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.
This associates heavier weapons with a more mobile fighting style, and while I'd be down with everyone being more mobile in general, it seems aesthetically off for the association to run that way. (Though that's largely informed by passive media consumption; probably someone with HEMA/SCA experience could speak to how much someone wielding a zweihander vs. a rapier tends to move around.)
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?
They shouldn't, but likily will. PF tends to nerf the fighting class to buff the casters. In place of nerfing the casters and fixing the underlying issues.
My comment was based off him comparing a d4 wespon to a greatsword. Of couse doublimg the GS is gonna have bigger impact. Just as 2d6 is better than 1d4 to start with
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On some of the earlier replies in this thread, regardless of how Paizo does the playtest and made the announcement, there would be blowback.
If they just did a "Surprise...new edition coming", with no information, people would just be doing more speculation, with even less info, and things would spiral out of control
If they did a "Surprise...new edition next year, here is the playtest", than folks would read dribs and drabs of the playtest doc, in a heightened stage of apprehension/annoyance/fear, and blow things out of proportion without fully understanding the rules.
Honestly, the method they did use isn't perfect either, but at least we get some warning, and hopefully by the time the playtest starts people will be a bit calmer, and have at least some warnings on major changes before they react
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the main subject of this thread, the main contributors to C/MD aren't math issues at the margin - although those can matter and should be fine-tuned - so much as the incredible breadth of options that full casters, especially prepared full casters, can bring to the table with even a modicum of lateral thinking, vs. the relatively circumscribed out-of-combat capabilities of martial characters.
(Consider how we don't need to know what any of the numbers are in Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit for the joke to work.)
It looks like the latter might be addressed by class skills (though everything depends on the implementation,) and we haven't seen much about the former yet.
I actually really like the notion of makign weapon enhancement +X weapon damage dice instead of a flat +X.
That makes different weapons actually matter, and gives a point to you rolling dice in the first place. And it also gives dual wielding a purpose outside of sneak attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I get what you are saying, and I mostly agree. But I did play 4th edition for 3 years, and nothing reminds me of that edition. Maybe some ideas, like the homogenization of therms (feats for everything) but nothing more. Everyone is calling the new rules Gamey, or unimmersive and that also can be said about negative hit points, falling damage, armor types don't matter, or other rules that 3.P improved over the old 2.0 rules and the like. I think some guys have been a little bias against the new system... just because they don't WANT another edition, and so their opinions get warped because they are passionate about the game. But, as a creator myself, that's not the way of saying you don't agree; calling it Stupid, or that you HATE everything they are doing.
But lets get back to the topic :)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This associates heavier weapons with a more mobile fighting style, and while I'd be down with everyone being more mobile in general, it seems aesthetically off for the association to run that way. (Though that's largely informed by passive media consumption; probably someone with HEMA/SCA experience could speak to how much someone wielding a zweihander vs. a rapier tends to move around.)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 don't understand how you have made that link. In this suggestion it is MORE difficult to make subsequent attacks with larger weapons. As in, (presuming a 6 second round) making an attack, recovering, and repeating inside of 6 seconds would be MORE difficult with a claymore than with a dagger. Which, I think, is accurate from a simulationist stand point (not that I really care about that) but also adds benefit to using smaller weapons which is sorely lacking in the current system.
I don't understand how you have made that link. In this suggestion it is MORE difficult to make subsequent attacks with larger weapons. As in, (presuming a 6 second round) making an attack, recovering, and repeating inside of 6 seconds would be MORE difficult with a claymore than with a dagger. Which, I think, is accurate from a simulationist stand point (not that I really care about that) but also adds benefit to using smaller weapons which is sorely lacking in the current system.
Attack and move (and seek, or whatever) actions trade off against each other, so a weapon with a rapidly declining marginal utility to additional uses is more likely to take up fewer of your actions, freeing them for other uses. If the second rapier thrust is similar to the first in terms of expected damage output, but a second great maul slam is much less than the first, then it makes more sense for a someone wielding a grand maul to go move-slam-move, say, while the rapier wielder goes move-thrust-thrust, or thrust-thrust-thrust. (Obviously the particular utility of spending your next action on moving vs. attacking vs. something else will (hopefully!) vary a lot from round to round, I'm just looking at the effects on the margin here.)
