So at level 20 all your base saves and attack bonus are +20. I think I read somewhere that the spell dc's are actually based on spell levels so they remain the same as in 1st edition.
First of all this means everyone (and everything) will have a much easier time resisting spells than before. For many classes two base saves of +6 will go up by 14 points to 20. Regarding closing the gab bewtween martial and casting classes I think this is mainly a good thing. Ofcourse this may even allow for a spells with a bit more oomph! and reverse the taming of the spell list that happened in 3.5 and pathfinder 1st.
Also I am really curious about the proficiency levels the spells themselves will have. I wonder if specialist wizard will have higher proficiency with their chosen school and lower with their banned schools. I also wonder if a "normal" wizard will be supposed to choose specific spells to increase their proficiency level in or all his spells will be in the same level.
Contrary to all that a wizard will also have the same attack bonus of +20 as the fighter, at least with their trained weapon. Fighters actually will reach +23 with legendary proficiency. The question here is how much difference the fighter's class features, legendary proficiency and maybe magic sword will make. My guess is paizo will be smart enough to make sure that this difference is satisfactory.
Another interesting thing is the fact that +1 bonus every level and a proficiency level progression up to legendary creates a semi quadratic progression for everyone, which i guess fits the 1st editions logarithmic cr progression in power.
What do you all think?
Hmm so a 10th levels spells dc will be 20 + attribute? isn't that to low? cause at level 20 then I would have 20 + attribute so I save on a 1?
|
We have no idea how spell DCs work, and I actually heard that they were no longer determined by spell level. They could easily be 10 + Character Level + Casting Stat Mod, just for example.
Also, spells don't appear to have or interact with Proficiency. We got a specific list of things that did (Saves, Armor, Weapons, and Skills) and Spells were nowhere to be found on said list.
I think the most interesting implication is that we may be adding level to AC. Armor Proficiency is a listed thing, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They haven't told us much about spells, but I believe they have mentioned that spell DCs do scale with character level and are not static. What will be static about spells is damage and duration. The design principle here is probably to make low level buffs less powerful/mandatory for high level parties, while Low level attack spells that create effects will still be useful, even at higher levels.
I remain concerned indeed. Trully wondering how is the DC math working for this time around, since what the player want is to make whatever it is fail the save critically, not just fail, which now might not amount to much.
Still, without the spells and the whole math it is impossible to say. For all we know now there are plenty of items to increase the DC or feats.
We have no idea how spell DCs work, and I actually heard that they were no longer determined by spell level. They could easily be 10 + Character Level + Casting Stat Mod, just for example.
Also, spells don't appear to have or interact with Proficiency. We got a specific list of things that did (Saves, Armor, Weapons, and Skills) and Spells were nowhere to be found.
http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkm3?Are-You-Proficient
"You don't just have proficiency in weapons, which helps when you swing a sword, or proficiency in armor, which protects you when you try to avoid a blow—instead, proficiency covers everything from axes to spells"
It mentions spells... then again I am sure i read a Mark Seifter posts that says that spell level sets the dc. I can't find it though.
|
|
http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkm3?Are-You-Proficient
"You don't just have proficiency in weapons, which helps when you swing a sword, or proficiency in armor, which protects you when you try to avoid a blow—instead, proficiency covers everything from axes to spells"
It mentions spells... then again I am sure i read a Mark Seifter posts that says that spell level sets the dc. I can't find it though.
Interesting, I'd forgotten that.
I'd assume it'd be one bonus for all spells (or more accurately all, say, Arcane Spells), and would add to Save DC, but I suppose those are just assumptions...
I will try to spin faster to make this anticipation end quicker Senpai Deadmanwalking.
Yet the only thing your spinning achieved is a goblin preview.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very sorry Senpai John John.
It mentions spells... then again I am sure i read a Mark Seifter posts that says that spell level sets the dc. I can't find it though.
You are misremembering- it's the opposite. Spell DCs are the same for all your spells.
Your spell DC should be be 10 + your level + proficiency + ability score mod, based on what we've seen.
Hmm so pretty well same formula we will be using to figure out our saves. That seems super balanced if nothing else.
As of right now Without feats and class abilities this game would be overly simplistic.
As of right now Without feats and class abilities this game would be overly simplistic.
