Blasting in PF2


Prerelease Discussion

201 to 250 of 398 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:
I wonder why he didn't mention that when he was involved in this thread. Elemental resistances being less prevalent and weaknesses being more common is a rather big deal.

Mark is very careful not to give out major system revelations in random forum posts. Especially ones that will be covered with a blog later in the planned reveal progression. He often collates information that's already been revealed, hints at things, or occasionally even reveals minor stuff...but major reveals in a non-Blog Thread? Probably not gonna happen.


Dasrak wrote:

I wonder why he didn't mention that when he was involved in this thread. Elemental resistances being less prevalent and weaknesses being more common is a rather big deal.

Still doesn't really help with the lack of scaling, though. 1.5*6d6 (avg 31.5) from a 3rd level slot is fine for a 5th level Wizard, but is atrocious for a 10th level Wizard's 3rd level slot.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Falling hurts everyone more.
Given the HP inflation on PC's, I'd imagine most forms of environmental damage will get stepped up accordingly.

Mark doesn't seem to be allowed to reveal new information that will be covered in future blogs. He mostly just clarifies or reiterates what we have already been told.

I'm still betting powers will work better for blasting than lower level spell. And I'm holding out hope that damage riders will be the norm cuz I think that is cool as hell. Makes the game feel even more like Dark Souls.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
I wonder why he didn't mention that when he was involved in this thread. Elemental resistances being less prevalent and weaknesses being more common is a rather big deal.
Mark is very careful not to give out major system revelations in random forum posts. Especially ones that will be covered with a blog later in the planned reveal progression. He often collates information that's already been revealed, hints at things, or occasionally even reveals minor stuff...but major reveals in a non-Blog Thread? Probably not gonna happen.

Very much this. Not going to drop spoilers before the blog, but happy to mention things in their due time.

Also, PF2 weaknesses are particularly good for AoE or DoT effects, as they apply a static amount of extra damage (the 1.5x calculation on the last page is using PF1 vulnerability). So if you are fighting a bunch of monsters with weakness 25 to fire, even a tiny AoE that does minor fire damage to all of them is going to be very effective.


Weakness 25, yeesh, that's a weakness.

Liberty's Edge

Well, sort of definitionally, in order to matter Weaknesses that are flat numbers need to inflate with level. I mean, a Frost Giant is simply not gonna be bothered much by a 5 point Weakness.

I'd expect meaningful Weaknesses to be between 1/10 and 1/4 of the creature in question's HP.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
I wonder why he didn't mention that when he was involved in this thread. Elemental resistances being less prevalent and weaknesses being more common is a rather big deal.
Mark is very careful not to give out major system revelations in random forum posts. Especially ones that will be covered with a blog later in the planned reveal progression. He often collates information that's already been revealed, hints at things, or occasionally even reveals minor stuff...but major reveals in a non-Blog Thread? Probably not gonna happen.

Very much this. Not going to drop spoilers before the blog, but happy to mention things in their due time.

Also, PF2 weaknesses are particularly good for AoE or DoT effects, as they apply a static amount of extra damage (the 1.5x calculation on the last page is using PF1 vulnerability). So if you are fighting a bunch of monsters with weakness 25 to fire, even a tiny AoE that does minor fire damage to all of them is going to be very effective.

Newbie in the forum here. What means AoE and DoT?

Is there someplace where I can find all this abbreviations meaning?

Also, very nice! Just optimistic about the new monsters weaknesses/resistances system!


Mark Seifter wrote:


Also, PF2 weaknesses are particularly good for AoE or DoT effects, as they apply a static amount of extra damage (the 1.5x calculation on the last page is using PF1 vulnerability). So if you are fighting a bunch of monsters with weakness 25 to fire, even a tiny AoE that does minor fire damage to all of them is going to be very effective.

Weakness 25 to fire sounds like a lot. Is that a quotable real example of a creature in the playtest? Is that kind of weakness reserved for ice creatures, or do things like plant creatures get that high too?

Will things like cold iron or silver have the same kind of high weakness value? Or is that used for elements only?


Rodrigo Lasmoreira wrote:

Newbie in the forum here. What means AoE and DoT?

Is there someplace where I can find all this abbreviations meaning?

Also, very nice! Just optimistic about the new monsters systems!

AoE= Area of Effect, ex fireball does damage in an aoe

DoT= Damage over Time, ex bleed is a DoT effect

Google tends to be a good source for finding meanings of abbreviations (no offense meant, just answering your question), a lot of terms are commonly used between game systems.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Rodrigo Lasmoreira wrote:

Newbie in the forum here. What means AoE and DoT?

AOE= Area of Effect (like a fireball or lightning bolt spell, something that hits multiple opponents at once)

DoT= Damage Over Time (like bleed, recurring acid damage, being set on fire, etc.)

Basically spells that hit a wide area or spells and effects that cause persistent recurring damage. If you have a spell or effect that deals 5 points of fire damage every round and you cast it on a creature with Weakness 25 to fire, suddenly a seemingly minor effect is causing significant amounts of damage.

