'm also excited that APL+ encounters are actually meeting the difficulty as advertised, instead of having to add template upon template to creatures that, according to 1e's encounter design system, should be an adequate challenge for players. 2e really eases a lot of the load on GMs having to be on top of balance and fine-tuning of encounters to their party.</p>
<p>Of course, all of my excitement here hinges on the idea that the devs are going to deliver on their promise of rebalancing monster math and fixing the too-high stats rampant throughout the bestiary. Its unfortunate that we have to suffer through playtesting with broken, unintended math, because it seems to drive the conversation towards complaints that the system as a whole is broken. </p>
<p>It's not the tight math that's a problem, the problem is that the tight math is calculated based on an outdated progression chart that puts monster stats and saves much higher than players can achieve. I believe that this was an accident, and I have trust that Paizo can fix it for the final release. They've also acknowledged that their default assumption of optimization level was unreasonable, so again, I trust that they will act on this and fix that problem as well.</p>
<p>Right now, I love how the +level scaling system interacts with the concepts of battlefield control, debuffs, and save-or-lose effects, and their effectiveness against minions and bosses. The system has inherent scaling that makes it much easier to land these control effects against the mooks that actually should be crowd controlled, compared to the bosses that are supposed to be dangerous and fearsome and difficult. This is modeled by making bosses of equal level or higher to the party, which lowers the chance of success for these kinds of tactics. You can shoot for the moon if you'd like, but overall it handles the problem of "cast a spell, end boss encounter with save-or-lose" really nicely.</p>
<p>As an aside, I agree with complaints that the crit system is very bursty right now. I'd like to see them toned down, by changing something like "only double weapon damage dice" or "deal maximum damage" rather than double everything on a crit. The perfect balance point for crits for me is "more frequent, less swingy." My personal favorite is "deal maximum damage" because it still feels good and exciting when it happens, but is not nearly as dangerous for PCs as double damage can be.</p>
<p>I don't currently have a problem with how lengthy combat is, but my table tends to focus on that as their favorite aspect of the game. I can understand how making crits less bursty can lengthen combat further, but I still prefer it because players are the ones most punished by more bursty game mechanics. Hell, I'd be fine with even making this asymmetrical - PCs keep the current crit system, monsters just deal max damage on crit.</p>I'm excited that 2e expands the list of viable encounters to APL +/- 4, this is a much wider range of level-appropriate challenges for GMs to design with. I'm also excited that APL+ encounters are actually meeting the difficulty as advertised, instead of having to add template upon template to creatures that, according to 1e's encounter design system, should be an adequate challenge for players. 2e really eases a lot of the load on GMs having to be on top of balance and fine-tuning of...tmncx02018-10-22T16:36:35ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Why I dislike where 2E's Multiclassing is goingtmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42c22?Why-I-dislike-where-2Es-Multiclassing-is-going#302018-10-24T07:05:23Z2018-10-21T14:11:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">AndIMustMask wrote:</div><blockquote><p> my personal dislike is how late you get to actually interact with it, since if you want to play some odd variant of say, ranger, or a combo-class with multiclassing (something that pathfinder as a brand prided itself on allowing), you're not <i>actually</i> playing anything different than the generic base class (and therefore the unique character you thought up and sat down to play) until level 2-4 which can be a hefty real-life time investment.</p>
<p>i've discussed the topic at length before, so i'll avoid just dumping a repeat here on the topic. </blockquote><p>This concern is real, and I share it. However, I don't believe that the actual multiclassing chassis is to blame for this situation, it only occurs for two reasons:
<p>1. Not all classes have access to a class feat at level one.
<br />
2. The multiclass dedication feats have a level two prerequisite.</p>
<p>Fix these two issues, and I am perfectly fine with the chassis and how it enables multiclassing. It's an extremely easy fix, so I've just been submitting my feedback addressing this, and hoping it gets looked at.</p>
<p>If it doesn't change in the final ruleset, I'll probably end up developing houserules to enable it. It's not my favorite solution, but luckily, it's very easy to do:</p>
<p>1. Every class gains a bonus class feat at level one.