I don't understand how you have made that link. In this suggestion it is MORE difficult to make subsequent attacks with larger weapons. As in, (presuming a 6 second round) making an attack, recovering, and repeating inside of 6 seconds would be MORE difficult with a claymore than with a dagger. Which, I think, is accurate from a simulationist stand point (not that I really care about that) but also adds benefit to using smaller weapons which is sorely lacking in the current system.Attack and move (and seek, or whatever) actions trade off against each other, so a weapon with a rapidly declining marginal utility to additional uses is more likely to take up fewer of your actions, freeing them for other uses. If the second rapier thrust is similar to the first in terms of expected damage output, but a second great maul slam is much less than the first, then it makes more sense for a someone wielding a grand maul to go move-slam-move, say, while the rapier wielder goes move-thrust-thrust, or thrust-thrust-thrust. (Obviously the particular utility of spending your next action on moving vs. attacking vs. something else will (hopefully!) vary a lot from round to round, I'm just looking at the effects on the margin here.)
OK, That makes sense. However, I feel that (as today) that the melee character will take advantage of as many attacks on a single target as they can achieve regardless of the penalty.
For example Attack, Move, Attack would still carry the -4 on the second attack,
while Attack, Attack, Attack still has the same likelihood to hit on the first two attacks as in the first routine, but also allows for the chance of a third attack, however unlikely it would be to land.
I feel like the way you differentiate between greatsword and rapier combat is ultimately with feats that work with one and not the other.
I actually really like the notion of makign weapon enhancement +X weapon damage dice instead of a flat +X.
That makes different weapons actually matter, and gives a point to you rolling dice in the first place. And it also gives dual wielding a purpose outside of sneak attack.
This would be nice if the weapons were properly rebalanced, and/or certain options/rules were changed to compensate.
If we took a typical PF1E Vital Strike build with this concept, they would easily outpace static modifiers in the endgame on average. 80D6 on a given hit is probably more than most fully optimized full attacks, and that's without other modifiers.
It also makes weapons with low damage dice significantly less useful than items with higher damage dice, simply because the meta for dealing damage has fundamentally changed from modifiers to dice.
Especially since full attacks, while more applicable, will generally be weaker without extensive support for it in the forms of TWF, Haste, and so on, and will still gut your action economy.
enlarge person greate sword
0=3d6 +1=6d6 +2=12d6 +3=24d6 +4=48d6 +5=96d6
or
0=3d6 +1=6d6 +2=9d6 +3=12d6 +4=15d6 +5=18d6
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
HealingAgain 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.
From what I understood, they're getting rid of a lot of the "+2 heavy wooden shield" type items, to make room for more interesting items.
I think we might see more things like Freedom of Movement rings and such, and those would only take one resonance if they're of the "always on" variety..and I think they're moving away from use-activated things anyhow (for book-keeping and streamlining reasons).
So while some of those will most likely still be by-use, I imagine a lot of those will end up being always-on and cost a lot less resonance (1/day instead of 1/use).
By the way, I mentioned Freedom of Movement not just because there's already some items that have that always-on on them, but it also sounds like something that a legendary fighter might be able to do without damaging belief too much. Perhaps that will show up as a fighter class feat?
Hopefully they'll have a post soon with examples of class feats and items. That might help lay a lot of fears to rest (or raise new ones *sigh*)
|
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.
I think that's the problem. Fighter types are intended to depend on the casters to provide magic, and casters are dependent on fighters to hit stuff in the face.
You suggest martial characters are heavily impacted by having a limit on magic item usage, but in my experience, the biggest users of small, consumable magic items (potions, wands, scrolls) are spellcasters, often in the form of scrolls and wands they use on other party members. Martial characters often spend a much higher proportion of their wealth on static items (weapons, armor, boots of speed), while the spellcasters fill their "utility belt" role by having niche items and planning for contingencies.
That leads to a different discussion about player appeal. My wife enjoys playing barbarians, fighters and paladins specifically because of the reduced scope. She doesn't have to track a million different resources, or plan out spells and options. She makes decisions about her character when she levels up, and in the game she makes more limited choices like "Do I run and hit the caster, or full attack this guy?" or "Should I spend my swift action to smite the demon, or use it for a lay on hands?" For me, I love having a ton of different things, and when a combat goes completely sideways being able to pull out the perfect solution because I bought a random scroll 6 levels ago is an awesome feeling, even when my turn ends up being "I cast X, I'm done."