Edit: Ninja'd by 25 seconds!


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Well, sort of definitionally, in order to matter Weaknesses that are flat numbers need to inflate with level. I mean, a Frost Giant is simply not gonna be bothered much by a 5 point Weakness.

I'd expect meaningful Weaknesses to be between 1/10 and 1/4 of the creature in question's HP.

Seems a little counter intuitive, though, if stronger enemies take more damage than similar lower CR enemies. I guess the solution there is probably make a Frost Giant a huge pile of hit points, which I think I can live with.

That also means even low level elemental buffs like Sun Metal now achieve something. I used to cast it on our barbarian when we fought Frost Drakes cuz it was metal af, but 1d4 X1.5 fire damage isn't meaningful.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rodrigo Lasmoreira wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
I wonder why he didn't mention that when he was involved in this thread. Elemental resistances being less prevalent and weaknesses being more common is a rather big deal.
Mark is very careful not to give out major system revelations in random forum posts. Especially ones that will be covered with a blog later in the planned reveal progression. He often collates information that's already been revealed, hints at things, or occasionally even reveals minor stuff...but major reveals in a non-Blog Thread? Probably not gonna happen.

Very much this. Not going to drop spoilers before the blog, but happy to mention things in their due time.

Also, PF2 weaknesses are particularly good for AoE or DoT effects, as they apply a static amount of extra damage (the 1.5x calculation on the last page is using PF1 vulnerability). So if you are fighting a bunch of monsters with weakness 25 to fire, even a tiny AoE that does minor fire damage to all of them is going to be very effective.

Newbie in the forum here. What means AoE and DoT?

Is there someplace where I can find all this abbreviations meaning?

Also, very nice! Just optimistic about the new monsters weaknesses/resistances system!

AoE= Area of Effect (hit many things and trigger each weakness!)

DoT = Damage over Time (hit for a little bit each round and trigger weakness many times, like imagine acid arrow if the monster has weakness 10 to acid)

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Seems a little counter intuitive, though, if stronger enemies take more damage than similar lower CR enemies.

Well, I suppose a little, but it's actually no more so than Cold Iron being more meaningful vs. the guy with DR 20 than the one with DR 5.

You can also think of it as them being more infused with whatever power makes them vulnerable to that thing. Powerful undead being more vulnerable to Positive Energy makes perfect sense, for instance, and I can easily see more powerful Fey being more hurt by Cold Iron as well.

Captain Morgan wrote:
I guess the solution there is probably make a Frost Giant a huge pile of hit points, which I think I can live with.

I'm currently running Book 3 of Reign of Winter which features a number of Frost Giants. This is not a big change. :)

Captain Morgan wrote:
That also means even low level elemental buffs like Sun Metal now achieve something. I used to cast it on our barbarian when we fought Frost Drakes cuz it was metal af, but 1d4 X1.5 fire damage isn't meaningful.

Yeah, that's definitely a good result of this particular rule.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mark is very careful not to give out major system revelations in random forum posts.

I wouldn't consider "weaknesses will be more common, resistances will be less common" to be a major revelation, but point taken.

Mark Seifter wrote:
(the 1.5x calculation on the last page is using PF1 vulnerability)

I'm aware, but I don't actually know what typical numbers for PF2 weakness around 10th level will be so I can't exactly make comparisons there.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Well, sort of definitionally, in order to matter Weaknesses that are flat numbers need to inflate with level. I mean, a Frost Giant is simply not gonna be bothered much by a 5 point Weakness.

I'm not really sure what to think about this, because it means that any schmuck capable of dealing 1 point of fire damage can deal grievous injuries to a frost giant.

Grand Lodge

willuwontu wrote:
Rodrigo Lasmoreira wrote:

Newbie in the forum here. What means AoE and DoT?

Is there someplace where I can find all this abbreviations meaning?

Also, very nice! Just optimistic about the new monsters systems!

AoE= Area of Effect, ex fireball does damage in an aoe

DoT= Damage over Time, ex bleed is a DoT effect

Google tends to be a good source for finding meanings of abbreviations (no offense meant, just answering your question), a lot of terms are commonly used between game systems.

Wow Will, you Ninja'd 2 developers! Impressive. ;-)

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Also, PF2 weaknesses are particularly good for AoE or DoT effects, as they apply a static amount of extra damage (the 1.5x calculation on the last page is using PF1 vulnerability). So if you are fighting a bunch of monsters with weakness 25 to fire, even a tiny AoE that does minor fire damage to all of them is going to be very effective.

Weakness 25 to fire sounds like a lot. Is that a quotable real example of a creature in the playtest? Is that kind of weakness reserved for ice creatures, or do things like plant creatures get that high too?

Will things like cold iron or silver have the same kind of high weakness value? Or is that used for elements only?

Elemental resistances and damage tend to get a bit higher than weapon resistances and damage, in part because the damage for a spell is significantly higher than for a weapon hit. There is a creature in the game with Weakness 25 to vorpal weapons, which is I think the highest physical weakness around.

