PF2 Playtest Panel


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Druids were considered divine casters pre-4th Ed/PF2e. But of all the issues, rebranding Druids from divine to something else isn't a big deal (although WHY on earth we're stealing the 4th ed term I do not understand). It's when taken in with everything else it becomes an issue.

But as I said. Everyone who has played the game says it feels like PF1e so I'm clinging to that and praying it holds true for my group.


Porridge wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
John John wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

thflame wrote:
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.

Wow i was going to respond to thflame that arm wrestling is propably just a strength check and actually strength is weird ability and many times the results shouldn't even be random. Like a 20 strength dude should just win vs a 10 strength dude.

My houserule in 3.5 and pathfinder was to double the ability modifier in ability checks.

Out of seer curiousty what tricks can you pull in an arm wrestling match?

I would adjudicate an arm-wrestling match as whoever has the highest Str score, automatically wins, if they both have the same Str score, it is a simple opposed Str check. So, in PF2, that would be a d20 + Str modifier check vs. the opponent's Str mod +10?

Nice — I like this suggestion. And it fits with how some similar contests are adjudicated. In particular, in a contest about how much each can lift, the one with the higher strength will win because they can lift more. Full stop. Treating arm wrestling in the same way seems like a reasonable way to proceed.

(Of course, the general worry about skill modifiers not being large enough can be raised in other ways. But I like this way of treating this particular task.)

Thanks, and it's another way to make odd scores mean something.


Weather Report wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well I think arm wrestling is kind of a weird thing to pick I feel we should use something that is more common in the game. I guess it would be opposed athletic checks? IF it was just opposed str checks then its not really an issue. I would say also that is can't really be related to real life that well because people aren't actually leveled really. White wolfs dot system actually probably handles a closer degree of real life in that you can just rate everyone on a scale of 1-5 at something. It really comes down to your own definition of what being higher level means.
As has been said, we've derailed the thread too much, but I just want to say, I now have a wonderful image/idea of a 1st-level Half-Orc Barbarian with an 18 or 20 Str, arms like small trees, sitting down to his opponent, an old, scrawny, 20th-level Gnome Wizard with an 8 Str, and the gnome just buries him, gets all Over the Top on his ass!

Glad I could amuse!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Druids were considered divine casters pre-4th Ed/PF2e. But of all the issues, rebranding Druids from divine to something else isn't a big deal (although WHY on earth we're stealing the 4th ed term I do not understand). It's when taken in with everything else it becomes an issue.

But as I said. Everyone who has played the game says it feels like PF1e so I'm clinging to that and praying it holds true for my group.

On this forum at least I have always seen Druid treated as their own distinctive caster, and at least rules wise this seems to hold true. Druids after all don't use the divine spell-list, don't need to worship a god, have their own set of quasi classes (Shifter, Hunter, Ranger) and follow there own unique theme. Naming there spell list Primal just seems to codify those distinctions by name.

Why they went with Primal? probably because it sounds cooler than Nature and was the best synonym of listed options?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Also, with a distinct Primal list, if Druids are the prepared casters, I wonder if they end will end up making Shamans someday the spontaneous casting version of this class.


Weather Report wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well I think arm wrestling is kind of a weird thing to pick I feel we should use something that is more common in the game. I guess it would be opposed athletic checks? IF it was just opposed str checks then its not really an issue. I would say also that is can't really be related to real life that well because people aren't actually leveled really. White wolfs dot system actually probably handles a closer degree of real life in that you can just rate everyone on a scale of 1-5 at something. It really comes down to your own definition of what being higher level means.
As has been said, we've derailed the thread too much, but I just want to say, I now have a wonderful image/idea of a 1st-level Half-Orc Barbarian with an 18 or 20 Str, arms like small trees, sitting down to his opponent, an old, scrawny, 20th-level Gnome Wizard with an 8 Str, and the gnome just buries him, gets all Over the Top on his ass!

I was just waiting for someone to make an Over the Top reference (otherwise I'd have done it myself). :-p

And now I feel old again...

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Similar is not same. I guess, we'll see.
'Similar', 'several ability scores', and the math being perfect if it works exactly the same make for a compelling case for it being pretty close to the same.

See also the comment in the monster blog that monsters could drop ability scores and go with modifiers only because they don't raise their stats like PCs do. Which clearly suggests (to me) that whatever method PCs use to raise stats results in odd scores every now and then.

Add that to the leveling up blog talking starfinder and I think it's very good odds it'll be diminishing returns ability boosts, like Starfinder.


MMCJawa wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

Druids were considered divine casters pre-4th Ed/PF2e. But of all the issues, rebranding Druids from divine to something else isn't a big deal (although WHY on earth we're stealing the 4th ed term I do not understand). It's when taken in with everything else it becomes an issue.

But as I said. Everyone who has played the game says it feels like PF1e so I'm clinging to that and praying it holds true for my group.

On this forum at least I have always seen Druid treated as their own distinctive caster, and at least rules wise this seems to hold true. Druids after all don't use the divine spell-list, don't need to worship a god, have their own set of quasi classes (Shifter, Hunter, Ranger) and follow there own unique theme. Naming there spell list Primal just seems to codify those distinctions by name.

Why they went with Primal? probably because it sounds cooler than Nature and was the best synonym of listed options?

I'd love to know which Paizo developer was responsible for naming the Druid power source spell list. As for Druids not being divine casters, check the PF1e CRB, page 49 first sentence under the Spells class feature. Druids no longer being divine casters IS a change with the new edition.


