| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I haven't been able to watch the whole 2-hour video yet, but there were a number of reveals at a playtest panel yesterday and I wanted to convey that info to the forums for everyone! Here's what I can remember:
* The final item of the "Big Three" is a stat-boosting item. Magic items that boost skills do exist, but they aren't strictly necessary.
* Developers are moving away from magic items that just grant a numeric bonus. For example, the strength-boosting item also lets you throw rocks and grow in size.
* Trinkets are a new consumable described as "scrolls for martial characters" - you can expend a trinket to get a bonus/effect on its associated class/skill feat, and your Proficiency level improves the benefits granted.
* There are no slots anymore, so wear as many items of one type as is reasonable (20 rings? Sure. 2 pairs of boots? No.).
* Magic items with a passive bonus require you to invest resonance in them at the start of the day to benefit from the item. This helps balance low-level gear and high-level gear. The given example was that you could buy a ring that grants Resistance to multiple elements or you could buy one ring per element. The single ring is more expensive than buying multiple, but it only costs 1 Resonance instead of 1 per ring.
* Mage Armor can be Heightened, and at higher levels it also grants a bonus to saves.
* There's a Legendary skill feat for Intimidate that lets you attempt to literally scare someone to death. They get a save, and on a success they're still pretty scared but you can't target them again for 24 hours.
Feel free to add more to this! I won't be able to until late tonight anyway!
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff I noticed:
-We now know what Double Slice does. It allows you to spend two actions and make one attack with each of your two weapons. These attacks are both at your full bonus. Their damage is then added together before applying Resistance or Weakness. If you make a third attack it gets the full penalty for being a third attack (usually -10). This is actually super good (since it's effectively a +5 to hit on that second attack), and it's the introductory TWF Feat.
-We now know that stat-boosting items are in the game, though they were referenced as only at high levels (they also usually do other stuff as well, like a Belt of Giant Strength giving you Rock Catching and the ability to Enlarge yourself).
By math (based on Mark's comment regarding a 17-18 point swing between people who are terrible at a skill and specialists at 20th level), and combined with items giving up to +5 to skills (basically proved by the Gauntlet), we can infer that leveling Abilities past 18 with Level Ups must only give +1 rather than +2. This caps PCs at Ability Scores of 22 without magic (and, again due to the math, almost certainly at 24 even with magic).
-References were made to a Legendary Intimidate Skill Feat that is a Save or Die effect, as you literally scare people to death (it's limited to no more than one use per target per day). This bodes well for Skill Feats being powerful.
-In related news, you can spend your General Feats on Skill Feats if you want (and one Human Ancestry Feat gives a General Feat). Generally, you can't switch Feats between categories otherwise.
-Haste grants a bonus action (for a total of 4), but specifies that this action may only be used to Stride or Strike. In related news, the -10 for your third attack also applies to any subsequent attacks (like the one you could get from Haste) rather than escalating to -15.
|
|
On Double Slice:
So, both attacks have to target the same creature, and if both hit, you then combine damage rolls?
They just said what I reported. Whether that means you have to make both attacks on the same foe, or that's just a thing that happens if you do, I don't know. Both seem possible.
Also, Double-Slice, what if you are dual-wielding bludgeoning weapons?
It's just a name. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh stat boosters...
If they are as limited as described I can probably live with it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh! capped stats, and only +2 boosters...
I guess they aren't going to please everyone :)
I am a bit sad for 22 cap(+2 magic at stats) but the rogue and fighter legendary abilities/feats kinda make it up for me, as do the feats for the wizard and also the fact that items that just grant a bonus are non existant and even a belt of giant strength grants rock throwing. (Hopefully other strength items with different abilities will become available in later source books, not every strenght focused pc need to throw rocks).
I guess only the final playtest document will tell.
* The final item of the "Big Three" is a stat-boosting item. Magic items that boost skills do exist, but they aren't strictly necessary.
What stats does it boost? Abilities?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was expecting they'd get rid of stat boosters altogether. However, now they're coupled with actually cool stuff you can do by activating the item. It's a nice compromise. Also, since they removed slots for the most part, the stat boosting things won't be crowding out other items. That works.
