I want my 15 minutes


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 146 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

necromental wrote:
I'm on the marshmallow's side of not liking the math of PF2. It seems to me that they are making numerical variability between characters much lesser, while keeping the appearance of variance through rolling multiple dice.

If characters have similar accuracy, but the "fightier" character does more damage, that's actually a good thing-- their proper party roles are enforced.

The squishy doesn't hold their own, but they still get to contribute.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FaerieGodfather wrote:
necromental wrote:
I'm on the marshmallow's side of not liking the math of PF2. It seems to me that they are making numerical variability between characters much lesser, while keeping the appearance of variance through rolling multiple dice.

If characters have similar accuracy, but the "fightier" character does more damage, that's actually a good thing-- their proper party roles are enforced.

The squishy doesn't hold their own, but they still get to contribute.

You're missing my point, I think...in PF1 I could build a two fighters with vastly different damage output, while in PF2 it seem they will all be the same, the only variance being what they roll on their dice (mathematically, the actions they can take will probably be the differentiating factor in PF2). Not saying it will be bad, but I'm on the side of "mastering the system to make an effective character" of PF1 to be a feature, not a bug.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gratz wrote:


Here is my problem with this thread and your approach (which is not exclusive to you btw): You are already comparing mathematical models and making big statements about what needs to be done or needs to be retained, while only having a tiny fraction of the puzzle in front of you.

By anology: someone saw a preview of Starfinder weapons, see the scaling damage and applied it to pathfinder and "a fighter gets 4 attacks with 18d6 damage, that's broken" - becuase they didn't realize that the underlying math and structure between SF and PF were vastly different.

I see the blogs and such as a quick glipse "hey look at the cool thing" then "Hey look at this other cool thing" we won't see how it all works until August, but the glimpses are cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I do not agree with you there. Making an effective character should be the default assumption, and it should be damned near impossible to make an ineffective character accidentally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
FaerieGodfather wrote:
Well, I do not agree with you there. Making an effective character should be the default assumption, and it should be damned near impossible to make an ineffective character accidentally.

If all choices are (mathematically) the same, why are there choices? I'm all for raising the floor and lowering the ceiling, but I don't want to live in a 4ft tall apartment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
If all choices are (mathematically) the same, why are there choices? I'm all for raising the floor and lowering the ceiling, but I don't want to live in a 4ft tall apartment.

I have not seen enough to determine that all character options are functionally identical. It's certainly possible to have a game where characters are automatically capable of pulling their own weight while still maintaining sufficient variation to maintain interest.


Gratz wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I'm torn personally on how to respond to this, since I am the OP, and I have genuine things I wish to discuss and have player tested data and experience from years of running RAE. I have mathematical concerns which prohibit me from understanding the directing for the theatre of combat we are getting in the new edition and I want to discuss what I knew from my own games compared to what I'm getting in the future.

Here is my problem with this thread and your approach (which is not exclusive to you btw): You are already comparing mathematical models and making big statements about what needs to be done or needs to be retained, while only having a tiny fraction of the puzzle in front of you.

Maybe you can wait until August to see the whole picture, then actually play the playtest and after that offer your criticism. I find these hypothetical arguments not very constructive in any way, because at this point in time you need to assume way to many variables and we have no idea what the PF2 playtest is going to look like.

Here's the issue with this mentality you have presented.

The preorders started yesterday.

I originally was so excited that I wanted to buy the Collector's Edition of the Playtest Hardcover.

Now that I'm so skeptical of the game's math engine, I no longer want to buy a physical copy at all.

This has actively affected my decision to give Paizo money, right now.

I can wait til August, sure, but by then I won't be able to get the book I was considering buying. This has cost Paizo my money.

That's why it matters, they're asking for money now without giving me enough reason to justify it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the reason Paizo is taking preorders for the playtest rules is because some people might want them as collector's items, and this is the primary reason it's not "PDF only" (which is a pretty standard way to playtest something like this).

So I don't think Paizo is put out if one person doesn't want to buy the print copy of the playtest rules- they will just print one less.