GentleGiant wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Well I think arm wrestling is kind of a weird thing to pick I feel we should use something that is more common in the game. I guess it would be opposed athletic checks? IF it was just opposed str checks then its not really an issue. I would say also that is can't really be related to real life that well because people aren't actually leveled really. White wolfs dot system actually probably handles a closer degree of real life in that you can just rate everyone on a scale of 1-5 at something. It really comes down to your own definition of what being higher level means.
As has been said, we've derailed the thread too much, but I just want to say, I now have a wonderful image/idea of a 1st-level Half-Orc Barbarian with an 18 or 20 Str, arms like small trees, sitting down to his opponent, an old, scrawny, 20th-level Gnome Wizard with an 8 Str, and the gnome just buries him, gets all Over the Top on his ass!

I was just waiting for someone to make an Over the Top reference (otherwise I'd have done it myself). :-p

And now I feel old again...

Nice, glad someone got the reference, and now I feel old again too...


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Weather Report wrote:
John John wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

thflame wrote:
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.

Wow i was going to respond to thflame that arm wrestling is propably just a strength check and actually strength is weird ability and many times the results shouldn't even be random. Like a 20 strength dude should just win vs a 10 strength dude.

My houserule in 3.5 and pathfinder was to double the ability modifier in ability checks.

Out of seer curiousty what tricks can you pull in an arm wrestling match?

I would adjudicate an arm-wrestling match as whoever has the highest Str score, automatically wins, if they both have the same Str score, it is a simple opposed Str check. So, in PF2, that would be a d20 + Str modifier check vs. the opponent's Str mod +10?

There probably should be a size adjustment here, even if they aren't used any longer for other purposes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd love to know which Paizo developer was responsible for naming the Druid power source spell list. As for Druids not being divine casters, check the PF1e CRB, page 49 first sentence under the Spells class feature. Druids no longer being divine casters IS a change with the new edition.

In 3.0, the biggest mechanical difference between Arcane and Divine casting was whether armor interfered with it, and even that was weakened going into 3.5 and PF. Sure, there was lots of flavorful difference, but that was almost the sole mechanical difference.

Personally, I'd separated 3.5 classes into four categories of magic for my home setting in like 2005 (Wizardry, Artistry, Witchery, and Divinity if you're curious), so spinning Druids out into their own thing with Rangers and Shifters makes perfect sense to me. Heck I'd even say Witches can come too, but that's my own personal interpretation of the class fantasy and I don't expect anyone else to follow along. What can I say? I started reading Terry Pratchett at an impressionable age and never recovered

Of course, I also liked 4e's power source as a method of sorting classes by flavor, and wish they'd leaned harder into it, instead of pulling back and going "everyone is the same, only renamed!"

As far as the actual word used, what would you have called the new druid spell list? I know I called it "Witchcraft" in my home game, but I used a different class fantasy. Since Golarian druids tap into the First World, "Primal" makes more sense there than anywhere besides Azeroth.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
I'd love to know which Paizo developer was responsible for naming the Druid power source spell list. As for Druids not being divine casters, check the PF1e CRB, page 49 first sentence under the Spells class feature. Druids no longer being divine casters IS a change with the new edition.

A rather meaningless change, since the only real think linking them to clerics was them stating they were divine casters. As far as I am concerned they really only made official what the class has long been treated as, a nature based casting class.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

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.

Yes, it's late, but I'm still going to vent about these.

-I'm a little disappointed with the Double Slice option, since this basically destroys what TWF could have been in the game (which is getting two attacks on the first Strike action, with the ITWF and GTWF granting additional attacks on second and third strike actions, respectively, while retaining typical TWF rules from PF1, serving as a weakness exploiter build). Unless you can combine this feat with Power Attack (which consumes all 3 actions in exchange for added dice on both weapon attacks), the TWF option is effectively dead in this edition, and you're better off using sword-and-board or two-handed weapons. (P.S. Should be renamed to Double Strike so people don't ask silly questions like "Can I use this feat with bludgeoning or piercing weapons?" We did it for Race via Ancestry due to political correctness, we can do it here just to prevent local confusion of newer players.)

-This may well be the 3rd "required item" besides magical weapons and armor/shields, and them reserving it for endgame stuff might be a good thing to help prevent major disparities between characters leveling up, considering the taste for this we got was the Gauntlet magic item, which not only granted a +2 bonus, but instead of this grants a specific Strength score for those who were under a certain threshold (18 in this case). This could be unique to the item, but if similar magical effects work like that, then it will give us a combined precedent of AD&D2E and 3.X attribute items, since both mechanics are in play there. I would be disappointed with the +1/+2 paradigm, since, while it adds a lesser deficit between creatures, it does create confusion for adding attributes. I also thought they were doing away with the whole "odd ability scores" thing as previewed by the character creation and level up mechanics, and they have always believed in the "Only +2" paradigm in PF1 (sans the Tomes and Level 4/8/12/16/20 increases, since they were legacy), so it's a little misleading here if they decide to reinforce it all of a sudden on such a key aspect of characters.

-The Intimidate Skill Feat isn't all that great, since it's just a 1/day Save or Die effect that's most certain to fail against strong enemies (that you would most likely want to use it on, whether by good saves or outright immunities to what are presumably still Fear effects), and feels wasted on a lesser enemy that is much more likely to fail from it. Neat flavor, sure, but the mechanics for it are pretty lackluster and also not worth taking from an optimal standpoint (thankfully it's a feat, and not baseline for the skill, or skills would still be in trouble in PF2 from this preview). For some classes (assuming Rogues still get their Master Strike feature from 20th level as a character option), it's also a redundant option, unless both have similar limitations, in which case you're only perpetuating what made PF1 such a major rocket tag game to begin with, which are insta-gib options like these, which are much more susceptible to PCs from bosses due to level/gear disparities.

