Dedicated to discussing how PF2 will handle the disparity.
It's certainly difficult to say without the rule set in front us, but what I've gleamed of the rules so far appears to be a mixed bag.
Resonance
From the descriptions so far this seems clearly bad for martial characters. The fighter gets up and attunes himself to his armor, meanwhile the cleric chuckles and casts greater magical vestment while the wizard casts an extended mage armor, the rogue cries in the corner with is neigh useless bag of wands.
The fighter about to start a fight and clicks his heels of speed for haste, again the wizard and cleric both laugh as they cast fervor and haste without wasting resonance.
The rogue says he'll sneak in and survey the manor, but then he realized his trusty ring of invisibility may not be so trustworthy, does he have to waste resonance every 3 minutes to activate, who knows. The wizard continues to laugh as he casts invisibility and fly and says she'll go do it.
This list could go on, but again it clearly shows martials are second class citizens.
Skills
From the speculation and interviews I've read there will be a much tighter band between those who are good at a skill and those who are untrained or bad, and again I think this hurts martials. Will it be level based? Will a level 1 rogue be as good at stealth as a level 5 cleric?
Why specialize in skills when you're not even going to be much better then someone unspecialized? Will the bonus to invisibility be changed, I sure hope so otherwise the wizard will clearly be the better rogue, likely the better rogue without even trying very hard.
Spells don't scale by level
This does help the martials, or at least it hurts the casters. But again unless someone is going through all the spells in the core book and rewriting them, there are plenty of spells that don't really care what level they are cast at because they don't deal damage or they don't have a saving throw.
Also with the rewriting of actions and allowing summoning to no longer be one round it again makes martials feel rather useless. Why bother with a fighter when you can summon your brute the same round and put wherever you want and have them act?
~
Without the rules in front of us it's difficult to really know, but what's been leaked so far has not been encouraging.
Resonance exists purely for two reasons: to remove spamming CLW wands and because they really want to bring back the Occultist with some dumb notion of creating a class that is the master of using Resonance, which sounds absolutely stupid. Then again, from what we've been told, it sounds like the Alchemist is the master of wasting money on alchemical consumables, so it's probably not too far a stretch.
We've been told mostly how skills work. Skills always add your character level regardless of proficiency level. The proficiency levels only differ by 1 each, starting from -1 for Untrained to +3 for Legendary. Yes, there is only a 4 spread, not counting ability scores.
Spell damage doesn't scale by level, but all spell DCs will scale to your highest spell level. The fixed damage from spells is also going to be much higher than the base damage in PF1. The idea is to use your highest level spell slots for ridiculously high damage spells that can wipe out half an encounter in one go and all the lower slots to use control and utility spells that have just as high of DCs as the highest things you can cast.
Something you didn't mention: Magic weapons. A +1 weapon gives you a + to your attack roll and you roll the weapon damage die again. Depending on how high or low enemy HP is, this means that either the player rolling lucky will ruin the GM's encounter or the player rolling poorly will make them feel really really s!#&ty and useless.
You really want that huge of a random variance? That's insane.
It also means that anyone who wants to use a smaller weapon is s+*@ out of luck. 2d4 is nowhere as good as 4d6 or even 2d10.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the real issue with C/MD is at higher levels a Wizard can literally move mountains whereas the fighter can do damage.
So we won't really know how the C/MD thing shakes out until we can, like, read entire lists of class feats and spells.
I think I'd probably have enhancement spells like the ones you mentioned, or at least armor spells, use Resonance just like the Fighter's gear. That seems a fair way to balance it to me. But I'll have to see the full rules before I can know for sure.
As for the skill gap, keep in mind that the Rogue is also going to have access to feats and abilities that enhance their use of Stealth in ways the Cleric will not. So that will help make up the difference that pure numbers can't completely cover.
You really want that huge of a random variance? That's insane.
It also means that anyone who wants to use a smaller weapon is s@~+ out of luck. 2d4 is nowhere as good as 4d6 or even 2d10.I would totally take 6d4 over 1d4+5
Minimum damage is the same, maximum and average are loads better.
Also, I don't see any wizards complaining about the damage variance of a 10d6 fireball.
