Pregen previews over at ENWorld!


Prerelease Discussion

651 to 700 of 799 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dilvias wrote:

Woo, a light spell that lasts more than a minute, so it is actually useful!

Quote:

LIGHT

School evocation [light]; Level bard 0, cleric 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0

Duration 10 min./level

???

I mean, yeah, one day is great, but the old one was pretty solid too.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
So Great Fortitude grants a +1 to fort saves? (Con of 14 + level 1 + 1 from Great Fort?)

It seems to makes you Expert, yeah.

ENHenry wrote:
I’m unclear how Ezren is getting a +3 will (Wis of 12 + level 1 + ?)
He's presumably Expert at Will Saves. Everyone else has been Expert at two Save categories by default, so Wizard's still behind.

Darn it, still gotta get used to thinking of EVERYTHING in terms of UTEML. :) Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:

think about all the things getting added DEX-modifier in PF1:

-Initiative
-Armor Class
-Reflex Saves
-ranged attack rolls
-melee attack rolls (with minimal investment)
-acrobatics skill (to avoid AoO)

If you add Dex to damage to all this, what do you need Str for?

I recently created a 13 STR high-dev fighter/archer in PF1 Hero Lab for a game; while 13 STR is not a slouch, her basic gear, including a chain shirt, bow & arrows, and masterwork backpack with some essentials, I was 2 pounds away from unencumbered, and a handy haversack might have added 10 pounds maximum to my carry score. So much for carrying my share of any loot we might find! :)

STR still matters in PF1, it's just that in addition to more things keying off of DEX, people tend to downplay the aspects that matter, such as encumbrance and combat maneuvers.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Barathos wrote:
I hope Acid Splash scales quickly, because 1d4+1 isn't worth anything after 1st level.

I bet it will scale with an additional 1d4+1 (with +1 to splash and persistent damage on crits) every two levels.

My first thought when I saw the preview was "whelp, we're back to a 1st level wizard using a crossbow when out of spell slots", but then I realized that since Acid Splash is a Touch Attack it's got an accuracy bonus baked in vs the crossbow.

I was wondering if spells should just use the Spell Roll to attack, instead of relying on Dex (which still seems to be the all-important stat, as I expect most wizards to need it anyway for AC reasons). Then again, a wizard using int to attack might be too accurate for the tight math of PF2E. My next thought was to eliminate touch attacks and touch AC, to put those to-hit numbers back in line. Then I realized that i'd gotten to the same design decision as 5E (which, to be clear, are fine for that game). So, I think we're fine as is.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ezren is up now.

And he appears to be the last one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Barathos wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
I find it a bit odd that a sling requires an action to reload but a crossbow doesn’t.
Nice catch. It also seems odd that the crossbow is just called "crossbow", possibly meaning there is only one type of crossbow.
I suspect it's the Light Crossbow equivalent, with Heavy Crossbow remaining a separate option that has reload, but we'll see.

I still think that even for a light crossbow, loading a quarrel and drawing back the string should take at least as much time as dropping a bullet in a sling. And beyond verisimilitude, if loading a crossbow doesn’t take an action then there’s no reason for anyone without very high Strength to use a sling.


BUFF EZREN'S AGE.

At least +9 years.


First World Bard wrote:
Barathos wrote:
I hope Acid Splash scales quickly, because 1d4+1 isn't worth anything after 1st level.

I bet it will scale with an additional 1d4+1 (with +1 to splash and persistent damage on crits) every two levels.

My first thought when I saw the preview was "whelp, we're back to a 1st level wizard using a crossbow when out of spell slots", but then I realized that since Acid Splash is a Touch Attack it's got an accuracy bonus baked in vs the crossbow.

I was wondering if spells should just use the Spell Roll to attack, instead of relying on Dex (which still seems to be the all-important stat, as I expect most wizards to need it anyway for AC reasons). Then again, a wizard using int to attack might be too accurate for the tight math of PF2E. My next thought was to eliminate touch attacks and touch AC, to put those to-hit numbers back in line. Then I realized that i'd gotten to the same design decision as 5E (which, to be clear, are fine for that game). So, I think we're fine as is.