I mean, I never wanted a paper copy of the playtest rules (the PDF is fine for me, and I don't really want to devote shelf space to a game I won't play once the real CRB comes out), but I'm still excited for the playtest and not making a big deal about whether I'm going to buy it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The preorders open next week, not yesterday, because they want to give people the option to pick up at Gen Con.

The justification for asking for money is that it costs money to print books, they can print the beta rules cheaper than someone who has the PDFs can print it at a print shop.

However, the point of the Beta Rules is that they are playtest rules, there was always going to be stuff in there that are in there for the purposes of testing (and modifying in the final version).

I'm far less skeptical about the "more dice" model of damage than you are, but it's a playtest. The point is to find out whether your skepticism is justified or not. Their true goal is to sell the final game, not the playtest version of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Given the hours of labor that have gone into it, the playtest is hardly a profit-focussed venture anyhow. I don't think they want you to buy the playtest hardcover unless you really want it. (They're printing pretty much to order, as I understand it).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you can't understand, or outright refuse to try to understand, the math of bell curves no matter how many times we try to explain;

If you won't let go of the fact that Power Attack is mathematically demonstrated to still be good, or this weird notion that now that it's not the crazy mandatory overpowered option the only other thing it can somehow be is useless with nothing in between;

If you can't wrap your head around the fact that they have shown like 1% of the Fighter, if that, and there are tons of other feats and options for martials we just haven't seen yet;

Then sure, maybe preordering the playtest book isn't for you. There's still going to be a free PDF. Just, please, stop spamming the hostility toward math you clearly don't get in every thread.


I apologize, but I find your posts incredibly condescending, as if I don't understand what a playtest is, or that it costs money to print books.

You are not reassuring me.

I personally cannot justify spending money on a playtest that I've lost faith in and if we're not getting the Preorders until the 27th (it has been changed to accommodate shipping options).

They wouldn't offer different versions of the playtest book if they weren't trying to make money.


Kain Dragonhand wrote:
Yes, I really want to DM a game where the dice matter more. Why? Because it is a game where you throw dice, always has been. If you want to convert it more and more to a video game, house rule it. When I DM my players actually roll for their stats, and roll for their HP *GASP* the variance there is not difficult for me to handle and my players will tell you they are having a good time.

Do you consider it more "video game"-like if, say, a group runs a diceless roleplaying game? Or where players prefer point-buy to hoping to get good stats delivered from the dice gods? What if a player said to you that they weren't having a good time because they rolled crappy stats and didn't enjoy playing an underpowered character?


Coming from a play by post background, Dice- as a random element- feel MORE videogamey to me than non-dice


It does genuinely seem like "whether or not someone buys a limited release collector's item" is something that is only the concern of the person making the decision. I don't think anybody should be moved by anybody else's choice of which books to buy or not buy.

So like your "I was excited but now I'm not" feeling is genuine and meaningful, it's not really relevant whether or not you're gonna buy a collector's item because of it. I mean, maybe something will happen between now and when the preorders close and you'll change your mind. Who can know? But dollars don't automatically make feelings mean more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

I apologize, but I find your posts incredibly condescending, as if I don't understand what a playtest is, or that it costs money to print books.

You are not reassuring me.

I personally cannot justify spending money on a playtest that I've lost faith in and if we're not getting the Preorders until the 27th (it has been changed to accommodate shipping options).

They wouldn't offer different versions of the playtest book if they weren't trying to make money.

Sorry if you found my comment condescending. It wasn't meant to be. Nor was I trying to persuade you to change your mind or to "reassure" you.

I don't think the fact they're offering a collectors' edition shows they are seeking profit. They've articulated the reason for it and their motivation is because of the fondness people speak of their PF1 Beta copies.

I'm sure they'll make a bit of profit, it's just clearly not the main driver of this product.


Steve Geddes wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

I apologize, but I find your posts incredibly condescending, as if I don't understand what a playtest is, or that it costs money to print books.

You are not reassuring me.

I personally cannot justify spending money on a playtest that I've lost faith in and if we're not getting the Preorders until the 27th (it has been changed to accommodate shipping options).

They wouldn't offer different versions of the playtest book if they weren't trying to make money.