Liberty's Edge

Dasrak wrote:
I'm not really sure what to think about this, because it means that any schmuck capable of dealing 1 point of fire damage can deal grievous injuries to a frost giant.

Someone who hits a frost giant with fire probably should do quite a bit, shouldn't they? I mean, that seems the sort of thing that should injure and anger a frost giant.

Now, whether it'll be 'grievous' sort of depends on how big a fire weakness they have. If level 9, they'll probably have fewer than the 133 HP they have in PF1 but we're still talking HP north of 100, I'm sure. If they have only Weakness 10 or 15 then it's significant, but not crippling or anything. A 25 at that level is probably reserved for something a tad bit more flammable...which probably should be really messed up by even minor fires.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Poor Jabberwocky

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
I'm not really sure what to think about this, because it means that any schmuck capable of dealing 1 point of fire damage can deal grievous injuries to a frost giant.

Someone who hits a frost giant with fire probably should do quite a bit, shouldn't they? I mean, that seems the sort of thing that should injure and anger a frost giant.

Now, whether it'll be 'grievous' sort of depends on how big a fire weakness they have. If level 9, they'll probably have fewer than the 133 HP they have in PF1 but we're still talking HP north of 100, I'm sure. If they have only Weakness 10 or 15 then it's significant, but not crippling or anything. A 25 at that level is probably reserved for something a tad bit more flammable...which probably should be really messed up by even minor fires.

Yeah, a monster with 25 Weakness at level 9 is going to be very outside the ordinary. The 25 example was more about the situation of "If a really high level PC carries around a very low damage AoE or DoT, might it potentially be useful?"


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
There is a creature in the game with Weakness 25 to vorpal weapons, which is I think the highest physical weakness around.

Jabberwock confirmed for core? [edit: it's ninja city in here today]

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Someone who hits a frost giant with fire probably should do quite a bit, shouldn't they? I mean, that seems the sort of thing that should injure and anger a frost giant.

As I said, I don't know what to think about it. I can see the thematic side, but I can also see it being kinda crippling to the monster in other contexts.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:


As I said, I don't know what to think about it. I can see the thematic side, but I can also see it being kinda crippling to the monster in other contexts.

Let's use the lowest possible HP from DeadManWalking's estimates, 100, which he says is probably an underestimate, and suppose the frost giant had weakness 10 fire from DMW's guess to make the math simpler. That would mean that a squad of people armed with some fire attack like alchemist's fire (or a fire cantrip) could probably take it out with 8 hits, assuming 8 hits of fire did over 20 damage without the weakness. But that's still not drastically fewer hits than a squad of 1st-level greatsword-wielding warriors with high Strength would take to drop the giant. Meanwhile, in PF1, the alch-fire (or fire cantrip) is just a bad choice compared to the two-hander, taking 20 hits or more to deal 100 damage (because of poor rounding of 1.5x on odd rolls).


Dasrak wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
There is a creature in the game with Weakness 25 to vorpal weapons, which is I think the highest physical weakness around.
Jabberwock confirmed for core? [edit: it's ninja city in here today]

The Jabberwock was mentioned in today's blog, too.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Dasrak wrote:


As I said, I don't know what to think about it. I can see the thematic side, but I can also see it being kinda crippling to the monster in other contexts.
Let's use the lowest possible HP from DeadManWalking's estimates, 100, which he says is probably an underestimate, and suppose the frost giant had weakness 10 fire from DMW's guess to make the math simpler. That would mean that a squad of people armed with some fire attack like alchemist's fire (or a fire cantrip) could probably take it out with 8 hits, assuming 8 hits of fire did over 20 damage without the weakness. But that's still not drastically fewer hits than a squad of 1st-level greatsword-wielding warriors with high Strength would take to drop the giant. Meanwhile, in PF1, the alch-fire (or fire cantrip) is just a bad choice compared to the two-hander, taking 20 hits or more to deal 100 damage (because of poor rounding of 1.5x on odd rolls).

It does make things that do guaranteed damage a lot more dangerous though. For real numbers:

Alchemist's Fire does 1 damage in an aoe no matter what, which turns into 11 with weakness and kills it in 13 hits.

Pathfinder frost giant has an AC of 21, so the level one dudes are going to miss at least 3/4ths of the time, which translates to 32 swings. And thats only if the level 1 peasants can deal about 17 damage a hit.

Thematically, this has a big impact on how dangerous monsters with weaknesses are.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:

It does make things that do guaranteed damage a lot more dangerous though. For real numbers:

Alchemist's Fire does 1 damage in an aoe no matter what, which turns into 11 with weakness and kills it in 13 hits.

Now auto-splash damage is a trickier situation. Admittedly, in the example we're using here, 10 1st-level wizards who all used 3-action magic missile would end the fight automatically weakness or no weakness, but it is true that a very heavy weakness much-higher-level-than-9 monster might be vulnerable to a horde of extremely coordinated creatures with splash damage. It might be the horde of weenies' only chance for survival, since they sure won't be hitting.