Somewhat fine. I'm actually wondering if most spellcasters have any use for their 'primary' stat, unless they're really dedicated to save or suck spells (or other things that require saves). Focus on attack spells requires dex, and the buff/utility route doesn't get bonus spells per day for high stats, so... don't really need it either. They can focus more on strength or dex for battle<class> or dex for archery and the general superiority of dex.

Grand Lodge

I like the Widen Spell metamagic.

Looks fun to play with your aoe effects without the steep cost of a spell level increase.

But I kind of wish you could widen a line spell as well. Lightning bolts are always too skinny and should go back to their 2nd ed roots with a forked bolt option.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
I still think that even for a light crossbow, loading a quarrel and drawing back the string should take at least as much time as dropping a bullet in a sling. And beyond verisimilitude, if loading a crossbow doesn’t take an action then there’s no reason for anyone without very high Strength to use a sling.

Agreed entirely. I'm all for removing reloading actions on everything but Heavy Crossbows. Reloading is rarely fun, and I see little reason to include it at all except to future proof and allow for firearms. And for people who do want it, you'd have the Heavy Crossbow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
I still think that even for a light crossbow, loading a quarrel and drawing back the string should take at least as much time as dropping a bullet in a sling. And beyond verisimilitude, if loading a crossbow doesn’t take an action then there’s no reason for anyone without very high Strength to use a sling.
Agreed entirely. I'm all for removing reloading actions on everything but Heavy Crossbows. Reloading is rarely fun, and I see little reason to include it at all except to future proof and allow for firearms. And for people who do want it, you'd have the Heavy Crossbow.

Shifting the grip on a weapon is also not a fun action but they're pushing it for now.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ezren's sheet really makes me want to see some more about cantrips.

Acid splash seems to be about of on par damage wise with his crossbow, assuming you can actually hit with the splash damage at least once. It has terrible range, but it doesn't use ammunition.

I really want to know more about how this scales up, and I'd LOVE to get a look at some other cantrips. As it stands I don't think I'd want to take Acid Splash as my default attack cantrip, but if they've been balanced such that they're in the same realm as the crossbow I'll be happy enough. Mostly, I don't want my casters to feel like they need to carry a crossbow. I realize Ezren has always had one, but it just feels thematically wrong to me.

That said, I feel like the crossbow itself is kind of concerning. I can't imagine any reasonable justification for it not requiring loading if a sling does. That's just silly.


Voss wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
Barathos wrote:
I hope Acid Splash scales quickly, because 1d4+1 isn't worth anything after 1st level.

I bet it will scale with an additional 1d4+1 (with +1 to splash and persistent damage on crits) every two levels.

My first thought when I saw the preview was "whelp, we're back to a 1st level wizard using a crossbow when out of spell slots", but then I realized that since Acid Splash is a Touch Attack it's got an accuracy bonus baked in vs the crossbow.

I was wondering if spells should just use the Spell Roll to attack, instead of relying on Dex (which still seems to be the all-important stat, as I expect most wizards to need it anyway for AC reasons). Then again, a wizard using int to attack might be too accurate for the tight math of PF2E. My next thought was to eliminate touch attacks and touch AC, to put those to-hit numbers back in line. Then I realized that i'd gotten to the same design decision as 5E (which, to be clear, are fine for that game). So, I think we're fine as is.

Somewhat fine. I'm actually wondering if most spellcasters have any use for their 'primary' stat, unless they're really dedicated to save or suck spells (or other things that require saves). Focus on attack spells requires dex, and the buff/utility route doesn't get bonus spells per day for high stats, so... don't really need it either. They can focus more on strength or dex for battle<class> or dex for archery and the general superiority of dex.

It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
Shifting the grip on a weapon is also not a fun action but they're pushing it for now.

That comes up very rarely, though. Reloading comes up every turn, sometimes multiple times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
necromental wrote:
Shifting the grip on a weapon is also not a fun action but they're pushing it for now.
That comes up very rarely, though.

Not if I'm a spellcaster with a two handed weapon. Which were my favorite style in PF1.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
Not if I'm a spellcaster with a two handed weapon. Which were my favorite style in PF1.