HP is going to be inflated much higher than PF1, though (we can already tell since you no longer roll hit dice and instead get the flat 6, 8, 10, or 12 plus Con mod depending on class, plus we've been told you get HP based on race or ancestry, too). Higher HP with the same minimum means that if you roll poorly you're going to feel awfully useless.
Multiple smaller dice roll more consistently than fewer larger dice that have the same maximum sum. I think the Wizards would be complaining a bit if that Fireball was 3d20 instead of 10d6.4d4 is about on par with 2d8, and they might also be Agile.
If the base damage is 1d4, rolling the weapon damage twice is 2d4, not 4d4. Also, the 2d6 x 2 = 4d6 might have some other property of its own on it. I don't see the point of arguing "yeah, but the smaller one might have more enhancements!" because the bigger one might, too.
You really want that huge of a random variance? That's insane.
It also means that anyone who wants to use a smaller weapon is s!@! out of luck. 2d4 is nowhere as good as 4d6 or even 2d10.
It is dagger, its doing 2 times the dagger damage. Of course its not gonna be as good as great sword.
As for the skill gap, keep in mind that the Rogue is also going to have access to feats and abilities that enhance their use of Stealth in ways the Cleric will not. So that will help make up the difference that pure numbers can't completely cover.
Sure, but when you want to use Stealth in order to stealth (you know, the entire point of Stealth), and the Untrained Cleric is only 6 points or so behind the Legendary Rogue...
Sure, but when you want to use Stealth in order to stealth (you know, the entire point of Stealth), and the Untrained Cleric is only 6 points or so behind the Legendary Rogue...
As for the skill gap, keep in mind that the Rogue is also going to have access to feats and abilities that enhance their use of Stealth in ways the Cleric will not. So that will help make up the difference that pure numbers can't completely cover.
Wouldn't the gap be larger? It's at least 4 points just for the skill rating, right? Plus Dex bonus, and if the Rogue's class feats add any additional bonuses. And that's not to say stuff like the Rogue being able to move soundlessly, or hide completely in a shadow large enough to accommodate her, and so on. They've said that martial characters, at least, will be able to accomplish feats of prowess that are well into the realm of fantasy and not bound by (usually poor) understanding of what people can actually do.
So while the Cleric is suffering some kind of circumstance penalty (whatever the equivalent might be) for wearing armor and having gear clanking around, and being untrained in the skill, the Rogue is casually doing stuff that even a good roll for the Cleric wouldn't otherwise allow.
Is this the way it works? I don't know, we'll have to see the full rules. But I have confidence it will be good.
I was assuming if you're going to bother wielding 1d4 weapons you're going to be dual-wielding.
I'd never touch less than 1d6 as my exclusive weapon [well, except as a small race but that's a whole other kettle of fish.]
Or have about six you plan to throw
It's also entirely possible the Rogue, with class feats, can get some borderline supernatural stealth acumen like the Cipher Investigator's "Inattention Blindness".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But again unless someone is going through all the spells in the core book and rewriting them
Yes, that is what they are doing, they are not doing P1E's cheap "Copy 3.5 and change a few bits" to get a product out the door after 3.5 and D&D licence was up-ended with zero notice, they've been planning and testing basis of this for years already.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but when you want to use Stealth in order to stealth (you know, the entire point of Stealth), and the Untrained Cleric is only 6 points or so behind the Legendary Rogue...
As for the skill gap, keep in mind that the Rogue is also going to have access to feats and abilities that enhance their use of Stealth in ways the Cleric will not. So that will help make up the difference that pure numbers can't completely cover.
How do you know it will only be 6, if the rogue focuses on being really good at stealth and the cleric doesn't?
We already know proficiency level will be about a difference of 4 assuming the rogue goes to legendary.
If the modifiers as the same as in PF1 then the rogue will easily start with a +3 over the cleric for 7
Overtime the ability scores increase the cleric who isn't focusing on dex easily moves behind by double digits.
After feats, that 6 is not even a realistic number.
I'm sure you could have figured this out had you focused on being objective.
You don't have to like PF2. I'm not even sure if I will like it, but I'm going into it open minded so that I can more objectively examine the info I have and come to accurate conclusions.