Sorry if you found my comment condescending. It wasn't meant to be. Nor was I trying to persuade you to change your mind or to "reassure" you.

I don't think the fact they're offering a collectors' edition shows they are seeking profit. They've articulated the reason for it and their motivation is because of the fondness people speak of their PF1 Beta copies.

I'm sure they'll make a bit of profit, it's just clearly not the main driver of this product.

Yours was not the post I was referring to, I was more or less referring to the same 3-4 people who insist that I don;t understand the math of bell curves (especially given that my understanding of them is exactly what my problem is) or the costs of printing and shipping books.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to respond at all, I expect this thread to be closed soon due to the immaturity of the posters above who continue to flame me instead of agreeing to disagree and finding another thread to post in.


necromental wrote:
FaerieGodfather wrote:
Well, I do not agree with you there. Making an effective character should be the default assumption, and it should be damned near impossible to make an ineffective character accidentally.
If all choices are (mathematically) the same, why are there choices? I'm all for raising the floor and lowering the ceiling, but I don't want to live in a 4ft tall apartment.

I mean, if we're throwing out spurious analogies, presumably you also wouldn't want to play on a baseball team where everyone else on your team gets issued a baseball glove, but you have to play outfield with a pair of mittens.

A more or less level playing field should be the default for a whole host of reasons.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Deep breaths...
In with the good air...
Out with the bad...
In with the good air...
Out with the bad...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I apologize if my post came off a little harsh. It's just frustrating seeing the same "bad design" argument over and over in the absence of even 5% of the pieces of the puzzle.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
I apologize if my post came off a little harsh. It's just frustrating seeing the same "bad design" argument over and over in the absence of even 5% of the pieces of the puzzle.

And I've praised the other pieces of the puzzle, but the theatre of combat is one where I'm noticing problems that I saw in other editions.

It's not that all the pieces are designed poorly to me, just this one. The bell curve is so wide that understanding the new CR system might be more difficult to design around, and as a DM who likes everything else being shown this displaces me.

I can only judge what's being presented to me, but to be fair Paizo wants us to place preorders, so is it really wrong to try and judge whether or not the information they've given me justifies that purchase?

I do not think this line of questioning makes me incompetent or whiny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I can only judge what's being presented to me, but to be fair Paizo wants us to place preorders, so is it really wrong to try and judge whether or not the information they've given me justifies that purchase?

I just want to drop this in here as somebody who has been on the business side of printed playtests. Paizo doesn't WANT you to place pre-orders for the playtest. They simply want to print to order, and cover costs. That's why they are asking for a headcount early. There is very little, if any, profit to made on the playtest. (The core rules are a completely different story.) The other versions of the playtest really only exist for the die-hard collectors. The work and time that went into the PDF (and its wide, free release) already likely put this into the loss column. The pricing on the physical copies is just to cover printing costs there.

The real benefit of the playtest financially (outside of the actual playtesting) comes in, ideally, by driving up pre-orders of the actual core rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

Paizo wants us to place preorders, so is it really wrong to try and judge whether or not the information they've given me justifies that purchase?

I do not think this line of questioning makes me incompetent or whiny.

If you don't care about a ceremonial copy to keep forever, then there's hardly any need to preorder the print edition. It's going to be completely useless in a year.

The actual rules and adventures being used in the pretest are going to be available for free.

The preorder is only for people who want future bragging rights about owning an actual book, a souvenir to keep on a bookshelf. It has nothing to do with the "real" rules of PF2, nor with access to the information you need to playtest the new version.

The only justification for this purpose is "I want to have a real book to prove I'm one of the super geeky gamers who collects geeky stuff."*

If you aren't a collector, there's not much point. Save your money and decide in a year if the tweaked game is valuable to you when the actual rulesbook is printed.

*or a digital-averse gamer who likes to turn physical pages searching for information.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

I can wait til August, sure, but by then I won't be able to get the book I was considering buying. This has cost Paizo my money.

That's why it matters, they're asking for money now without giving me enough reason to justify it.

I honestly doubt that Paizo are asking for your or anyone's money here, because else the PDFs wouldn't be free, which would obviously counter-productive for a playtest. Paizo just chose to provide the service of printing books for people who are really into it and if you aren't among than that's fine. Just download the PDFs and try it August.