Paladins appear to have a way around this for Lay on Hands. I wouldn't be at all surprised if other casters have ways around it with some investment as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kaid wrote:
It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.

Stated before, but I guess I'll state it again since ppl still seem to be confused. Spell Roll seems to be the equivalent to caster check in 1e. You roll it when you need to make a concentrate on a spell, or to get through SR, or to Dispel Magic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
necromental wrote:
Shifting the grip on a weapon is also not a fun action but they're pushing it for now.
That comes up very rarely, though. Reloading comes up every turn, sometimes multiple times.

What if you're a Wizard and you want to use your staff two-handed, but also, you know, cast spells? Ditto, but for a Cleric (lets say a Shelyn Cleric, since they get Glaives. Or Gorum for Greatswords)? Or a two-hander Paladin that wants to use Lay on Hands? Or a two-hander Fighter/Barbarian/whatever that wants to use a potion? Those are just off the top of my head. Now, they won't come up as often as a dedicated slinger, but it will come up often enough to be a consideration. And it's about as fun (by which I mean, not fun at all).

Plus it makes no sense if you compare all of these actions them to each other. Shifting grips is faster than any reload you can think of. And it really makes no sense if bows are still Free action reloads (seriously Paizo people, reloading a bow and reloading a sling take about the same time, try it sometime.)


Voss wrote:

So what is 'spell roll' for? Nothing uses it.

It sets your spell DC. It may also feature in concentration checks if those are a thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. I don't love reloading for slings. Especially if crossbows are exempt. Just kind of weird.

EDIT: Especially because "the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition"...
(From the Halfling and Gnome blog)

Larger damage die, but still needs to reload, and only half strength mod...


Dire Ursus wrote:
kaid wrote:
It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.
Stated before, but I guess I'll state it again since ppl still seem to be confused. Spell Roll seems to be the equivalent to caster check in 1e. You roll it when you need to make a concentrate on a spell, or to get through SR, or to Dispel Magic.

So useful but early one it still seems almost like there is more benefit for a wizard buffing their dex out rather than going 18 in int off the start. Maybe 16dex 16 int.


TheFinish wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
necromental wrote:
Shifting the grip on a weapon is also not a fun action but they're pushing it for now.
That comes up very rarely, though. Reloading comes up every turn, sometimes multiple times.

What if you're a Wizard and you want to use your staff two-handed, but also, you know, cast spells? Ditto, but for a Cleric (lets say a Shelyn Cleric, since they get Glaives. Or Gorum for Greatswords)? Or a two-hander Paladin that wants to use Lay on Hands? Or a two-hander Fighter/Barbarian/whatever that wants to use a potion? Those are just off the top of my head. Now, they won't come up as often as a dedicated slinger, but it will come up often enough to be a consideration. And it's about as fun (by which I mean, not fun at all).

Plus it makes no sense if you compare all of these actions them to each other. Shifting grips is faster than any reload you can think of. And it really makes no sense if bows are still Free action reloads (seriously Paizo people, reloading a bow and reloading a sling take about the same time, try it sometime.)

Yeah, a Cleric of Gorum should have a hard time casting and using a greatsword. Otherwise you’re just better than the Fighter. Fight with your greatsword, take your hand off as a free action to cast, and then if you want to get back to swording, spend your action.

If you’re a Wizard, use your staff one-handed and only switch to two-handed when it’s worth the action.

Paladin just grabs the feat for LoH that lets them use it without a hand free and avoid most AoOs for it.

Whatever you want to do, you can still just go do. But an action to get back to attacking is the price to pay for more damage.


kaid wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
kaid wrote:
It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.
Stated before, but I guess I'll state it again since ppl still seem to be confused. Spell Roll seems to be the equivalent to caster check in 1e. You roll it when you need to make a concentrate on a spell, or to get through SR, or to Dispel Magic.
So useful but early one it still seems almost like there is more benefit for a wizard buffing their dex out rather than going 18 in int off the start. Maybe 16dex 16 int.

Most wizards will have a spell point pool and school specific powers as well. So Int directly effects that. The generalist wizard trades this out for a bonus feat.