<br />
2. Multiclass dedication feats are now level one feats.</p>AndIMustMask wrote:my personal dislike is how late you get to actually interact with it, since if you want to play some odd variant of say, ranger, or a combo-class with multiclassing (something that pathfinder as a brand prided itself on allowing), you're not actually playing anything different than the generic base class (and therefore the unique character you thought up and sat down to play) until level 2-4 which can be a hefty real-life time investment.
i've discussed the topic at length...tmncx02018-10-21T14:11:41ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Can a creature be grabbed/restrained by more than one creature?tmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42b6i?Can-a-creature-be-grabbedrestrained-by-more#42018-10-08T18:00:15Z2018-10-08T17:51:35Z<p>I was rereading my post, and I should clarify my revision to the Immoble condition clause - it should read: “If an external force moves you from the affected square, you are removed from the restrained or grappled condition from that source.” My first wording would introduce confusion as to if the grappled condition is removed entirely, which it should not be, from the Roc initiating the movement.</p>
<p>Another possible solution is to apply a grappled condition to all participants of a grapple, and whenever any participant of a grapple moves, all other participants move as well. This would require adding a new condition that is very similar to Grabbed but I think additional clarification is required.</p>
<p>Pretty much, we need specific grapple rules that outline these interactions with movement and multiple participants, because they are not clear by RAW.</p>I was rereading my post, and I should clarify my revision to the Immoble condition clause - it should read: “If an external force moves you from the affected square, you are removed from the restrained or grappled condition from that source.” My first wording would introduce confusion as to if the grappled condition is removed entirely, which it should not be, from the Roc initiating the movement.
Another possible solution is to apply a grappled condition to all participants of a grapple,...tmncx02018-10-08T17:51:35ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Can a creature be grabbed/restrained by more than one creature?tmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42b6i?Can-a-creature-be-grabbedrestrained-by-more#32018-10-08T16:13:49Z2018-10-08T14:32:44Z<p>I think the problem here isn't the grappling rules, but rather the interaction between the Roc's Snatch ability and the normal grappling rules.</p>
<p>By RAW, you may be grappled and restrained by more than one creature at once, and the rules work perfectly fine in that case. Where it gets screwy is when you try to use the Snatch ability by two Rocs at once - each Roc cannot move during the other Roc's turn, which means that a creature grappled by by both Rocs will move with the first Roc to use Snatch. Nothing in the rules say that the second Roc moves as a reaction when the first Roc moves, so clearly, that Roc exits the grapple.</p>
<p>Additionally, it's not clear if the Snatch ability overrides the following clause for the Immobile condition:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Rulebook p. 323 wrote:</div><blockquote>If an external force would move you out of your space, it must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect rooting you or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of a monster rooting you, as appropriate.</blockquote><p>This clause has some holes in it, for sure - namely, what kind of check is the external force supposed to make? Athletics makes the most sense, but it would be nice for the clause to explicitly call this out.
<p>Wording issues aside, I think it's pretty clear that RAI, Snatch is meant to override that clause for a Roc attempting to Snatch a creature it has grabbed or restrained with its talons. Therefore, a Roc does not need to make a check against it's own Fortitude DC to initiate a Snatch.</p>
<p>However, by RAW, the two grappling Rocs must succeed on the checks against each other's Fortitude DCs in order to successfully Snatch a creature when both of them have a creature restrained or grappled. I think that the confusion here could be easily cleared up by adding another clause to Restrained, Immobile, and Grabbed: "If an external force moves you from the affected square, you remove the Restrained, Immobile, and Grabbed conditions." </p>
<p>Then, the situation would play out like so: Both Rocs may attempt to grab and restrain a creature simultaneously. When either Roc attempts to Snatch a creature, they must succeed against the other's Fortitude DC, and if successful, the creature is Snatched and is no longer grabbed or restrained by the other Roc.</p>
<p>Still, by RAW it is impossible for both Rocs to simultaneously Snatch a single creature - neither Roc may move as a Reaction when the other one uses Snatch and flies, therefore, they cannot both be Snatching a single creature at once. Additionally, by RAW, in order to Snatch a creature out of a dual grapple, the Snatching Roc must succeed on some kind of check against the other Roc's Fortitude DC. Those two facts are undeniable. There should be some more clarification around the other gaps in the situation.</p>I think the problem here isn't the grappling rules, but rather the interaction between the Roc's Snatch ability and the normal grappling rules.