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
I don’t agree.
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?
...
It hasn’t been fully written yet, they can’t release it.
It hasn’t been fully written yet, they can’t release it.
>.<
I'm not talking about releasing the entire beta (since it doesn't fully exist yet), but a small sampler thing. Like they're using for the podcasts and stuffs. Pregens, snippets of rules, that sort of thing.
Already we've had misunderstandings about how things work from errors in those podcasts and stuff.
Oh well, we'll have one soon enough anyways I guess. That compilation thread is getting longer every day. Hopefully they didn't make too many mistakes in transcription.....
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It hasn’t been fully written yet, they can’t release it.I'm not talking about releasing the entire beta (since it doesn't fully exist yet), but a small sampler thing. Like they're using for the podcasts and stuffs. Pregens, snippets of rules, that sort of thing.
They had to announce it, because they were at the point where they had to start talking to industry people about it. However, the documents they're using the playtests are still in flux and aren't fully ready for public perusal yet.
So, they figured that they'd preview sections of it to everyone. It's part of the reason things are a little vague right now is that there are parts that might change slightly between the current blog posts and what we'll see in the playtest version.
Additionally, what's the difference between tossing out pregens, snippets of rules, and other such things versus just starting the playtest? There isn't much of one. Might as well wait until the playtest docs are ready and just release them so that you have all of the information and can cross-reference it against itself instead of having a snippet which might reference another section that you weren't given.
Is it possible that wands will now be usable by anyone with no UMD requirements, and fairly cheap to buy, with resonance limits replacing the old limitations? If so, that would probably be a step up for martials - if there's something you think you might need (Charm Person, Fly, See Invisibility, Resist Energy, Protection from Evil...) you could get it, without relying on a caster or a massive expenditure on potions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, in many ways, AD&D got the solution best. Rather than trying to make a level 20 fighter equal to a level 20 magic-user, it became MUCH easier to reach level 20 as a fighter than as a magic-user.
This is a bit of a myth, really. Although it’s true that a level 20 magicuser requires more experience than a level 20 fighter, the varying progression doesn’t proceed in any logical, balance-motivated way.
It take 375,000 experience for a magicuser to reach level 11 for example - well into the realm of outshining martials. That gets a fighter to level 9. They need an additional 375,000 to reach level 11.
Early on magicusers level slower than fighters (which is what people remember). Around level six though, the fighter really slows down.
It’s even more obvious if you look at rangers (basically “fighters but better”). Again they start slow but overtake in hit points, abilities and saving throws. The varying experience progression looks weird if you graph the various classes against one another.
Garet Jax of the books is an awesome representation of the fighter class... Under level 9.
I can't think of a level 20 fighter in Western Fantasy unless we include mythology or comic books.
Can you come up with anyone equivalent to a D&D/PF level 20 wizard or cleric in Western Fantasy without going to the same sources?
End-of-Series Richard Rahl from The Sword of Truth after he solves the final puzzle.
End of series Dragon Reborn from The Wheel of Time might come close. (Haven't read the last few books, speculating here)
Possibly Merlin from the Dresden Files.
The Sourceror of Diskworld.
I will confess Western Fantasy is not my primary genre, I am far more interested in comics and Eastern Fantasy. I could name over a dozen level 20 martials and casters from Eastern Fantasy.
The Mazalan book of the fallen - lots of high level characters in there - although they go down the 'high level fighters are magical' route - in that the high level fighter could strike the earth and split cause earthquakes and be felt for miles type of thing.
The Elric saga, I think. Many of the AD&D books had high levels in them - Dragonlance for instance has a scene where dozens of high level mages use wishes to teleport to safety. The Death Gate cycle. The sword of Shanara I think. The Riftgate series certainly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Garet Jax of the books is an awesome representation of the fighter class... Under level 9.
I can't think of a level 20 fighter in Western Fantasy unless we include mythology or comic books.
Can you come up with anyone equivalent to a D&D/PF level 20 wizard or cleric in Western Fantasy without going to the same sources?
The gang at the end of the Mallorean I could easily see at 20th. The Old Lords in the Covenant Series.
Garet Jax of the books is an awesome representation of the fighter class... Under level 9.
I can't think of a level 20 fighter in Western Fantasy unless we include mythology or comic books.
Conan the Barbarian.