Xenocrat wrote:
Voss wrote:

So what is 'spell roll' for? Nothing uses it.

It sets your spell DC.

It does not. It is its own thing, indicated by the faded dice icon. Its used for active rolls, same as attacks and skills.

Both are based on the same proficiency plus stat bonus, but one doesn't set the other. These sheets point out that they don't include calculations- any contributing math is already included and only the final number is shown. If the spell roll is just calculating the DC, there isn't any reason to display it. Much like how spellcasting, saves and weapon proficiencies are just factored in.

Quote:


It may also feature in concentration checks if those are a thing.

Too many conditionals for my blood. If its on a pregen sheet for play, it should have an obvious and explicit use.


Dire Ursus wrote:
kaid wrote:
It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.
Stated before, but I guess I'll state it again since ppl still seem to be confused. Spell Roll seems to be the equivalent to caster check in 1e. You roll it when you need to make a concentrate on a spell, or to get through SR, or to Dispel Magic.

If the Grim Reaper monster sheet didn't include SR (and it didn't) and none of the blogs have mentioned SR (and they haven't) I think we can safely assume SR no longer exists.


Mbertorch wrote:

Yeah. I don't love reloading for slings. Especially if crossbows are exempt. Just kind of weird.

EDIT: Especially because "the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition"...
(From the Halfling and Gnome blog)

Larger damage die, but still needs to reload, and only half strength mod...

I think it's more that they think a sling should take longer to fire than a bow (because of the windup) and it made more sense to introduce a separate action to reload rather than make it two actions to "fire."


Bardarok wrote:
kaid wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
kaid wrote:
It does seem odd there is this spell roll stat that does not seem to get used anywhere that I can see. I have to assume its good for something but seems kinda odd that the high int does not seem to be doing a lot for the wizard other than skills. It is likely I am missing something but it almost seems like at low levels a wizard would have some advantage favoring dex at least initially to get rolling.
Stated before, but I guess I'll state it again since ppl still seem to be confused. Spell Roll seems to be the equivalent to caster check in 1e. You roll it when you need to make a concentrate on a spell, or to get through SR, or to Dispel Magic.
So useful but early one it still seems almost like there is more benefit for a wizard buffing their dex out rather than going 18 in int off the start. Maybe 16dex 16 int.
Most wizards will have a spell point pool and school specific powers as well. So Int directly effects that. The generalist wizard trades this out for a bonus feat.

Makes me really curious to see what a specialist would look like. The generalist just seems a bit strange off the start where having a high int just does not seem as important. Given the starfinder like attribute gains going 16 dex 16 int as a generalist seems pretty solid. Gain more accuracy for your spells that need it and better dex and by the time you start picking stuff up that cares about higher int should be easy enough to bump it.


Xenocrat wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:

Yeah. I don't love reloading for slings. Especially if crossbows are exempt. Just kind of weird.

EDIT: Especially because "the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition"...
(From the Halfling and Gnome blog)

Larger damage die, but still needs to reload, and only half strength mod...

I think it's more that they think a sling should take longer to fire than a bow (because of the windup) and it made more sense to introduce a separate action to reload rather than make it two actions to "fire."

I think its also safe to assume halfling ancestry probably at some point has a quick slinger option where they use a free or reaction action to reload the sling. It does seem odd though that the cross bow does not have a reload action listed. Even light cross bows knocking the bow putting the arrow in aiming and firing is a bit of a process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
necromental wrote:
Shifting the grip on a weapon is also not a fun action but they're pushing it for now.
That comes up very rarely, though. Reloading comes up every turn, sometimes multiple times.

What if you're a Wizard and you want to use your staff two-handed, but also, you know, cast spells? Ditto, but for a Cleric (lets say a Shelyn Cleric, since they get Glaives. Or Gorum for Greatswords)? Or a two-hander Paladin that wants to use Lay on Hands? Or a two-hander Fighter/Barbarian/whatever that wants to use a potion? Those are just off the top of my head. Now, they won't come up as often as a dedicated slinger, but it will come up often enough to be a consideration. And it's about as fun (by which I mean, not fun at all).