Hey, way to s$@$ all over Pathfinder's entire concept. Why are you here?But again unless someone is going through all the spells in the core book and rewriting themYes, that is what they are doing, they are not doing P1E's cheap "Copy 3.5 and change a few bits" to get a product out the door after 3.5 and D&D licence was up-ended with zero notice, they've been planning and testing basis of this for years already.
I don’t think “cheap” was pejorative.
I don’t think “cheap” was pejorative.Hey, way to s$@$ all over Pathfinder's entire concept. Why are you here?But again unless someone is going through all the spells in the core book and rewriting themYes, that is what they are doing, they are not doing P1E's cheap "Copy 3.5 and change a few bits" to get a product out the door after 3.5 and D&D licence was up-ended with zero notice, they've been planning and testing basis of this for years already.
Read their comment again. I'm pretty sure it was.
It sounds like you think the paradigm of "martials need to pretend to be casters to compete" that PF1 suffered from will continue to be the case in PF2. If that's true then Paizo has already failed to address the C/M disparity issue, resonance or no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter about to start a fight and clicks his heels of speed for haste, again the wizard and cleric both laugh as they cast fervor and haste without wasting resonance.
Why is the wizard wasting an action spending a spell when the martials already have boots of speed and why the hell is the cleric casting a spell with an equivalent effect? Either the fighter doesn't bother attuning boots of speed or the wizard should stop wasting his actions. The cleric doubly so shouldn't be wasting spell slots replicating the effect that the wizard just granted by casting haste.
The rogue says he'll sneak in and survey the manor, but then he realized his trusty ring of invisibility may not be so trustworthy, does he have to waste resonance every 3 minutes to activate, who knows. The wizard continues to laugh as he casts invisibility and fly and says she'll go do it.
Why the hell is the squishy wizard casting invisibility and fly on himself when he should have overland flight running and can just as easily cast invisibility and fly on the rogue?
This list could go on
All this list demonstrates is either your party is highly dysfunctional and no ruleset will help with that or they're a bunch of newbs who are still trying to learn how to play the game as a team and could probably benefit from some gentle nudges from the (I hope) more experienced GM at the table.
Why specialize in skills when you're not even going to be much better then someone unspecialized?
We have no idea what sort of numerical bonus it's possible to gain compared to a non-specialised character, we also don't know what special effects a specialised character can get via skill feats compared to a non-specialised character.
But again unless someone is going through all the spells in the core book and rewriting them
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe Paizo may have assigned one or two employees to go through the core rules and perform some changes. I could be wrong. Quote me and laugh at me if in 1 year's time we get a CRB with next to no changes in the words!
I get it. Martial/Caster Disparity is a problem and does need to be addressed. But we know nowhere near enough about the new edition to say whether or not it's present in the new rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Read their comment again. I'm pretty sure it was.I don’t think “cheap” was pejorative.Hey, way to s$@$ all over Pathfinder's entire concept. Why are you here?But again unless someone is going through all the spells in the core book and rewriting themYes, that is what they are doing, they are not doing P1E's cheap "Copy 3.5 and change a few bits" to get a product out the door after 3.5 and D&D licence was up-ended with zero notice, they've been planning and testing basis of this for years already.
I read it a couple of times. My take was that Paizo were under time pressure (and cost pressure) at the end of 3.5 so had to get it done quickly and easily. This time around they can take their time and don't need to cut-and-paste but can give every thing more attention.
*shrug* Maybe not. I live in hope of a happy, positive internet though. :)
All i hope is that these talks wont make magic boring, spells bland and all more of the same.
Cant wait to see the spell list they have for this versions core book.
Sure, but when you want to use Stealth in order to stealth (you know, the entire point of Stealth), and the Untrained Cleric is only 6 points or so behind the Legendary Rogue...
As for the skill gap, keep in mind that the Rogue is also going to have access to feats and abilities that enhance their use of Stealth in ways the Cleric will not. So that will help make up the difference that pure numbers can't completely cover.How do you know it will only be 6, if the rogue focuses on being really good at stealth and the cleric doesn't?
We already know proficiency level will be about a difference of 4 assuming the rogue goes to legendary.
