Continuing from my previous "my thoughts" thread, I have taken some time to decompress all the new stuff I've seen and organize some new thoughts on where it is we are going.
Also known as the new proficiency system, I love this. It's an actual d20 engine that functions much better than the various different d20 mechanics of 3.P/x and has some very tight math behind it which also gates different 'impossible tasks' behind in character build decisions. It also serves as the new difference between good/bad saving throws, and full/medium/poor BAB. The difference is that these mechanics are now tied to a 5 tier proficiency system which means there are now 5 tiers of BAB instead of 3, 5 tiers of saving throws (potentially), etc. In addition to the simple math there, you get different game mechanics opened up to you based on this.
There's also the new [-10 < DC < +10] success system which creates much more varied results, but is simple to execute. This is great for designing around save or suck spells. and the like. This is good stuff.
This is where things get a little wonky. I'm not one of those people who hates everything being called a feat, but I do understand why it is confusing for some people to have these different pools of feats that all have their own separate rules for progression and seemingly do not cross over. That is unless, your general feat slots that you get for leveling can be spent on literally any of them, and you get a number of them for 'free' as part of the class's progression. This may be something someone can clear up for me. I don't overtly hate the direction the classes are being designed to go into from what we have at the time of this post (fighters are strikers, rogues use the new skill system that integrates into combat very well thanks to the new d20 engine, clerics are clerics still, and paladins are intended to be nigh indestructible). There may be some weird design choices here or there that I don't agree with or that seem too narrow compared to what I was expecting given the previous comments from developers, but I respect these decisions and intend to play test them as they are, and maybe with a couple of tweaks.
I feel like we've gone backwards compared to what I experienced in PF1 RAE. From what we've seen, many of the newer abilities (especially those for martially inclined characters) are being balanced by adding a tax on the actions required to use them. On the surface, this may seem obvious, but when you compare what a turn will look like in this new system compared to what it looked like in the old system, you're going to be disappointed to find out that you still are going to have a turn of move + single attack. Want to Power Attack? Move + single attack. Sword and Board? Move + Single attack + action tax to use your shield. Some of these newer feats are designed to buy back those options, we need more of those. I want to be less restricted in the actions I can take, not more, and that was the beauty and freedom that we got from PF1 RAE.
Since I mentioned Power Attack, we've had a lot of discussions about it that led to some interesting discoveries. While much of my thoughts have remained the same on the actual function of how to calculate damage and on how that affects the game overall, we need to talk about weapons. From what we are told by the devs, they really want critical hits to happen more often, and for martial characters (as in, the guys with higher proficiency bonuses that add up to 50% more chance to land critical hits based on class proficiency alone) it really looks like you are going to expect to base your turns on and around landing a big critical hit, and maybe a secondary hit if you have nothing better to do. We know that all weapons are now single die factors in this data, so I expect damage builds to focus on finding the biggest damage die coupled with that Deadly ability to add another die of damage. [For those who read the latter equations of the math thread, this means Power Attack's additional damage on a critical hit changes from being +2dx to being +3dx, and scales up to +5dx. While +5dx can result in a damage score of 5 total, you still can probably guess that 5 dice will more than likely end up being a bigger number than a non-critical hit, maybe.] There's also the factors of the other cool things that may or may not happen on a crit with your weapon, which may or may not equate to some form of debuff, tactical maneuver, or something else that you could feasibly compare to a spell when you couple it with the damage you are doing. Mark tells me that the numbers don't stray too far from the average, which to me tells that we have so many dice being rolled that the odds of the laws of averages kicking in get better and better. I don't like this approach to the math, especially considering how tight and consistent the rest of the math of the engine is (see the new d20 engine) but we will see in play testing if this actually plays out. I still have no idea how this affects the CR system and would really like to see something explained about enemy AC and damage. There's also a tidbit that got revealed somewhere that more or less tells us that DR isn't exactly in the game anymore. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. The exact examples given were considering skeletons and zombies, who instead of having DR x/bludgeoning or slashing (respectively), instead those damage types that otherwise would be required to bypass DR are now treated as weaknesses that add additional dice of damage, meaning you are rewarded for using the right weapons, but not punished for using the wrong ones. I like this, and it does affect a lot of that math we did in the Power Attack thread.
My personal opinion is that this is where our attention should be focused on balancing the game's math when the playtest proper starts.
Well, if martial characters are getting taxed additional actions to get their feats going, spellcasters are getting buffed in that there's now a bunch of spells that only take a single action to cast. No more 1-per-turn casting, instead you get free reign to go nuts with your spells and actions. That is a bad start. Spells themselves have a big change happening to them though, thanks to the cleric blog and the spells blog we now get to see how these might work. You get a max of 3 spell slots per spell level. DCs all go based on your spellcasting proficiency. All this is calculated the same way you do attack bonus, spell attack bonus, etc. With that limitation of resources, the ability to sling spells around all dilly dilly seems to be counterbalanced. Not bad, but can be punishing for new players who don't understand this and waste all their resources. Then we get into cantrips, which I actually kinda like. Now they scale (to remain relevant throughout the spellcaster's career) and become spammable abilities so you don't have to waste those resources you had on your spell slots. The rules for scaling and heightening spells have a lot of potential to be great, but with some of the sneak previews on the sorcerer we might have a confusing mess on our hands with understanding how/why spellcasting works the way it does. Make a note of that when you test to see how easy it is and whether or not it would be easier to go another way.
Then we have to talk about Spell Points and spells that aren't spells but still function exactly like spells and are still called spells, even though they aren't spells. Yes, the grammar there is correct. Any class that gets spells (and looks like a few that don't) get a pool of spell points, based on an attribute and your level, to access all the abilities that in PF1 used to be (Sp) or (Su). So far so good, but the thing is they all calculate their properties based on the exact same rules for spells, they are just 'cast' using your pool of points, and some of them cost more points than others, depending on whether or not you want to heighten them or whatever else the individual ability calls for in whatever situation. It's confusing, but that's how it works. My personal conjecture is that these abilities exist for the sole purpose of Paizo being able to say there are only 4 spell lists, even though there aren't. I think they need a name other than spells so players understand why they are different from spells cast from slots.