By math (based on Mark's comment regarding a 17-18 point swing between people who are terrible at a skill and specialists at 20th level), and combined with items giving up to +5 to skills (basically proved by the Gauntlet), we can infer that leveling Abilities past 18 with Level Ups must only give +1 rather than +2. This caps PCs at Ability Scores of 22 without magic (and, again due to the math, almost certainly at 24 even with magic).
Wait... 22 without magic seems reasonable to me and I think I like it, but what's the evidence that magical bonuses cap at +2?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... 22 without magic seems reasonable to me and I think I like it, but what's the evidence that magical bonuses cap at +2?
Math.
Items seem able to grant a +5 to a skill. The difference between Untrained and Legendary is also 5. Mark Seifter said the difference between the minimum possible skill at 20th and the maximum possible skill was 18 points at most (17 to 18 is what he actually specified).
So the difference between the highest Ability Modifier possible and the lowest (which is a -1 from a score of 8) must be no more than 8 points. So a 24 must be the highest possible score. If you can get to 22 naturally (and you can) that means that magic items have to max out at +2.
Now, it's possible one of the assumptions in that chain is wrong, or Mark messed up the math slightly...but Mark's pretty solid on the math front, and there's good evidence for most of the stuff I cite.
Also, The Gauntlet (statted as a Str-raising artifact that lets you cast Earthquake by striking the ground) only grants +2 Str. I doubt less powerful items grant any more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... 22 without magic seems reasonable to me and I think I like it, but what's the evidence that magical bonuses cap at +2?
By math (based on Mark's comment regarding a 17-18 point swing between people who are terrible at a skill and specialists at 20th level), and combined with items giving up to +5 to skills (basically proved by the Gauntlet), we can infer that leveling Abilities past 18 with Level Ups must only give +1 rather than +2. This caps PCs at Ability Scores of 22 without magic (and, again due to the math, almost certainly at 24 even with magic).
Well, the example item that gave +2 was an 18th level item cost the PF1 equivalent (give or take a bunch) of 240k. It gives you a much larger bonus if it's in a dump stat (bringing you up to a focused first-level character), but that means you went about 18 levels without needing to invest in the stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... 22 without magic seems reasonable to me and I think I like it, but what's the evidence that magical bonuses cap at +2?
By math (based on Mark's comment regarding a 17-18 point swing between people who are terrible at a skill and specialists at 20th level), and combined with items giving up to +5 to skills (basically proved by the Gauntlet), we can infer that leveling Abilities past 18 with Level Ups must only give +1 rather than +2. This caps PCs at Ability Scores of 22 without magic (and, again due to the math, almost certainly at 24 even with magic).
The Gauntlet magic item previewed in Friday's bonus blog is a high-level item and only grants a +2. Also, Mark Seifter has stated before that the largest possible difference in skill bonuses between the worst and best of the same level is somewhere around 18 or 19. Proficiency accounts for 5, items have been implied to count for 5, and ability scores must account for the rest. This means the difference between the lowest and highest possible ability modifiers must be 8, and since the lowest score possible right now is an 8 (-1) then the highest possible score must be a 24 (+7). Since you can start at 18, have a minimum possible magic item boost of +2, and can boost ability scores four times over 20 levels, the only way the math checks out is for ability score boosts over 18 to grant a +1 instead of a +2 and limit the possible magic item boost to +2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I prefer it that way, it reminds me of the old Gauntlets of Ogre Power, plus the boost that if you’re already topped out, it still is worth taking for the +2 boost.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bad: Where is the character growth if an 18 is pretty much shoved down your throat at level 1 and you can't get above a 22 without magic?
Double Slice is a glorified +5 on your second attack with no DR. I was hoping for something like, "take a -2 to attack with both weapons as part of one action."
First off, nobody's forcing you to take an 18 at Level 1. You can get as low as a 10 in the stat your class grants a bonus to, and some characters may not want that 18 since there are limited arrays available for it. 16-16-16-12-10-8 is a totally viable array if you want to spread out your stats a bit or want to play a character that could use multiple good stats like a melee Wizard. Heck, I could see 16-16-14-14-12-8 being viable if you wanted to spread stats a bit. Many characters may want an 18, but the difference of a +3 or a +4 is not going to make or break most characters.