CrystalSeas wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Paizo wants us to place preorders, so is it really wrong to try and judge whether or not the information they've given me justifies that purchase?

I do not think this line of questioning makes me incompetent or whiny.

If you don't care about a ceremonial copy to keep forever, then there's hardly any need to preorder the print edition. It's going to be completely useless in a year.

The actual rules and adventures being used in the pretest are going to be available for free.

The preorder is only for people who want future bragging rights about owning an actual book, a souvenir to keep on a bookshelf. It has nothing to do with the "real" rules of PF2, nor with access to the information you need to playtest the new version.

The only justification for this purpose is "I want to have a real book to prove I'm one of the super geeky gamers who collects geeky stuff."*

If you aren't a collector, there's not much point. Save your money and decide in a year if the tweaked game is valuable to you when the actual rulesbook is printed.

*or a digital-averse gamer who likes to turn physical pages searching for information.

To note: I game with some veterans of second and third editions who prefer dead trees to online resources.

This is a factor for my decision, perhaps not all.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

To note: I game with some veterans of second and third editions who prefer dead trees to online resources.

This is a factor for my decision, perhaps not all.

So ask everyone to pitch in their share so the group can evaluate the game.

Or are you the gatekeeper and you are the sole decider of whether or not the group even considers playing PF2?


CrystalSeas wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

To note: I game with some veterans of second and third editions who prefer dead trees to online resources.

This is a factor for my decision, perhaps not all.

So ask everyone to pitch in their share so the group can evaluate the game.

Or are you the gatekeeper and you are the sole decider of whether or not the group even considers playing PF2?

I'm about to start my next big campaign, and I usually plan them months in advance so I have rough ideas for how long the game will last.

The play test is going to drop a few months into that so I'm discussing with my group about pacing and long term decisions with regards to whether they'll want to switch systems or not. We're also all considering how many of us want to invest in a play test hardcover.


In that case, my advice would be to just get the PDF. If your group decides to go ahead with joining the playtest, have everybody chip in to get a copy or two printed and bound.


Dread Moores wrote:
In that case, my advice would be to just get the PDF. If your group decides to go ahead with joining the playtest, have everybody chip in to get a copy or two printed and bound.

I concur with your conclusion.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So you have three choices:

a) Skip the playtest entirely.
Saves you all the uncertainty and money

b) Skip the hardcopy, but use the free digital versions
Saves you uncertainty and money

c) Preorder one of the versions of the souvenir.
Order based on the bragging rights you want in future years, because the contents are going to be useless fairly shortly.

Which one of those options leaves you most unhappy?
Eliminate that one.

Which one of the remaining options leaves you least unhappy?
Choose that and quite worrying about whether Paizo has lost yoru trust.

Honestly I think "regret" and "FOMO" are your big problems here, not whether Paizo has created a first draft that you approve of.


CrystalSeas wrote:

So you have three choices:

a) Skip the playtest entirely.
Saves you all the uncertainty and money

b) Skip the hardcopy, but use the free digital versions
Saves you uncertainty and money

c) Preorder one of the versions of the souvenir.
Order based on the bragging rights you want in future years, because the contents are going to be useless fairly shortly.

Which one of those options leaves you most unhappy?
Eliminate that one.

Which one of the remaining options leaves you least unhappy?
Choose that and quite worrying about whether Paizo has lost yoru trust.

Honestly I think "regret" and "FOMO" are your big problems here, not whether Paizo has created a first draft that you approve of.

Your assessment may prove to be true, but I do believe, contrary to the conjecture of my peanut gallery, that Paizo may have more features to show off that mitigate the problems I have noticed in the math with regards to the size of the bell curve.

For instance, not unlike the new shield mechanics, there may be more active defense options that reduce damage which can help on the higher end of the curve, and there may be reroll or similar mechanics that help players eliminate bad rolls on the lower end of the curve. The result may be a more elegant system that is simpler in execution and still yields the more consistent design philosophy that mirrors everything else they've presented in the system.