By RAW, you may be grappled and restrained by more than one creature at once, and the rules work perfectly fine in that case. Where it gets screwy is when you try to use the Snatch ability by two Rocs at once - each Roc cannot move during the other Roc's turn, which means that a creature grappled by by both Rocs will move with the first Roc to use...tmncx02018-10-08T14:32:44ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Arcane Spellcasters in PF2E – quo vadis?tmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs428n9&page=17?Arcane-Spellcasters-in-PF2E-quo-vadis#8182020-03-12T19:22:54Z2018-10-05T18:43:33Z<p>Most of the previous analysis assumes a Creature Level = Average Party Level situation, which I don't think is the right balance point to assume, nor do I think it's the point the system has been balanced around in 2e. Paizo has shifted the expected range of level-appropriate challenges from the previous range in PF1e, changing from a range of APL-1 to APL+3 in PF1e, to a range of APL-4 to APL+4 in PF2e. Additionally, the number of encounters against equal-level or higher foes should be less than the number of encounters against lower-level foes due to the way the encounter design math works out.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bestiary p.21 wrote:</div><blockquote>In all but the most unusual circumstances, you’ll select creatures for your encounter that range only from 4 levels lower than the PCs to 4 levels higher. Each creature has a role to play in your encounter, based on its level, from lowly minions to a boss so mighty that it poses an extreme threat to your player group even though it fights alone.</blockquote><p>Additionally, the bestiary prescribes the following:
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bestiary p.21 wrote:</div><blockquote>Encounters are typically more satisfying if the number of creatures is fairly close to the number of player characters.</blockquote><p>From an encounter design perspective, the expectation seems to be that encounters are balanced against enemies of APL-2, if you're expected to hit that "number of creatures is equal to number of PCs" sweet spot. Check the math - 4x APL-2 creatures is a High-threat encounter. Encounters against equal level and above enemies are reserved for "boss fights" and as such, should be even more challenging than the typical encounter.
<p>The intention seems to be more "avoid anticlimatic boss fights where casters trivialize the encounter with a single spell" than "casters do not get to have nice things". This is achieved by making solo bosses (at equal level and above) more resistant to Battlefield Control, Debuff, and Save or Lose effects due to the level scaling and the balance point for the tight math. But against lower level foes, those effects become more and more attractive due to the increased success rate from the level difference.</p>
<p>In situations where debuffs and battlefield control are appropriate, the party should ostensibly have a +5-10% increase in success rate over what all of the current analysis points to. This puts casters in a good place regarding battlefield control roles in encounters against multiple enemies. They will struggle to end encounters against +/= level foes, but almost all of those encounters will be "boss fight"-style encounters, if <b>Table 4: Creature XP and Role</b> is followed.</p>
<p>Boss encounters are more difficult, but the frequency that the party will face equal-level or higher creatures is lower than they will face lower level creatures. A single APL+2 enemy is already a High-threat encounter, APL+3 is Severe, and APL+4 is Extreme. Again, let's read the Bestiary's description of these kinds of encounters:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bestiary p.21 wrote:</div><blockquote><p><b>High-threat</b> encounters are a true threat to the characters, though unlikely to overpower them completely. Characters usually need to use sound tactics and manage their resources wisely to come out of a high- threat encounter ready to continue on to face a harder challenge without resting.</p>
<p><b>Severe-threat</b> encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat, and as such they are most appropriate for major encounters, such as with a final boss. Bad luck, tactics, or a lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe- threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open.</p>
<p><b>Extreme-threat</b> encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters, particularly if the characters are low on resources due to prior encounters. This makes them too challenging for most uses. An extreme-threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all out, for an end- of-campaign encounter, or for a group of veteran players with powerful character teamwork.</blockquote><p>The encounter XP budget is tightly balanced, in <b>Table 5: Encounter Budget</b>. A single APL creature is a Trival encounter, 2x APL creatures is a High-threat encounter, 3x APL creatures is a Severe-threat encounter, and 4x APL creatures is an Extreme-threat encounter. The verbiage in the Bestiary makes it pretty clear that parties should be facing some mix of Low, High, and Severe threat encounters and should rarely ever face an Extreme-threat encounter. The way the math works out - parties should face enemies below APL more often than enemies equal to or above APL, therefore analysis of spell performance against average equivalent-level enemy stats is not looking at the whole picture of intended encounter design.