And when you consider that crits are now based off getting +10 over the enemy's AC, getting an effective +5 on your second attack of the turn (and only hitting Resistance once) is actually really good.
How does the new double slice compare to the new power attack? They both seem pretty similar where power attack is 2 actions for 2X damage dice + str mod and double slice is 2 actions for weapon 1 dice + weapon 2 dice + 2X(?) Str mod. Am I missing anything there?
And double the chance for a crit. Yes, PA and two-handing really are looking like losers here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the 2 handers get 1.5X str and have higher damage dice than anything you can dual wield with so I bet the match comes out pretty close.How does the new double slice compare to the new power attack? They both seem pretty similar where power attack is 2 actions for 2X damage dice + str mod and double slice is 2 actions for weapon 1 dice + weapon 2 dice + 2X(?) Str mod. Am I missing anything there?And double the chance for a crit. Yes, PA and two-handing really are looking like losers here.
Has anything said that 2 handers get 1.5x STR bonus in PF2?
Regardless, you also need to consider that a 2 hander means you only need to buy one weapon. That's not a trivial difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I'm fine with the idea that Double Slice helps goes through resistances, weakness only applying once feels… off. Makes it a weird choice to use Double Slice for higher effective attack bonus vs simply attacking twice for more weakness damage.
Just because you have the feat doesn't mean you always have to use it. If you're in a situation where there's a significant weakness like that, it may well be prudent to just make two attacks. Odds are good that at least one of the weapons you're two-handing with is agile, so you're still in a pretty good position.
Then again, if you're in a position where there's a significant weakness but the target is difficult for you to hit reliably, then double slice is still a good option too. It's a win-win, since you can only improve upon where you would be without the feat.
The two hander can carry two weakness exploiters, which is an advantage.
Well the 2 handers get 1.5X str a[...|
Do they? I'm not sure about that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bad: Where is the character growth if an 18 is pretty much shoved down your throat at level 1 and you can't get above a 22 without magic?
In all your other stats. Let's examine how a Fighter might advance between 1st and 10th:
1st Level: Str 18, Dex 12 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 12, Cha 10
10th level: Str 20, Dex 16 Con 18 Int 12 Wis 16, Cha 10
That's only +2 Str, sure, but it's quite a large bonus to several other stats (+4 Dex, +4 Con, +4 Wis).
By 20th, if he wanted to spread bonuses around he could have the following:
20th level: Str 22 (24 with item), Dex 18 Con 20 Int 16 Wis 18, Cha 10
That's a +4 Str, +6 Dex, +6 Con, +4 Int, +6 Wis over 1st level stats.
Double Slice is a glorified +5 on your second attack with no DR. I was hoping for something like, "take a -2 to attack with both weapons as part of one action."
I'm pretty sure, given how crits work, the DPR on what you suggest would be lower than how Double Slice actually works. Attack penalties are really punitive to damage in PF2, while attack bonuses are really good.
How does the new double slice compare to the new power attack? They both seem pretty similar where power attack is 2 actions for 2X damage dice + str mod and double slice is 2 actions for weapon 1 dice + weapon 2 dice + 2X(?) Str mod. Am I missing anything there?
You're missing four things:
1. Damage die size. Two handed weapons have a bigger one. 2d12+4 is 17 damage. 1d6+1d8+8 is 16 damage.
2. Magic Weapons. This favors Double slice a lot if you spend double the money on weapons...but that's if you spend double the money. More realistically, your weapons will each be a lower magical plus a lot of the time, which evens things out a bit. Assuming a +2 weapon for the Power Attack guy and two +1 weapons for the Double Slice person we get the following damage: 3d12+4 for 23.5 for Power Attack vs. 2d6+2d8+8 for 24 damage with Double Slice. As levels go up Double slice pulls a bit more ahead damage wise, but falls behind by a point of to-hit, which is relevant.
