Pregen previews over at ENWorld!


Prerelease Discussion

401 to 450 of 799 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Quote:
1st minor question: -2 on thievery with a feat that requires training in it and a +1 to dex? Clearly this factors in both the armor and holding a shield. Ok, so why would a paladin character ever pick pick-pocket as a skill feat, if they were going to be a sword and board paladin? I get that they want to really beef up the flavor of Seelah being a street urchin, but couldn't they at least then have made her a two-handed weapon paladin so the penalty to her skill feat doesn't make it essentially useless (assuming the paladin could ever find a use for it without falling.) The two-handed version of Seelah would make the Rebutitive strike a more significant reaction and wouldn't lay on hands require a free hand for at least the touch action, if not the somatic part of the casting?

That skill feat is nowhere near useless. I agree that it's pretty sad you can't use it in combat well due to holding a shield and a sword, but it's a fantastic non-combat ability to have on an unexpected type of character.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
1st minor question: -2 on thievery with a feat that requires training in it and a +1 to dex? Clearly this factors in both the armor and holding a shield. Ok, so why would a paladin character ever pick pick-pocket as a skill feat, if they were going to be a sword and board paladin? I get that they want to really beef up the flavor of Seelah being a street urchin, but couldn't they at least then have made her a two-handed weapon paladin so the penalty to her skill feat doesn't make it essentially useless (assuming the paladin could ever find a use for it without falling.) The two-handed version of Seelah would make the Rebutitive strike a more significant reaction and wouldn't lay on hands require a free hand for at least the touch action, if not the somatic part of the casting?

I feel like Background skill feats are going to be largely tangential to an overall build. Pickpocket is a flavor option for Seelah, not a power option. She's hardly ever going to have a chance to use it, much less in combat.

Quote:

major question: If the developers went to such lengths to define equipment as worn, ready or stowed, why would the pick pocket feat not directly interact with this terminology in explaining what it does. How often will NPCs be described as wearing a "loose ring" in adventures? I get that too focused of rules about what equipment can and cannot be stolen gets very excessive, but if you already have these categories of how items are carried or worn, maybe it makes more sense to make sure those categories make it clear enough on their own how difficult items would be to remove.

I think the "loose ring" reference is to make clear worn items can be stolen. A skilled pickpocket can relieve you of your rings, wristwatch, or necklace, as well as the contents of your pockets.

Imagine the heiress doesn't know her pretty new ruby necklace is liable to explode in the nefarious villain's plot. With a little help, and wearing her party clothes instead of armor, she might be able to steal the necklace and save her life.

It's an elaborate setup, but would be fun to work in to a game.

P.S. The movie Ocean's Eight is a pretty good time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Playing Seelah was by far the most exciting for me at the Delves. I could have played her every time! (and I played a lot) Retributive Strike is amazing. As long as Seelah is within melee strike of the enemy, she can use a suped up a AoO. If the enemy attacks an ally way in the back, it provokes. Then there's the agro effect of enfeebling the enemy until it attacks Seelah. Pretty sweet. Lay on Hands at level one? The lack thereof was the top reason level 1 was so painful as a Paladin for me. So glad the changed that. It's already been mentioned why her class feat choices are great.
The lack of Smite Evil at level 1? Yeah, I'm ok with it. I can now make the choice to go down that route if I want to. The devs have stated that they are making Paladins less "I'm going to seek out evil and smite it" and more "I want to protect my friends"...

Sidenote: I'm not sure if they changed this or not, but IIRC Mark mentioned in the Paladin Twitch Stream that Paladin's bonus to healing was her spell casting modifier. (CHA+level) So Seelah would in fact be healing for 1d6+3 at level 1.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Playing Seelah was by far the most exciting for me at the Delves. I could have played her every time! (and I played a lot) Retributive Strike is amazing. As long as Seelah is within melee strike of the enemy, she can use a suped up a AoO. If the enemy attacks an ally way in the back, it provokes. Then there's the agro effect of enfeebling the enemy until it attacks Seelah. Pretty sweet. Lay on Hands at level one? The lack thereof was the top reason level 1 was so painful as a Paladin for me. So glad the changed that. It's already been mentioned why her class feat choices are great.

The lack of Smite Evil at level 1? Yeah, I'm ok with it. I can now make the choice to go down that route if I want to. The devs have stated that they are making Paladins less "I'm going to seek out evil and smite it" and more "I want to protect my friends"...

Sidenote: I'm not sure if they changed this or not, but IIRC Mark mentioned in the Paladin Twitch Stream that Paladin's bonus to healing was her spell casting modifier. (CHA+level) So Seelah would in fact be healing for 1d6+3 at level 1.

There has been some confusion on this point, but I think "spellcasting modifier" is just the relevant ability score modifier. So just +2. This is contrasted with her "spell roll" which is level+ CHA mod, for +3.

(No idea where spell rolls will be used yet, since they don't seem to apply to ranged touch attacks.)

That aside, I'm glad you had fun with Seelah, and that Retributive Strike was as powerful in practice as it looks on paper.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:


I feel like Background skill feats are going to be largely tangential to an overall build. Pickpocket is a flavor option for Seelah, not a power option. She's hardly ever going to have a chance to use it, much less in combat.

I wasn't trying to suggest that it needed to be the focus of her character, but it just seems like this background combo might see more actual play, and hence be more fun, on a two-handed weapon build than a sword and board paladin. While I am fine with flavor options as a way to make a character feel more complete, I think a lot of folks are not going to be keen on spending precious skill feats on "flavor" options, especially ones that are actively more difficult to put into play because of the build of the character.

KingOfAnything wrote:


I think the "loose ring" reference is to make clear worn items can be stolen. A skilled pickpocket can relieve you of your rings, wristwatch, or necklace, as well as the contents of your pockets.