Mark Seifter wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

It does make things that do guaranteed damage a lot more dangerous though. For real numbers:

Alchemist's Fire does 1 damage in an aoe no matter what, which turns into 11 with weakness and kills it in 13 hits.

Now auto-splash damage is a trickier situation. Admittedly, in the example we're using here, 10 1st-level wizards who all used 3-action magic missile would end the fight automatically weakness or no weakness, but it is true that a very heavy weakness much-higher-level-than-9 monster might be vulnerable to a horde of extremely coordinated creatures with splash damage. It might be the horde of weenies' only chance for survival, since they sure won't be hitting.

In 1e a dozen hirelings armed with alchemical weapons get very cheap by level 9(maybe 0.5% of the parties wealth).

Balance on alchemical weapons will be important.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Let's use the lowest possible HP from DeadManWalking's estimates, 100, which he says is probably an underestimate, and suppose the frost giant had weakness 10 fire from DMW's guess to make the math simpler.

A 10 point weakness at level 10 is quite a bit lower than I was expecting. When I spitballed 1.5x10d6 based on PF1 numbers I was kinda tipping my hand to my expectations. Thinking about that now suppose that would be a bit excessive for anything with multiple hits. It does mean weakness is less significant for a big blast spell, since +10 damage is much less than what you'd get with a 50% damage boost with pretty much any blasting spell in PF1. But if that's the kind of numbers we're looking at then I don't think it's going to break anything, unless there's some exploit you can do to poke a monster dozens of times over for 1 point of elemental damage. But I'm sure you're already aware of that possibility and watching for it ;-)


I guess you could set a rule that it has to do more than one damage or something? But that seems super fiddly.

Are there anything other than splash weapons that will always deal damage even on a critical miss or critical success on a save? Because I'd imagine a high level creature would have great AC and saves, at least if touch AC scales better this time.

Edit: Though I guess the good news is this might be what makes those lower level blasting slots relevant.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Edit: Though I guess the good news is this might be what makes those lower level blasting slots relevant.

Presuming 10 point weakness at level 10 is representative, not really.

6d6+10 averages 31 damage
10d6 averages 35 damage

While the more favorable PF2 DC's will probably make up the rest of the distance, a PF2 fireball hitting for super-effective is really only as powerful as a PF1 fireball hitting for neutral (edit: accidentally slipped into Pokemon lingo there; talk of weaknesses and resistances will do that I guess, but I think it works anyways). Given that the PF1 fireball wasn't so great to begin with, I don't think this is closing the distance.

A multi-hit or damage-over-time spell could be a completely different story, but for something like fireball you'd still be way better off with the PF1 version.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there should be a limit on how many times a weakness can apply per round. Otherwise we'll be in a situation where many alchemists fires will be more effective than a meteor storm and can be saved up and used in bulk to auto-kill any threat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:
I think there should be a limit on how many times a weakness can apply per round. Otherwise we'll be in a situation where many alchemists fires will be more effective than a meteor storm and can be saved up and used in bulk to auto-kill any threat.

You mean that alchemists can "auto-kill" any threat that has a significant elemental weakness to one of the elemental types that are covered by alchemist bombs.

I feel like this might be more of a feature than a glitch, IMO.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Unless... save or sucks are drastically reined in (we know they are aiming to do this to some degree) or... (drum roll)... Debuffs from damage become the norm. CWheezy suggested this earlier, and I think they might be onto something. Something that Paizo is planning but hasn't officially debuted yet.

We know Paizo has put a big emphasis on tags-- stuff like Fortune or weapon traits. Heal deals positive damage to undead and had a Postive tag, while vampiric exsanguination deals negative damage and has a negative tag. Bottled Lightning has the Electricity tag

I was re-listening to the Glass Canon playtest. Part 2 has a scene where the party descends a steep and slippery hill using acrobatics checks. A couple characters fail and take 3-5 damage. Grelin the Green critically fails and takes 7. But he also gains the Hobbled 5 Condition from rolling his ankle... Permanently reducing his speed by 5 until the wound is healed.

We know that some weapons can potentially debuff enemies with crits-- swords make them flat footed, spears penalize their attack rolls, clubs knock them flying, daggers deal bleed.

So why can't spells or alchemical items with specific tags have debuff potential built into their damage type, rather than needing to pick and choose which blasts get it? Force damage could send people flying like a club, Ice damage could give them hamper like a nasty spill, Electricity can shock them flat-footed, Fire and Acid could both do persistent damage like a dagger.

The only major evidence I have against this idea is that Bottled Lightning ALREADY makes things flat-footed, but there's all sorts of alternatives for that-- maybe the normal lightning debuff is something else, and that can happen in addition. Maybe these debuffs normally only happen on a crit, and Bottled Lightning has the advantage of always applying it.