… Well, yeah. If you played PF1 without feats, class abilities, and racial traits (which are called feats now), there'd be nothing left. Spell DCs wouldn't even come up, because spells are class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats true. It wasn't a criticism I was thinking of it as a feature. It seems like it will be easy to teach new players. Under the hood will be very simple and the the things they see like class features etc will be right out front.
Thats true. It wasn't a criticism I was thinking of it as a feature. It seems like it will be easy to teach new players. Under the hood will be very simple and the the things they see like class features etc will be right out front.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah, it'll be really nice to cut down on the new player onboarding time. I used to really love it, but it's gotten to feel a little more chore-like after a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It mentions spells... then again I am sure i read a Mark Seifter posts that says that spell level sets the dc. I can't find it though.You are misremembering- it's the opposite. Spell DCs are the same for all your spells.
Your spell DC should be be 10 + your level + proficiency + ability score mod, based on what we've seen.
Yeah I searched for the quote but coudn't find it.
I guess this means even low level spells have a chance at success now. I am inclined to believe this is a good thing.
I know I am making A LOT of assumptions, but as an example:
So a wizard with dominate 10+20 level +12 intelliegence=42 dc and a fighter 20level+ 4 wisdom+ 5 resistance=29 needs a 13 to resist a 5th (or Xth) level spell.
Hmm so pretty well same formula we will be using to figure out our saves. That seems super balanced if nothing else.
As of right now Without feats and class abilities this game would be overly simplistic.
My guess is that feat, class abilities AND proficiency levels will have a much bigger impact than they did before.
I'm kind of thinking their is going to be fewer spells per day from how things are shaping up. Hard to say for sure. Igther that or some spells just won't be good at higher levels. like how sleep has that hd cap right now. damage spells being static.
Did they actually say that you get +1 proficiency per level?
I might well have missed that.
I like the idea of spells being easier to resist. It helps reduce the gap that is C/MD. That was one of the ways 2e reduced the gap - as you got higher level, it was easier to resist spells and other effects.
As for the mere +5 difference, there were some good math threads a few weeks back that showed just how wide +5 can be. I'll see if I can find some of them later today.
I know I am making A LOT of assumptions, but as an example:
So a wizard with dominate 10+20 level +12 intelliegence=42 dc and a fighter 20level+ 4 wisdom+ 5 resistance=29 needs a 13 to resist a 5th (or Xth) level spell.
That wizard would be rolling around with a 34 Int score, at minimum. He'd be on par with Mephistopheles. Quite the assumption.
Did they actually say that you get +1 proficiency per level?
I might well have missed that.
They talked about it in relation to skills, I believe, and everything else using proficiency works the same way (except how you get better proficiency).
That wizard would be rolling around with a 34 Int score, at minimum. He'd be on par with Mephistopheles. Quite the assumption.I know I am making A LOT of assumptions, but as an example:
So a wizard with dominate 10+20 level +12 intelliegence=42 dc and a fighter 20level+ 4 wisdom+ 5 resistance=29 needs a 13 to resist a 5th (or Xth) level spell.
That's not the assumption, the assumption is it will be the same intelligence a "normal" 20th level wizard will have in pathfinder 1st edition at 20th level. 16basic+2race+5levels+5tome+6 headband=34.
That wizard would be rolling around with a 34 Int score, at minimum. He'd be on par with Mephistopheles. Quite the assumption.I know I am making A LOT of assumptions, but as an example:
So a wizard with dominate 10+20 level +12 intelliegence=42 dc and a fighter 20level+ 4 wisdom+ 5 resistance=29 needs a 13 to resist a 5th (or Xth) level spell.That's not the assumption, the assumption is it will be the same intelligence a "normal" 20th level wizard will have in pathfinder 1st edition at 20th level. 16basic+2race+5levels+5tome+6 headband=34.
But the wizard certainly won't have a +6 headband, and Dominate person will not be save = nothing happens, fail = you lose. So even in your example, the fighter would only have a 15% chance of being fully dominated, which is probably skewed farther into the wizard's favor than the math will probably be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I searched for the quote but coudn't find it.
I guess this means even low level spells have a chance at success now. I am inclined to believe this is a good thing.
I know I am making A LOT of assumptions, but as an example:
So a wizard with dominate 10+20 level +12 intelliegence=42 dc and a fighter 20level+ 4 wisdom+ 5 resistance=29 needs a 13 to resist a 5th (or Xth) level spell.