I get that, but I think the wording of the feat is not as simple and rooted in keywords as it should be, as other feats have been, such as the wording in warded touch. This is problematic for me with a feat like pick pocket, because it is essentially saying: Thievery as a skill proficiency is going to require a lot of GM arbitration, but instead of just explaining that in the skill description and giving GMs ways to determine if x proficiency is enough, we are going to require feat unlocks to pick pocket more advanced things, but each of those feats is still going to end up being fairly nebulous in what it entails.

If a feat can specify that the lay on hands spell power uses a somatic casting action instead of a somatic manipulation action, then it seems like stealing stuff could be explained in terms more clearly defined, such as whether the item requires x/y/or z actions/minutes to put on or take out of its bag.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Voss wrote:

Wow, lay on hands is terrible. D6+2 is an *upgraded* version? And she had to blow a second feat to make it not provoke AoOs?

1d4+2 is more than she did by default in PF1 (1d6.) Especially for it's minimum damage. 1d6+2 is just straight better, and that is on top of Hospice Knight granting a signature skill + trained proficiency.

Also, unlike the PF1 version, she can heal allies and still attack in the same round. (Before it was only a swift on herself.) The only disadvantage compared to PF1 is that it provokes, which Warded Touch removes. We are also talking about a human with only 14 CHA. A halfling or gnome could quite easily be higher.

Quote:
Just...no. You'll be lucky to heal another character to half HP by blowing both uses of the ability.

Amount Healed vs Total HP is way less relevant than Amounted Healed vs Enemy damage. The thing you really care about as a combat healer is keeping your allies from hitting 0. We know this is meant to be combat healing because it also provides an AC boost. We know from the various playtest demos that this healing amount is competitive (and in some cases can outpace) 1st level enemy damage.

Quote:
Seelah is Valeros the lesser. I thought Kyra was pretty bland and uninteresting, but she at least had the hope of more interesting spells.

Haha no. Retributive Strike is flat-out the best reaction I've seen, at least on a 1st level PC. It is significantly harder to avoid than an AoO. Sleeah is a far better tank than Valeros despite having lower AC because she can not only protect herself but bolster her ally's AC and punish enemy With Retributive Strike, either killing them outright and negating the attack or Enfeebling the enemy to reduce the damage and lower the odds of subsequent attacks. (And of course, has some light healing in case they do get hurt. Not as good as Kyra, but you don't need to be as good as a cleric for healing to be appreciated.)

Even as a level 1 character, Seelah has better tanking...

Not really. If you aren't adjacent to Seelah and her ally, her 'tanking' ability matters not at all. And she has nothing to stop the enemy from just walking away from her reach and still attacking her buddy.

As for lay on hands, yeah, I don't care how bad the 1e version was, it isn't relevant to the HP or damage numbers of pf2. For *pf2* it seems like a small and irrelevant amount of healing.

So against vaguely intelligent enemies, she does nothing, and contributes a trivial amount of healing. Woo.

Oh but she can fail at stealing things, I guess. Unless that .might trigger her unlisted code penalties or something...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So, there's a lot of wondering why Seelah's character has a very out-of-place background benefit. If you haven't, you should read her Meet the Iconics blog post. The street urchin background is that; her background. Is Seelah the paladin going to be picking pockets in all but the most unusual circumstances? Of course not. Some people may want to make sure the background carries a solid benefit for the character. Other people really value the story, and the background benefit is window dressing. Seelah's build is the latter, and that's OK.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
As for lay on hands, yeah, I don't care how bad the 1e version was, it isn't relevant to the HP or damage numbers of pf2. For *pf2* it seems like a small and irrelevant amount of healing.

And you are basing this statement on what exactly?

So far, enemy damage in PF2 is right on par with that in PF1, at least at low levels. HP are higher, but as noted healing needs to keep up with enemy damage not your total HP.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I think the "loose ring" reference is to make clear worn items can be stolen. A skilled pickpocket can relieve you of your rings, wristwatch, or necklace, as well as the contents of your pockets.

I get that, but I think the wording of the feat is not as simple and rooted in keywords as it should be, as other feats have been, such as the wording in warded touch. This is problematic for me with a feat like pick pocket, because it is essentially saying: Thievery as a skill proficiency is going to require a lot of GM arbitration, but instead of just explaining that in the skill description and giving GMs ways to determine if x proficiency is enough, we are going to require feat unlocks to pick pocket more advanced things, but each of those feats is still going to end up being fairly nebulous in what it entails.

If a feat can specify that the lay on hands spell power uses a somatic casting action instead of a somatic manipulation action, then it seems like stealing stuff could be explained in terms more clearly defined, such as whether the item requires x/y/or z actions/minutes to put on or take out of its bag.

The wording of the Thievery skill itself will have a large effect on how Pickpocket functions. And as you say, will rely a lot on GM arbitration. I think that is necessary for as disruptive a skill as stealing from someone. Only the GM can say what an NPC is guarding or paying particular attention to on their body. Adding keywords or too rigid rules would hamper this game space more than it would help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I feel like Background skill feats are going to be largely tangential to an overall build. Pickpocket is a flavor option for Seelah, not a power option. She's hardly ever going to have a chance to use it, much less in combat.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it needed to be the focus of her character, but it just seems like this background combo might see more actual play, and hence be more fun, on a two-handed weapon build than a sword and board paladin.

Curb your enthusiasm for this option, there have been past vague developer comments in this forum that taking a hand off (and especially putting one on) a two handed weapon might take an action all by itself. Starfinder, for example requires a swift action to change grips if you're freeing up a hand or switching to a two hand grip.