-Good to know on the feats, and also as an added bonus, Humans having the option to simply take a General feat with an Ancestry feat might be telling of them simply not getting a free feat like in PF1, since they are having the added flexibility instead of simply extra feat power. If they have both, then I think Humans might still be one of the best races in the game.

-Well, Haste has its uses now, but it's most certainly not going to be the de facto Martial buff it used to be, since full attacks are dead, and having the extra attack at -10 if you spent nothing but Attack actions (or maybe two Power Attacks? But with Double Slice working the way it does, that too will probably be at a -10 penalty since both are similar mechanically) is generally a foolish way to spend actions. I think Haste would still be good if you could use the extra action for things besides moving or attacking. Maybe an Interact action as well, since there are combat options that work this way, such as grip switching or drawing out useful items? (If the big issue is that it shouldn't grant extra spell actions, a simple "Can't be used for spells or spell points" clause fixes this.)

Overall, I've got mixed feelings about these changes. Several of them are just bad and/or kill key elements from its predecessor, like TWF, Haste, and level up restrictions are mostly just utility options. Some are actually very good (and serve as neat insight for future options), like the magic items and the Human feats being more flexible with general options instead of simply having more to work with.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, it's late, but I'm still going to vent about these.

Feel free. Though I think you got a few things wrong here.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
-I'm a little disappointed with the Double Slice option, since this basically destroys what TWF could have been in the game (which is getting two attacks on the first Strike action, with the ITWF and GTWF granting additional attacks on second and third strike actions, respectively, while retaining typical TWF rules from PF1, serving as a weakness exploiter build). Unless you can combine this feat with Power Attack (which consumes all 3 actions in exchange for added dice on both weapon attacks), the TWF option is effectively dead in this edition, and you're better off using sword-and-board or two-handed weapons. (P.S. Should be renamed to Double Strike so people don't ask silly questions like "Can I use this feat with bludgeoning or piercing weapons?" We did it for Race via Ancestry due to political correctness, we can do it here just to prevent local confusion of newer players.)

I strongly disagree that TWF is dead. The two attack combination from Double Slice is very comparable to Power Attack in damage (actually, usually higher), and finding cool stuff to do with your third action is hardly a unique ability of shield users. Shield users doing it are very solid mechanically, but there's definitively other options.

I do tend to agree on the name change, though.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
-This may well be the 3rd "required item" besides magical weapons and armor/shields, and them reserving it for endgame stuff might be a good thing to help prevent major disparities between characters leveling up, considering the taste for this we got was the Gauntlet magic item, which not only granted a +2 bonus, but instead of this grants a specific Strength score for those who were under a certain threshold (18 in this case). This could be unique to the item, but if similar magical effects work like that, then it will give us a combined precedent of AD&D2E and 3.X attribute items, since both mechanics are in play there. I would be disappointed with the +1/+2 paradigm, since, while it adds a lesser deficit between creatures, it does create confusion for adding attributes. I also thought they were doing away with the whole "odd ability scores" thing as previewed by the character creation and level up mechanics, and they have always believed in the "Only +2" paradigm in PF1 (sans the Tomes and Level 4/8/12/16/20 increases, since they were legacy), so it's a little misleading here if they decide to reinforce it all of a sudden on such a key aspect of characters.

It was specifically stated as the third 'must have' for high level characters, yeah.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
-The Intimidate Skill Feat isn't all that great, since it's just a 1/day Save or Die effect that's most certain to fail against strong enemies (that you would most likely want to use it on, whether by good saves or outright immunities to what are presumably still Fear effects), and feels wasted on a lesser enemy that is much more likely to fail from it. Neat flavor, sure, but the mechanics for it are pretty lackluster and also not worth taking from an optimal standpoint (thankfully it's a feat, and not baseline for the skill, or skills would still be in trouble in PF2 from this preview). For some classes (assuming Rogues still get their Master Strike feature from 20th level as a character option), it's also a redundant option, unless both have similar limitations, in which case you're only perpetuating what made PF1 such a major rocket tag game to begin with, which are insta-gib options like these, which are much more susceptible to PCs from bosses due to level/gear disparities.

Uh...it's once per day per target. That makes it vastly better than you're implying here.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
-Good to know on the feats, and also as an added bonus, Humans having the option to simply take a General feat with an Ancestry feat might be telling of them simply not getting a free feat like in PF1, since they are having the added flexibility instead of simply extra feat power. If they have both, then I think Humans might still be one of the best races in the game.

It's certainly an interesting dynamic to play with. I'm still on the 'starting characters need two Ancestry Feats' bandwagon, though.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
-Well, Haste has its uses now, but it's most certainly not going to be the de facto Martial buff it used to be, since full attacks are dead, and having the extra attack at -10 if you spent nothing but Attack actions (or maybe two Power Attacks? But with Double Slice working the way it does, that too will probably be at a -10 penalty since both are similar mechanically) is generally a foolish way to spend actions. I think Haste would still be good if you could use the extra action for things besides moving or attacking. Maybe an Interact action as well, since there are combat options that work this way, such as grip switching or drawing out useful items? (If the big issue is that it shouldn't grant extra spell actions, a simple "Can't be used for spells or spell points" clause fixes this.)

The bolded part seems very unlikely. The penalty has been strongly established as per attack, and we have no evidence of it being the case. In fact, that's exactly the sort of thing Mark Seifter seems likely to correct if we got wrong, and he hasn't.

Haste is definitely a less powerful spell in this edition though, yeah.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Overall, I've got mixed feelings about these changes. Several of them are just bad and/or kill key elements from its predecessor, like TWF, Haste, and level up restrictions are mostly just utility options. Some are actually very good (and serve as neat insight for future options), like the magic items and the Human feats being more flexible with general options instead of simply having more to work with.

It's certainly some interesting info.