If the modifiers as the same as in PF1 then the rogue will easily start with a +3 over the cleric for 7
Overtime the ability scores increase the cleric who isn't focusing on dex easily moves behind by double digits.
After feats, that 6 is not even a realistic number.
I'm sure you could have figured this out had you focused on being objective.
You don't have to like PF2. I'm not even sure if I will like it, but I'm going into it open minded so that I can more objectively examine the info I have and come to accurate conclusions.
How large should the difference be, given an expert rogue with some stealth investment and an expert cleric who is moderately dextrous and is wearing a medium armor?
6 points is roughly 30%, depending on the target DC, and I'll admit it may be a bit low.But it shouldn't even be 20 points, to avoid situations where one character has guaranteed success and the others never will. Also consider the chance of critical success/failure, which makes every point of difference more important.
The fact that a cleric, or wizard, may have spells to match the rogue's stealth when needed isn't bad in itself: first of all it removes the NEED for a rogue in the group, but that spell may also be cast on the rogue himself to ensure success (and a critical one, maybe).
Of course if you lessen the difference between different characters, I think you should also reduce the bonus such spells give.
Without the rules in front of us it's difficult to really know, but what's been leaked so far has not been encouraging.
Yes. But they at least said in the FAQ that they were attempting to address the issue and narrow the gap. That means that they're aware of the issue and working on it.
By the way, this is why I think this Aug 2 business isn't wise. We'll be speculating wildly like this for the next five months. I think a series of beginner-box-like alpha releases would be good, so people could reserve their getting angry to um actual printed rules.
I get it. Martial/Caster Disparity is a problem and does need to be addressed. But we know nowhere near enough about the new edition to say whether or not it's present in the new rules.
Oh, it likely still exists, and will continue to exist. It's probably unavoidable. The goal is to narrow it, not delete it.
C/MD Dispelling Myths thread
(Myth #5, last couple of paragraphs)
Hey, way to s%** all over Pathfinder's entire concept. Why are you here?
I'm sure they're here like everybody else: because 4E was worse. And 5e's over-simplification and lackluster commitment to the OGL makes it unappealing. No PDFs, low competition in online services.
You have to admit that there's a lot of copy paste of some very unclear or obsolete text in the CRB..even the sixth printing. Just because Paizo has done a much better job than certain wizards who may or may not live by a body of water, doesn't mean that they're perfect.
I think part of the reason why we still have the 3.5 text in the sixth printing is because some of the other books refer to exact pages in the CRB, and they would probably have to add pages to the CRB to fix some of these issues:
Spells: An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists (see pages 226–229 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).
I hope they don't paint themselves into this corner again.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, this is why I think this Aug 2 business isn't wise. We'll be speculating wildly like this for the next five months. I think a series of beginner-box-like alpha releases would be good, so people could reserve their getting angry to um actual printed rules.
I think it's very wise. There was always going to be blowback - hopefully a lot of the kneejerk, pure anti-change stuff will get out of everyone's systems. Those are probably not useful things to be considering in deciding how to make PF2 as good as it can be. But just because some of us are instinctively averse to change and might be struggling to get past that, it doesn't mean we won't have anything to contribute in actually evaluating PF2.
I really hope those who don't like the idea of PF2 participate in the playtest, however I can understand that at the moment there's a lot of emotion, angst and just general processing of the news. I'd rather they do that now (where it doesn't really matter) rather than having all these "Why a new edition?" threads when we're supposed to be playtesting.
The longer time period also allows Paizo to ensure that everyone hears about it. I guarantee there's going to be people popping in in February lamenting the fact they missed out. If Paizo didn't have a long marketting campaign pre-playtest, the number of such people would be greater.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but when you want to use Stealth in order to stealth (you know, the entire point of Stealth), and the Untrained Cleric is only 6 points or so behind the Legendary Rogue...
As for the skill gap, keep in mind that the Rogue is also going to have access to feats and abilities that enhance their use of Stealth in ways the Cleric will not. So that will help make up the difference that pure numbers can't completely cover.How do you know it will only be 6, if the rogue focuses on being really good at stealth and the cleric doesn't?
We already know proficiency level will be about a difference of 4 assuming the rogue goes to legendary.
