Almost everything in the new fighter preview is a red flag.


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 121 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Noir le Lotus wrote:
Well if only fighters have it in the party but all monsters can do it too, that won't change a lot : your party will remain unable to move ...

It was my understanding that while some monsters will make Attacks of Opportunity most will not be able to do so. Which is definitely a positive change, since in my games nobody ever seemed to get an AoO except for people (and monsters) with reach, which is fine for the PCs to dissuade the monsters from getting close but less good when the monsters dissuade the PCs from getting close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that being able to move attack move will REALLY lend itself to more mobile combats. Like if you gave everyone right now in version 1 spring attack for free would everyone use it? Things to me seem to say no, most would still stand and full attack since it's doing so much more damage than spring attack would do. Same thing with version 2 I feel, whatever attack routine using 2 or more actions gives the most damage will likely be what most people will do since it's the "best" option.


I think though that "move and make two attacks" is a better option than PF1 gave to anybody without pounce, particularly since "wanting to spend that 3rd option on a -10 attack" will likely be pretty rare. We've also not seen how haste or things like twf or flurry of blows interact with this, so being able to move and flurry or move and attack thrice at +0/+0/-5 will be attractive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends, those second -5 and third -10 attacks may not be terribly accurate. Not getting stabbed back is mighty appealing.


From experience with RAE, it's always better to find something else to do with a third attack, usually tactical positioning or invoking a class feature/maneuver.

Otherwise there is no point to the new action system as far as martial characters go.


Planpanther wrote:
Depends, those second -5 and third -10 attacks may not be terribly accurate. Not getting stabbed back is mighty appealing.

This is especially true if you HAVE a fighter that has an AoO. I can see the appeal of darting around the fighter to needle a foe to see if they can provoke an move from the foe while keeping yourself relatively safe.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Noir le Lotus wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

1. PF1, nobody moved. My players had to be reminded of how to do things without provoking all the time. I think allowing movement leads to tactics, and Fighter being unique in locking things down is good.

Well if only fighters have it in the party but all monsters can do it too, that won't change a lot : your party will remain unable to move ...

Some monsters will have it doesn't mean all monsters will have it.


Malk_Content wrote:
Noir le Lotus wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

1. PF1, nobody moved. My players had to be reminded of how to do things without provoking all the time. I think allowing movement leads to tactics, and Fighter being unique in locking things down is good.

Well if only fighters have it in the party but all monsters can do it too, that won't change a lot : your party will remain unable to move ...
Some monsters will have it doesn't mean all monsters will have it.

If enough DO it would effectively stop the tactic until/unless the monster is ID'd to find out if it does. This also makes IDing humanoids CLASSES an important tactic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well that is good in my book. Needing to change up tactics is vital in my eyes for an evolving experience. Hopefully IDing monsters is encouraged right from early levels, as honestly the early levels of PF1 didn't require all that much in tactics shifting as the monsters weren't stacking on exceptions yet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
If enough DO it would effectively stop the tactic until/unless the monster is ID'd to find out if it does. This also makes IDing humanoids CLASSES an important tactic.

"Does it have Fighter levels?"

"I don't know, it isn't wearing its sign."

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It's no different than gambling on whether an opponent has Combat Reflexes in PF1. Use Knowledge to ID if a monster has AoOs or find out the hard way.


graystone wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Noir le Lotus wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

1. PF1, nobody moved. My players had to be reminded of how to do things without provoking all the time. I think allowing movement leads to tactics, and Fighter being unique in locking things down is good.

Well if only fighters have it in the party but all monsters can do it too, that won't change a lot : your party will remain unable to move ...
Some monsters will have it doesn't mean all monsters will have it.
If enough DO it would effectively stop the tactic until/unless the monster is ID'd to find out if it does. This also makes IDing humanoids CLASSES an important tactic.

Assuming that humanoid monsters *have* classes; they may be 4e/5e style things like 'hobgoblin soldier' or whatever, with enumerated special abilities that make them function *like* a class, without having to burden their stat block with tons of minor class abilities.