Oh, and wizards can wear armor now, and counterspelling is gonna be a thing. Be excite.
The new mechanisms that drive the racial benefits in this game are now spread out over the course of your character instead of being front loaded, and you get yet another pool of feats to get stuff from. Again, if you can spend regular progression feats on anything called a feat and just get free feat slots for these specialty feats then I'm fine with this. Every race now seems to get in addition to the ability adjustments from before (except the Goblin who is in a weird place) everyone gets a floating +2. Dwarf wizard that doesn't suck? Done. Elf fighter that doesn't get docked HP every level? Done. In addition to the new racial abilities and adjustments, you also get free HP at first level based on race. Some people feel bad about this because not all the races get the same stuff, but it's basically free compared to PF1 so why complain? With the exception of the guys who wish they still had their racial abilities front loaded (which there are legitimate reasons for) ancestries appear to be straight up better than races in PF1. Good stuff. Oh, and [Fortune] feats are a thing, so you can expect there to be a bunch of rules behind re-roll mechanics coming up soon, if not in the playtest proper.
Weapons and Armor mostly come to mind here, as they have changed quite a bit. Weapons cover a bunch of new things, from eliminating things like Weapon Finesse needing to be a feat, to adding additional effects on crits, to having different rules for what happens when you miss with them, I think we can get away from everyone using scimitars and nodachis finally. Armor affects your touch AC, in limited ways without magic. Might be traditionalism on our parts that reject this, so I'm not going to go all out on it. Armors have different traits that affect your gameplay past just modifying your AC value, so like weapons you can expect more variance than just mithral breastplates, chain, and adamantine full plate.
Magic gear is interesting. Runes now exist that are transferable, so you can move them from one weapon/armor to another. That saves money and opens up options, nice. There's some wonky stuff going on with the math though: weapons add to hit, but don't really (they don't stack with weapon quality) and multiply the dice you roll instead of adding flat numbers to damage. I guess that's fun, it's definitely better than it was in PF1, but the belle curve problem scares me with the CR system. Armor adds to your touch and saves, meaning half of the big six is now juxtaposed into a single item, and I'm pretty sure the runes that give you that benefit are transferable. So a lot of stuff just got fixed.
Resonance tho... Well, at least Charisma matters now, amirite? Potions aren't spells in a bottle anymore (expect for the ones that are) and wands will probably absorb staves since you have to waste a personal resource to use them. How Resonance interacts with armor/weapons is unclear (to me, perhaps you know) but it would seem magic items are meant to be a scarce resource.
I hope you like reading! Let's keep this one civil and look at things objectively with what's best for the game in mind.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest overall gripe with PF2 is that some of the mechanics being implemented to balance the game are anti-verisimilitude, which is the biggest selling point of a TTRPG.
It makes zero sense that it takes 1/3rd of your turn to go from holding a greatsword in one hand to holding it in two hands.
The same goes for "readying a shield".
You may not like it, but this is really pretty realistic. A round is 6 seconds. If you don't think changing your grip on a weapon or blocking something with a shield can easily take a whole two seconds...I don't know what to tell you beyond the fact that you're factually wrong.
Now, not liking the mechanic and it not feeling good are still totally valid complaints if you dislike them, but they aren't verisimilitude complaints.
Probably not the rabbit-hole the OP wants the thread to go down, but I think one of the dev's implied it wouldn't take all three actions to switch to one-hand, open the door, regrip. I think it was implied that the "drop to one-hand & open the door" was a single action, but it might still take an action to regrip. This seems a pretty reasonable compromise. (Ie if "Interact/Operate" actions include a free "drop/free a hand")
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ezren's Player - "You're kidding, right?"
Anyone else immediately thought of the Open/Close cantrip? Might be a lot more useful if doors become a general headache to open in PF2.
In all seriousness, though, I would point out that both Valeros and Amiri would only spend one action in this situation. This is because initiative is rolled after the door is opened, so any actions taken before that wouldn't count against your first turn (at least this is how it would have worked in PF1, and I have no reason to expect it's any different in PF2). So Valeros could step up to the door, sheath his sword, open the door, initiative is rolled, and then when Valeros comes up in initiative order he only needs to spend one action to draw his sword.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Kick Door
2. profit!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest overall gripe with PF2 is that some of the mechanics being implemented to balance the game are anti-verisimilitude, which is the biggest selling point of a TTRPG.
It makes zero sense that it takes 1/3rd of your turn to go from holding a greatsword in one hand to holding it in two hands.
The same goes for "readying a shield".
I agree that the grip-swap for a sword makes no sense. That should get changed, unless we're missing something.*
But for the shield, I don't see that as "How hard is it to lift a shield," but rather, "I'm devoting some of my attention to keeping my shield angled toward enemies during a chaotic combat."
It's not spending one action for a half second of movement. It's one action for six seconds of movement. (And possibly a reaction to respond to one particularly worrisome attack.)
---
* For instance, maybe there's a way to fight one-handed with a greatsword, and a different way to fight two-handed, and the action represents you adjusting your stance and your range to your enemies. Like maybe two-handed does more damage and is faster, but one-handed has longer reach. If you've ever played Soul Calibur with Siegfried, he switches that way.
https://youtu.be/-iXoe7p7rRw
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest overall gripe with PF2 is that some of the mechanics being implemented to balance the game are anti-verisimilitude, which is the biggest selling point of a TTRPG.
It makes zero sense that it takes 1/3rd of your turn to go from holding a greatsword in one hand to holding it in two hands.
[...]
These mechanics are ultimately going to cause characters to make RP decisions that make no sense it the game world.
Valeros - "Amir, take point."
Amir - "Nah, if I open that door, I won't be able to attack anything waiting on the other side."
Valeros - "What do you mean."
Amir's Player - "It is going to take me an action to open the door, and another action to grip my weapon. Since we just made a ton of noise in this room killing these goblins, I'm sure every monster in the next room is waiting for us to open that door. I want to be able to attack whatever is waiting for us on the other side, so Valeros should open the door."