If the modifiers as the same as in PF1 then the rogue will easily start with a +3 over the cleric for 7
Overtime the ability scores increase the cleric who isn't focusing on dex easily moves behind by double digits.
After feats, that 6 is not even a realistic number.
I'm sure you could have figured this out had you focused on being objective.
You don't have to like PF2. I'm not even sure if I will like it, but I'm going into it open minded so that I can more objectively examine the info I have and come to accurate conclusions.
I agree, although I am quite sure I'm going to like PF2. Every single thing I've read has, for me, been a good thing, and I'm excited to get the full context. But yours is a well-reasoned post and, maybe, a futile one. People who are so hell-bent on being negative about any change at all (and they've been all over these threads) are not likely going to be convinced by even the most well-reasoned of posts.
Here's hoping otherwise, but either way, PF2 looks like the version of the game that will get me back into it.
Bloodrealm, is your only goal in life to try and make everyone trying to be positive for PF2 miserable instead? You complain things are different, but different doesn't mean bad.
Yes, weapons have greater variance now. But it also means that the weapons are not just ONLY the crit multiplier they had, the choice actually matters for other things now!
Changes that seem bad at first sight are done to create bigger, better ones. Just have to look at the bigger picture.
I fail to see the positives with resonance.
I'm sure they're here like everybody else: because 4E was worse. And 5e's over-simplification and lackluster commitment to the OGL makes it unappealing. No PDFs, low competition in online services.
FWIW, although 4e has all the OGL/support issues as 5e and is exponentially harder to find a game for, and my tastes do run a bit more simulationist, I do think its chassis is way more competently designed than 3e's, and it would be a shame if good ideas were rejected because they're seen as too similar to 4e.
I think part of the reason why we still have the 3.5 text in the sixth printing is because some of the other books refer to exact pages in the CRB, and they would probably have to add pages to the CRB to fix some of these issues:
Yes, and in particular I think it's worth noting that design gets better over the course of each edition - late 3e was better than early 3e, late 4e was better than early 4e, late Pathfinder is uh a mixed bag but still largely better than core. I suspect PF2 will show a similar curve as people acquire system mastery and design experience, and as collective experience reveals what the issues are and the kinds of technology that exist to solve them.
You probably could have had a smaller edition reset just by altering what counts as core. I'm kind of surprised they didn't go down that route, actually! To go back to the thread title, C/MD issues would be a lot less aggravated with just a different selection of classes, for instance! (Say, slayer, magus, warpriest, inquisitor, alchemist, bard, hunter, or something.)
It is dagger, its doing 2 times the dagger damage. Of course its not gonna be as good as great sword.You really want that huge of a random variance? That's insane.
It also means that anyone who wants to use a smaller weapon is s!@! out of luck. 2d4 is nowhere as good as 4d6 or even 2d10.
So we can add dagger fighters to the list of already weak types that get an extra nerf.
Is anyone using anything other than greatsword ever in PF2?
I was assuming if you're going to bother wielding 1d4 weapons you're going to be dual-wielding.
I'd never touch less than 1d6 as my exclusive weapon [well, except as a small race but that's a whole other kettle of fish.]
In PF1 critical profile is more important than die size, except at low level.
The vast majority of your damage is coming from static modifiers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think more dices are better than huge static modifiers, who get massive with crits. Adding a couple of d4s or d6s are quite better than a plus 2 or something. I hope this system comes with reduced crits, no more x4 madness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, although 4e has all the OGL/support issues as 5e and is exponentially harder to find a game for, and my tastes do run a bit more simulationist, I do think its chassis is way more competently designed than 3e's, and it would be a shame if good ideas were rejected because they're seen as too similar to 4e.
I don't know too much about it's chassis, but yes, disposing of an idea just because it's in 4e (or 5e) is definitely wrong. If it's good, and works well with the PF2 system, and helps make the game more fun or fair or other good things, then yes.
Conversely bad ideas from good systems shouldn't be adopted just because the system they're in is good.
You probably could have had a smaller edition reset just by altering what counts as core. I'm kind of surprised they didn't go down that route, actually! To go back to the thread title, C/MD issues would be a lot less aggravated with just a different selection of classes, for instance! (Say, slayer, magus, warpriest, inquisitor, alchemist, bard, hunter, or something.)