It can be. It ultimately depends on the weapon. If you're using two D6 weapons, it will only marginally be better than a Greatsword or Greataxe on average. It starts to surpass when D8s come into play, but if Double Slice is meant to replace TWF, then I imagine a broad penalty might come into play here. Also keep in mind that they're sacrificing two actions for this. If we used the Power Attack equivalent, 2D12 will be much better than 2D6 (or even 2D8). Sure, you have two attacks compared to one (which means you're more consistent with Double Strike), but Power Attack will still deal more damage with comparable weapons.

The third action is largely irrelevant here, I just posited the Power Attack Double Strike as a potential combination; I doubt that will be possible come publication day, since it seems you can't really combine certain actions all that well unless they fit within the 3 action paradigm nice and neat.

So it is. It's more versatile than I thought, but realistically speaking, if I use it 3 times for 3 actions on 3 mooks, that's 3 mooks dead instead of swinging my weapon; powerful, yes, but I might as well not even have a weapon at that point. Whereas if I use it on the BBEG, it most likely won't work (which is fine, a BBEG dying from a bad roll is pretty lame anyway). And this assumes lack of Fear Immunity; if that comes into effect, you can bet this is like sneak attacking an Ooze or Plant.

That statement is in relation to your Double Strike feat incurring a -10 penalty on future attacks also applying to things like Power Attack (since they share similar mechanics). If not, then that is a thing that Power Attack supersedes Double Strike on, is better follow-up power.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Haste definitely needed a nerf, IMO. I mean, we all love it because it is so good, but it's one of those things that makes blasting kinda pointless. Why hit big once when you can make everyone else in the party hit more for the rest of the combat?

Double Slice sounds neat. I like that we have so many ways to spend our actions rather than one default setting that applies in all situations.

I don't inherently have a problem with a 20th level wizard beating a 1st level fighter in an arm wrestling contest, because I feel like Resonance has really driven home the point that high level folks have just straight up been infused with magic to the very core of their being.

I think the only thing I'm bummed about is odd ability scores still being in the game. Booooo, hiss.

Side note: Did anyone else notice the Gnome had a couple of "traits" listed on the page? I couldn't make out what they were or what they do, but it didn't look like anything mentioned in the gnome blog. Ancestries still having some basic features would take some of the sting out of only getting the one feat at 1st level.

Liberty's Edge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It can be. It ultimately depends on the weapon. If you're using two D6 weapons, it will only marginally be better than a Greatsword or Greataxe on average. It starts to surpass when D8s come into play, but if Double Slice is meant to replace TWF, then I imagine a broad penalty might come into play here. Also keep in mind that they're sacrificing two actions for this. If we used the Power Attack equivalent, 2D12 will be much better than 2D6 (or even 2D8). Sure, you have two attacks compared to one (which means you're more consistent with Double Strike), but Power Attack will still deal more damage with comparable weapons.

This ignores the fact that Power Attack adds only a damage die, while Double Slice adds an attack.

So Power Attack is 2d12+4 (or 17 damage). Double Slice can be 2d8+8 (or 17 damage). And that calculus only improves if you have a flat bonus of some type on damage per attack.

Power Attack also only adds one or two dice, while Double Slice can add 6 if you're using two +5 weapons. In reality, your weapons will probably be lower, but that still rapidly pulls Double slice ahead in damage for quite a while.

6d8+10 for two +2 weapons is 35 average damage. 4d12+5 (for one +3 weapon) is only 31.

Double Slice is also only the introductory TWF Feat

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So it is. It's more versatile than I thought, but realistically speaking, if I use it 3 times for 3 actions on 3 mooks, that's 3 mooks dead instead of swinging my weapon; powerful, yes, but I might as well not even have a weapon at that point. Whereas if I use it on the BBEG, it most likely won't work (which is fine, a BBEG dying from a bad roll is pretty lame anyway). And this assumes lack of Fear Immunity; if that comes into effect, you can bet this is like sneak attacking an Ooze or Plant.

Well, you can also use it once and swing your weapon twice, trading a -10 attack for an Intimidate check at no penalty.

And they've specified that immunities will be a lot rarer this edition. I'd expect mindless enemies are still immune to fear, but I'd actually be surprised if creature types have such an immunity any more.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Side note: Did anyone else notice the Gnome had a couple of "traits" listed on the page? I couldn't make out what they were or what they do, but it didn't look like anything mentioned in the gnome blog. Ancestries still having some basic features would take some of the sting out of only getting the one feat at 1st level.

I believe it's just 'Humanoid' and 'Gnome'. So creature type, by the old system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It can be. It ultimately depends on the weapon. If you're using two D6 weapons, it will only marginally be better than a Greatsword or Greataxe on average. It starts to surpass when D8s come into play, but if Double Slice is meant to replace TWF, then I imagine a broad penalty might come into play here. Also keep in mind that they're sacrificing two actions for this. If we used the Power Attack equivalent, 2D12 will be much better than 2D6 (or even 2D8). Sure, you have two attacks compared to one (which means you're more consistent with Double Strike), but Power Attack will still deal more damage with comparable weapons.

This ignores the fact that Power Attack adds only a damage die, while Double Slice adds an attack.

So Power Attack is 2d12+4 (or 17 damage). Double Slice can be 2d8+8 (or 17 damage). And that calculus only improves if you have a flat bonus of some type on damage per attack.

Power Attack also only adds one or two dice, while Double Slice can add 6 if you're using two +5 weapons. In reality, your weapons will probably be lower, but that still rapidly pulls Double slice ahead in damage for quite a while.

6d8+10 for two +2 weapons is 35 average damage. 4d12+5 (for one +3 weapon) is only 31.