Valeros' Player - "Yeah, Valeros is using a shield right now, so I would have to spend all 3 of my actions to open the door. I'd have to sheathe my sword, open the door, then draw my sword. And even then I won't have an action to ready my shield against the monsters in the next room."
Kyra's Player - "Don't look at me, I'm using a shield too."
*Party looks at Ezren's Player*
Ezren's Player - "You're kidding, right?"
I beg to differ. If you wield a greatsword, a pointy metal object 5 feet in length and 8 pounds in weight, you're not going to be able to relax your grip, open a door and get back ready to swing in 6 seconds. If the door doesn't have a handle and all you do is kick it open, then maybe. But if it requires a hand to maneuver, then you can't do that. The same applies if you have a longsword in one hand and a shield in the other.
In your suggested setup, what's really going to happen is this:
Merisiel - "I've got this. Ready?"
Amir - "Ready."
Merisiel - "One, two, three!" (opens door with her free hand, then steps aside in a hurry)
Amir - "Chaaaarge!"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, that is nowhere near realistic. YOU are the one that is "factually wrong". Especially to the point that you are logically and demonstrably wrong.
Not really, no.
Watch some HEMA videos of sword and shield combat. Humans have this strange ability to move their arms irrespective of each other. Sword and shield combat is all about moving your shield to close off angles as you swing your sword.
Sure, but that splits your attention. You're certainly not attacking effectively as often. Indeed, for most of the video you linked, the people in question attack maybe once per 6 seconds, not the twice PF2 allows for. They attack quicker than that occasionally, but not anything the rules wouldn't reflect pretty decently.
Longsword (a two handed weapon, historically) treatises constantly reference moving a hand to initiate grappling or change your grip and doing so takes virtually no time.
Additionally, go grab a sword (or a broom/stick/etc.), hold it in one hand, then add a second hand. It takes a negligible amount of time. This is common sense.
I think you're vastly overestimating how much time an action takes. It's a maximum of 2 seconds. Less if you're also doing things like Reactions. Switching your grip does tend to take at least a second or so, often more. Can some people do it quicker? Probably. Of course, a Feat for that seems pretty plausible...
So yes, these ARE valid verisimilitude complains.
HEMA match between two people using sword and shield:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=966ulgwEcycNote how they are attacking and blocking almost simultaneously.
Like I said above, my primary takeaway from the linked video was not that someone with a shield could, without more than basic training, keep it up and also attack just as quickly and effectively as someone without a shield. Clear effort and concentration is put into the shield work. In PF2, that's actions.
And we know for a fact that you can do it for free and no action cost for the right Feats (since there's one to do it as a Reaction and another that gives you another Reaction).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure each action is meant to be literally divided in such a way that we are forcing such simulation.
Still, the point remains that the game will more or less play the same way for martial characters, especially if you have a class with some sort of swift action ability.
Then we have to talk about Spell Points and spells that aren't spells but still function exactly like spells and are still called spells, even though they aren't spells. Yes, the grammar there is correct. Any class that gets spells (and looks like a few that don't) get a pool of spell points, based on an attribute and your level, to access all the abilities that in PF1 used to be (Sp) or (Su). So far so good, but the thing is they all calculate their properties based on the exact same rules for spells, they are just 'cast' using your pool of points, and some of them cost more points than others, depending on whether or not you want to heighten them or whatever else the individual ability calls for in whatever situation. It's confusing, but that's how it works. My personal conjecture is that these abilities exist for the sole purpose of Paizo being able to say there are only 4 spell lists, even though there aren't. I think they need a name other than spells so players understand why they are different from spells cast from slots
There is a name, they've been referred to a couple of times as "powers." Now, arguably, spells that are cast from slots might need a distinct name, or the overarching system could use a different umbrella term other than spells, but I think we'll all get used to it eventually. You're not wrong about how confusing it'll be in the meantime.
This is how I plan to explain it: all magic actions are spells. By default, you need a slot of the appropriate level or higher to cast a spell.
Some spells are powers, and you them cast using points instead, and it counts as if you expended your highest spell slot (except for the times when it doesn't, those times use more points).
Some spells use neither resource, and you can spam them all day at your highest spell slot. These are called cantrips, orisons, or knacks.
Given the example format, my $5 is on all spells, powers and cantrips included, are being organized into the CRB spell chapter.
As to your conjecture, you might be right. I think it's more a natural consequence of Paizo wanting to consolidate spell-like and supernatural abilities into the spell structure, but "four spell lists" might be a selling point over 5Es "each class gets its own list" deal. Although most classes are seemingly going to get a full list anyways, so idk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, that is nowhere near realistic. YOU are the one that is "factually wrong". Especially to the point that you are logically and demonstrably wrong.Not really, no.
Watch some HEMA videos of sword and shield combat. Humans have this strange ability to move their arms irrespective of each other. Sword and shield combat is all about moving your shield to close off angles as you swing your sword.Sure, but that splits your attention. You're certainly not attacking effectively as often. Indeed, for most of the video you linked, the people in question attack maybe once per 6 seconds, not the twice PF2 allows for. They attack quicker than that occasionally, but not anything the rules wouldn't reflect pretty decently.
Longsword (a two handed weapon, historically) treatises constantly reference moving a hand to initiate grappling or change your grip and doing so takes virtually no time.
Additionally, go grab a sword (or a broom/stick/etc.), hold it in one hand, then add a second hand. It takes a negligible amount of time. This is common sense.
I think you're vastly overestimating how much time an action takes. It's a maximum of 2 seconds. Less if you're also doing things like Reactions. Switching your grip does tend to take at least a second or so, often more. Can some people do it quicker? Probably. Of course, a Feat for that seems pretty plausible...
Like I said above, my primary takeaway from the linked video was not that someone with a shield could, without more than basic training, keep it up and also attack just as quickly and effectively as someone without a shield. Clear effort and concentration is put into the shield work. In PF2,...So yes, these ARE valid verisimilitude complains.
HEMA match between two people using sword and shield:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=966ulgwEcycNote how they are attacking and blocking almost simultaneously.