<p>If the messaging coming from the devs about the overtuning of monster stats can be believed, and monster skills and saves drop by 1-2 points across the board, that should put success rates at the projected 60% success rate proven by the analysis of magnuskn and many others on this board. Add the additional 5-10% boost in success rate due to level difference, and I think casters are already in a place that's much better than has been projected in this thread, with a success rate closer to 65-70% for many fights, only dropping to 60% or below for boss-style encounters.</p>
<p>As an aside, I wish more spells would follow the Color Spray, or Slow model of having a minor effect on a successful save, instead of having no effect. It never feels good to spend 66% of your turn doing nothing. Debuffs should have more effects like this, because that will make them more useful in boss fights.</p>
<p>As a second aside, I also think that the overall tuning of monster stats against optimal PC stats is a little too high. Rather than assuming that each PC has max proficiency bonus, max ability modifier, and max item bonus at every level, I'd like to see a more relaxed balance achieved, where monsters are tuned a point or two below that optimal level, so truly optimal characters can squeeze an extra 5-10% efficiency out of the math.</p>Most of the previous analysis assumes a Creature Level = Average Party Level situation, which I don't think is the right balance point to assume, nor do I think it's the point the system has been balanced around in 2e. Paizo has shifted the expected range of level-appropriate challenges from the previous range in PF1e, changing from a range of APL-1 to APL+3 in PF1e, to a range of APL-4 to APL+4 in PF2e. Additionally, the number of encounters against equal-level or higher foes should be less...tmncx02018-10-05T18:43:33ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: Idea to make Int more useful: More reactionstmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42b46?Idea-to-make-Int-more-useful-More-reactions#42018-10-04T22:56:19Z2018-10-04T14:33:16Z<p>A few feats exist that alleviate some of the "Reaction Traffic Jam". For instance, there's Shield of Reckoning that allows Paladins to combine Shield Block and Retributive Strike, although that feat does come online fairly late. There's also Quick Recognition, which allows spellcasters to Recognize Spell as a Free Action. I think the game can benefit a lot by expanding on these kinds of feats for a wider range of reactions. Additionally, I would like to see the level-gating on many of these feats relaxed.</p>
<p>I do agree that Intelligence feels a little bit weak, especially when it gives you more than enough skill proficiencies to be trained in all of your desired skills at level one. Some characters are left picking very ancillary skills just to fill out these initial skill proficiencies. To fix this, I propose that level one characters be allowed to spend some of their initial skill proficiencies as Skill Increases to bump skill proficiency up to Expert for a number of skills equal to their Intelligence Modifier, if they so choose. This would make having a higher Intelligence Modifier more attractive for characters that don't need a wide variety of skill proficiencies. Additionally, this keeps Intelligence as a skill-focused Ability while providing tangible benefits to classes that don't synergize well with the "skill-monkey" role.</p>
<p>Because of the level-gating on Master and Legendary proficiency, this still limits a character to a maximum of three Legendary skills, but does allow them to increase other skills to Expert or Master aside from their three Legendary skills. Currently, it requires complete investment of all Skill Increases in order to reach three Legendary skills for all characters besides Rogues.</p>A few feats exist that alleviate some of the "Reaction Traffic Jam". For instance, there's Shield of Reckoning that allows Paladins to combine Shield Block and Retributive Strike, although that feat does come online fairly late. There's also Quick Recognition, which allows spellcasters to Recognize Spell as a Free Action. I think the game can benefit a lot by expanding on these kinds of feats for a wider range of reactions. Additionally, I would like to see the level-gating on many of these...tmncx02018-10-04T14:33:16ZRe: Forums: Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion: How do you calculate the Spell Attack Roll bonus?tmncx0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs429jy?How-do-you-calculate-the-Spell-Attack-Roll-bonus#52019-02-24T22:59:17Z2018-09-11T14:58:08Z<p>Perram is right - the rules are in the Spell Attacks section of the Spells chapter, on page 197 of the Rulebook.</p>Perram is right - the rules are in the Spell Attacks section of the Spells chapter, on page 197 of the Rulebook.tmncx02018-09-11T14:58:08Z