Double Slice is also only the introductory TWF Feat

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So it is. It's more versatile than I thought, but realistically speaking, if I use it 3 times for 3 actions on 3 mooks, that's 3 mooks dead instead of swinging my weapon; powerful, yes, but I might as well not even have a weapon at that point. Whereas if I use it on the BBEG, it most likely won't work (which is fine, a BBEG dying from a bad roll is pretty lame anyway). And this assumes lack of Fear Immunity; if that comes into effect, you can bet this is like sneak attacking an Ooze or Plant.

Well, you can also use it once and swing your weapon twice, trading a -10 attack for an Intimidate check at no penalty.

And they've specified that immunities will...

Power Attack adds more dice as characters scale with level. While we don't know what that exact scaling is, I imagine we can reference the Improved and Greater Vital Strike feats as a basic starting point, since Power Attack is Vital Strike in PF2, which means we can expect at least 2 more increases in dice, if not more.

I thought two-handed weapons added 1.5x modifier like PF1? In which case the Greatsword/axe would pull ahead (even if slightly) in the above equation. One thing I didn't consider is that Double Strike would get two triggers of Sneak Attack in the correct circumstances, but if resistances and weaknesses are only applied once, perhaps Sneak Attack and other on-hit effects are similarly only applied once?

Liberty's Edge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Power Attack adds more dice as characters scale with level. While we don't know what that exact scaling is, I imagine we can reference the Improved and Greater Vital Strike feats as a basic starting point, since Power Attack is Vital Strike in PF2, which means we can expect at least 2 more increases in dice, if not more.

We can certainly expect at least one, yes. Of course, like I said, Double Slice is only the initial TWF thing, too. We really need to see more stuff before we can properly analyze how this works.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I thought two-handed weapons added 1.5x modifier like PF1? In which case the Greatsword/axe would pull ahead (even if slightly) in the above equation.

This was true in PF1, yes. All evidence we currently have suggests it it isn't in PF2. If it is, that does indeed up the two-handed damage a bit (though only 2-3 points given stat maximums).

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
One thing I didn't consider is that Double Strike would get two triggers of Sneak Attack in the correct circumstances, but if resistances and weaknesses are only applied once, perhaps Sneak Attack and other on-hit effects are similarly only applied once?

I doubt they're only applied once, but we'd need to see the Feat text to know for sure.


Weather Report wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BPorter wrote:
The stuff being touted as Legendary, isn't. It's demigod Mythic stuff.
What's the difference?
I think it's the difference between Conan, Elric and such vs. Beowulf, Hercules, etc.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!


The Raven Black wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BPorter wrote:
The stuff being touted as Legendary, isn't. It's demigod Mythic stuff.
What's the difference?
I think it's the difference between Conan, Elric and such vs. Beowulf, Hercules, etc.
Modern litterary creations vs Antique litterary creations ?

Conan, Elric, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser are specifically cited as "Appendix N" inspiration.

Heracles, Beowulf, Achilles...not so much.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!

I love me some Conan, but he never breaks 10th level in Pathfinder terms even in PF1 (I think I built him as a 9th level character and may have been being overly generous). It you never get higher than 12th level, the Legendary stuff just doesn't so much happen.

Elric has magic and an artifact sword, so he's harder to measure, but he does some pretty legendary stuff, too.

Also, as Mark noted, there are lower key Legendary options as well (stuff that's mechanically really good, but thematically a bit more grounded). Restricting your game to those seems reasonably easy from what we've seen.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I do find it hilarious how some people are saying TWF is dead while others are saying two-handers are now clearly losers. I guess this is par the course, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!

So.... just don't play those levels?


Darn, I was hoping the stat cap without magic items would be 26-30.

Maybe the belt of giant strength could also grant rock throwing.

If we get the gauntlet of ogre power it could grant the ability to use bigger weapons, increased slam/unarmed damage, or turn into an ogre.


Captain Morgan wrote:
I do find it hilarious how some people are saying TWF is dead while others are saying two-handers are now clearly losers. I guess this is par the course, though.

TWF will have wealth limitations (because two +5 weapons are twice as expensive as one +5 weapon, and one player having twice the wealth as another player is a highly unrealistic expectation), and two-handers not getting 1.5x Strength means there's not much reason to use two-handed weapons over sword and board, as of current information. Shield raising will be imperative for survival, and since it's unknown whether shields will be usable as weapons or not (I hope so, but no rules = speculation at this point), I wouldn't expect TWF with sword and board to be a thing.

@ Evilgm: One bad feat is all it can take to break a concept, especially one as critical as the initial feat being lackluster, with no visible support for it. Crane Wing is a prime example of how that is, since it also made Crane Riposte worthless due to incongruent mechanics, and is just one of several examples from PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kind sad to see people tyring to figure out which of "TWF" and "Power Attak" are "dead" or, or which is "overpowered". It was a big issue in 1st edition that this rivalry was so imbalanced. Now they actually seem balanced for once!

I know you like greatswords, but give other builds a chance! Even sword and board is solid now, even if DPT is lower. Having multiple equally viable paths is the best a game like this can have!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
TWF will have wealth limitations (because two +5 weapons are twice as expensive as one +5 weapon, and one player having twice the wealth as another player is a highly unrealistic expectation),

This is definitely an issue. However, even assuming +2 dice from Power Attack and a +5 weapon, someone TWF with +4 weapons is fairly competitive, damage-wise (10d8+12 = 57, while 8d12+6 is 58).

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
and two-handers not getting 1.5x Strength means there's not much reason to use two-handed weapons over sword and board, as of current information.

There totally is. Once magic weapons kick in damage die matters. One handed weapons cap at d8 at the moment, while two-handed weapons go to d12. With a +1 weapon, that's 17 damage vs. 13. Power Attack makes that 23.5 vs. 17.5. High damage remains a good strategy in PF2.