3. Outside magic weapons, Double Slice never upgrades. Power Attack eventually does.
4. What you do with your third action. A Power Attack user can make another attack with their big weapon at -5 (for 1d12+4). A Double Slice user could make another attack with their much smaller weapon at -8 or -10 (for 1d6 or 1d8 +4). That's...not great from a pure damage perspective (it does mean Double Slice people will probably be looking for stuff to do with their last action...and makes TWF with a Shield very attractive).
Well the 2 handers get 1.5X str and have higher damage dice than anything you can dual wield with so I bet the match comes out pretty close.How does the new double slice compare to the new power attack? They both seem pretty similar where power attack is 2 actions for 2X damage dice + str mod and double slice is 2 actions for weapon 1 dice + weapon 2 dice + 2X(?) Str mod. Am I missing anything there?And double the chance for a crit. Yes, PA and two-handing really are looking like losers here.
Magic bonus gives extra dice too. So that's an adventage for 2h, because 4d12 for a +3 great axe is way better than 4d8 for a +3 battle axe
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the 2 handers get 1.5X str a[...|Do they? I'm not sure about that.
Yeah, all current evidence suggests this to not be the case.
Can someone please post a link to the video? Haven't found it through google or youtube.
It can be found here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So characters are going to be gods at almost everything at level 20? That's not interesting, at least to me.
Well you can focus a bit more if you want (that final stat-line could be Str 22, Dex 20, Con 20, Int 12, Wis 18, Cha 10 if you rearranged starting stats slightly) .
You should also halve the benefit from stats, seeing as only even numbers matter. The difference between the strongest level 1 fighter (which will be about 90% of all STR fighters) and a level 20 fighter, is a +2 bonus. (+3 if he gets a magic item).
If you want to measure bonus, yes, that's how stats work.
I get that the level 20 fighter will likely have feats that make his 22 in STR MUCH more valuable than the level 1 fighter's 18, but it feels odd that "Hercules" only has a +2 over Dave the fighter. (Unless you add your level to STR based checks, then we have a whole different problem.)
Well, feats of Str are Athletics checks in all likelihood. So Hercules likely has a +29 (or +35 with items) on feats of strength as opposed to Dave's +5 or +6.
That's a big difference even ignoring Skill Feats and what they're likely to do.
It feels like 5e's bounded accuracy all over again, one of the biggest reasons why 5e will never be more than a glorified board game to me.
As you can see with the Athletics example above, adding level to everything tends to make that very much not the case.
You should also halve the benefit from stats, seeing as only even numbers matter. The difference between the strongest level 1 fighter (which will be about 90% of all STR fighters) and a level 20 fighter, is a +2 bonus. (+3 if he gets a magic item).
Well, in combat, not really. The difference between the lvl 1 fighter and the lvl 20 fighter is +22 to hit, which also means anything a lvl 1 fighter can hopefuly hit with a 20, a lvl 22 fighter insta-crit with 2+. That means when a lvl 20 fighter attacks the same ogre than the lvl 1 fighter does, he'll do more than twice the damage, not counting magic weapons. That's a lot of difference, and much more than it was in PF1, assuming again no magic weapons. A lvl 1 fighter with a 2h sword in PF1 with STR 20 would do 2d6+7, while a 20 lvl fighter would do 2d6+15 (with str 30). In PF2 a lvl 1 fighter with str 18 does 1d12+4, and a lvl 20 fighter with str 22 does 2d12+12. I don't count feats (like improved specialization, improved critical or power attack) because we don't know exactly which feats the PF2 fighter gets.
In PF2 accuracy matters a lot, because accuracy gives you damage (thanks to the crit chance) and lvl gives you accuracy.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Time for the big problem then.
A level 20 wizard, untrained in Athletics with 8 STR has a +17 on Athletics, and Dave the level 1 fighter, who is expert in Athletics with 18 STR has a +6. Care to explain how that makes any sense?
This is by far my biggest issue with the new system and how it works. By far.
There are some very strong indications that you need to be at least Trained in a Skill in order to do many of the things that skill is known for (you need to be Trained in Acrobatics to tumble, for example). If those are arranged properly this could work pretty well. I'm willing to accept that the Wizard who's been actively adventuring for some time can more easily climb a rope than the novice Fighter, for example.
But I remain concerned.