There are three things wrong with this assumed setup:
1. That PCs can get to 34 in a stat. They've pretty strongly indicated no stat-boosting items, and while the leveling boost to Abilities is gonna be much more generous it's almost certainly gonna cap at 26 or 28 (based on the math we've got).
2. Likewise, Cloaks of Resistance are very explicitly not gonna be a thing.
3. If spells use Proficiency you should add that, though that's true on Saves as well, so it's a wash math-wise...except that almost nobody's gonna be Legendary in all three Saves, while the Wizard probably will be Legendary in either all spells, or at least in one School of Magic.
So, at 20th, it's more like:
10 + 20 Level + 8-9 Int +3 Proficiency = DC 41 to DC 42 for the Wizard on his best spells, while the Fighter has 20 Level + 4-6 Stat +0-3 Proficiency (depending on which Saves he's good at) or +24 to +29 on Saves (possibly a bit more if he's, say, Dex based). Thus needing between a 12 and a 18 (or thereabouts) to Save (maybe less if the Fighter is particularly focused on Dex, Con, or Wis).
Which seems reasonable.
But the wizard certainly won't have a +6 headband, and Dominate person will not be save = nothing happens, fail = you lose. So even in your example, the fighter would only have a 15% chance of being fully dominated, which is probably skewed farther into the wizard's favor than the math will probably be.That wizard would be rolling around with a 34 Int score, at minimum. He'd be on par with Mephistopheles. Quite the assumption.I know I am making A LOT of assumptions, but as an example:
So a wizard with dominate 10+20 level +12 intelliegence=42 dc and a fighter 20level+ 4 wisdom+ 5 resistance=29 needs a 13 to resist a 5th (or Xth) level spell.That's not the assumption, the assumption is it will be the same intelligence a "normal" 20th level wizard will have in pathfinder 1st edition at 20th level. 16basic+2race+5levels+5tome+6 headband=34.
Are you saying +6 headbands won't be a thing?
Not that I mind, just asking.
They've pretty strongly indicated no stat-boosting items,
Wow interesting, I must have missed that. Its in the blog posts?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow interesting, I must have missed that. Its in the blog posts?
They've pretty strongly indicated no stat-boosting items,
I don't think so. But I've run into it several places (in podcasts with them talking about the new edition, for example).
To be really clear what they said, they specified that they didn't want people worried about the 'big 6' magic items or the like that just gave flat bonuses, instead focusing on cooler items (and used Cloaks of Resistance as an example of what they'd like to get rid of).
They did say you probably needed two items or so (a magic weapon and armor, basically)...but it's an explicit goal to have nothing beyond that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have confirmation that stat-boosting items won’t be part of the game. I would not be surprised to see stats peak at 20 or so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have confirmation that stat-boosting items won’t be part of the game. I would not be surprised to see stats peak at 20 or so.
If they stick strictly to the Starfinder level-up formula they'll cap at 22.
I'm not at all sure they're doing quite that, but that's the conservative number. The least conservative (assuming they don't restrain high stats like they do in Starfinder and allow starting stats of 20) would be a max of 28.
I suspect the actual number might be in the middle there, but those are the likely range of stat-maxes based on the info we have. The math seems to currently favor the 26-28 stat cap (because you can have a 17-18 point difference in skill bonus at 20th level), but that might be just because we're missing something.
We have confirmation that stat-boosting items won’t be part of the game. I would not be surprised to see stats peak at 20 or so.If they stick strictly to the Starfinder level-up formula they'll cap at 22.
I'm not at all sure they're doing quite that, but that's the conservative number. The least conservative (assuming they don't restrain high stats like they do in Starfinder and allow starting stats of 20) would be a max of 28.
I suspect the actual number might be in the middle there, but those are the likely range of stat-maxes based on the info we have. The math seems to currently favor the 26-28 stat cap (because you can have a 17-18 point difference in skill bonus at 20th level), but that might be just because we're missing something.
I’m guessing a lower stat cap (a spread of +0 to +5 would match proficiency’s -2 to +3), with skills having legendary tools for +3 (confirmed) and something like skill focus (unconfirmed) to make up the difference. I would expect skills’ spreads to be larger than saves in a number of areas.
|
|
I’m guessing a lower stat cap (a spread of +0 to +5 would match proficiency’s -2 to +3), with skills having legendary tools for +3 (confirmed) and something like skill focus (unconfirmed) to make up the difference. I would expect skills’ spreads to be larger than saves in a number of areas.