Now, a Shield can make a huge difference there, and is better defense than that offensive advantage, but offense still tends to beat defense, point for point.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Shield raising will be imperative for survival, and since it's unknown whether shields will be usable as weapons or not (I hope so, but no rules = speculation at this point), I wouldn't expect TWF with sword and board to be a thing.

The bolded part is untrue. They've specified exactly how shields can be used as weapons (technically, you treat the shield boss or shield spikes as a separate item, a weapon...but it's a weapon attached to the front of your shield, and can be used while using your shield). Sword and Board TWF is officially a thing.


Milo v3 wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!
So.... just don't play those levels?

Since APs go beyond those levels, not really a viable option.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
TWF will have wealth limitations (because two +5 weapons are twice as expensive as one +5 weapon, and one player having twice the wealth as another player is a highly unrealistic expectation),

This is definitely an issue. However, even assuming +2 dice from Power Attack and a +5 weapon, someone TWF with +4 weapons is fairly competitive, damage-wise (10d8+12 = 57, while 8d12+6 is 58).

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
and two-handers not getting 1.5x Strength means there's not much reason to use two-handed weapons over sword and board, as of current information.

There totally is. Once magic weapons kick in damage die matters. One handed weapons cap at d8 at the moment, while two-handed weapons go to d12. With a +1 weapon, that's 17 damage vs. 13. Power Attack makes that 23.5 vs. 17.5. High damage remains a good strategy in PF2.

Now, a Shield can make a huge difference there, and is better defense than that offensive advantage, but offense still tends to beat defense, point for point.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Shield raising will be imperative for survival, and since it's unknown whether shields will be usable as weapons or not (I hope so, but no rules = speculation at this point), I wouldn't expect TWF with sword and board to be a thing.
The bolded part is untrue. They've specified exactly how shields can be used as weapons (technically, you treat the shield boss or shield spikes as a separate item, a weapon...but it's a weapon attached to the front of your shield, and can be used while using your shield). Sword and Board TWF is officially a thing.

Which makes sense. TWF builds really only pulled ahead way late in the game, where WBL didn't matter and characters had max levels and items, so ironically, the paradigm wouldn't change if that's the case. (TWF would still be better with on-hit effects, but again, it's unconfirmed if on-hit effects like Sneak Attack work with the multiple "attacks" from Double Slice given how it interacts with resistances and weaknesses.)

An extra D8 versus an extra D12 is a difference of approximately 2 damage per dice. (Technically exactly, on average, but not the point.) 10 damage over the course of attacks versus numerous times of getting attacked means shields will be a lot more useful in terms of raw effectiveness (and they are also more consistent).

Ugh, I'm going to hate those shield weapon mechanics. That's what James Jacobs tried describing shield bashing working like in PF1 (which was wrong), and now I'm going to have to deal with +5 Shield Boss or +5 Shield Spikes on +5 Shield shenanigans, which was confusing (and misleading) enough for players in PF1, dealing with it even more in PF2 will fly right in the face of streamlining and simplifying gameplay and mechanics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
now I'm going to have to deal with +5 Shield Boss or +5 Shield Spikes on +5 Shield shenanigans

Actually you won't. The Shield Boss/Spikes are the weapon that's enchanted (and also that's calculating Quality presumably), and we know (from the Equipment blog) you don't actually put +Anything on a Shield. Shields can be enchanted, but only with abilities.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
An extra D8 versus an extra D12 is a difference of approximately 2 damage per dice. (Technically exactly, on average, but not the point.) 10 damage over the course of attacks versus numerous times of getting attacked means shields will be a lot more useful in terms of raw effectiveness (and they are also more consistent).

It's actually 12 damage over the course of the career just from getting a +5 weapon. Power attack adds at least 2 more dice on top of that. We know Mark has also said max level monster HP won't be as high as PF1. And there is also the more frequent crits doubling damage more often.

So 16 average vs 32 on the average crit seems like a significant advantage, especially if both classes are getting a second hit or third hit in. This also doesn't touch things like weapon traits or feat support. Also, while I know lots of folks have complained about re-gripping a weapon taking an action, the two hander does better with interactions than the sword and board who pretty much has to spend 2 actions instead of one on shuffling stuff around their hands/sheathes/the ground. The two hander looks to be able to draw a magic item, activate it, and then re-grip their weapon all in one turn. Sword and board needs 4 actions or switching to a secondary weapon in that scenario.

Quote:
Ugh, I'm going to hate those shield weapon mechanics. That's what James Jacobs tried describing shield bashing working like in PF1 (which was wrong), and now I'm going to have to deal with +5 Shield Boss or +5 Shield Spikes on +5 Shield shenanigans, which was confusing (and misleading) enough for players in PF1, dealing with it even more in PF2 will fly right in the face of streamlining and simplifying gameplay and mechanics.

Shinigami02 covered this pretty well. I'll add that I expect how shield bashing interacts with blocking will probably be more streamlined and easier to understand.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

tl;dr, Double Slice improves your crit chance.

I think people are missing the most important part of Double Slice - you're basically getting two attacks with no iterative penalty. That's a 20-25% increase in both your chance to hit and your chance to critically hit on your second attack. Plus, characters with Twin weapons can hit even harder as their weapons deal bonus damage when hitting the same enemy in one turn.

Consider at Level 1 with the same bonuses a Greatsword Fighter and a character wielding Twin d6 weapons. The first attacks at +6 (+4 STR, +1 Expert, +1 Level) and deals 2d12+4 on a Power Attack, while the second uses Double Slice +6/+6 (1d6+4/1d6+4). Against the same enemy AC 12 the first has DPR 17 while the second has DPR 15. However, the first has a 25% chance of critting and the second has a 43.75% chance of critting at least once (and a 6.25% chance of critting twice). This matters because weapons have abilities that proc off a critical hit, and these abilities can shift the math in favor of Double Slice or grant other bonuses that DPR can't easily measure.