I'm still optimistic, but not based off the information available. If hero points or some other mechanic prove this then I might still want this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dread Moores wrote:
In that case, my advice would be to just get the PDF. If your group decides to go ahead with joining the playtest, have everybody chip in to get a copy or two printed and bound.

Lets see... there is a lot of price variation for BW printing and binding, but you'll need to get at or under $30 to make it worth while. Assume about $5 or so for the binding. It might be more since 200 sheets of paper is one of the bigger binding sized available. That means you'd have to get a price per page of (25/400=.062) six cents per page or lower.

Of course, there will be parts you won't have to print out for players. You can probably skip the treasure portion and probably the races and classes as well. Passing around a tablet or laptop should work alright for bits you only need to create a character or level up.

If you only want to print out combat and task resolution, it is a much more manageable process and you can likely get more than one set for the same $30 cost.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

aren't hero points part of the core game? depending on how many you get and if they regenerate, that would probably help with the lower end of the curve.


MMCJawa wrote:
aren't hero points part of the core game? depending on how many you get and if they regenerate, that would probably help with the lower end of the curve.

This is my hope as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't mention it in the OP because I didn't expect it to happen, but wizards counterspell with the reaction... skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


master_marshmallow wrote:
I didn't mention it in the OP because I didn't expect it to happen, but wizards counterspell with the reaction... skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Does that actually bother you? This is something most people have wanted since forever. No one uses counterspell as presented in 3.x / PF1, unless you're fighting a lich or something with a party to back you up, because it's so incredibly awkward. Counterspell as a reaction will allow cool magical back and forth much more readily.

If the concern is them being able to do it "at will" and thus having two opposing casters always completely negate each other, I really don't think they're going to do that. There will be some kind of limit on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that was a joyful sound, marshmallow's been using unchained economy with house rules for some time now, and I think something like reaction counterspell was one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I didn't mention it in the OP because I didn't expect it to happen, but wizards counterspell with the reaction... skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Does that actually bother you? This is something most people have wanted since forever. No one uses counterspell as presented in 3.x / PF1, unless you're fighting a lich or something with a party to back you up, because it's so incredibly awkward. Counterspell as a reaction will allow cool magical back and forth much more readily.

If the concern is them being able to do it "at will" and thus having two opposing casters always completely negate each other, I really don't think they're going to do that. There will be some kind of limit on it.

Caster wars made the game better, as spellcasters became less reliable and dominated combat less, which made martial characters, in addition to being more free and mobile, more important and instrumental to the theater of combat.

This is a good thing!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I didn't mention it in the OP because I didn't expect it to happen, but wizards counterspell with the reaction... skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Does that actually bother you? This is something most people have wanted since forever. No one uses counterspell as presented in 3.x / PF1, unless you're fighting a lich or something with a party to back you up, because it's so incredibly awkward. Counterspell as a reaction will allow cool magical back and forth much more readily.

If the concern is them being able to do it "at will" and thus having two opposing casters always completely negate each other, I really don't think they're going to do that. There will be some kind of limit on it.

Even if it is at-will, if Counterspelling keeps the current restrictions [Same Spell, Specially Opposed Spell or Dispel With a Dice Roll] it's not the sort of thing where opposing casters would completely negate each other. Any given caster only has so many of a given spell or spell slots of a given level [and usually one won't waste a higher level to counter a lower level] and Dispel Magic Counterspelling is not guaranteed.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I didn't mention it in the OP because I didn't expect it to happen, but wizards counterspell with the reaction... skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Does that actually bother you? This is something most people have wanted since forever. No one uses counterspell as presented in 3.x / PF1, unless you're fighting a lich or something with a party to back you up, because it's so incredibly awkward. Counterspell as a reaction will allow cool magical back and forth much more readily.

If the concern is them being able to do it "at will" and thus having two opposing casters always completely negate each other, I really don't think they're going to do that. There will be some kind of limit on it.

Even if it is at-will, if Counterspelling keeps the current restrictions [Same Spell, Specially Opposed Spell or Dispel With a Dice Roll] it's not the sort of thing where opposing casters would completely negate each other. Any given caster only has so many of a given spell or spell slots of a given level [and usually one won't waste a higher level to counter a lower level] and Dispel Magic Counterspelling is not guaranteed.