Yuuup. I actually did a fair amount of weapon based LARP'ing as a kid. If I was using a shield, it split my attention and energy. I had to concentrate on keeping it between me and my opponent's blade, and keeping it up limits my range of motion a little. That makes my angles of attack more predictable, as well. I could also choose to ignore defense and press the offense, and just start swinging as rapidly as possible, trying to overwhelm my opponent by coming at them from angles they didn't expect. But doing so would mean I left myself open, which is risky one on one and could be suicidal if fighting multiple opponents.
This idea that the shield just hangs out in front of you without you having to put any attention into it blows my mind a little.
Edit: For comparison, check out how fast and frequently people only using a one handed sword move the thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oheg1qwrESg
Admittedly, fencing uses a smaller, lighter blade. Maybe something like this would be more appropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57VCNDa-HEM
Edit again: Or these guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo
Using a shield changes the way you fight a lot.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...With all due respect, that is nowhere near realistic. YOU are the one that is "factually wrong". Especially to the point that you are logically and demonstrably wrong.Not really, no.
Watch some HEMA videos of sword and shield combat. Humans have this strange ability to move their arms irrespective of each other. Sword and shield combat is all about moving your shield to close off angles as you swing your sword.Sure, but that splits your attention. You're certainly not attacking effectively as often. Indeed, for most of the video you linked, the people in question attack maybe once per 6 seconds, not the twice PF2 allows for. They attack quicker than that occasionally, but not anything the rules wouldn't reflect pretty decently.
Longsword (a two handed weapon, historically) treatises constantly reference moving a hand to initiate grappling or change your grip and doing so takes virtually no time.
Additionally, go grab a sword (or a broom/stick/etc.), hold it in one hand, then add a second hand. It takes a negligible amount of time. This is common sense.
I think you're vastly overestimating how much time an action takes. It's a maximum of 2 seconds. Less if you're also doing things like Reactions. Switching your grip does tend to take at least a second or so, often more. Can some people do it quicker? Probably. Of course, a Feat for that seems pretty plausible...
Like I said above, my primary takeaway from the linked video was not that someone with a shield could, without more than basic training, keep it up and also attack just as quickly and effectively as someone without a shield. Clear effort and concentration is putSo yes, these ARE valid verisimilitude complains.
HEMA match between two people using sword and shield:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=966ulgwEcycNote how they are attacking and blocking almost simultaneously.
I think the problem is you are assuming that actions always happen sequentially in the abstracted version of combat pathfinder represents. Remember, everyone's turn in a round is supposed to be happening simultaneously. Except that it totally isn't.
Actively defending with your shield slows down your ability to attack. Don't think of each action being separate-- I attack once in the first two seconds, again in the second two seconds and then I raise my shield. Think of it as "Over the course of 6 seconds I manage to attack twice without compromising my defense with the shield. Attacking faster (3 times in 6 seconds) means potentially leaving an opening.
I don't think you should assume that casting a spell with the verbal action and somatic action means you are spending two seconds chanting and then two seconds waggling your fingers. It just means that over the course of your turn you devoted your focus to doing both of those things.
I do think shifting the grip seems like it should happen too fluidly for it to take an action. But it's possible that mastering that trick might take a feat as Deadmanwalking suggested, which represents you learning to switch between stances seamlessly. I don't love that, as that becomes a feat tax for something we could all do for free. But it is at least something and it helps balance the advantages of using a two-handed weapon vs a one handed weapon and keeping your second hand free.
I can sorta picture it as less the act of changing your grip, and more that keeping the heavy weapon up and ready to parry while using your other hand to dig something out of your bag or cast a spell is pretty difficult, and getting yourself back into the proper position requires a little more focus. I don't assume that when someone is swinging a two-handed weapon you never have the hand shift or even come off, but much like the shield there's a difference between actively using something and just happening to hold it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yuuup. I actually did a fair amount of weapon based LARP'ing as a kid.With all due respect, this is like saying, "I played a lot of cops and robbers as a kid, so I know how to be a police officer."
LARPing is NOTHING like HEMA. It was night and day when I started to study HEMA. All the "cool stuff" I was doing in LARPing (we called if boffing) was really bad form, even though I could win my fair share of fights.
Heck, even olympic fencing is DRASTICALLY different from HEMA.
First of all, hand them a blunt rapier and they are probably going to start complaining about how heavy it is. Fencing foils are notoriously light and flexible as to not cause accidental harm. HEMA weapons are slightly more flexible that "real" weapons, but they are much more rigid than fencing foils and much heavier (about 2.5 pounds).
Next, most of the fencer's attacks aren't actually going to connect, because a lot of fencing is flexing the sword around your opponent's and touching their mesh to complete the circuit and score a point.
Of the attacks that DO hit, many will get called off by the referee because he wouldn't have had proper edge alignment to actually cut the other person, or he wouldn't have delivered enough force to make it through simulated clothing and deal a deadly enough strike to incapacitate his foe.
Finally, of the attacks that DO connect and DO deliver enough force to count as a "hit" a large portion of these are going to be doubles, as HEMA counts follow through strikes.
For example, if you do a great overhead chop with a sword and I stab you in the stomach before your sword hits me, but I don't have my sword in a position to stop yours from hitting me, you still hit me. This counts as a "double" in HEMA and counts as a "loss" for both people.
I like to make the comparison between competition target shooters and soldiers. The target shooter shooter, with his finely tuned target rifle will easily out shoot the soldier on a fixed distance...
That's all great, but none of that actually addresses the substance of my argument. Heck, I even point out the first fencing clip is probably a bad example due to how light the sword is. But you don't mention that or the other two clips.
The point is that if you are actively defending yourself, you aren't throwing attacks out as fast as if you just wildly start swinging. This is true whether you are using whatever combination of holding a shield, using your sword to parry, or just trying to read the opponent for an opening. Keeping a shield between you and the opponent has a particular pronounced effect on this though, because the shield also limits your own movement and angles of attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, taxing actions like that isn't making the game better though, it's making it worse than the one we had, or at the very least, unchanged.
Considering the wide range of possibilities that existed with your abilities separate from the combat style you chose, because it didn't affect your options. Now, seemingly you have to use your actions just to use your chosen combat style.