What is a "shield boss"?


What happens if you use Double Slice while wielding a rapier and a mace vs a skeleton? If you only apply resistance once, which weapon do we apply resistance for?


Dragon78 wrote:
What is a "shield boss"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_boss


thflame wrote:
What happens if you use Double Slice while wielding a rapier and a mace vs a skeleton? If you only apply resistance once, which weapon do we apply resistance for?

You add all the damage together, then apply any resistance and vulnerability. If a creature has both resistance and vulnerability that both apply to the damage types dealt, you modify the damage total by both the resistance and vulnerability amounts.

That's how I'd guess it works, anyway.


BPorter wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!
So.... just don't play those levels?
Since APs go beyond those levels, not really a viable option.

Though I do sympathise with wanting to play a more grounded game I am not sure the monsters faced or at least the generally head on way the

high cr monsters of level 10+ adventure paths are faced, are representative of the adventures of the grey mouser/ conan crowd.

For me putting the fantasy super hero stuff after level 10 is the best solution.


Thanks for the info Fuzzypaws.

It would be cool if Shamans are spontaneous casters since that is what I was hoping they would be in 1e.

It makes me wonder how many of the non-core 1e classes remain full classes or become archetypes in 2e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Playing at the Delve tables at PaizonCon, I can say that both Seelah and Valeros could shield bash at level 1. This came at a -2 penalty due to lack of shield boss or shield spikes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Since APs go beyond those levels, not really a viable option.

Considering once you reach legendary you've already left the territory of Conan and Gray Mouser by 7 levels, why are you wanting to play any adventures that go past 6th level to begin with? You want an experience to match what Pathfinder 1e would have as levels 1 to 6, APs should already be a problem for you.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

One fun tidbit from the end of con Playtest feedback seminar, the monster ability ferocity now gives the creature a reaction that when they drop to 0 hp, they instead go to 1 hp. So a standard boar can keep fighting indefinitely after you drop it to zero, if you can only manage to get 1 hit a round on it. You'll need 2 to actually kill it - one to trigger its reaction, then another one to drop it to zero before its next turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Since APs go beyond those levels, not really a viable option.
Considering once you reach legendary you've already left the territory of Conan and Gray Mouser by 7 levels, why are you wanting to play any adventures that go past 6th level to begin with? You want an experience to match what Pathfinder 1e would have as levels 1 to 6, APs should already be a problem for you.

Just no. Gygax in his inspiration and Paizo staff every time they talk about Swords-and-sorcery are not stipulating that Conan, Fafhrd, or the Gray Mouser are 7th level. Given the number of adventures that they've had, they must be on the slowest XP track ever created, and I'm a fan of PF1's Slow XP track!

How's this - to better emulate just about every source of relevant fantasy fiction, movies, and media of the last century, I'd rather a Conan like character run the gamut of levels 1-15 instead of further escalating the power curve ever upward to the point that the game breaks that much sooner. Yes, that means casters get pulled back vs. martials having to be demigods at level 7 to deal with the caster/martial disparity.

And no, current APs do not outstrip legendary sword-n-sorcery heroes by level 7. Yes, the oversaturation of magic definitely starts to affect the game by levels 11-15, but 7-10 is still in the realm of heroic, yet mortal protagonists.

Last time I checked, PF wasn't being marketed as Exalted.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Since APs go beyond those levels, not really a viable option.
Considering once you reach legendary you've already left the territory of Conan and Gray Mouser by 7 levels, why are you wanting to play any adventures that go past 6th level to begin with? You want an experience to match what Pathfinder 1e would have as levels 1 to 6, APs should already be a problem for you.

Just no. Gygax in his inspiration and Paizo staff every time they talk about Swords-and-sorcery are not stipulating that Conan, Fafhrd, or the Gray Mouser are 7th level. Given the number of adventures that they've had, they must be on the slowest XP track ever created, and I'm a fan of PF1's Slow XP track!

How's this - to better emulate just about every source of relevant fantasy fiction, movies, and media of the last century, I'd rather a Conan like character run the gamut of levels 1-15 instead of further escalating the power curve ever upward to the point that the game breaks that much sooner. Yes, that means casters get pulled back vs. martials having to be demigods at level 7 to deal with the caster/martial disparity.

And no, current APs do not outstrip legendary sword-n-sorcery heroes by level 7. Yes, the oversaturation of magic definitely starts to affect the game by levels 11-15, but 7-10 is still in the realm of heroic, yet mortal protagonists.

Last time I checked, PF wasn't being marketed as Exalted.

Well you're in luck, because the earliest you can get legendary weapon skills (as a Fighter, who gets them earliest) is 13th, and legendary skill abilities aren't for a couple levels after that. So you can still keep that "Conan" feel well past level 7.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Since APs go beyond those levels, not really a viable option.
Considering once you reach legendary you've already left the territory of Conan and Gray Mouser by 7 levels, why are you wanting to play any adventures that go past 6th level to begin with? You want an experience to match what Pathfinder 1e would have as levels 1 to 6, APs should already be a problem for you.

Just no. Gygax in his inspiration and Paizo staff every time they talk about Swords-and-sorcery are not stipulating that Conan, Fafhrd, or the Gray Mouser are 7th level. Given the number of adventures that they've had, they must be on the slowest XP track ever created, and I'm a fan of PF1's Slow XP track!