Also, we don't know how critical specializations are unlocked yet. Could be naturally gained through proficiency, or could require feats. These debuffs could be gated behind something similar. Making blaster feats less about boosting damage and more about increasing their flexibility via debuffs, switching elements, or avoiding friendly fire might be interesting.

There are a lot of reasons this kind of thing could be awesome. Making debuff/damage hybrids the norm instead of the exception lets martials and casters play the same game more often. It means elemental types feel different beyond just bypassing immunity and resistance. It means that combat has more verisimilitude-- monsters are more likely to start suffering impairment before being rendered dying and unconscious. And it means mid-combat healing can often act like a re-buff of sorts. This last one may give magical healing a cool niche, even if out combat healing can be easily covered with the Medicine skill.

I was sort of thinking about this myself the other day. There is a real cluster-f%!% of a 3.5-DnD-like game called Fantasy Craft that tied different status effects to essentially every damage type in the game. In that game, I think you literally made a save against the damage you took (and that was clunky to say the least), but the critical success/failure system is a really good place where you could tuck in those extra status effects.

It would be interesting if spellcasters got these kinds of benefits for "free" when they reach a certain level of "spellcasting proficiency" (if such a thing does indeed exist).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
johnlocke90 wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:

It does make things that do guaranteed damage a lot more dangerous though. For real numbers:

Alchemist's Fire does 1 damage in an aoe no matter what, which turns into 11 with weakness and kills it in 13 hits.

Now auto-splash damage is a trickier situation. Admittedly, in the example we're using here, 10 1st-level wizards who all used 3-action magic missile would end the fight automatically weakness or no weakness, but it is true that a very heavy weakness much-higher-level-than-9 monster might be vulnerable to a horde of extremely coordinated creatures with splash damage. It might be the horde of weenies' only chance for survival, since they sure won't be hitting.

In 1e a dozen hirelings armed with alchemical weapons get very cheap by level 9(maybe 0.5% of the parties wealth).

Balance on alchemical weapons will be important.

I'm now picturing a specialized alchemist weapon called, idk, "Alchemist Marbles" that deal only splash damage on a hit. But that you could potentially load up in a catapult and do a lot of splashing with. And an alchemist with bonuses to splash damage could use even more effectively.

"We had some trouble with frost giants once. Nothing we couln't handle, mind, but also not something we could end permanently. But then the Alchemy guild set up a small school in town, and they all went out on a field trip to the local Frost Giant cavern. Ten sixteen-year-olds, with two teachers along to help, did in one week what we couldn't do in six decades."

CyberMephit wrote:
I think there should be a limit on how many times a weakness can apply per round. Otherwise we'll be in a situation where many alchemists fires will be more effective than a meteor storm and can be saved up and used in bulk to auto-kill any threat.

You might be right, but also isn't that a smart use of your resources and knowledge checks? Especially with so few spell slots, saving that meteor swarm for a more appropriate enemy and using the alchemist fires to take out the Frost Lich might be wise.


What about a limit to, say, twice the base damage?
If a monster has fire weakness 5, that would mean that a hit for 1 damage would do 3; you would need 3 base damage to apply the full weakness, up to 8 total damage.


I'd rather have a limit equal to the base damage, or even half the base damage (minimum 1), so that it's not, as others put it, a matter of minor hits resulting in huge damage. That's what TWF is for, and I'd prefer TWF to have that style.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd rather have a limit equal to the base damage, or even half the base damage (minimum 1), so that it's not, as others put it, a matter of minor hits resulting in huge damage. That's what TWF is for, and I'd prefer TWF to have that style.

Wouldn't that also limit TWF?

Assuming TWF works the same in PF2 that it does in PF1, you'd get two relatively minor hits, possibly not enough to trigger the full weakness (especially if the weakness is arbitrarily huge like 20 to piercing). Which would make the two-handed fighter once again more efficient, since they can make multiple attacks in a round and also apply the full weakness to their strikes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:

What about a limit to, say, twice the base damage?

If a monster has fire weakness 5, that would mean that a hit for 1 damage would do 3; you would need 3 base damage to apply the full weakness, up to 8 total damage.

I reckon that rule isn't good in all cases though. Silver weaknesses, for example. Even a 1d4 blow dart should cause the thing significant pain; it is functionally a poison.

I think the tricky thing is going to be balancing what makes sense with a specific creature/weakness combo in narrative vs what makes the best balanced play. I'm not sure if there's a one sized fits all rule for it or not, and building lots of exceptions makes it complicated.

I do like that this makes setting someone on fire a really terrifying prospect. Damage over time spells felt pretty lackluster before. It also makes me hope those damage riders are a thing, because if fireball can actually light people up for multiple rounds and keeps triggering weakness damage over a whole bunch of enemies it is gonna be awesome.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd rather have a limit equal to the base damage, or even half the base damage (minimum 1), so that it's not, as others put it, a matter of minor hits resulting in huge damage. That's what TWF is for, and I'd prefer TWF to have that style.

Wouldn't that also limit TWF?