Starbuck_II wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:

Math counts for predicting damage outcomes, not the enjoyment players derive from playing.

That's why things are playtested instead of simulated with formulas.

Most players enjoy it when the game behaves as predicted (within a tolerance.) That is why formulas are an important part of game design.

Additionally, we have had 18 years to playtest the hell out of the system. We are pretty good at understanding how changes to rules will impact the game prima facie at this point. Formula or no.

Yeah, but combat is about more than how much damage you're dealing in a turn.

There's also a narrative component.

Players care how they deal their damage as much as how much is dealt

DM:

Farius the magnificent spins on his right heel to face the new threat before him. The glint from his lonsword is somewhat dimmed by the stain of blood dripping from its hardened edge. Farius takes an extra moment to study his opponent as he approaches, as he thinks the extra moment of pause will allow him to land a more powerful attack. He levels his blade with his hands both grasping the hilt near his right breast and forcefully thrusts it into the creatures body. A squeal, almost deafening, is heard erupting from the foe as sinue, muscle, cartilidge, and bone are unnaturally separated.

Player:
4 damage

DM:
Ok, well actually it looks mostly unharmed, and has 53 HP remaining.

If the story and math don’t mesh then it is terrible.

That Momentary pause sounds like NuPowerAttack as it takes 2 actions.

That was the idea.

Grand Lodge

Ultrace wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
4d6 drop lowest should do the trick and I only allow one reroll without ever having thoughts if the ability score is higher or lower than any given point buy. does that make me "the cancer that is killing tabletop RPGs"?

That was sarcasm, which should have been clear in context.

But I have read opinions from people who unironically think that letting players assign their stat rolls was the first surrender by tabletop gaming to the "powergaming builds&%t cancer" (that is a direct quote) who ruined RPGs from 3rd edition onward.

Which is amusing since combinations of 3d6, 4d6 drop the lowest, 18d6 total split as desired to stats, and in order/assign to scores are all variants found in my 1983 1E AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide... So those people are not only overwhelmingly archaic, they seem to think that the move from D&D to AD&D started this horrific downward spiral.

Well yes. I had friends at that time that, when it first came out, thought the DMG was an abomination that got in the way of role playing, and use of ones imagination. (My ex-brother in law still does, i think!) lol

Grand Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:

Math counts for predicting damage outcomes, not the enjoyment players derive from playing.

That's why things are playtested instead of simulated with formulas.

Most players enjoy it when the game behaves as predicted (within a tolerance.) That is why formulas are an important part of game design.

Additionally, we have had 18 years to playtest the hell out of the system. We are pretty good at understanding how changes to rules will impact the game prima facie at this point. Formula or no.

Yeah, but combat is about more than how much damage you're dealing in a turn.

There's also a narrative component.

Players care how they deal their damage as much as how much is dealt

DM:

Farius the magnificent spins on his right heel to face the new threat before him. The glint from his lonsword is somewhat dimmed by the stain of blood dripping from its hardened edge. Farius takes an extra moment to study his opponent as he approaches, as he thinks the extra moment of pause will allow him to land a more powerful attack. He levels his blade with his hands both grasping the hilt near his right breast and forcefully thrusts it into the creatures body. A squeal, almost deafening, is heard erupting from the foe as sinue, muscle, cartilidge, and bone are unnaturally separated.

Player:
4 damage

DM:
Ok, well actually it looks mostly unharmed, and has 53 HP remaining.

If the story and math don’t mesh then it is terrible.

Why does Farius have such a low strength score?

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and replies.


Aristophanes wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:

Math counts for predicting damage outcomes, not the enjoyment players derive from playing.

That's why things are playtested instead of simulated with formulas.

Most players enjoy it when the game behaves as predicted (within a tolerance.) That is why formulas are an important part of game design.

Additionally, we have had 18 years to playtest the hell out of the system. We are pretty good at understanding how changes to rules will impact the game prima facie at this point. Formula or no.