How's this - to better emulate just about every source of relevant fantasy fiction, movies, and media of the last century, I'd rather a Conan like character run the gamut of levels 1-15 instead of further escalating the power curve ever upward to the point that the game breaks that much sooner. Yes, that means casters get pulled back vs. martials having to be demigods at level 7 to deal with the caster/martial disparity.

And no, current APs do not outstrip legendary sword-n-sorcery heroes by level 7. Yes, the oversaturation of magic definitely starts to affect the game by levels 11-15, but 7-10 is still in the realm of heroic, yet mortal protagonists.

Last time I checked, PF wasn't being marketed as Exalted.

It sort of is being marketed as Exalted though. The higher power curve is part of the selling point and ways it is different than the game dominating the market right now.

That said, the Legendary stuff seems awfully high level for it to cause you issues. I mean, if you can play through the first 4 books of an AP without hitting it... At that point, you just need to evaluate what makes sense for your group. Alternatively, there will be a lot of modules you can run at lower levels.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Just no. Gygax in his inspiration and Paizo staff every time they talk about Swords-and-sorcery are not stipulating that Conan, Fafhrd, or the Gray Mouser are 7th level. Given the number of adventures that they've had, they must be on the slowest XP track ever created, and I'm a fan of PF1's Slow XP track!

Oddly enough, most literature doesn't have XP, since XP is a massive abstraction.

Quote:
How's this - to better emulate just about every source of relevant fantasy fiction, movies, and media of the last century, I'd rather a Conan like character run the gamut of levels 1-15 instead of further escalating the power curve ever upward to the point that the game breaks that much sooner. Yes, that means casters get pulled back vs. martials having to be demigods at level 7 to deal with the caster/martial disparity.

That also means you would have to nerf martials because they annihilating things like hydras by level 7. Things like rhinos are things defeated without any effort. By 7th level, you should be fighting creatures that demigods fought, 8 headed Hydras, Medusa, Chimera, and Cerynitis. By 7th level, the barbarian can get his throat cut in his sleep by an assassin and then just get up and beat the assassin to death. By 7th level, the rogue of the group can be doing things like jumping further then the world record. By 7th level, a fighter can win a grapple a rhino without any feat investment on an average roll.

Say you have a 7th level fighter, with average HD rolls, 20 Constitution, 14 Dexterity, and say they did not put their FCB into health. They would have 78 hit points, and a reflex save of +4. He has a 50% chance of taking 1d6 fire damage each turn if he were to go into an environment like a burning environment, so he could go into a burning building and survive for on average of 44.57 turns (aka for 4.46 minutes) before hitting zero hit points.

Quote:
And no, current APs do not outstrip legendary sword-n-sorcery heroes by level 7. Yes, the oversaturation of magic definitely starts to affect the game by levels 11-15, but 7-10 is still in the realm of heroic, yet mortal protagonists.

Heroic yet mortal, yes. Conan/Gray Mouser tier... not so much.

Quote:
Last time I checked, PF wasn't being marketed as Exalted.

I never said PF was exalted. I'm saying pathfinder 1e uses a leveling system, that scales from zero to hero to demigod.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the power levels and fictional characters, I too do not consider characters such as Aragorn, Conan, Legolas, the Grey Mouser and such to be 15th+ level characters as it relates to D&D (especially post AD&D). It seems they are really embracing the epic (sometimes ridiculous) nature of high level D&D play, built right in, no need for an Epic handbook or Mythic what-have-you.

As for APs, maybe now they could cap at different levels, not all run the gamut; stay with an E6 feel, if you like. So, you can play the game with a more Conany feeling, or Vainamoinen.

Also, as has been researched/proven, most people do no play over around level 10, and that is still obscenely powerful in D&D (again, especially post AD&D). I find in 3rd Ed/PF1, once 4th-level spells hit the table, things already start going wonky.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BPorter wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Since APs go beyond those levels, not really a viable option.
Considering once you reach legendary you've already left the territory of Conan and Gray Mouser by 7 levels, why are you wanting to play any adventures that go past 6th level to begin with? You want an experience to match what Pathfinder 1e would have as levels 1 to 6, APs should already be a problem for you.

Just no. Gygax in his inspiration and Paizo staff every time they talk about Swords-and-sorcery are not stipulating that Conan, Fafhrd, or the Gray Mouser are 7th level. Given the number of adventures that they've had, they must be on the slowest XP track ever created, and I'm a fan of PF1's Slow XP track!

How's this - to better emulate just about every source of relevant fantasy fiction, movies, and media of the last century, I'd rather a Conan like character run the gamut of levels 1-15 instead of further escalating the power curve ever upward to the point that the game breaks that much sooner. Yes, that means casters get pulled back vs. martials having to be demigods at level 7 to deal with the caster/martial disparity.

And no, current APs do not outstrip legendary sword-n-sorcery heroes by level 7. Yes, the oversaturation of magic definitely starts to affect the game by levels 11-15, but 7-10 is still in the realm of heroic, yet mortal protagonists.

Last time I checked, PF wasn't being marketed as Exalted.

Actually mi Deities and demigoods say that the Gray Mouser is a 11th level fighter / 3rd level magic user/ 15th level thief and has a dexterity of 19, that is 10 wishes beyond the max for an human in that edition. Fafhrd is a 15th level ranger / 13th thief / 5th bard.

It is a big stretch to say that they are 6th level in this edition.

BTW. They have the protection/blessing of two extra planar beings and of two deities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Really, the question is if you want martials to continue to be viable at high levels, or if you would prefer for them to be completely supplanted by casters who get continuously more godlike (or better than gods, really; Zeus is a chump compared to an actual high level Druid) by level 10 or so. Thankfully Paizo has already come to the correct answer.

101 to 150 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / PF2 Playtest Panel All Messageboards