Assuming TWF works the same in PF2 that it does in PF1, you'd get two relatively minor hits, possibly not enough to trigger the full weakness (especially if the weakness is arbitrarily huge like 20 to piercing). Which would make the two-handed fighter once again more efficient, since they can make multiple attacks in a round and also apply the full weakness to their strikes.

TWF is expected to work that you get one attack with both weapons as an action with an incurred attack penalty, reduced with a feat, and only once per round when you make an attack. The Improved and Greater TWF feats will let you do so again in a given round with relevant penalties.

In short, they can get twice the weakness benefit per attack action compared to a two-hander, making them still the ideal choice when it comes to exploiting enemy weaknesses, which numerous consecutive attacks are great at doing.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd rather have a limit equal to the base damage, or even half the base damage (minimum 1), so that it's not, as others put it, a matter of minor hits resulting in huge damage. That's what TWF is for, and I'd prefer TWF to have that style.

Wouldn't that also limit TWF?

Assuming TWF works the same in PF2 that it does in PF1, you'd get two relatively minor hits, possibly not enough to trigger the full weakness (especially if the weakness is arbitrarily huge like 20 to piercing). Which would make the two-handed fighter once again more efficient, since they can make multiple attacks in a round and also apply the full weakness to their strikes.

TWF is expected to work that you get one attack with both weapons as an action with an incurred attack penalty, reduced with a feat, and only once per round when you make an attack. The Improved and Greater TWF feats will let you do so again in a given round with relevant penalties.

In short, they can get twice the weakness benefit per attack action compared to a two-hander, making them still the ideal choice when it comes to exploiting enemy weaknesses, which numerous consecutive attacks are great at doing.

I think Animated Paper's point is that capping the damage in the way you described in the first post would wind up hurting Two Weapon Fighters. I've seen monks with a flurry damage of 1d6+2, for example, which can hit for as low as 3. An actual two weapon fighter might hit for even less with a light weapon and only half strength damage in the offhand. As is, these guys suddenly have their DPR shoot through the roof when fighting Weakness 5, for example. With your change, if an offhand only hits for 2 or 3 damage, it will do much less.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd rather have a limit equal to the base damage, or even half the base damage (minimum 1), so that it's not, as others put it, a matter of minor hits resulting in huge damage. That's what TWF is for, and I'd prefer TWF to have that style.

Wouldn't that also limit TWF?

Assuming TWF works the same in PF2 that it does in PF1, you'd get two relatively minor hits, possibly not enough to trigger the full weakness (especially if the weakness is arbitrarily huge like 20 to piercing). Which would make the two-handed fighter once again more efficient, since they can make multiple attacks in a round and also apply the full weakness to their strikes.

TWF is expected to work that you get one attack with both weapons as an action with an incurred attack penalty, reduced with a feat, and only once per round when you make an attack. The Improved and Greater TWF feats will let you do so again in a given round with relevant penalties.

In short, they can get twice the weakness benefit per attack action compared to a two-hander, making them still the ideal choice when it comes to exploiting enemy weaknesses, which numerous consecutive attacks are great at doing.

Where did you get that information? What I vaguely recall hearing is that iterative attack penalties are reduced when you alternate between your main and offhand weapon.

I also heard about a “double slice” feat or something, but I assumed that would be a two action attack that deals main hand and off hand damage together.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd rather have a limit equal to the base damage, or even half the base damage (minimum 1), so that it's not, as others put it, a matter of minor hits resulting in huge damage. That's what TWF is for, and I'd prefer TWF to have that style.

Wouldn't that also limit TWF?

Assuming TWF works the same in PF2 that it does in PF1, you'd get two relatively minor hits, possibly not enough to trigger the full weakness (especially if the weakness is arbitrarily huge like 20 to piercing). Which would make the two-handed fighter once again more efficient, since they can make multiple attacks in a round and also apply the full weakness to their strikes.

TWF is expected to work that you get one attack with both weapons as an action with an incurred attack penalty, reduced with a feat, and only once per round when you make an attack. The Improved and Greater TWF feats will let you do so again in a given round with relevant penalties.

In short, they can get twice the weakness benefit per attack action compared to a two-hander, making them still the ideal choice when it comes to exploiting enemy weaknesses, which numerous consecutive attacks are great at doing.

I think Animated Paper's point is that capping the damage in the way you described in the first post would wind up hurting Two Weapon Fighters. I've seen monks with a flurry damage of 1d6+2, for example, which can hit for as low as 3. An actual two weapon fighter might hit for even less with a light weapon and only half strength damage in the offhand. As is, these guys suddenly have their DPR shoot through the roof when fighting Weakness 5, for example. With your change, if an offhand only hits for 2 or 3 damage, it will do much less.

It will do less, true, but it's also unlikely for an attack that only grazed one enemy to somehow be super-devastating to another identical enemy that somehow can't handle a little cut or two.

Also note that this only assumes one hit. Two hits for that minimum will warrant more raw damage gained from Weakness than single attack users.