Plus it makes no sense if you compare all of these actions them to each other. Shifting grips is faster than any reload you can think of. And it really makes no sense if bows are still Free action reloads (seriously Paizo people, reloading a bow and reloading a sling take about the same time, try it sometime.)

Yeah, a Cleric of Gorum should have a hard time casting and using a greatsword. Otherwise you’re just better than the Fighter. Fight with your greatsword, take your hand off as a free action to cast, and then if you want to get back to swording, spend your action.

If you’re a Wizard, use your staff one-handed and only switch to two-handed when it’s worth the action.

Paladin just grabs the feat for LoH that lets them use it without a hand free and avoid most AoOs for it.

Whatever you want to do, you can still just go do. But an action to get back to attacking is the price to pay for more damage.

A cleric better than a two-hander fighter, how? At what? They've worse weapon training, worse armor proficiency, worse HP, and most likely worse feats too. You think they're better off because they can cast spells? With how PF2 spells are? Doubtful.

Oh, so the wizard just loses an action when they want to attack two handed. Cool, I guess. Nice to know they probably won't bother now.

Has this even been confirmed? AFAIK it hasn't been, but it could've. Even then, that just means two-hander paladins and shield using Paladins that want to Lay on Hands have a Feat tax. Isn't that nice?

Actually no, the price you pay for more damage is worse defense and no damage mitigation, at least in this system. No need for the extra action tax on top. Plus, this argument falls apart when you realise both the sling and the shortbow have worse damage than a crossbow, but the crossbow doesn't need a reload and the sling does. Though to be fair the sling has better damage.....if you've got 18 Strength. Then you do 1 more damage, on average.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, its interesting- the 'versatility' of the staff seems a net negative. Its a terrible weapon in one hand, but switching to two hands eats actions and it isn't any better than having a one handed weapon in the first place.

Even going for a d6 weapon and taking the -1 average damage for the melee attack this character never wants to make seems like a better option than setting an action on fire.

So far I'm not particularly impressed with two handed weapons in general. The switch to d12 is a big loss of consistency, and on average +2 damage doesn't compare to all the things a shield or even a free hand can bring you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:


A cleric better than a two-hander fighter, how? At what? They've worse weapon training, worse armor proficiency, worse HP, and most likely worse feats too. You think they're better off because they can cast spells? With how PF2 spells are? Doubtful.

Oh, so the wizard just loses an action when they want to attack two handed. Cool, I guess. Nice to know they probably won't bother now.

Has this even been confirmed? AFAIK it hasn't been, but it could've. Even then, that just means two-hander paladins and shield using Paladins that want to Lay on Hands have a Feat tax. Isn't that nice?

Actually no, the price you pay for more damage is worse defense and no damage mitigation, at least in this system. No need for the extra action tax on top. Plus, this argument falls apart when you realise both the sling and the shortbow have worse damage than a crossbow, but the crossbow doesn't need a reload and the sling does. Though to be fair the sling has better damage.....if you'vep got 18 Strength. Then you do 1 more damage, on average.

Cleric can heal half their health with an action at least three times per day just from channeling. I think that at least covers armor and health. Spells vs. +2 weapon accuracy and feats? Eh, you could be right, although I’d favor spells since they also handle ranged (assuming it takes feats and money for bows to be comparable in ranged effectiveness). I still think making it harder to cast and wield a d12 weapon is reasonable to keep a gap.

Yep. That’s something I’m okay with, since they can still attack one-handed. There’s no reason to not start two-handed, though, since shifting to one hand is free.

Yeah, it’s been confirmed. It’s a feat tax, but shared equally across two-handed and sword-and-board. You can go one-handed for a casting Paladin.

Sword-and-board is worse-off on the free hand issue, as far as I can tell, depending on how using either hand for something else works. You can trade your free hand for more damage, or you can trade your free hand and an action each round for more AC. If that first option doesn’t actually trade the free hand, then the answer goes back to PF1’s “always two-handed”.

Not arguing on sling/crossbow/bow balance being weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Using a shield requires an action every turn, so, action economy wise, a Two handed fighter that used one of his hands to do something else and wants to regrip his greatsword is still on par with a SaB fighter that wants to get his defenses up:

2H: [F]Take one hand off [A]Do thing [A]Hand back on weapon [A]Attack

SB: [A]Attack [A]Attack [A]Shield up

Seems pretty balanced if the action taken with one and is on par with a second attack.

Sincererly, if you want to fight with the highest damage weapon (considering also how magic weapons damage scales), i think is fair to give up a little bit of versatility in the process, last edition it was hard to make a SaB or 1H fighter viable, 2H dominated everything.

Talking about crossbows tho, i'm a bit disappointed that they are so...bland. I would've prefered them to have the reload trait to make up for another trait that made shooting once a turn enough (something like deadly, but more reliable).


It is really hard to cram every weapon onto a scale of d2 to d12 and still wind up with distinctive weapons, more so if you also ignore the imaginary dice (d2, d3, and d5). Even more so when at 1st level your Ability Score can contribute more to your average damage than most of the weapons available to you.

The additional problem of course being that a d12 can still roll a 1 in the same round a d2 rolls a 2, which can be very immersion breaking to contemplate that someone just did twice as much damage as you with a weapon a quarter the size (or even less) and everything else being equal.

Maybe the math proved otherwise outside of a vacuum, but I doubt using a range that included multiple dice as a possibility would have been a problem. A +5 weapon that did 2d3 (4 pts) will still do less average damage than one that did 1d8 (4½ pts) (12d3 = 24 pts, 6d8 = 27 pts). I think all the Two-handed weapons could have used two-die damage permutations, with all of the one-handed weapons using one-die permutations so that heavier weapons had higher minimums (which would be useful against damage mitigation from shields and the like).


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Wizards appear to only get 2+Int Skills. Interesting.

That makes the number of Skills by Class appear to be as follows:

Alchemist: 2+Int
Barbarian: 3+Int
Bard: ? (we know it's more than anyone but Rogue...I'm gonna guess 8)
Cleric: 5+Int
Druid: 4+Int
Fighter: 3+Int
Paladin: 4+Int
Monk: ? (I'm betting 4, but we'll see)
Ranger: ? (we know they're third most, right after Bard...6 or 7 maybe?)
Rogue: 10+Int
Sorcerer: 4+Int (Probably, based on Signature Skills)
Wizard: 2+Int

That mostly looks okay, with the exception of Barbarian and Fighter having too few (they're less than several casters...this is bad for purely martial characters) and Cleric maybe having too many (5 seems a trifle excessive).

Humans also seem to get a free bonus language of their choice, which is also interesting.

I do believe that Paladins actually get 3+Int. Seelah got 2 skills from her background,(Lore Underworld and Thievery) and the Medicine from Hospice Knight. So they're on par with the Barb and the Fighter.

I've noticed that the Humans get the language of the area they grew up in. So I'm not sure if it's a bonus language of their choice per se, but one that reflects their upbringing. Which I think is cool and fair, the other ancestries get two languages each as well...

PS- When do we get the PDFs for all the pregens? Tomorrow?...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

It is really hard to cram every weapon onto a scale of d2 to d12 and still wind up with distinctive weapons, more so if you also ignore the imaginary dice (d2, d3, and d5). Even more so when at 1st level your Ability Score can contribute more to your average damage than most of the weapons available to you.

That's why they added more specific weapon traits: to make weapons feel more distinct.

I mean, look at the scimitar, it's not just a d6 damage weapon, is also a weapon really good when swung around a lot, to multiple enemies. The same for the rapier, if you have a really high accuracy or you are facing a low AC enemy, this thing is DEADLY. We have to see what two handed weapons have to offer; they might have cleave-like traits, trip or stuff like that.

Liberty's Edge

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
I do believe that Paladins actually get 3+Int. Seelah got 2 skills from her background,(Lore Underworld and Thievery) and the Medicine from Hospice Knight. So they're on par with the Barb and the Fighter.

Backgrounds normally only give a Lore. If Pickpocket adds Thievery (on top of its other effects) this may be true, but we have no indications of it, which you'd think there would be since there is in Hospice Knight.

I was counting Hospice Knight.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:
I've noticed that the Humans get the language of the area they grew up in. So I'm not sure if it's a bonus language of their choice per se, but one that reflects their upbringing. Which I think is cool and fair, the other ancestries get two languages each as well...

Yeah, that's probably accurate and fair.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
So far I'm not particularly impressed with two handed weapons in general. The switch to d12 is a big loss of consistency, and on average +2 damage doesn't compare to all the things a shield or even a free hand can bring you.

It's eventually a lot more than 2 damage. It's 2 per die, and very possibly more than that in some ways (like if you use Power Attack). So it's +6 damage by 3rd or 4th level when Power Attacking.

By 20th level, it's +12 damage. +16 if Power Attacking. Possibly more if there are other enhancements.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


It's eventually a lot more than 2 damage. It's 2 per die, and very possibly more than that in some ways (like if you use Power Attack). So it's +6 damage by 3rd or 4th level when Power Attacking.

By 20th level, it's +12 damage. +16 if Power Attacking. Possibly more if there are other enhancements.

Wait, is Power Attack even in PF2?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
VanCucci wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


It's eventually a lot more than 2 damage. It's 2 per die, and very possibly more than that in some ways (like if you use Power Attack). So it's +6 damage by 3rd or 4th level when Power Attacking.

By 20th level, it's +12 damage. +16 if Power Attacking. Possibly more if there are other enhancements.

Wait, is Power Attack even in PF2?

Yes, just not in the format you're used to. You spend two actions to make a single attack at double the damage dice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Reece wrote:
VanCucci wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


It's eventually a lot more than 2 damage. It's 2 per die, and very possibly more than that in some ways (like if you use Power Attack). So it's +6 damage by 3rd or 4th level when Power Attacking.

By 20th level, it's +12 damage. +16 if Power Attacking. Possibly more if there are other enhancements.

Wait, is Power Attack even in PF2?
Yes, just not in the format you're used to. You spend two actions to make a single attack at double the damage dice.

You don't double, you add one die, which scales up at unknown levels to a second and then third bonus die. So it's additive but not multiplicative with magic weapon bonuses.


Gregg Reece wrote:
VanCucci wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:


It's eventually a lot more than 2 damage. It's 2 per die, and very possibly more than that in some ways (like if you use Power Attack). So it's +6 damage by 3rd or 4th level when Power Attacking.

By 20th level, it's +12 damage. +16 if Power Attacking. Possibly more if there are other enhancements.

Wait, is Power Attack even in PF2?
Yes, just not in the format you're used to. You spend two actions to make a single attack at double the damage dice.

Aaaaw, right, i remember now, thank you, it was in one of the first blog posts i read.

Yep, 2H fighters still dealing big damage, that's fair.

EDIT:

Xenocrat wrote:
You don't double, you add one die, which scales up at unknown levels to a second and then third bonus die. So it's additive but not multiplicative with magic weapon bonuses.

Ok maybe not SO MUCH more damage, but still...

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Voss wrote:

So what is 'spell roll' for? Nothing uses it.

It sets your spell DC.

This is correct. All DCs are 10 + some modifier you have (this would technically mean there exists in the ether of gamespace a term that we never define or use for anything called "Armor Modifier" that would theoretically let you do active defensive stuff). For casters, spell DC is 10 + spell roll modifier. You will need it any time your spell's power is actively going up against another effect such that there isn't a save involved, like dispelling/counteracting, but also for effects that let you use that bonus instead of some other bonus like knock.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Barathos wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
I find it a bit odd that a sling requires an action to reload but a crossbow doesn’t.
Nice catch. It also seems odd that the crossbow is just called "crossbow", possibly meaning there is only one type of crossbow.
I suspect it's the Light Crossbow equivalent, with Heavy Crossbow remaining a separate option that has reload, but we'll see.
I still think that even for a light crossbow, loading a quarrel and drawing back the string should take at least as much time as dropping a bullet in a sling. And beyond verisimilitude, if loading a crossbow doesn’t take an action then there’s no reason for anyone without very high Strength to use a sling.

You are correct that crossbows take an action to load. They're simple, so that's how they get away with such high damage for a simple ranged weapon. In the new action economy, a single reload is lot less of a problem (you don't lose much from the third attack and you get two attacks every other round starting with the first), especially with the fun ranger and rogue feat involving crossbow reload while moving around.


Mark Seifter wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Barathos wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
I find it a bit odd that a sling requires an action to reload but a crossbow doesn’t.
Nice catch. It also seems odd that the crossbow is just called "crossbow", possibly meaning there is only one type of crossbow.
I suspect it's the Light Crossbow equivalent, with Heavy Crossbow remaining a separate option that has reload, but we'll see.
I still think that even for a light crossbow, loading a quarrel and drawing back the string should take at least as much time as dropping a bullet in a sling. And beyond verisimilitude, if loading a crossbow doesn’t take an action then there’s no reason for anyone without very high Strength to use a sling.
You are correct that crossbows take an action to load. They're simple, so that's how they get away with such high damage for a simple ranged weapon. In the new action economy, a single reload is lot less of a problem (you don't lose much from the third attack and you get two attacks every other round starting with the first), especially with the fun ranger and rogue feat involving crossbow reload while moving around.

OK this seems fair: decent damage, long range, simple weapon -> slow to use. But this means there's a typo in the wizard pregen sheet?

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
VanCucci wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Barathos wrote:
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
I find it a bit odd that a sling requires an action to reload but a crossbow doesn’t.
Nice catch. It also seems odd that the crossbow is just called "crossbow", possibly meaning there is only one type of crossbow.
I suspect it's the Light Crossbow equivalent, with Heavy Crossbow remaining a separate option that has reload, but we'll see.
I still think that even for a light crossbow, loading a quarrel and drawing back the string should take at least as much time as dropping a bullet in a sling. And beyond verisimilitude, if loading a crossbow doesn’t take an action then there’s no reason for anyone without very high Strength to use a sling.
You are correct that crossbows take an action to load. They're simple, so that's how they get away with such high damage for a simple ranged weapon. In the new action economy, a single reload is lot less of a problem (you don't lose much from the third attack and you get two attacks every other round starting with the first), especially with the fun ranger and rogue feat involving crossbow reload while moving around.
OK this seems fair: decent damage, long range, simple weapon -> slow to use. But this means there's a typo in the wizard pregen sheet?

If we're down to only one typo in all six pregens from the number we had just after we laid these guys out, someone over in the UK right now needs to buy Logan a drink. (He was compiling them after PaizoCon)


Okay that seems like what I was originally expecting from crossbow. Dead simple to use but takes an extra action to load. Same really with sling the whole load the pouch and then swing it to gain speed is not as quick of an action as knocking and firing a bow.


Mark Seifter wrote:


If we're down to only one typo in all six pregens from the number we had just after we laid these guys out, someone over in the UK right now needs to buy Logan a drink. (He was compiling them after PaizoCon)

Welp.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was kind of hoping that crossbows had some sort of weapon trait that separated them from bows.

Will have to wait to see the ranger feats that enhance crossbows that mark alluded to but its a pretty steep drop off from a Deadly (composite) shortbow with no reload.

Paizo Employee Designer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorignak227 wrote:

Was kind of hoping that crossbows had some sort of weapon trait that separated them from bows.

Will have to wait to see the ranger feats that enhance crossbows that mark alluded to but its a pretty steep drop off from a Deadly (composite) shortbow with no reload.

A ranger with just the 1st-level crossbow feat could easily be shooting for nearly double the damage of a basic shortbow with one of these crossbows like Ezren has (not a heavy), albeit without the advatage of deadly on crits. However, spending two actions to make one attack for twice the damage is typically a significant advantage over two attacks that together do that much damage because of accuracy, especially when your first shot of the fight can start with the crossbow loaded. Then again, if you're worried that crossbows with that feat would now be too powerful, Hunt Target helps even those odds with better multiple attack penalties...but then you start getting to move when you reload with the crossbow, and...well the comparison gets complicated but awesome!

651 to 700 of 799 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Pregen previews over at ENWorld! All Messageboards