If that's the case in PF2, only the empty handed build with a long sword would do what you want.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
First World Bard wrote:
So, there's a lot of wondering why Seelah's character has a very out-of-place background benefit. If you haven't, you should read her Meet the Iconics blog post. The street urchin background is that; her background. Is Seelah the paladin going to be picking pockets in all but the most unusual circumstances? Of course not. Some people may want to make sure the background carries a solid benefit for the character. Other people really value the story, and the background benefit is window dressing. Seelah's build is the latter, and that's OK.

I understand this and am fine with this as a build for an individual character, but a skill feat dedication is doubling down on a story element that is difficult to use for a "playtest" character where the players should be playing with all of the features of a character, and her build really doesn't facilitate that. Whereas, if Seelah were a paladin of Shelyn, and using a glaive, then it would be much easier for her to free up a hand and to use the reach of the glaive to put the hurt down with the retributive strike.

I know that Seelah has a long history with Iomadae and Iomadae is the definition of a sword and board paladin goddess, and if that is what needs to stick, awesome! I just think it would make sense for this Iconic character to have a skill feat that will actually see use in playtesting, so players can get a sense of what skill feats add to a character.

EDIT: I was wrong. I thought the background provided proficiency in thievery not the pick pocket skill feat. Its not doubling down. I still would rather this paladin be a two-handed weapon paladin, both to better make use of this pick pocket feat and showcase retributive strike with reach, but I get that that isn't going to happen with Seelah.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Voss wrote:
If you aren't adjacent to Seelah and her ally, her 'tanking' ability matters not at all. And she has nothing to stop the enemy from just walking away from her reach and still attacking her buddy.

If the enemy is spending actions running away from Seelah, they aren't spending actions attacking her allies or on their own defense.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:


Curb your enthusiasm for this option, there have been past vague developer comments in this forum that taking a hand off (and especially putting one on) a two handed weapon might take an action all by itself. Starfinder, for example requires a swift action to change grips if you're freeing up a hand or switching to a two hand grip.

If that's the case in PF2, only the empty handed build with a long sword would do what you want.

Haha. I am curious to see how this plays out as well, but if sheathing a sword to steal something is as easy and action-economizing as dropping a hand from a two-handed weapon, then I think there is probably a bigger problem to deal with.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
First World Bard wrote:
So, there's a lot of wondering why Seelah's character has a very out-of-place background benefit. If you haven't, you should read her Meet the Iconics blog post. The street urchin background is that; her background. Is Seelah the paladin going to be picking pockets in all but the most unusual circumstances? Of course not. Some people may want to make sure the background carries a solid benefit for the character. Other people really value the story, and the background benefit is window dressing. Seelah's build is the latter, and that's OK.
I understand this and am fine with this as a build for an individual character, but a skill feat dedication is doubling down on a story element that is difficult to use for a "playtest" character where the players should be playing with all of the features of a character, and her build really doesn't facilitate that.

The pickpocket skill feat not "doubling down", it is a consequence of her background. You don't pick your skill feat at level 1, you pick your background.

Pregens are characters first, not data points. More and better playtest data is to be hand by players creating their own characters with their own background choices.

Edit: Also, not every part of the playtest will be a combat encounter...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Unicore wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:


I feel like Background skill feats are going to be largely tangential to an overall build. Pickpocket is a flavor option for Seelah, not a power option. She's hardly ever going to have a chance to use it, much less in combat.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it needed to be the focus of her character, but it just seems like this background combo might see more actual play, and hence be more fun, on a two-handed weapon build than a sword and board paladin.

Curb your enthusiasm for this option, there have been past vague developer comments in this forum that taking a hand off (and especially putting one on) a two handed weapon might take an action all by itself. Starfinder, for example requires a swift action to change grips if you're freeing up a hand or switching to a two hand grip.

If that's the case in PF2, only the empty handed build with a long sword would do what you want.

I think they said freeing up a hand is a free action. Putting it back on takes an action, though. It's always a free action to let go of something.


The last line of Retributive Strike does not make sense to me. "If Retributive Strike incapacitates or kills the triggering creature, the triggering hit does no damage." Does that mean the hit by the paladin did not happen or the original target got saved from getting damaged? I think the paladin saved one of his/her allies.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Saint Bernard wrote:
The last line of Retributive Strike does not make sense to me. "If Retributive Strike incapacitates or kills the triggering creature, the triggering hit does no damage." Does that mean the hit by the paladin did not happen or the original target got saved from getting damaged? I think the paladin saved one of his/her allies.

Order of operations:

1. Enemy hits your ally, triggers. DAMAGE IS NOT ROLLED.
2. Paladin triggers Retributive Strike as a reaction.
3. Hits? Then Paladin rolls damage.
4. If and only if the triggering enemy is still alive/conscious, he rolls damage against the ally that was hit in step 1. This damage will be penalized by any Enfeebled condition inflicted by the Retributive Strike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Not really. If you aren't adjacent to Seelah and her ally, her 'tanking' ability matters not at all.

Yeah, so she sticks close to her allies. Oh my god, a 1st level ability that calls for simple tactics and positioning? The horror! (Also, this is like saying AoO only matters if the foe wants to do something which triggers it while adjacent to Valeros. It is certainly meaningless as a point of comparison between the two.)

Also, Seelah's ability doesn't require adjacent, it requires in her reach. The ally doesn't have to be adjacent or within reach, either. That means that when her reach is improved she can hit further away, trigger this ability when she's flanking with said ally, and hit an opponent for making ranged attacks like Valeros can.

Quote:
And she has nothing to stop the enemy from just walking away from her reach and still attacking her buddy.