-References were made to a Legendary Intimidate Skill Feat that is a Save or Die effect, as you literally scare people to death (it's limited to no more than one use per target per day). This bodes well for Skill Feats being powerful.
...Yes, the following is a duplicate response to the same post in the other banquet thread. Yes, I feel it's necessary given how much I'm NOT digging the seeming appearance of Legendary tier skills throwing the game completely off the rails that preceding levels will build.
Gah. I truly hope Mark's comments that PF2 can be customized and Legendary skills can easily be excised from the game is accurate. Because while Legendary is being advertised as something that kicks in only at high levels, if Skill Feats or some other mechanic lowers that barrier of entry to mid-levels, then Paizo has managed to re-convert me back to "PF1 forever".
I have been cautiously optimistic to outright "take my money now" for all of the teases thus far, including resonance and that conversion took place at a pace that surprised me. The only exceptions being minor concerns about NPC builds following a Starfinder route and MAJOR concerns about Legendary stuff turning the campaigns into a caricature of itself.
The stuff being touted as Legendary, isn't. It's demigod Mythic stuff. If it's hardwired into the game, it's sadly a deal-breaker for me.
I do like the intimidate example of a legendary skill. I undertand that many people won't like it, tho. I think it'll be easy to excise from the game. Just allowing only proficiencies up to Master (or whatever is called the one before legendary) should clean the board for the most part. It's certainly easier to remove them, than to build them from the scratch.
|
|
Just to make things clear, when it comes to stuff like climbing ropes, I don't mind that the level 20 8 STR wizard beats out the rookie level 1 fighter with 18 STR. The wizard has probably climbed more ropes, vines, monster intestines, etc. than the fighter could even imagine and is going to beat him with experience.
Yep. My hope is that it's mostly stuff like that you get to do untrained.
What does bug me is that the wizard can beat the level 1 fighter in an arm wrestling match.
This is sort of my worry as well...but to be honest, there's enough tricks to winning an arm wrestling match with somebody stronger that I'm not sure arm wrestling specifically is a deal breaker.
If we ignore level for straight STR checks, then a level 1 fighter with 18 STR beats a level 20 fighter with 22 STR roughly 38% of the time.
I'm pretty sure Level is gonna be included.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, in order to have non-magical heroes compete with wizards and the like, you have to let them be able to do some mythic stuff. On the other hand, if a BBEG could scare a town to death with his voice, no magic required, that seems a bit too cheesy for my taste.
It's a single target effect. So doing this to a town one at a time is probably more effort than it's worth.
I would assume that scaring someone to death would require them to critically fail their save at least.
Very possibly. Hard to tell with the way it was phrased. It might require a successful Intimidate check at a difficult DC and then a failed Save or something like that.
I doubt it's super easy, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the intimidate example of a legendary skill. I undertand that many people won't like it, tho. I think it'll be easy to excise from the game. Just allowing only proficiencies up to Master (or whatever is called the one before legendary) should clean the board for the most part. It's certainly easier to remove them, than to build them from the scratch.
I'm listening to the recording now and my reaction is somewhat mollified by the fact that you A) have to be Legendary proficiency and B) have to have the appropriate Skill Feat. It doesn't appear to be an auto-get for hitting Legendary proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the intimidate example of a legendary skill. I undertand that many people won't like it, tho. I think it'll be easy to excise from the game. Just allowing only proficiencies up to Master (or whatever is called the one before legendary) should clean the board for the most part. It's certainly easier to remove them, than to build them from the scratch.and what nerf would casters receive to valance that?
as that would be a house rule, whatever the GM and the players agree with, if any.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the intimidate example of a legendary skill. I undertand that many people won't like it, tho. I think it'll be easy to excise from the game. Just allowing only proficiencies up to Master (or whatever is called the one before legendary) should clean the board for the most part. It's certainly easier to remove them, than to build them from the scratch.I'm listening to the recording now and my reaction is somewhat mollified by the fact that you A) have to be Legendary proficiency and B) have to have the appropriate Skill Feat. It doesn't appear to be an auto-get for hitting Legendary proficiency.
Then it's even easier. You don't have to left out all legendary stuff, just the individual feats that you don't feel confortable with. It's no different than when some people ban a certain spell or magic item from their table.