@ Excaliburproxy: I did say expected, not that it actually does work that way (though if it works any other way, TWF will still be the underdog of fighting styles right next to his TWF Throwing brother versus Archery, so...)

The iterative reduction is the Agile weapon property, reducing by 1 and 2 from consecutive attacks.

That makes no sense for it to be a Power Attack equivalent when we already have it. I might see it work to allow Power Attack with both weapons, but I'm doubtful.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd rather have a limit equal to the base damage, or even half the base damage (minimum 1), so that it's not, as others put it, a matter of minor hits resulting in huge damage. That's what TWF is for, and I'd prefer TWF to have that style.

Wouldn't that also limit TWF?

Assuming TWF works the same in PF2 that it does in PF1, you'd get two relatively minor hits, possibly not enough to trigger the full weakness (especially if the weakness is arbitrarily huge like 20 to piercing). Which would make the two-handed fighter once again more efficient, since they can make multiple attacks in a round and also apply the full weakness to their strikes.

TWF is expected to work that you get one attack with both weapons as an action with an incurred attack penalty, reduced with a feat, and only once per round when you make an attack. The Improved and Greater TWF feats will let you do so again in a given round with relevant penalties.

In short, they can get twice the weakness benefit per attack action compared to a two-hander, making them still the ideal choice when it comes to exploiting enemy weaknesses, which numerous consecutive attacks are great at doing.

I think Animated Paper's point is that capping the damage in the way you described in the first post would wind up hurting Two Weapon Fighters. I've seen monks with a flurry damage of 1d6+2, for example, which can hit for as low as 3. An actual two weapon fighter might hit for even less with a light weapon and only half strength damage in the offhand. As is, these guys suddenly have their DPR shoot through the roof when fighting Weakness 5, for example. With your change, if an offhand only hits for 2 or 3 damage, it will do much less.
It will do less, true, but it's also unlikely for an attack that only grazed one enemy to somehow be super-devastating to another identical enemy that somehow can't...

Well for double slice, it is a power attack equivalent for people without the high strength score to effectively use big dice weapons and I imagine you would add your damage modifiers to both attacks as well.

I am also implying that the agile weapon property and the TWF iterative attack bonus stack so iterative attacks with TWF and agile weapons would be at -3/-6


If it is, it's a pointless feat, since I can do that anyway without a feat. Same goes for fighting with two attacks from different weapons using different actions; no special feat required. The point of feats in PF2 is to give us options, not simple bonuses or penalty reductions.

For them stacking, who knows. Only the playtest will tell us for sure, but I'm of the opinion and perspective that they want to cut down on stacking bonus manipulations from PF1, since they cut the bonuses down to Level + Modifier + Item + Spell. There might be more, but those elements should be really rare and appropriate to a given option.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If it is, it's a pointless feat, since I can do that anyway without a feat. Same goes for fighting with two attacks from different weapons using different actions; no special feat required. The point of feats in PF2 is to give us options, not simple bonuses or penalty reductions.

For them stacking, who knows. Only the playtest will tell us for sure, but I'm of the opinion and perspective that they want to cut down on stacking bonus manipulations from PF1, since they cut the bonuses down to Level + Modifier + Item + Spell. There might be more, but those elements should be really rare and appropriate to a given option.

Well, it is not pointless since it would let you bet two attacks (two actions) on the results of a single roll at your highest base value (rather than one attack at the highest and one at a penalty). As a result, your damage out put would average out to be higher when you are fighting a single target (since the damage from your second attack would be tied to the roll with a higher bonus), but the feat would not help you out as much when you are trying to spread your damage around or when you'd like to do something between your two iterative attacks.

On stuff stacking: I am pretty sure that it has been implied that agile weapons and two weapon fighting will be complimentary rules.

This is maybe stuff for another thread however~

Silver Crusade

With the new action economy it looks like TWF is out you don't get more than 3 actions no matter what unless you use haste and I suspect that Haste gives you one extra action at your highest bonus. So you could move strike once with main hand and once with your off hand at -5 and then you are out of actions. I have know idea how flurry works in the new 3 actions per round. Perhaps TWF in the new system effects your penalties for second or third attacks.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
With the new action economy it looks like TWF is out you don't get more than 3 actions no matter what unless you use haste and I suspect that Haste gives you one extra action at your highest bonus. So you could move strike once with main hand and once with your off hand at -5 and then you are out of actions. I have know idea how flurry works in the new 3 actions per round. Perhaps TWF in the new system effects your penalties for second or third attacks.

We don't actually know this. Several actions are action economy enhancers (you can move twice and take two attacks with Sudden Charge, which is a 1st level Fighter Feat), Double Slice or other TWF Feats could absolutely do something similar.


Excaliburproxy wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If it is, it's a pointless feat, since I can do that anyway without a feat. Same goes for fighting with two attacks from different weapons using different actions; no special feat required. The point of feats in PF2 is to give us options, not simple bonuses or penalty reductions.