If an enemy does that, she's just cost them an action. Which is the best case scenario for AoO, too, considering a 5 foot step is now an action. And AoO only does that if they have to pass Valeros in the first place to reach the allies. Which they do in a 10 foot hallway, but won't necessarily in an open room.

On top of that, the Paladin can take AoO too. The fighter can't take Retributive Strike. Seelah doesn't have AoO yet, but she can take it next level. And if you're building a 1st level paladin you can replace either of those feats with AoO, since you hate Lay on Hands so passionately.

Quote:
As for lay on hands, yeah, I don't care how bad the 1e version was, it isn't relevant to the HP or damage numbers of pf2. For *pf2* it seems like a small and irrelevant amount of healing.

It is absolutely relevant to PF2 damage. It is more damage than a skeleton deals. It is more damage than Fumbus deals in any of his attacks, not counting persistent damage. (And I'm pretty sure Lay on Hands stops bleed, for example.) It also provides a buff to AC. It isn't for healing someone back up to full between fights. This is for keeping someone on their feet when their back is against the wall.

Oh, and it also gives her a tool to hit touch AC on undead, bypass their resistances, and trigger their weaknesses. That is niche, but pretty awesome when it comes up. Seelah (Emerich) felt a lot more relevant than Valeros (Keith) when they fought that skeleton anti-paladin thing.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Playing Seelah was by far the most exciting for me at the Delves. I could have played her every time! (and I played a lot) Retributive Strike is amazing. As long as Seelah is within melee strike of the enemy, she can use a suped up a AoO. If the enemy attacks an ally way in the back, it provokes. Then there's the agro effect of enfeebling the enemy until it attacks Seelah. Pretty sweet. Lay on Hands at level one? The lack thereof was the top reason level 1 was so painful as a Paladin for me. So glad the changed that. It's already been mentioned why her class feat choices are great.

The lack of Smite Evil at level 1? Yeah, I'm ok with it. I can now make the choice to go down that route if I want to. The devs have stated that they are making Paladins less "I'm going to seek out evil and smite it" and more "I want to protect my friends"...

Sidenote: I'm not sure if they changed this or not, but IIRC Mark mentioned in the Paladin Twitch Stream that Paladin's bonus to healing was her spell casting modifier. (CHA+level) So Seelah would in fact be healing for 1d6+3 at level 1.

There has been some confusion on this point, but I think "spellcasting modifier" is just the relevant ability score modifier. So just +2. This is contrasted with her "spell roll" which is level+ CHA mod, for +3.

(No idea where spell rolls will be used yet, since they don't seem to apply to ranged touch attacks.)

That aside, I'm glad you had fun with Seelah, and that Retributive Strike was as powerful in practice as it looks on paper.

I tracked down the source, and it came from the GCP Podcast. And we know that things have changed since then... So I agree it is just the CHA mod.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to playing a Sword and Board Paladin in the Playtest. Warded Touch Feat is awesome, and being able to amp up healing as well at level 1 via Ancestry feat is amazing...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I will say this. Warded Touch is an excellent feat, but one could make a case it shouldn't be a feat at all. Lay on Hands is clearly meant to be used from the front-lines, so you really don't want to provoke with it. OTOH less thing can AoO in the first place, so it isn't as big a deal.

I would like some clarification on how this interacts with using a shield and sword, hands wise.


Doesn't using a sword and a shield make it really difficult to actually use Lay On Hands in combat?

An action to stow your weapon, an action to use the spell, another action to redraw your weapon. You're spending a full round of actions to heal what is 1 action worth of damage from a weak enemy.

And that's assuming that hands used in both the name and description isn't meant to literally mean you have to lay both of your hands to heal. At which point it would become 5 actions just to heal 1d4+2, and redraw your weapons.


Seems like it will be very worth to get 16 CHA on the Paladin for higher healing and more spell points. Possibly even at the cost of 18 STR. At least for Seelah who is investing all her stuff on a LoH build.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Doesn't using a sword and a shield make it really difficult to actually use Lay On Hands in combat?

An action to stow your weapon, an action to use the spell, another action to redraw your weapon. You're spending a full round of actions to heal what is 1 action worth of damage from a weak enemy.

And that's assuming that hands used in both the name and description isn't meant to literally mean you have to lay both of your hands to heal. At which point it would become 5 actions just to heal 1d4+2, and redraw your weapons.

I'm assuming there is a work around for this problem, given the Paladin IIRC was using lay on hands during the GCP combats without any of this. But it would be nice to see this clarified. I expect the actual rules probably will, as this was an oversight that caused confusion in PF1. And I'd hope that with the PF2 iconics being better optimized that Seelah doesn't still have this problem.

Also, Seelah might be my favorite of the portraits so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Seems like it will be very worth to get 16 CHA on the Paladin for higher healing and more spell points. Possibly even at the cost of 18 STR. At least for Seelah who is investing all her stuff on a LoH build.

Potentially, but I'd probably rather just leave dex or con a little lower. Also, it worth remembering there are diminishing returns on ability boosts past 18.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
Seems like it will be very worth to get 16 CHA on the Paladin for higher healing and more spell points. Possibly even at the cost of 18 STR. At least for Seelah who is investing all her stuff on a LoH build.

Since PF2 uses the Starfinder rules for advancing ability scores, a Paladin can raise STR, CON, CHA consistently, and cycle the 4th boost between DEX and WIS for saves, or maybe even INT for some reason.


I love the art for her... but that is a suit of plate & scale, I see nary a link of chain. The point of a character portrait is to portray the character... not their future, much cooler selves.
Is it really so hard to wait until after you build the pregen to have your fancy, expensive artist illustrate them? Alternatively, if you're being paid that much for your art; is it really so hard to read the character's actual equipment list before illustrating the character?