Well, at the moment, we have a 5 point swing from Proficiency and potentially another 5 (but more likely 3) from tools, so that leaves 7-10 for Ability plus whatever else there is.
Skill Focus for +3 and a stat cap of 22 would do this, but so would several other possibilities...and frankly, Skill Focus is a weird Feat to exist in this system as presented. Though I suppose it would be nice for people who want skill to give a bigger bonus than it does due to Proficiency bonus alone...
I do think 22 is the absolute minimum stat-cap given that 1st level characters can provably have an 18 and there are four stat up opportunities by level 20.
Starfinder does have items that let you boost stats, but they are basically treatments that permanently boost the ability scores in question. I could easily see PF2 modifying tomes to provide similar bonuses. As I recall, the overall maximum bonuses in Starfinder are +6 to one stat, +4 to a 2nd stat, and +2 to a 3rd.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Starfinder does have items that let you boost stats, but they are basically treatments that permanently boost the ability scores in question. I could easily see PF2 modifying tomes to provide similar bonuses. As I recall, the overall maximum bonuses in Starfinder are +6 to one stat, +4 to a 2nd stat, and +2 to a 3rd.
This is true, and it could indeed be done this way (the math would synch up). I legitimately kinda hope they don't go this route, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess would be a smaller, stackable skill focus. The reason I could see 16 as the starting limit is they talked about abilities being built from ancestry, background, and class. If each of those is +2, there’s 16.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess would be a smaller, stackable skill focus. The reason I could see 16 as the starting limit is they talked about abilities being built from ancestry, background, and class. If each of those is +2, there’s 16.
That's logical enough, but every single sample 1st level character they had in the demo games had an 18 in one stat or another, so 18s are definitely in.
I suspect it's because, after bonuses from all those things you list, there's also a small pool of additional points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess would be a smaller, stackable skill focus. The reason I could see 16 as the starting limit is they talked about abilities being built from ancestry, background, and class. If each of those is +2, there’s 16.That's logical enough, but every single sample 1st level character they had in the demo games had an 18 in one stat or another, so 18s are definitely in.
I suspect it's because, after bonuses from all those things you list, there's also a small pool of additional points.
Oh, you’re right! I had forgotten that, thanks. I could also see class giving a full +4 in its main stat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, you’re right! I had forgotten that, thanks. I could also see class giving a full +4 in its main stat.
Also totally possible (and consistent with the characters presented), though I'd bet that you still get some 'free points' to customize with.
This is particularly true since Kyra (in the aforementioned demos) has been confirmed with Str 14, Dex 12, Wis 18, Cha 14...which is a minimum of 18 points total, assuming 1 for 1 (possibly more if her Con and/or Int are above 10, though I suspect they are not...or if going above 16 cost extra or something, which is possible).
In fact, given that Ancestry gives a floating +2, you may gain such free points in each stage.
Actually, that would make a lot of sense. Something like this:
Ancestry: Two specific +2s, one -2, one floating +2 (probably two floating +2s and no penalty for Humans).
Background: Two specific +2, one floating +2
Class: One +4 in core stat (you may get a choice, like Fighter getting Str or Dex, or Paladin Str or Cha), +2 in secondary core stat (whichever didn't get picked for the +4), one floating +2.
Floating stats obviously couldn't go in any of the stats that got a bonus in that stage (so no boosting cha to +4 for Goblins).
Something like that would be pretty straightforward and give enough customization to get to 16 even in a stat that none of your choices boost inherently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found one of the posts showing how a +5 can make a big difference in the new four-tiered success system:
The text behind the spoiler is one of the examples from the link.
- The untrained critically fumbles on a 1 (5%); fails on a 2-10 (45%); and succeeds on a 11-20 (50%). They cannot critically succeed.
- The legendary character cannot critically fumble; fails on a 1-5 (25%); succeeds on a 6-15 (50%) and critically succeeds on a 16-20 (25%).
So, say these characters are scaling an icy cliff ahead of the GM's army of 1001 advanced arboreal fiendish yeti. A failure may mean they gain no ground, while a success lets them climb fast enough to keep ahead; a critical fumble sends them plumetting into yeti-swarm-death; a critical success lets them climb twice as far and gain ground ahead of the yeti.