Which, may be the goal here, but if in that system I find not taking any of these combat styles benefits me more overall according to the math of the game, then I start to see a problem with the feat and class design. Your abilities shouldn't make you worse, especially when it's supposed to be a quintessential identifier of your character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, taxing actions like that isn't making the game better though, it's making it worse than the one we had, or at the very least, unchanged.
Considering the wide range of possibilities that existed with your abilities separate from the combat style you chose, because it didn't affect your options. Now, seemingly you have to use your actions just to use your chosen combat style.
Which, may be the goal here, but if in that system I find not taking any of these combat styles benefits me more overall according to the math of the game, then I start to see a problem with the feat and class design. Your abilities shouldn't make you worse, especially when it's supposed to be a quintessential identifier of your character.
If we are talking specifically about shields, getting DR from them is crazy good. The math I've seen says using your 3rd action for the shield instead of a third attack is a very good move, and all of the first hand reports is that using shields is fun as hell.
Taking a second hand to grip, I'll grant you that. But shields aren't becoming worse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, taxing actions like that isn't making the game better though, it's making it worse than the one we had, or at the very least, unchanged.
Considering the wide range of possibilities that existed with your abilities separate from the combat style you chose, because it didn't affect your options. Now, seemingly you have to use your actions just to use your chosen combat style.
Which, may be the goal here, but if in that system I find not taking any of these combat styles benefits me more overall according to the math of the game, then I start to see a problem with the feat and class design. Your abilities shouldn't make you worse, especially when it's supposed to be a quintessential identifier of your character.
If we are talking specifically about shields, getting DR from them is crazy good. The math I've seen says using your 3rd action for the shield instead of a third attack is a very good move, and all of the first hand reports is that using shields is fun as hell.
Taking a second hand to grip, I'll grant you that. But shields aren't becoming worse.
But the DR isn't automatic, it costs you another action that I would rather have free to make an Aoo or something.
It takes two actions to get the DR. If it cost 1, and I could do it with an action (active defense) or a reaction based on my choice, then I'd say shields got better and it was worth the single action. I don't like it costing two actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
Except in that one PFS scenario...you guys know the one! :D
Except in that one PFS scenario...you guys know the one! :DBut it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
MARK DON'T TELL THE PLAYERS!!!!
For real, my group is conditioned to be afraid of every closed door, forever. My bad... (or is it?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
I don't think a door taking 1 action, 2 if you need regrip, makes it a boss fight. If I can overcome a boss using 2 actions it wasn't much of a boss. (Or my Save or Die got lucky.)
Also, opening a door was still a move action in PF1, which meant that for most characters it messed up your turn just fine by RAW. I think on average, a door will be about as much of a cost as it was before. A move action, for many PF1 martials, was probably valued at about 1.5 actions in PF2. In PF1 you can move up to a door, open it, and your turn is pretty much over. In PF2, you can move up to a door, open it, and move through it all in one go. This is true even if you have to shift your grip with an action on your next turn.
I feel like this is starting to drift off topic, as I don't think doors are the most important example here, but I guess the same principle applies to held items as well. If I can attack, move, and draw a potion all in the same turn, I don't think needing to spend 1 of 3 actions next turn really makes me worse off than I was before.
I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
Lets not be overly dramatic. A door at worst (i.e when the players think they are in a situation that requires caring) requires one play to have a slightly unoptimal turn.
A door is an obstacle, it occasionally acting at such is not bad for the game in my view.
It's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
Lets not be overly dramatic. A door at worst (i.e when the players think they are in a situation that requires caring) requires one play to have a slightly unoptimal turn.
A door is an obstacle, it occasionally acting at such is not bad for the game in my view.
I think if doors are hurting your fun, the better fix might be to make doors a free action. Rule that people can plow through doors like an action hero. Otherwise, the door is still a problem regardless of what needs to happen with your weapon grip.
I grant you that the weapon grip thing provides an ADDITIONAL cost which might not be fun, but that feels like a separate issue.
It's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
Lets not be overly dramatic. A door at worst (i.e when the players think they are in a situation that requires caring) requires one play to have a slightly unoptimal turn.
A door is an obstacle, it occasionally acting at such is not bad for the game in my view.
I think if doors are hurting your fun, the better fix might be to make doors a free action. Rule that people can plow through doors like an action hero. Otherwise, the door is still a problem regardless of what needs to happen with your weapon grip.
I grant you that the weapon grip thing provides an ADDITIONAL cost which might not be fun, but that feels like a separate issue.
It's not about the door, it's about the fact that the rules as presented aren't clear and there was already confusion on the fact that it takes a whole turn to open the door, two to change grips, and one to interact with the door where in the previous edition two of those actions were not actions that taxed you on what the game allows you to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about the door, it's about the fact that the rules as presented aren't clear and there was already confusion on the fact that it takes a whole turn to open the door, two to change grips, and one to interact with the door where in the previous edition two of those actions were not actions that taxed you on what the game allows you to do.It's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
Lets not be overly dramatic. A door at worst (i.e when the players think they are in a situation that requires caring) requires one play to have a slightly unoptimal turn.
A door is an obstacle, it occasionally acting at such is not bad for the game in my view.
I think if doors are hurting your fun, the better fix might be to make doors a free action. Rule that people can plow through doors like an action hero. Otherwise, the door is still a problem regardless of what needs to happen with your weapon grip.
I grant you that the weapon grip thing provides an ADDITIONAL cost which might not be fun, but that feels like a separate issue.
"There is already confusion" doesn't seem like a meaningful criticism though. Of course there is confusion, we don't actually have the rules yet. It took one post by a dev to clear it up. Is it crazy to think that the language we get in the final product might make this a little clearer than a single throw away line in a blog post?
...It's not about the door, it's about the fact that the rules as presented aren't clear and there was already confusion on the fact that it takes a whole turn to open the door, two to change grips, and one to interact with the door where in the previous edition two of those actions were not actions that taxed you on what the gameIt's not about the door, it's about game design. Sometimes gamism matters more than simulationism.I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
But it doesn't make the game better, a door should not be the boss fight before the boss fight.