The disconnect makes them feel a little like character previews in one of those terrible WoW-Clones; where the character looks awesome until you begin play and find out you're really wearing rags and armed with a pointed stick. An extreme example, but still.


First World Bard wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Seems like it will be very worth to get 16 CHA on the Paladin for higher healing and more spell points. Possibly even at the cost of 18 STR. At least for Seelah who is investing all her stuff on a LoH build.
Since PF2 uses the Starfinder rules for advancing ability scores, a Paladin can raise STR, CON, CHA consistently, and cycle the 4th boost between DEX and WIS for saves, or maybe even INT for some reason.

Yeah, but that advantage is gonna be most important at level 1. Other stuff can probably wait a bit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Seems like it will be very worth to get 16 CHA on the Paladin for higher healing and more spell points. Possibly even at the cost of 18 STR. At least for Seelah who is investing all her stuff on a LoH build.

How mandatory is str likely to be on a pally? Because I think I like the idea of an 18 charisma gobbo pally, built mostly for support.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cantriped wrote:

I love the art for her... but that is a suit of plate & scale, I see nary a link of chain. The point of a character portrait is to portray the character... not their future, much cooler selves.

Is it really so hard to wait until after you build the pregen to have your fancy, expensive artist illustrate them? Alternatively, if you're being paid that much for your art; is it really so hard to read the character's actual equipment list before illustrating the character?

The disconnect makes them feel a little like character previews in one of those terrible WoW-Clones; where the character looks awesome until you begin play and find out you're really wearing rags and armed with a pointed stick. An extreme example, but still.

1) I complained about this in reference to the iconic oracle in the past. Wayne informed me that in that specific case they didn't give him the equipment list before commissioning them.

2) For better or worse, the iconic art illustrates the characters with the same set of gear no matter at what point they are illustrated. Their art will always depict them wearing what the creators envision as being worn for the majority of their career. This is true at level 1 before they can afford it, and it is true at level 20 when their gear has probably all been converted to mithril or adamantine or whatever.

That second point is a trade off between the characters remaining recognizable and "iconic" vs as accurate as possible to the game. On a similar note, it isn't like the iconics could possibly have gone on every adventure the art depicts them in. The leveling process alone makes that impossible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

I love the art for her... but that is a suit of plate & scale, I see nary a link of chain. The point of a character portrait is to portray the character... not their future, much cooler selves.

Is it really so hard to wait until after you build the pregen to have your fancy, expensive artist illustrate them? Alternatively, if you're being paid that much for your art; is it really so hard to read the character's actual equipment list before illustrating the character?

The disconnect makes them feel a little like character previews in one of those terrible WoW-Clones; where the character looks awesome until you begin play and find out you're really wearing rags and armed with a pointed stick. An extreme example, but still.

I expect this sketch was done for the paladin section of the playtest rulebook and not specifically for the pre-gen character sheet. Also The character of Seelah already existed and in all (or at least all I can think of) previous incarnations wore plate armor.


Yeah I know the history. In 3.0+ the "Iconics" were first illustrated with the equipment from their class's starting package. Just as with Pathfinder's Iconics they almost always appeared in the same equipment they had at level 1 (barring contextual exceptions).

It was nice because the images gave you an acurate impression of what you are signing up for.

But at the same time it would be nicer still to have several illustrations accurately depicting the character at various points in their career. That way we can have a more accurate image in our minds of the fantasy we are engaging in. As for complaints of recognizability... if changing their clothes or armor renders them unrecognizable, they aren't very Iconic (or well enough illustrated... but that art is great! So not likely)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:


2) For better or worse, the iconic art illustrates the characters with the same set of gear no matter at what point they are illustrated. Their art will always depict them wearing what the creators envision as being worn for the majority of their career. This is true at level 1 before they can afford it, and it is true at level 20 when their gear has probably all been converted to mithril or adamantine or whatever.

I can only think of one counter-example, and that's the Mythic Iconics. I thought that art was spectacular.


I am just imagining how much more compelling a Pregenerated Character Packet (like those often used by new players in public games) would be if each version's portrait was illustrated accurately, and you could literally see their progression.

Such as replacing the bundle of mundane torches with a single ornately-capped rod (an everburning torch with a cover), or replacing an old pewter mug with an ornate silver stein.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Voss wrote:
If you aren't adjacent to Seelah and her ally, her 'tanking' ability matters not at all. And she has nothing to stop the enemy from just walking away from her reach and still attacking her buddy.
If the enemy is spending actions running away from Seelah, they aren't spending actions attacking her allies or on their own defense.

What? If the enemy spends one of three actions moving, they're.... not taking an attack at -10. Don't care. I don't even care particularly much if they give up the -5 attack. Give how big the penalties are, I would hope people could easily see that stationary hack/hack/hack attack routine of 3.x is actually a terrible plan. A monster that raises shield, walks away from the paladin and tries to gut the weedy characters is going to be in a very happy place.

If they move, she also has to move to make her ability relevant. The enemy is giving up a terrible attack to make a *PC* burn actions. That's a huge win for team monster, even if encounter design is 'PCs dogpile on one or two enemies' like most CR systems.

A monster kiting a paladin around like a bull in a ring is hilarious, especially if the paladin is in heavy armor and have to deal with speed issues.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Voss wrote:
If you aren't adjacent to Seelah and her ally, her 'tanking' ability matters not at all. And she has nothing to stop the enemy from just walking away from her reach and still attacking her buddy.
If the enemy is spending actions running away from Seelah, they aren't spending actions attacking her allies or on their own defense.

What? If the enemy spends one of three actions moving, they're.... not taking an attack at -10. Don't care. I don't even care particularly much if they give up the -5 attack. Give how big the penalties are, I would hope people could easily see that stationary hack/hack/hack attack routine of 3.x is actually a terrible plan. A monster that raises shield, walks away from the paladin and tries to gut the weedy characters is going to be in a very happy place.