The legendary character should keep ahead of the yeti-death reasonably easily - but it isn't a sure thing and they're still going to be sweating a little when they roll the dice. The odds of moving twice the speed of the yeti is equal to the odds of not moving at all - averaging out to match the yeti's advanced and templated climb speed.
The untrained character is in serious trouble. They can escape yeti-death, but each round has a 5% chance of falling, and they'll on average only move at half the speed of their yeti pursuers. Their initial lead gives them some leeway... but unless they roll well, a very toothy fate awaits.
Can +5 be a big deal? Absolutely.
Not to mention that the legendary climber might have a skill feat that lets you climb his full speed, double on a critical success, or be able to take 10 even when in danger to avoid possible failing.
In that particular example, it was impossible for the legendary climber to fall, as the critical failure was the only way to fall. The legendary climber could not possibly get a critical failure.
|
Not to mention that the legendary climber might have a skill feat that lets you climb his full speed, double on a critical success, or be able to take 10 even when in danger to avoid possible failing.In that particular example, it was impossible for the legendary climber to fall, as the critical failure was the only way to fall. The legendary climber could not possibly get a critical failure.
By fail, I meant not progress. Since he can always take 10, he will always be moving forward and never get stuck, where as poor untrained guy will be struggling and be totally dependent on rolls.
By fail, I meant not progress. Since he can always take 10, he will always be moving forward and never get stuck, where as poor untrained guy will be struggling and be totally dependent on rolls.Not to mention that the legendary climber might have a skill feat that lets you climb his full speed, double on a critical success, or be able to take 10 even when in danger to avoid possible failing.In that particular example, it was impossible for the legendary climber to fall, as the critical failure was the only way to fall. The legendary climber could not possibly get a critical failure.
I totally misread your post. You said "failing" and I misread it as "falling."
Wow interesting, I must have missed that. Its in the blog posts?
They've pretty strongly indicated no stat-boosting items,I don't think so. But I've run into it several places (in podcasts with them talking about the new edition, for example).
To be really clear what they said, they specified that they didn't want people worried about the 'big 6' magic items or the like that just gave flat bonuses, instead focusing on cooler items (and used Cloaks of Resistance as an example of what they'd like to get rid of).
They did say you probably needed two items or so (a magic weapon and armor, basically)...but it's an explicit goal to have nothing beyond that.
This has been attempted in many houserules for 3rd edition. Having magic items that have cool effects instead of giving straight up bonuses.
The problem is magic weapons and armor are supposed to be better in their main function so I am not sure how they will solve that.I guess magic weapons and armor could give small bonuses up to 3 max (like legendary proficiency).
Actually the more I learn the more curious I become on how they will go about solving all these issues.
|
|
This has been attempted in many houserules for 3rd edition. Having magic items that have cool effects instead of giving straight up bonuses.
The problem is magic weapons and armor are supposed to be better in their main function so I am not sure how they will solve that.I guess magic weapons and armor could give small bonuses up to 3 max (like legendary proficiency).
Actually the more I learn the more curious I become on how they will go about solving all these issues.
Well, they seem to be solving it by still having magic weapons and armor that are flatly better than normal weapons and armor. They're just ditching all other items that just add numbers.
I hate to be a bother, but if magic weapons and armor will be adding bonuses, do we have any indication on their range? 1-3 or 1-5?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to be a bother, but if magic weapons and armor will be adding bonuses. Do we have any indication on their range? 1-3 or 1-5?
All we know is that a +1 weapon adds the weapon's die in additional damage. So, a +1 Greataxe does 2d12 damage.
We have no real idea of they add to attack bonus at all. Personally, I suspect that attack bonuses are left to Proficiency Quality (ie: Legendary Quality Greatxe with +3 to hit), while +X weapons just add damage dice.
So a theoretical Legendary +5 Greatxe would have +3 to hit for 6d12 damage per hit, which sounds fine to me. But everything beyond the bonus dice of damage is pure speculation.
I hate to be a bother, but if magic weapons and armor will be adding bonuses. Do we have any indication on their range? 1-3 or 1-5?
We have a dev mention of a +4 weapon, which apparently does some pretty awesome stuff. We know that a +1 weapon gives +1 attack and +1 damage die.