No one tell my players I said that.
Lets not be overly dramatic. A door at worst (i.e when the players think they are in a situation that requires caring) requires one play to have a slightly unoptimal turn.
A door is an obstacle, it occasionally acting at such is not bad for the game in my view.
I think if doors are hurting your fun, the better fix might be to make doors a free action. Rule that people can plow through doors like an action hero. Otherwise, the door is still a problem regardless of what needs to happen with your weapon grip.
I grant you that the weapon grip thing provides an ADDITIONAL cost which might not be fun, but that feels like a separate issue.
Let's not get petty over it, but the fact is that very post you mentioned included the clause "should be" which indicates even they don't have it down.
Again, the game is not necessarily better by taxing away the actions they designed you to have more freedom with. It's counterintuitive to the game design.
This has been demonstrated, but it may be the intent of the designers, after all it's not like these aren't the same group that gave us crane wing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
I totally agree with that example. Except for one thing - it should apply to almost all weapons if we're really talking realistic. Opening a door and getting through it with a rapier is actually smurfing awkward. Everything but light weapons should have to deal with this.
Which gets to my real point - verisimilitude with combat rules is overrated. Because the combat rules in D&D/Pathfinder have never even come close.
It's the sort of thing I used to care about a lot more. After 20+ years of both gaming and fighting with weapons, they're just not even close. What I really care about is - how does it play? If it works best from a rules sense, then I'm cool with it.
That being said, I'm still kind of worried about weapon traits...if a Bo is a better stick than a quarterstaff, I'm going to be very annoyed.
Let's not get petty over it, but the fact is that very post you mentioned included the clause "should be" which indicates even they don't have it down.
If they aren't even sure about it yet, then yeah, it's gonna be a little confusing. Right now, if things are still in flux. What actually matters is if it is confusing when we get our hands on it. I don't think it follows that just because something seems confusing now means it won't be confusing in the playtest. The reverse is also true: something which seems clear now could be unexpectedly confusing in the final product.
Again, the game is not necessarily better by taxing away the actions they designed you to have more freedom with. It's counterintuitive to the game design.
I agree that taking away actions does not necessarily make the game better, and that the players losing those actions probably won't be happy. However, it is entirely possible that those changes will be better for the balance of the game. People were super upset that the number of spell slots is getting reduced, but that may very well be necessary to balance martials against casterts.
The grip change may wind up being a good thing for balancing two-handers vs people holding a one hander and keeping a free hand. In PF1 there aren't a lot of reasons to not opt for the higher damage of the two-handed weapon, at least without artificially creating barriers like Swashbuckler Finesse or Spell Combat.
In PF2, those barriers may be less necessary because wielding a two handed weapon makes it a little harder to do finesse work with your offhand, like manipulating the environment or casting a spell. Which is a pretty intuitive concept. This is a trade-off, and while I share some concern it might not wind up making the game more fun overall, there is a possibility that it will.
This has been demonstrated, but it may be the intent of the designers, after all it's not like these aren't the same group that gave us crane wing.
...Were they though? I don't know who was responsible for the Crane Wing Errata, but it looks like Mark didn't join the Paizo team until several months later. Jason was obviously around then, as some other devs probably were, Paizo isn't one amorphous collective with one sets of opinions and no contradictory ideas and values.
Also, I think pointing to the worst decisions Paizo assumes they haven't learned any lessons or gotten any better at this. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case.
Let's not get petty over it, but the fact is that very post you mentioned included the clause "should be" which indicates even they don't have it down.If they aren't even sure about it yet, then yeah, it's gonna be a little confusing. Right now, if things are still in flux. What actually matters is if it is confusing when we get our hands on it. I don't think it follows that just because something seems confusing now means it won't be confusing in the playtest. The reverse is also true: something which seems clear now could be unexpectedly confusing in the final product.
Again, the game is not necessarily better by taxing away the actions they designed you to have more freedom with. It's counterintuitive to the game design.I agree that taking away actions does not necessarily make the game better, and that the players losing those actions probably won't be happy. However, it is entirely possible that those changes will be better for the balance of the game. People were super upset that the number of spell slots is getting reduced, but that may very well be necessary to balance martials against casterts.
The grip change may wind up being a good thing for balancing two-handers vs people holding a one hander and keeping a free hand. In PF1 there aren't a lot of reasons to not opt for the higher damage of the two-handed weapon, at least without artificially creating barriers like Swashbuckler Finesse or Spell Combat.
In PF2, those barriers may be less necessary because wielding a two handed weapon makes it a little harder to do finesse work with your offhand, like manipulating the environment or casting a spell. Which is a pretty intuitive concept. This is a trade-off, and while I share some concern it might not wind up making the game more fun overall, there is a possibility that it will.
This has been demonstrated, but it may be the intent of the designers, after all it's not like these aren't the same group that...
Did you read through the previous thread I had, 15 minutes ago?
Not meant to sound snide as it might without being able to convey my tone, I just need to know how much I should retype and how much will be redundant.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a Feder in my room, so I have a readily accessible training sword to try these things out. Not only can I switch between a one handed grip and a 2 handed grip in less than a second, I can also throw a cut and change my stance in the same period of time
How many times could you throw a cut in six seconds?
Now you have answered that...
Would you feel it's ok to attack that many times in a RPG? How would you balance it?
The point of this is that pathfinder does not try to emulate reality. It tries to create a game. A certain dosis of verosimilitude is ok, but there is going to be a level of abstraction.
...Let's not get petty over it, but the fact is that very post you mentioned included the clause "should be" which indicates even they don't have it down.If they aren't even sure about it yet, then yeah, it's gonna be a little confusing. Right now, if things are still in flux. What actually matters is if it is confusing when we get our hands on it. I don't think it follows that just because something seems confusing now means it won't be confusing in the playtest. The reverse is also true: something which seems clear now could be unexpectedly confusing in the final product.
Again, the game is not necessarily better by taxing away the actions they designed you to have more freedom with. It's counterintuitive to the game design.I agree that taking away actions does not necessarily make the game better, and that the players losing those actions probably won't be happy. However, it is entirely possible that those changes will be better for the balance of the game. People were super upset that the number of spell slots is getting reduced, but that may very well be necessary to balance martials against casterts.