Well, we haven't rilly seen it yet, maybe that's what they're actually do. I might find out I'm effectively a warpriest or inquisitor in PF2, while wearing the class name 'cleric'.
Myself, I like the action economy, I am extremely skeptical of what appears to be a completely neutered and gelded skill system, and resonance looks to be either really really pointless or bad.
I think it's very wise. There was always going to be blowback - hopefully a lot of the kneejerk, pure anti-change stuff will get out of everyone's systems.
Um, this is the internet, that will never happen. Like never ever. Also this mob-mentality stuffs tends to get worse over time, not better t.t
There's a development process called 'Agile', which focuses in on fast, small changes and a tight feedback loop. It's very effective, and I feel Paizo might be missing out on it's benefits.
The longer time period also allows Paizo to ensure that everyone hears about it. I guarantee there's going to be people popping in in February lamenting the fact they missed out. If Paizo didn't have a long marketting campaign pre-playtest, the number of such people would be greater.
Um, the timeframe would still be the same. They would only miss out on the "mini" playtest... the dead tree stuff would still be available Aug 2. Plus, word of mouth is far more effective than any formal marketing...and you might get more word of mouth from a playable product rather than promises and deadlines.
Just to be super duper clear, when I say 'beginner box' or 'mini', I mean like we get a little PDF with almost nothing in it (like oh, the 5e SRD's size), so we can play around with it. In some ways, that's already happening with the compiled info thread stuffs.
I'm rambling again, aren't I?
...
Why is the wizard wasting an action spending a spell when the martials already have boots of speed and why the hell is the cleric casting a spell with an equivalent effect? Either the fighter doesn't bother attuning boots of speed or the wizard should stop wasting his actions. The cleric doubly so shouldn't be wasting spell slots replicating the effect that the wizard just granted by casting haste.
Competent high level fighters bring their own source of haste to table. It's too important to leave to chance and frees the wizard from doing something more important then fixing someone else's character class.
The examples are mostly common spell needs that martials get through items.
Since my list wasn't compelling I'll go on.
See invisibility
Overland flight / any long lasting flight / any flight
Protection from elements / any source for resistance to elements
Dimension door / teleportation / plane shift
Freedom of movement
Deathward
Delay poison, neutralize poison, poison immunity
Life bubble
Water breathing
Ride the waves. / Any source of a swim speed
Healing
Again I could go on, but the obvious point is martials depend on magic items to achieve these effects while casters just cast them. Now magic items has become a limited usage resource which disaportionately hurts martials.
But again unless someone is going through all the spells in the core book and rewriting them
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe Paizo may have assigned one or two employees to...
I assume this will happen, there were certainly some copy paste issue in the original CRB. I'm hoping they will really go over all the spells and make modications that are needed.
See invisibility should be easier for non wizards to get, simulacrum needs an overhaul, astral projection should be clarified / fixed, gaes should also be rewritten. Spells deserve their own thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is dagger, its doing 2 times the dagger damage. Of course its not gonna be as good as great sword.You really want that huge of a random variance? That's insane.
It also means that anyone who wants to use a smaller weapon is s!@! out of luck. 2d4 is nowhere as good as 4d6 or even 2d10.So we can add dagger fighters to the list of already weak types that get an extra nerf.
Is anyone using anything other than greatsword ever in PF2?
Ok, so what if the penalties for the 2nd/3rd attacks were tied to weapon size?
2 handed is -4/-8.
One handed -3/-6.
Light weapons -2/-4.
(Hypothetical new category; compact weapons like dagger, main gauche, brass knuckles, Star knife, etc) -1/-2.
Natural weapons/unarmed strike -0/-1.
It would definitely make the smaller weapons more appealing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is dagger, its doing 2 times the dagger damage. Of course its not gonna be as good as great sword.You really want that huge of a random variance? That's insane.
It also means that anyone who wants to use a smaller weapon is s!@! out of luck. 2d4 is nowhere as good as 4d6 or even 2d10.So we can add dagger fighters to the list of already weak types that get an extra nerf.
Is anyone using anything other than greatsword ever in PF2?
Ok, so what if the penalties for the 2nd/3rd attacks were tied to weapon size?
2 handed is -4/-8.
One handed -3/-6.
Light weapons -2/-4.
(Hypothetical new category; compact weapons like dagger, main gauche, brass knuckles, Star knife, etc) -1/-2.
Natural weapons/unarmed strike -0/-1.It would definitely make the smaller weapons more appealing.
I believe we are getting something like that with the Agile Weapon Quality, which reduces the penalties for taking iterative attacks. There's also the Sweep Weapon Quality on the scimitar that reduces the penalties if you attack different opponents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see the positives with resonance.Bloodrealm, is your only goal in life to try and make everyone trying to be positive for PF2 miserable instead? You complain things are different, but different doesn't mean bad.
Yes, weapons have greater variance now. But it also means that the weapons are not just ONLY the crit multiplier they had, the choice actually matters for other things now!
Changes that seem bad at first sight are done to create bigger, better ones. Just have to look at the bigger picture.
The only thing I can confidently say, based on what the designers have said, is that they wanted to get rid of CLW wand spam to trivialize health management and the "Big 6" magic items occupying all your relevant slots, becoming a magic christmas tree. If we asume this was their goal, then I guess it succeeds at that- though at a cost.
Indeed this looks like it'll curb characters ability to become invincible at low levels, at the cost of making the game seem "lower magic" and making every single item count more and feel "special" when it drops. It does make the game immersion a bit higher! Resonance seems like it'll become kinda irrelevant even before the double-dgit levels due to how fast it scales. But even then, it'll greatly reduce "ammo" tracking of all the x/day items.
However, I don't love resonance either. I think it hurts one-use consumables a lot (which were already avoided) and risks becoming the same "big 6" system unless all magical items are very well-balanced since there is now a bigger opportunity cost to what you choose to equip.
I think it's very wise. There was always going to be blowback - hopefully a lot of the kneejerk, pure anti-change stuff will get out of everyone's systems.Um, this is the internet, that will never happen. Like never ever. Also this mob-mentality stuffs tends to get worse over time, not better t.t
There's a development process called 'Agile', which focuses in on fast, small changes and a tight feedback loop. It's very effective, and I feel Paizo might be missing out on it's benefits.
Having worked in software for decades I've seen ideas like Scrum come and go. I do think there is a lot to be said for short development cycles for trying stuff out. It would be refreshing to see that attempted in a play test.
The thing about Agile is some folks become true believers. It's a useful tool to have in your armory but it so silver bullet and folks at least I'm my experience get into religious arguments about if you're doing agile correctly which doesn't help ship a product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resonance is going to be an improvement for powerful 1/day magic item effects. Now you can use those more than once per day, shifting your uses between items as needed.
Until we see what magic items can do we don't know the opportunity cost of saving resonance for a low level healing wand. Are you really going to forego (say) a use of Improved Invisibility in combat so that you have that use of resonance available to heal 10 hp afterwards?
The point of this thread is that the caster doesn't need to make that choice because they aren't using up resonance for either improved invisibility or healing.
Only the mundane martials are squeezing together pennies and boosting their otherwise useless Cha so they can wear that new cloak while the master class sorcerer is lamenting how they only have two hands and ten fingers for rings.
I think its ok to voice your opinion, but you are on every thread (With a couple of other guys), ranting on how bad and Stupid, and mocking almost every idea that comes with PF2. Are you even going to buy the 2nd edition? I'm not hating on you or anything, I'm just curious about what is the point of calling "completely stupid" the ideas of the devs, if you want to criticise, I think that's not the way to do it.
1. A lot of us are here playing Pathfinder because we did not enjoy 4e or 5e. The last thing we want is PF2 implementing mechanics from those games.
2. The only way to implement change is to supply feedback early and frequently. If we wait until the books are published, it is too late. On many core systems, it is already too late.
3. I bought the core rules for 4e and 5e when they case out. I hated every aspect of those systems and have not a single 4e or 5e product since. I will buy the CRB for PF2. If it plays like either 4e or 5e, it will be my only PF2 purchase. Until that point, I will try to provide feedback, letting Paizo know my honest feeling for each rules mechanic as it comes to light.