For them stacking, who knows. Only the playtest will tell us for sure, but I'm of the opinion and perspective that they want to cut down on stacking bonus manipulations from PF1, since they cut the bonuses down to Level + Modifier + Item + Spell. There might be more, but those elements should be really rare and appropriate to a given option.

Well, it is not pointless since it would let you bet two attacks (two actions) on the results of a single roll at your highest base value (rather than one attack at the highest and one at a penalty). As a result, your damage out put would average out to be higher when you are fighting a single target (since the damage from your second attack would be tied to the roll with a higher bonus), but the feat would not help you out as much when you are trying to spread your damage around or when you'd like to do something between your two iterative attacks.

There's nothing to suggest that you would use a single roll for both weapons, and this also assumes identical bonuses between the two weapons, which may not always be the case, especially with how WBL and ABP functioned in PF1, among other factors. If anything, it would be very clunky and non-streamlined if it worked that way, something that Paizo wants to be rid of in PF2.

I'm also still of the opinion that it's not worth being a feat, as it's super-extremely niche and in a lot of cases, using two actions for two separate attacks is a better option, since the attacks will be the same.

But yes, I believe this is starting to get off-topic from blasting.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
An optimized barbarian put through the same test might also come out looking like a 9 or a 10. It's pretty much just a known fact that if you optimize your character and then bring them to an AP or PFS game you are going to steamroll it.
Indeed! That's rather the point of the number line. PF1 doesn't hit its own expected baselines of what presents an actual challenge, especially when you optimize/hyperoptimize. PF2 is being designed to meet its own expected baselines. What this means is, if you compare what you're seeing in PF2 and it is not as powerful as something at 9 or 10 in PF1 (whether it's the barbarian you suggest, or a souped-up blaster, or a "god wizard" or a dual-wielding gunslinger, or any other character at that optimization point), that's a good thing. Because it's the other half of the same coin that you as a GM will not be forced to raise the challenge level way above baseline to challenge PCs; you can do so with the expected framework of what will be challenging. And these characters will not be "falling behind" the hypothetical 9 or 10 character because we just don't have that any more (at least as well as we can avoid it). Now there's nothing wrong with having a group full of 9 or 10s (or even separating out '10' into further granularity for just how much it can solo; really a significant amount of optimization discussion of 'weak' or 'strong' in PF1 lives in a paradigm where everything in contention is already in the 10 range compared to baselines because optimizers like you or me are playing games that are much harder than baseline) and then amping the difficulty with an experienced GM who knows how. That's how my group rolls too (in Jade Regent, their level ~16 group faced off against 4 mythic CR 20s and a group of characters with PC wealth and build, and then a second phase afterwards, and they won). But it's pretty impenetrable to newer GMs and is very GM dependent if they can pull that off on their own, since they're flying well beyond the game's...

Currently a non optimized blaster wizard seem a 3 at most in PF2. We have seen very few spells, so that can be a wrong impression, but that is what some of us see in the blogs.

Unless the damaging cantrips are better than a hightened magic missile spell, using my trusty crossbow is as useful as using the cantrips.

BTW, run "From Shore to Sea" with a good but not so optimized archer and the meat shields and see how far you get. I am fairly sure that you will do better than the optimized blasting wizard.


So this may be out of Left Field, but why not give Blasting spells like Fireball the Heal treatment?

All Cure spells were rolled into Heal, then Heal was given flexible mechanics. Now Heal, by using different actions, levels, and foci, may be an area or targeted spell.

Giving Fireball and other Blasts the "Heal treatment" may:
1. Make AoO vs Focused options easier to balance and compare against one another, since they're both in the same spell block.
2. Reduce the chance of a spell being "useless" because the fighter charged ahead, and now you can't AoE.
3. Reduce redundant spells redundant.
4. Make Blasting more flexible, while at the same time allowing options to be more directly comparable (see #1).

Using something similar to Heal, a caster might Focus their fireball's massive power against one enemy, and up the damage, or expand it to a massive, ground-covering Blast! for lower, but more area-affecting damage.

Apologies if someone already suggested this. It's been a long day. :D

Shadow Lodge

Interesting idea. Fireball could start off as a 5ft area, a 10ft, and then a 20ft area.

Maybe it's damage increases instead. d4, d6, d8. Or some static damage where it goes d8, d6+2, d4+4 or something like that.


Yeah, that's a cool solution.

Shadow Lodge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Yeah, that's a cool solution.

Sadly it seems the actual spell is not as cool(at the moment).

Shinigami02 wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
We don't know how much a PF2 fireball does, but it likely isn't 10d6 if the level 5 cone of cold spell does a static 11d6.
Unless something changed we do already know how much a PF2 fireball does, it was mentioned in a GameInformer interview with Jason Bulhman. Fireball is 6d6 at level 3, Heightened for 2d6 per spell level. So at level 9 you'll have 10d6 Fireballs with a 5th level Fireball.

201 to 250 of 398 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Blasting in PF2 All Messageboards