The grip change may wind up being a good thing for balancing two-handers vs people holding a one hander and keeping a free hand. In PF1 there aren't a lot of reasons to not opt for the higher damage of the two-handed weapon, at least without artificially creating barriers like Swashbuckler Finesse or Spell Combat.
In PF2, those barriers may be less necessary because wielding a two handed weapon makes it a little harder to do finesse work with your offhand, like manipulating the environment or casting a spell. Which is a pretty intuitive concept. This is a trade-off, and while I share some concern it might not wind up making the game more fun overall, there is a possibility that it will.
This has been demonstrated, but it may be the intent of the designers, after all it's not like
Nope, glanced at once, but didn't really touch it again.
I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
I totally agree with that example. Except for one thing - it should apply to almost all weapons if we're really talking realistic. Opening a door and getting through it with a rapier is actually smurfing awkward. Everything but light weapons should have to deal with this.
Which gets to my real point - verisimilitude with combat rules is overrated. Because the combat rules in D&D/Pathfinder have never even come close.
It's the sort of thing I used to care about a lot more. After 20+ years of both gaming and fighting with weapons, they're just not even close. What I really care about is - how does it play? If it works best from a rules sense, then I'm cool with it.
That being said, I'm still kind of worried about weapon traits...if a Bo is a better stick than a quarterstaff, I'm going to be very annoyed.
I absolutely agree verisimilitude only matters so much. I think the primary reason this change is happening is balance though, not realism. And it as at least intuitive that if you wield a bigger, more cumbersome weapon that you will not be able to get it back up as quickly when you have opened a door way and gotten through it. The short sword may be awkward, but it is less awkward. But the thing that matters more is if the one handed weapon feels competitive with the two handed, not verisimilitude.
I think the Bo Staff is going to be a better weapon for certain kinds of characters, if it is mechanically different from a quarter staff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely agree verisimilitude only matters so much. I think the primary reason this change is happening is balance though, not realism. And it as at least intuitive that if you wield a bigger, more cumbersome weapon that you will not be able to get it back up as quickly when you have opened a door way and gotten through it. The short sword may be awkward, but it is less awkward. But the thing that matters more is if the one handed weapon feels competitive with the two handed, not verisimilitude.
I think the Bo Staff is...
Agreed. If it needs to done to balance between one-handed and two-handed, I'm fine with that. That's why I pointed out that it's actually going easy on a lot of one-handed weapons to allow them to bypass this issue. At the end of the day, everyone will have their own line in the sand, but the designers need to try to find the best solution for the most people.
I suspect you are right about the Bo, but I'm still going to be annoyed. I'm willing to acknowledge it might be a pretty specific pet peeve. But a stick of a certain size is just a stick. It doesn't magically change properties by being Asian... Enough of that tangent, though
I suspect you are right about the Bo, but I'm still going to be annoyed. I'm willing to acknowledge it might be a pretty specific pet peeve. But a stick of a certain size is just a stick. It doesn't magically change properties by being Asian... Enough of that tangent, though
You aren't the only one. But I think this one isn't going to be resolved in a manner that you'd prefer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to point out that "It's awkward to open a door and have a large weapon ready to attack immeadiately" is totally realistic.
Watch any video of a squad enacting a breaching procedure. The guy(s) opening the door are not the ones expected to take point with their equipment right away. The time it takes to put their hand back on their rifle and ready their aim again is often vitally important, which is why you have someone else with the rifle ready go instead.
So in Pathfinder terms that means the team decides who opens the door, with everyone else readying actions to charge/cast/shoot etc.
I totally agree with that example. Except for one thing - it should apply to almost all weapons if we're really talking realistic. Opening a door and getting through it with a rapier is actually smurfing awkward. Everything but light weapons should have to deal with this.
Which gets to my real point - verisimilitude with combat rules is overrated. Because the combat rules in D&D/Pathfinder have never even come close.
It's the sort of thing I used to care about a lot more. After 20+ years of both gaming and fighting with weapons, they're just not even close. What I really care about is - how does it play? If it works best from a rules sense, then I'm cool with it.
That being said, I'm still kind of worried about weapon traits...if a Bo is a better stick than a quarterstaff, I'm going to be very annoyed.
I absolutely agree verisimilitude only matters so much. I think the primary reason this change is happening is balance though, not realism. And it as at least intuitive that if you wield a bigger, more cumbersome weapon that you will not be able to get it back up as quickly when you have opened a door way and gotten through it. The short sword may be awkward, but it is less awkward. But the thing that matters more is if the one handed weapon feels competitive with the two handed, not verisimilitude.
I think the Bo Staff is...
Is the trade-off for using the one handed weapon the added ability to have higher defense in carrying a shield? You are trading damage potential for defense.
In PF1's RAE from Unchained, the 3 act system lended itself well to showing how each combat style functions while treating them all equally. In effect, greater agency was granted to players who could take a multitude of actions within the same turn that didn't affect their ability to serve their mechanical role in game. The mechanical niches of each style came in numerical ways in that edition, so BFW guys would use their Power Attack two-handed, and take on an accuracy penalty. One handers often were either duelist-types that got the damage back somehow (sneak attack was incredibly viable now), and most of the time they could also carry a shield which came with a higher AC, generally higher to hit thanks to a lack of power attack, but lower damage overall. Two-Weapon fighting traded a small amount of to-hit for more chances to hit, and actually got more chances to hit all the time. Melee combat became a RPS of these three choices, all played differently, and all felt equal in execution.
But they didn't have to waste a minimum of 1/3 of their turn just turning on their combat style. If you get taxed your actions to do this, then the added agency and versatility that martial characters gained (making them play more fluidly and simply) gets removed and the game plays the same as it did before (move + single attack, or single attack + single action ability) and martial characters are back to being on the bottom. This unfixes the problem they had already fixed with the flow of play.
Now to be fair, this was all done in a different mathematical system, one in which critical hits primary benefits were extra damage, and the chance to land a critical hit wasn't the same with all weapons. Given the new math of the game, it looks like critical hits are something that the new martial builds are designed to trigger much more often than characters who don't have such high proficiency in weapons. Because they are designed to happen so often, we will likely see a lot more one-big hit builds that focus on making a critical hit happen every turn, especially since it looks like most if not all weapons have a utility option tied to it's critical hit mechanics. Crits mean you get to do something, which is different from just adding damage like they did before (class abilities and feats designed for this notwithstanding).
Because of what we know between the different editions, we might or might not like what we see, but I do not like that the game's combat engine is looking to seemingly reverse the relationship between casters and martials in combat, especially when what we had was just sooo good.
Especially if the one-big-hit thing is really a solid conjecture on what the devs envisioned for the game, I would rather have more actions that are worth taking in a turn (tactically speaking) to add actual variety to the game rather than having to plan my tactics around a system that takes those options away. I'd have to see how it actually plays out, but given what I've experienced I would be inclined to say that the things they are doing make the game worse than what existed before (as in less fun for me and my players) and it is my hope that somehow this information about my experience can inform you and others in thinking critically about the system when you go to play test it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melee combat became a RPS of these three choices, all played differently, and all felt equal in execution.
What you are missing here is that there is a fourth melee style-- One handed weapon, with one hand free. It isn't that there is anything wrong with one handed weapons themselves. They worked great for sword and board and two weapon fighting. The issue is that some players want a character who has a sword in one hand and keeps the other empty.
The old grip rules meant that the only scenario where this style shined over any of the others was if you were grappled and couldn't use one hand, or if you had some class feature that artificially required you to have a free hand at all times. (Swasbuclers and the Magus.) Otherwise, you were almost always better two-handing your weapon and just free action changing your grip to and fro when you wanted to cast spells, open doors, or pull out an item. Technically, a one handed weapon was the most flexible choice, but in practice it barely ever mattered.
With this change, we now have 4 distinct styles. Two-handers hit the hardest. Shield users have the best defense and outlast their counterparts. Two weapon fighting gets you the most attacks per round. And the free hand fighter is the most flexible, making it an excellent choice for a caster, alchemist, or anyone who wants to be able to draw items or interact with the environment easily.
This specific change DOES hurt greatsword users, full stop. It only marginally hurts bastard sword users, who will see their damage drop a little if they have to take a hand off, but they still have the all the same options as before. (I'm not clear if adding a second hand to the longsword will increase it's damage anymore. The Weapons Blog calling out the "Two Hand" weapon trait makes me think they won't though.) But the free hand fighter now has an actual place to shine now. Two weapon fighters and shield users are exactly where they were before with new grip rules. (Not touching shield actions here.)
Now, maybe a grip action isn't the best way to make free handers feel special. Perhaps the best solution lies in giving those weapons specific traits instead. But the point is that by limiting the flexibility of two-handed weapons, they are making a fourth fighting style viable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, maybe a grip action isn't the best way to make free handers feel special. Perhaps the best solution lies in giving those weapons specific traits instead.Problem with that is any weapon you can use one handed on its own, also help s&b or twf, so traits don't really help going pure one handed.
I think being slightly awkward with yours hands when wielding a massive weapon is fine. Unless for some reason you want to be a character who does two handers and likes to use their free hand you are making that decision knowing it will be awkward. If your entire party is doing it maybe you deserve to have doors be slightly unwieldy.
Yeah... Unless the traits give specific benefits when your hand is free. But then we are back into swashbuckler artificial gate-keeping, which I'm not a fan of.
But in general, I think your point about it being more awkward to wield a pole-arm than a rapier for opening a door is pretty fair. We will have to see how it looks in practice. Kingofanything is right that doors certainly shouldn't be a big problem. And if alchemical items are useful for all classes at all levels, that certainly gives free hand fighters a nice niche.
Melee combat became a RPS of these three choices, all played differently, and all felt equal in execution.What you are missing here is that there is a fourth melee style-- One handed weapon, with one hand free. It isn't that there is anything wrong with one handed weapons themselves. They worked great for sword and board and two weapon fighting. The issue is that some players want a character who has a sword in one hand and keeps the other empty.
The old grip rules meant that the only scenario where this style shined over any of the others was if you were grappled and couldn't use one hand, or if you had some class feature that artificially required you to have a free hand at all times. (Swasbuclers and the Magus.) Otherwise, you were almost always better two-handing your weapon and just free action changing your grip to and fro when you wanted to cast spells, open doors, or pull out an item. Technically, a one handed weapon was the most flexible choice, but in practice it barely ever mattered.
With this change, we now have 4 distinct styles. Two-handers hit the hardest. Shield users have the best defense and outlast their counterparts. Two weapon fighting gets you the most attacks per round. And the free hand fighter is the most flexible, making it an excellent choice for a caster, alchemist, or anyone who wants to be able to draw items or interact with the environment easily.
This specific change DOES hurt greatsword users, full stop. It only marginally hurts bastard sword users, who will see their damage drop a little if they have to take a hand off, but they still have the all the same options as before. (I'm not clear if adding a second hand to the longsword will increase it's damage anymore. The Weapons Blog calling out the "Two Hand" weapon trait makes me think they won't though.) But the free hand fighter now has an actual place to shine now. Two weapon fighters and shield users are exactly where they were before with new grip rules. (Not touching...
I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).
They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mentioned free handers, as they often had more options, and usually large enough flat modifiers added to damage to be relevant (swashbuckler and daring champion).
They are part of the one-handers, it's not that different, since those kind of classes usually have a dodge bonus to AC that more or less replaces the shield.
Several issues there. You are then gating that particular fighting style behind particular classes, who then arbitrarily can't use features if they use something in the other hand. What if my Rogue wants to keep a free hand?
If a free hander isn't that different from a shield user, then they are less interesting. Having their own distinct niche is more fun than just patching an AC bonus onto a class. Especially when things like Parry or gishing are being replicated within the basic action economy.
If a free hander has the same AC of a shield user, but has a free hand, then they are now better than the shield user by virtue of having a free hand to draw items and interact. This will be especially prominent since it costs less to draw an item now.