I was actually a big fan of the rules for Spell Duels and Duels that are in both Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic.

For my general rules, I gated those mechanics behind Improved Counterspell, defaulting to needing Dispel Magic or the specific counter (such as slow vs haste etc) without it.

It worked wonders, and I had a player specifically build an exploiter wizard focused on Dispelling and Countering that otherwise wouldn't have been that playable.

Abilities like the Counterspell Subschool and the Counterspell exploit granted additional reactions that could be used to counter, making them the Combat Reflexes of spellcasting.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
I didn't mention it in the OP because I didn't expect it to happen, but wizards counterspell with the reaction... skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Geez Marshy! Could ya keep it down! Some of the other threads are tryin' ta sleep!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do relish the opportunity to play a counterspell focused spellcaster. I wanna do Magical Aikido.


Aristophanes wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I didn't mention it in the OP because I didn't expect it to happen, but wizards counterspell with the reaction... skreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Geez Marshy! Could ya keep it down! Some of the other threads are tryin' ta sleep!

Only one friend I've ever had has ever called me Marshy.

Then again, you guys probably don't know my first name is Marshall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so rogues.

Rogues in my game rules had always been built around the paradigm of DEX/Damage, because the RAE came out in the same book. This matters for the math of game design.

Feinting became a much more popular maneuver, and rogues often acquired TWF to better trigger more sneak attack with it. Comparing the options had in PF1 to the options as presented in PF2, the builds really only have a difference of one or two levels before they come online. It's later in PF2, assuming the rogue spends their feats and talents on Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting, and then Improved Feint. For Humans, this means that the combat build was done at 3rd level. Greater Feint becomes necessary later on for sneak attack all turn, but given haste becoming a factor as early as 5th level, a rogue's turn would look something like: [feint]/+x-2\+x-2 (with sneak attack)/[feint]/+x-2\+x-2 (with sneak attack). Unless they moved, in which case it was something like [move]/[feint]/+x-2\+x-2 (with sneak attack)/+x (no sneak attack). Because of the way the action system worked however, I did fudge/interpret that a single act split into two attacks by TWF counted as a single act attack for the purpose of resolving the Feint. I'm nice I guess.

However, the action system still allowed, with no feat investment, a rogue to feint and still sneak attack at least once per round with no feat investment. Feinting however is not the only option, as things like Dirty Trick also have the capability of triggering sneak attack, and while they require more feat investment, it's possible to build without the need for 13 INT by taking Dirty Fighting. This became an option for rogues who either didn't want to invest in Bluff, or had poor enough CHA to make feinting unreliable.

Potential in combat changed significantly, with TWF no longer married to the full round action, it became the defacto mode of combat for anyone not Power Attack + high STR based (unless they weren't a rogue and focused on amping up single weapon damage like swashbucklers/daring champions et all). This created a much more diverse playing field for both my NPCs and my players as there was no longer one combat style to rule them all, in melee at least. Archery and guns/alchemical weapons became the pinacles of ranged combat.

Ultimately the improvements to the game system itself changed the rogue into a functional class in combat without needing to change anything as written for the class itself.

As rogues seem to be the master of skills in PF2, and the ideal is for those skills to replace combat maneuvers in PF2, we may see even more versatility in how rogues play and invest their skills creating mathematically parallel styles, with different role playing flavors. I am unsure how to exactly interpret this as of this post.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I do relish the opportunity to play a counterspell focused spellcaster. I wanna do Magical Aikido.

Caster Wars were a heavy focus of this play style. I think you'd love it.

It did in the end create a new problem in how many reactions we could spend, creating a chain of them which we would have needed to resolve backwards (like in a TCG). My conclusion when this came up in play was not to allow it because I didn't wanna have to deal with the implications of multiple counters going off to counter someone else's counter, since that would have created a game space that I thought would be unhealthy. Having finally had the chance to play in this system instead of DM it I may be coming around to finding a better balance for it, if I ever play PF1 again.

101 to 146 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / I want my 15 minutes All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion