Comparatively, spells hold no such penalties for casting two (other than burning spell slots).
I just want to point out that we don't know this. I suspect it's the case, but it could be that spells take an iterative penalty too. Just a thought, since we're making a lot of assumptions at this point.
Comparatively, spells hold no such penalties for casting two (other than burning spell slots).I just want to point out that we don't know this. I suspect it's the case, but it could be that spells take an iterative penalty too. Just a thought, since we're making a lot of assumptions at this point.
Very true. It is a balancing act and we'll have to see where the playtest leaves it when it comes in August.
I haven't listened to the Podcast myself (I hate listening to other people... can't stand audiobooks, even though I commission them for my books), so I'm not certain on this, but what if they're using something along the lines of Saves as Defenses? So, your Reflex may be DC 10 + Save bonus, and the caster rolls against it, which might result in a penalty for throwing out too many too quickly? I'm not claiming this is what happens, just throwing out there as a possibility.
In the Glass Cannon Podcast, Erik Mona's 1st level wizard was able to cast two spells in one round simply because he had enough actions to do so.
The podcast was pretty good, by the way, and I'm not usually a fan of them either.
I tried to listen to it, got about 20 minutes in before my headache forced me to abandon it and find a summary. I wonder if it's just the slight audio distortion of recordings... well, doesn't matter.
But that's interesting information. I'm curious to see what they come up with. I'll admit to a certain degree of hope that this turns out well, since I was just starting to work on a new sub-system for my homebrew setting that the new action economy looks like it'd work better for. Going to have to wait and see, though.
I'm cautiously optimistic, and trying to see both sides of the issues.
Hey, we may be able to convince them to go to Saves as Defenses. Personally, I like the idea of an attacker making all the rolls. More agency for players, especially when wondering about a monster's saves (and dealing with re-roll powers!)
They also used things like a Perception DC and Stealth DC, explaining that if you're trying to sneak past someone, you roll Stealth vs. their Perception DC (10 plus their Perception bonus). Then if they use their action on their turn to try to find you, they'd roll their Perception against your Stealth DC (again, 10 plus Stealth bonus).
I'm not sure where I sit on this yet.
On the one hand, it's nice you could be expertly trained in stealth and not fumble for no good reason (as fumbling is fail by 10). So your low roll doesn't influence your overall stealth ability.
However on the counter side, a great success, unless criticals (10 over DC) offer some grand bonus, it may feel not worthwhile to invest in an ability like stealth past a certain point.
This will largely depend of course on the new reworked skills system as a whole.
Hey, we may be able to convince them to go to Saves as Defenses. Personally, I like the idea of an attacker making all the rolls. More agency for players, especially when wondering about a monster's saves (and dealing with re-roll powers!)
Comparatively it also gives more agency to monsters. Say a player has a low Will Defense, it becomes a glaring weakness they can't do much about. They can't get lucky to stop a particularly potent Lich for example, they just can't defend against it and may make hem feel helpless compared to the rest of their companions.
Hey, we may be able to convince them to go to Saves as Defenses. Personally, I like the idea of an attacker making all the rolls. More agency for players, especially when wondering about a monster's saves (and dealing with re-roll powers!)
Reverse your perspective: opponents would now be rolling vs the player's saves, and they may have rerolls available.
Any change that gives agency to the players when on the offense removes agency from the players on defense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comparatively it also gives more agency to monsters. Say a player has a low Will Defense, it becomes a glaring weakness they can't do much about. They can't get lucky to stop a particularly potent Lich for example, they just can't defend against it and may make hem feel helpless compared to the rest of their companions.
Yes, it can do that. However, by the same token I feel that this isn't entirely a bad thing. It gives incentive to find ways to shore up your weak points rather than relying on luck. I can't say how many times I've seen a player decide that a +1 Reflex isn't that big of a deal, but if they knew opponents were rolling against DC 11, they'd try to fix it. Plus, I think if the various things that would normally boost your saves increases the DC, it works reasonably well.
But this is all my opinion. Paizo's design team doesn't have to share it. I'm more than happy to leave things closer to PF1 if that's what they, and the majority of people, think is better. I just feel it'd get about the same effect and streamline the game slightly.
Hey, we may be able to convince them to go to Saves as Defenses. Personally, I like the idea of an attacker making all the rolls. More agency for players, especially when wondering about a monster's saves (and dealing with re-roll powers!)Reverse your perspective: opponents would now be rolling vs the player's saves, and they may have rerolls available.
Any change that gives agency to the players when on the offense removes agency from the players on defense.
Yes, they might. I thought about that, and still prefer the idea of the opposition rolling against a DC. I'd rather it was consistently one or the other, not a constant back and forth of who's rolling what in a single creature's turn.
Maybe just give things like attack rolls, ac, saves and save DC an active and a passive value. The former being d20+whatever modifiers and the latter being 11+modifiers. Then each group can decide how much of the rolls are done by whom. The dm could sit all the way back and have layers do all the rolling, you could have it so that the active one does all the rolling. You could even have it so that both parties roll off against each other.
Are they aware the problem with the action economy is that combat usually lasts only a round or two because the PCs generally get more actions than the monsters?
Don't worry; there's a solution for that: monsters don't play by the same rules we do.
All you need to do is give them four times the hit points, an armor class that requires players to roll 16 or higher on the die to hit, attacks that hit on a rolled 4, damage that removes a third of your health each hit, and saves that succeed at least 70% of the time. Players will never notice... and go $(&*%ing mental.
Nah. I'm not referring to our experience so far with Paizo's other game. Nah. <Grin>
But seriously, as much trepidation as I have (several truck-loads), I'll just sit back and wait for the full rules. Maybe Jason and the way will have learned from Starfinder and dial back some of its annoyances.