If they move, she also has to move to make her ability relevant. The enemy is giving up a terrible attack to make a *PC* burn actions. That's a huge win for team monster, even if encounter design is 'PCs dogpile on one or two enemies' like most CR systems.

A monster kiting a paladin around like a bull in a ring is hilarious, especially if the paladin is in heavy armor and have to deal with speed issues.

And this is different from the enemy using a guarded step bypass Valerous's AoO.... how?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

I will say this. Warded Touch is an excellent feat, but one could make a case it shouldn't be a feat at all. Lay on Hands is clearly meant to be used from the front-lines, so you really don't want to provoke with it. OTOH less thing can AoO in the first place, so it isn't as big a deal.

I would like some clarification on how this interacts with using a shield and sword, hands wise.

I think removing the 'manipulate' trait means that you don't need a free hand, or at least someone said that's what Warded Touch does.

Liberty's Edge

Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Doesn't using a sword and a shield make it really difficult to actually use Lay On Hands in combat?

Warded Touch supposedly fixes that according to people who've played Seelah at demo games, allowing it to be used without these issues. Cyouni's theory as to why seems quite likely.

Designer

8 people marked this as a favorite.

We probably do need to say it more explicitly than it was in the playtest CRB though, as we discovered at the playtest games. It's on our list of things to clarify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Cool cool cool. Then yeah, Warded Touch feels pretty good as a feat without being entirely mandatory, I think.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

After carefully rereading the cleric and the paladin sheets, I am guessing that the "somatic casting" action is probably described as having a "manipulate trait" that requires a free hand. The warded touch feat must specifically remove that trait, but only for the lay on hands spell power. I am guessing that this will be addressed for clerics and other casters in the form of a metamagic feat which removes the manipulate trait from somatic components generally.

The complexity of the action economy and the associated "traits" functionality almost makes me wish that we could have had the action blog later in the process. RIght now, I see a lot of folks posting about wanting to stream line the wording of actions, but it is starting to look like all that wordiness is pretty important.

For example, I think a lot of us are accustom to the idea that the Attack of Opportunity is the default reaction and that the descriptions of actions only need to specify if they "provoke" or not, but it seems like there are going to be a lot of reactions that trigger off of such specific things that a general "provokes" category is not going to be as useful as it used to be.
Retributive strike , for example, only specifies " a creature within your reach hits a ally or a friendly creature." would a spell that doesn't require a attack roll, but still causes damage qualify?


Captain Morgan wrote:
Voss wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Voss wrote:
If you aren't adjacent to Seelah and her ally, her 'tanking' ability matters not at all. And she has nothing to stop the enemy from just walking away from her reach and still attacking her buddy.
If the enemy is spending actions running away from Seelah, they aren't spending actions attacking her allies or on their own defense.

What? If the enemy spends one of three actions moving, they're.... not taking an attack at -10. Don't care. I don't even care particularly much if they give up the -5 attack. Give how big the penalties are, I would hope people could easily see that stationary hack/hack/hack attack routine of 3.x is actually a terrible plan. A monster that raises shield, walks away from the paladin and tries to gut the weedy characters is going to be in a very happy place.

If they move, she also has to move to make her ability relevant. The enemy is giving up a terrible attack to make a *PC* burn actions. That's a huge win for team monster, even if encounter design is 'PCs dogpile on one or two enemies' like most CR systems.

A monster kiting a paladin around like a bull in a ring is hilarious, especially if the paladin is in heavy armor and have to deal with speed issues.

And this is different from the enemy using a guarded step bypass Valerous's AoO.... how?

I'm not sure what you mean. Is guarded step even in PF2? Does Valeros particularly care if they bypass his AoO considering he's saddled with two other reaction based abilities and only one reaction? Is it relevant to the conversation at all, considering I never mentioned big V, nor feel that AoO is particularly amazing either?

With sudden charge, Valeros is going to be pressing at enemies. As a bonus, he's going to punish them if they try to get away. As a character, he isn't built around AoO as his only gimmick. By contrast, Seelah is going to be trudging toward the enemy, more often being engaged by them or bypassed by them- but its the enemy's choice. Yeah, it's a neat ability if Lem or Kyra stand at Seelah's shoulder and enemies run up to engage them and Seelah simultaneously and devotedly attack the other characters... but past the first time, that would just be stupid.

---

4e tried to force MMO 'tanking' into tabletop. It was easily circumvented and rarely mattered, even though 4e monsters were basically built to only attack. I'm not seeing much of an improvement here, and it's more problematic since monsters are already more complex and its the signature starting ability of these classes, and Seelah especially doesn't have anything else to offer a party, apart from tapping out her pitiful healing ability in encounter #1.

----

Look, D&D and derivatives have had a consistent problem with low level characters being utterly un-interesting and largely incapable. I figured PF2 would be a good chance to change that. So far... these previews are 0/4 on that. Valerus stands out by just having a better damage curve, actively manipulating the action economy and not having any resource pools to use up too quickly, but by and large these characters are walking up to people and thwacking them, while trying not to use up what little healing they have.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

When I played a Delve as Merisiel, I was sorry I didn't position better to be near Seelah when the zombies attacked. I could have forced them to take the retributive strike, or lose out on attacking altogether.

I realized my mistake too late, but it made me want to think more tactically to force hard decisions on my foes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Is guarded step even in PF2?

Yes. Mentioned in the actions blog.

Quote:
Does Valeros particularly care if they bypass his AoO considering he's saddled with two other reaction based abilities and only one reaction?

He does if the enemy isn't focusing on attacking him, since neither of his shield reactions matter then. And once you start waving a shield around, you are most likely easily recognized as not the softest target on the field.

Quote:
Is it relevant to the conversation at all, considering I never mentioned big V, nor feel that AoO is particularly amazing either?

Yeah, you did. You called Seelah Valeros the lesser, which is what started this whole conversation.

Quote:
With sudden charge, Valeros is going to be pressing at enemies. As a bonus, he's going to punish them if they try to get away. As a character, he isn't built around AoO as his only gimmick.

Yeah, Sudden Charge looks like a good feat. When you are in situations where you need 2 strides to strike. Which is only true a certain amount of the time.

Quote:
By contrast, Seelah is going to be trudging toward the enemy, more often being engaged by them or bypassed by them- but its the enemy's choice.

First level enemies only have melee attacks as often as not, so their choices seem to be "approach or run the heck away." Kiting in melee won't accomplish much because unless you have a 45 foot move speed, you are trading stride > Strike > stride for her stride > stride > strike.

Which is a specific scenario that Valeros does better in, but then again, Seelah does better in a confined room like a lot of dungeons.

Quote:
Yeah, it's a neat ability if Lem or Kyra stand at Seelah's shoulder and enemies run up to engage them and Seelah simultaneously and devotedly attack the other characters... but past the first time, that would just be stupid.

If they attack Seelah instead, she can use her shield block reaction. If they move, that's one less attack and potentially triggering an AoO from the ally, if the ally has AoO. If the ally is squishier, getting their back to a wall with Seelah in front of them means the ally can't be melee attacked without the enemy triggering Retributive.

Quote:
Seelah especially doesn't have anything else to offer a party,

If you aren't comparing her to Valeros with what you talk about with what she has "to offer a party,' and you aren't comparing her to a 1st level PF1 paladin, what are you comparing her to? Kyra? Seelah heals less than her, but has more HP, more damage, more accuracy, a shield to keep herself in the fight longer, 2 reactions to Kyra's none...

Quote:
apart from tapping out her pitiful healing ability in encounter #1.

Yeah, if you continue to ignore all the evidence that contradicts you about Lay on Hands, sure.

Quote:
Look, D&D and derivatives have had a consistent problem with low level characters being utterly un-interesting and largely incapable. I figured PF2 would be a good chance to change that. So far... these previews are 0/4 on that. Valerus stands out by just having a better damage curve, actively manipulating the action economy and not having any resource pools to use up too quickly, but by and large these characters are walking up to people and thwacking them, while trying not to use up what little healing they have.

I don't disagree that low level play tends to be less interesting in general, but multiple people who have played these 1st level characters have assured us that the combats feel more tactical and interesting. Regardless, you immediately started decrying Seelah as inferior to her other 1st level pre-gen counterparts, so if your point was "1st level play sucks" you chose a really strange, roundabout way to get to it.


Based on Voss’s apparent views on 4e, which contradict the general consensus of the thousands of posters on the WotC forums during the 4e era (and several other sites such as EN World, Penny Arcade, and GitP), not to mention the views of numerous FLGS and Con patrons I’ve visited in my travels, I can safely say that any opinion they have on PF2 can be entirely discounted.

Despite what they may think, their views are NOT ubiquitous. There are countless fans that thoroughly enjoy the presentation and play style of systems like 4e and PF2.


It’s a little early to be discounting people’s views, since we’re all looking through the same keyhole in the Aug. 2nd Door, but I do think retributive strike can do a lot to save people, especially if the Paladin does what they can to “pack a whallop” on their single attacks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
I'm not seeing much of an improvement here, and it's more problematic since monsters are already more complex and its the signature starting ability of these classes, and Seelah especially doesn't have anything else to offer a party, apart from tapping out her pitiful healing ability in encounter #1.

If literally every monster is spending actions to try and run circles around a paladin, then I suspect it's the GM that's the problem.

An unadjusted level 2 1E paladin with 14 Cha has 3 lay on hands/day, with average healing of 3.5 (1d6). This can be done as a swift action on yourself, and a standard action on someone else.
An unadjusted level 1 paladin with 14 Cha has 2 lay on hands with an average healing of 4.5 (1d4+2) and +1 AC. This can be done as a single action.

Comparing them, the 2E paladin heals only 0.5 average less (with a better min = 3-6 vs 1-6), and has the bonus of +1 AC. Furthermore, the action economy is far better for them; if you wanted to move, attack, and heal someone else in the same round, that's completely possible, coming out equal to 1E in action economy. And we're comparing to level 2 in 1E.

With Retributive Strike and a shield, a 2E paladin provides far more threat to nearby enemies than a 1E paladin does.

Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

If literally every monster is spending actions to try and run circles around a paladin, then I suspect it's the GM that's the problem.

If that happens, maybe build a reach paladin and take AoO; then your allies can keep spending an action at the end of each turn to move to the other side of the paladin and the paladin profits!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:


He does if the enemy isn't focusing on attacking him, since neither of his shield reactions matter then. And once you start waving a shield around, you are most likely easily recognized as not the softest target on the field.

Right... so. They can either attack him, and he can use shield things, or they can move away and take an AoO. That actually works together. Seelah doesn't have those pieces to work together.

Quote:


Yeah, you did. You called Seelah Valeros the lesser, which is what started this whole conversation.

Ah. That is true. But I'm still not terribly impressed with AoO, though his total package of abilities allows him to dictate the terms of the fight far more than she can.

Quote:


First level enemies only have melee attacks as often as not, so their choices seem to be "approach or run the heck away." Kiting in melee won't accomplish much because unless you have a 45 foot move speed, you are trading stride > Strike > stride for her stride > stride > strike.

Yeah... I'm not going to make the assumption that a bunch of monsters/NPCs I haven't seen don't have ranged attacks for no apparent reason. That doesn't make any sense to me.

And at 25 speed, they can stride-strike-strike while she has to stride-stride-strike. If the enemy moves 25 and she moves 20... she's isn't in reach. Assuming they started adjacent.

Quote:
If they attack Seelah instead, she can use her shield block reaction.

Yeah, at which point they can safely ignore her and go after her allies anyway.

Quote:
If you aren't comparing her to Valeros with what you talk about with what she has "to offer a party,' and you aren't comparing her to a 1st level PF1 paladin, what are you comparing her to? Kyra? Seelah heals less than her, but has more HP, more damage, more accuracy, a shield to keep herself in the fight longer, 2 reactions to Kyra's none...

Er... Seelah, of the 4 previews so far has the second lowest HP. Kyra has 20 like Valeros. Kyra can protect allies, boost allies, has tools for the exploration part of the game (light, detect magic), much better healing and more of it, has higher skill bonuses and isn't saddled with skills she can't use, better perception and the potential for much better attacks just by swapping out some spells/cantrips, based on that +5 to spell rolls. They don't even vaguely compare.

But mostly I was comparing her to 'what I would want an adventurer to be able to do.' Slightly bigger attack and damage bonuses and a circumstantial protective ability with a big escape clause and easy ways to avoid invoking it in the first place don't cut it.

Quote:
Yeah, if you continue to ignore all the evidence that contradicts you about Lay on Hands, sure.

Uh huh. There's evidence that low level enemies don't use long swords? The most common weapon in the game? That's 4.5 damage on average, assuming +0 strength bonus. She heals for 5.5 on average.

Twice. The end, she has to come back tomorrow for another go.

She's barely able to keep ahead of a single sword strike with no bonuses. And most adventurers are going to take more than a single sword strike over the course of an adventuring day.

If people have actual *evidence* of damage per encounter, I'd love to see it, but default assumptions suggest it's actually pretty far fetched supposition.

-----

@Insight. Thats a... weird... condemnation. I don't consider 4e and PF2 all that similar. The presentation, mechanics and play style are quite distinct.

But yeah, i don't think my views are ubiquitous either. Given I'm a singular entity, that would be difficult...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Voss wrote:
Right... so. They can either attack him, and he can use shield things, or they can move away and take an AoO. That actually works together. Seelah doesn't have those pieces to work together.

Alternatively: They guarded step >stride away from Valeros and go after another target. And unlike Seelah, Valeros has nothing specific to offer once the enemy's closed on an ally.

Quote:
Yeah... I'm not going to make the assumption that a bunch of monsters/NPCs I haven't seen don't have ranged attacks for no apparent reason. That doesn't make any sense to me.

There's no assumption here. Low level without ranged weapons include pretty much all animals, most vermin, and lots of magical beasts. It also includes your basic skeletons and zombies. Really, almost anything non-humanoid. In the playtest demos I've watched/listened to, there was in fact no real ranged weapons, with the exception of one scared NPC who wasn't even a real encounter.

Heck, one of the very few stat blocks we have seen is the higher level redcap who still doesn't have a ranged weapon.

Quote:
Er... Seelah, of the 4 previews so far has the second lowest HP. Kyra has 20 like Valeros. Kyra can protect allies, boost allies, has tools for the exploration part of the game (light, detect magic), much better healing and more of it, has higher skill bonuses and isn't saddled with skills she can't use, better perception and the potential for much better attacks just by swapping out some spells/cantrips, based on that +5 to spell rolls. They don't even vaguely compare.

I'll give you I was overlooking the Toughness on Kyra. I've seen no indication that +5 to spell rolls applies to any sort of attack though, and even her own sheet contradicts that idea with Fire Ray.

But yeah, Seelah has worst magic than a 10th level caster. And?

Quote:
But mostly I was comparing her to 'what I would want an adventurer to be able to do.' Slightly bigger attack and damage bonuses and a circumstantial protective ability with a big escape clause and easy ways to avoid invoking it in the first place don't cut it.

Well you can always just not play Seelah. We have seen within this very thread that they are people in this very thread who preferred playing Seelah to her other 1st level counter parts.

She seems to scratch an itch for someone. If you just don't like martials and don't like 1st level characters, I dunno what you expected from a 1st level paladin?

Quote:

Uh huh. There's evidence that low level enemies don't use long swords? The most common weapon in the game? That's 4.5 damage on average, assuming +0 strength bonus. She heals for 5.5 on average.

Twice. The end, she has to come back tomorrow for another go.
She's barely able to keep ahead of a single sword strike with no bonuses. And most adventurers are going to take more than a single sword strike over the course of an adventuring day.

If people have actual *evidence* of damage per encounter, I'd love to see it, but default assumptions suggest it's actually pretty far fetched supposition.

You're also ignoring the AC boost and offensive applications of Lay on Hands. That aside, we have seen a fair amount of demo fights now, and plenty of damage rolls. Skeletons seem to hit no harder than their PF1 counterparts, for example, which is decidedly less than a longsword wielder.

We did have a +1 longsword wielding anti-paladin show up as the boss against a 2nd level party, but in that fight Lay on Hands was waaaay better as an offensive tool that targeted touch AC, bypassed the Skeleton's resistance, and did an extra 5 damage.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Doesn't using a sword and a shield make it really difficult to actually use Lay On Hands in combat?
Warded Touch supposedly fixes that according to people who've played Seelah at demo games, allowing it to be used without these issues. Cyouni's theory as to why seems quite likely.

I can see it for the actual casting of the spell, but I don't see where it removes the need to, you know, actually lay your hands on the person getting healed.

401 to 450 of 799 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Pregen previews over at ENWorld! All Messageboards