Yeah, but combat is about more than how much damage you're dealing in a turn.

There's also a narrative component.

Players care how they deal their damage as much as how much is dealt

DM:

Farius the magnificent spins on his right heel to face the new threat before him. The glint from his lonsword is somewhat dimmed by the stain of blood dripping from its hardened edge. Farius takes an extra moment to study his opponent as he approaches, as he thinks the extra moment of pause will allow him to land a more powerful attack. He levels his blade with his hands both grasping the hilt near his right breast and forcefully thrusts it into the creatures body. A squeal, almost deafening, is heard erupting from the foe as sinue, muscle, cartilidge, and bone are unnaturally separated.

Player:
4 damage

DM:
Ok, well actually it looks mostly unharmed, and has 53 HP remaining.

If the story and math don’t mesh then it is terrible.

Why does Farius have such a low strength score?

Who knows? Perhaps he felt that a beast slayer needed to be tough and agile so he favored CON and DEX. Thats kind of my point, any choices that stray from outside a very narrow path will lead down a blind alley when making a fighter. Narrative power get sacrificed on the alter of viability. Then "powergamers" get chastised for daring to divorce mechanics and flavor text so they can play the character they want in Narrative, that also has mechanics to actually do what they are supposed to do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The reverse of Stormwind does not mean you have to make a mechanically gimped character to be interesting.


I'm just now reading most of the PF2E news, so it is possible I'm not well informed...

Anyhow, I think the Fighter preview sounded interesting. Moving around, and performing maneuvers could be nice, and using shield without a huge magical AC bonus effectively might give my next Viking themed PC a better reason than RP commitment to stick with sword & board.

I don't see how an extra base damage die without modifiers would be better than a second attack at -5 in PF1E since that's basically Vital Strike, which usually isn't very appealing unless you have really big base damage dice (great for Huge Druid whatever). I guess that if the penalty to hit on the second attack produces a greater chance of missing in PF2E then the New Power Attack might be pretty nice though.

I guess there's also the Playtest, so if Power Attack really sucks maybe it will get changed. I kind of wish the new campaigns I've started recently had started in August - alas...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Devilkiller wrote:

I'm just now reading most of the PF2E news, so it is possible I'm not well informed...

Anyhow, I think the Fighter preview sounded interesting. Moving around, and performing maneuvers could be nice, and using shield without a huge magical AC bonus effectively might give my next Viking themed PC a better reason than RP commitment to stick with sword & board.

I don't see how an extra base damage die without modifiers would be better than a second attack at -5 in PF1E since that's basically Vital Strike, which usually isn't very appealing unless you have really big base damage dice (great for Huge Druid whatever). I guess that if the penalty to hit on the second attack produces a greater chance of missing in PF2E then the New Power Attack might be pretty nice though.

I guess there's also the Playtest, so if Power Attack really sucks maybe it will get changed. I kind of wish the new campaigns I've started recently had started in August - alas...

If you are giving up the -5 Attack it may not be worth it at all (unless their AC is sufficiently high that the -5 is risking a Critical Failure or the enemies DR is high enough that one big hit that is less than two hits may still deal more damage, like if they have a shield raised!) Which is okay, because many times you will still get to make that -5, just not the -10 after that.

I don't think it will gel particularly well with a sword and board fighter, which is fine not all feats should gel with all equipment choices.


In pf1 1 you are giving up a 1d8+27 at -25% base chance to hit to do +1d8, and that's never good. In PF2 you are giving up 3d8+6 at - 25% hit and - 25% crit, to do an extra 2d8 (PA does more at higher level) with 25% chance to do double of those 2d8.

Numbers are not accurate, of course, as we don't know the real numbers yet. But the point is, dice weight more than static mods now, and the first attack does much more average damage than the rest, because of the crit mechanic. New power attack is not the equivalent of old vital strike

101 to 121 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Almost everything in the new fighter preview is a red flag. All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion