| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coming up on the demise of this playtest forum, I wanted one last thread to organize my thoughts, partially for myself to get prepped for teaching this to my players, and partially to bounce back ideas on how to perceive things when I start playing. My previous threads got a little heated, so right off the bat let's make sure everyone knows I'm not a fan of flame wars, and everyone is allowed to have any opinion they want. We're even allowed to disagree, but we have to do so with civility and hopefully with substantial dialogue:
: I love this, as a forum search will tell you. The new class system relies on a proficiency scale of 4 different ranks to determine any single d20 roll, and all d20 rolls follow the same basic rules making the overall engine of the game and interacting with the game much more parallel and certainly simpler to teach rather than explaining BAB, saving progression, skill ranks plus or minus class skill bonus, etc. I like how skills work, and I like that you can attempt anything, unless it's barred by a specific rule or option that you must invest into.
: Some of this is really good, some of it is really meh. None of it is bad, though. I'm not opposed to the idea of changing what the names of the different pools are, class features being called 'talents,' skills being called 'tricks,' and ancestral stuff having its own name, etc. That is of course, only if you can't intermix the feats with your general feats, which I hope for very much. I do see problems with nomenclature, but the system itself (everything from classes having different options to skills having different unlocks) I'm fine with pretty much as is. Some of the individual options I may not like, but the chassis of the game's design itself for characters seems pretty solid.
: I already played the game this way in PF1, and having the architecture of the game already catered to managing time in this way means less work for both players and DMs. The way to transition between them and removing initiative from the game in favor of using more skills means players will more than likely all have different skills to specialize and and focus on out of combat, meaning everyone will have incentive to play with out of combat in mind when making characters, something that I personally saw as a problem in PF1. This is good.
Action System: My tone has changed a lot on this. I'll get more specific when I talk about in combat C/M D, but in general (coming from a place where I was really comfortable in promoting the Unchained Action Economy and using it exclusively since its release) I see the dev team really trying hard to create a very structured cookie cutter game. I do not like how micro-managey the action designations are and how there seems to be more and more rules being written into them in order to differentiate different actions in ways that I'm not sure will even come up as something that matters in game. I also don't like how much of the action system's main selling point, freedom and agency, is being taxed away seemingly by fear of the developers letting players do too much in one turn which I predict will end up with characters able to do less in this edition of the game than in the last one. The only real difference is the illusion of choice that comes from being able to select which order you take your actions in, which is something Pathfinder fixed over 3.5 anyway iirc (I may not). I was excited about this, but now I am not.
Class Design: I don't hate resonance, but I'm not a fan either. I think I need to play it out before I see if it makes some classes unashamedly stronger than others, and if the way magic items work now will even matter. UMD monkey may be a role parties assign to the same guy doing party face stuff which means these characters will be very potent when it comes to screen time at the table. I think the chassis for the classes looks really good, but individually I see a lot of intentionally weak choices that discourage me from wanting to play with some of these classes, such as feats and abilities which more or less mandate stupid tactics for combat in order to trigger. Seems there will be some options that will obviously outshine others, to the point where I'm not sure the entire playtest book will even get tested or tried out. I hate the new paladin. Hate it. HATE. The iconic ability and role of the paladin has been changed and shifted from being the blessed holy warrior who doesn't afraid of anything and smites evil tf to death no longer exists, and instead the class is being designed around what seems to be a very tactically poor aggro mechanic. Also alignment stuff. Every other class seems to either retain what I liked about them in PF1, or expanded and improved upon what eventually became the more definitive ways to view and play the classes by the end of PF2. Fighters getting Flexibility, Rogues getting DEX to damage, barbarians automatically rage-cycling, wizards essentially getting arcanist exploits, and monks being able to do DBZ ki blasts all make me very happy. I don't think trapper rangers as a default will yield good results for it, but it may be a class that shines in exploration mode more than in combat so I'll reserve judgement.
Martial combat: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Combat has changed a lot, and I don't think for the better of the enjoyment of the players or the DMs. Most of your combat actions are going to cost you two actions. This is done as a balancing act against each other, but inherently it infringes upon the entire reason the new action economy was invented in the first place, i.e. to enable player agency and grant more freedom. Granted you still have that freedom, but not if you want to use the feats you took to make your character better at doing what you want from it. Most of your turns will revolve around a single action (probably to move or use another class ability) and a single attack. Or, in the case of Double Slice, two attacks that are supposed to have exactly half the value of a single attack. Want to use a shield? You have to use an action every single turn in order for your shield to count. But why is this? It so happens that the new engine for d20 rolls influence the game design so much that weapon damage is now almost entirely variable based. This means either fistfuls of dice, or for the frugal players, you'll be rolling the same damage dice over and over again anywhere from 2-18 times for one single attack. Math ensues and the distribution of damage potential still hasn't been explained in how the new enemy and CR system works. We know you expect to land critical hits a lot more often, because martial characters are designed around the concept of their higher proficiency bonuses bumping their primary attacks into that critical range. (For the mathematically astute, this means that your secondary attacks at -5 are just as likely to hit, but much less likely to crit). Simple math tells you that something like, Power Attack, becomes null once your ability to land extra hits gets far above how much extra damage you can expect to get from its benefits by simply swinging your sword twice, as if using it you can expect double damage from a single hit, without it you can roughly count on double and a half damage. This is a mathematical flaw in the system, and Power Attack is not alone in how these calculations work, but it was the first and probably the most important example. Martial Combat is in a bad place.
: On the other side of the fence, we have spellcasters having their mandatory two-action single cast per turn spellcasting reduced to be defined by the spell itself, and opened up to the casters whims as far as actions go. Have 3 single action spells or cantrips that you want to use? Go nuts. We even upgraded every cantrip so it scales with your level and never becomes redundant or useless so you'll never not have a spell to cast. In fairness, the number of spells has been reduced, and the mechanics around spellcasting have been streamlined, in good ways. It's hard to say I approve of this given the previous paragraph, but I really think spellcasting is going in a very good direction. The sheer number of variables is being reduced by limited spell slots, but those individual spells versatility is being improved upon which leads to less analysis paralysis and less dead air at the table waiting for the spellcasters to prepare spells for the day. I want and advocate a Universal Spellcasting mechanic to convert all spellcasters to the neovancian style of casting we got from the arcanist in PF1, but compared to the mess that martial combat has going on that's a relatively minor complaint imo. Anyone can cast in armor, you just gotta be able to wear the armor with your proficiency. Spellcasters are in a good place.
: Overall, I like how everything here is working. Weapons have applicable tactical uses that trigger for martial characters based on the new design for critical hits to happen often, which means you may end up with characters using all sorts of different weapons instead of longbows and nodachis all the time. You also can move your potency runes around, meaning you don't have to nix your magic weapons if you aren't built for them. Armor has consumed half of the big six, and I'm 100% fine with it. Magic items and resonance looks like it might not be as bad as we thought initially, we just have to see how they balance out on real characters at the table.
: These are exactly what they need to be for this edition of the game. With the new d20 engine no longer tied to a table of mechanical progressions, you'll find it hard to understand how one could even attempt to invoke traditional multiclassing/prestige classing into the game. Archetypes are built on a foundation that enables players to elect with their now very malleable character builds a number of options to mix and match concepts, and given that proficiency replaces old class based mechanics like BAB and saving throw progressions, all the dedication feats really need to do is apply or improve certain proficiency stats to effectively gain the same results as multiclassing. If this includes HP and skills then I see no real reason anyone has to complain about multiclassing as a concept for this edition. I can see the sides that want to reduce or tamper with the restrictions on multiple dedications, but that's a pedantic issue that I guarantee will get hammered out in testing.
Did I miss anything big that needs to be discussed? I'd like to know how DMing works more than just a light preview that tells me what all the sections are that DMing covers, but gives me some crunch to understand the ideas of the game's design better. I really want to know how this new CR system works and how enemy encounters are designed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My last threads on the topic were tilted in 15 minute increments. At one hour we'll have the play test, in this metaphor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sort of a 'Doomsday (Dawn) Clock', if you will? ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Want to use a shield? You have to use an action every single turn in order for your shield to count.
Yeah, this one bothers me, too. I can understand raising the shield once. It would be like drawing a sword or shifting your two-handed sword held aside in one hand to a two-handed fighting grip. But is the fighter so flabby that he can hold the shield for only 6 seconds without conscious effort? It feels like having to draw a sword every turn.
Merisiel in ENWorld took a feat called Nimble Dodge that gives her the same +2 as a shield, but it costs a reaction rather than an action. Valeros wanted the same trick, so he has Reactive Shield, which lets him raise his shield as a reaction in response to a hit or a critical hit. Which is bady worded: does he raise his shield after the shield bonus no longer helps stop the attack or does he back up time to stop the hit retroactively? If the later, can he do it after his player heard the exact attack roll value to judge whether the shield would help or not? He wants to save his reaction for attacks of opportunity, after all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Valeros wanted the same trick, so he has Reactive Shield, which lets him raise his shield as a reaction in response to a hit or a critical hit. Which is bady worded: does he raise his shield after the shield bonus no longer helps stop the attack or does he back up time to stop the hit retroactively? If the later, can he do it after his player heard the exact attack roll value to judge whether the shield would help or not? He wants to save his reaction for attacks of opportunity, after all.
The feat answers your questions explicitly. You use your new higher AC and can turn a hit into a miss or negate a crit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a shield added STR to AC to create an active defense style that mattered I'd be more inclined to accept it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Valeros wanted the same trick, so he has Reactive Shield, which lets him raise his shield as a reaction in response to a hit or a critical hit. Which is bady worded: does he raise his shield after the shield bonus no longer helps stop the attack or does he back up time to stop the hit retroactively? If the later, can he do it after his player heard the exact attack roll value to judge whether the shield would help or not? He wants to save his reaction for attacks of opportunity, after all.The feat answers your questions explicitly. You use your new higher AC and can turn a hit into a miss or negate a crit.
After the player hears the exact attack roll, too. If my character has AC 17, I will raise my shield as a reaction only if I hear 17 or 18 as the attack roll, or 27 or 28 to reduce a critical hit to normal. The rest of the time, I will save the reaction. Sure, it means I won't have the reaction available for a shield block, but saving an action is probably worth giving up the shield block. If the GM refuses to tell me the exact to-hit result, then I would argue that he is not allowing me to play Reactive Shield as intended.
Raising a 1st-level shield gives a +2 to AC, reducing the chance of being hit by 10%. If the chance of hitting on a 3rd attack is 10% or more (i.e., hit on a 19 or 20), then the 3rd attack is more valuable than raising the shield, ignoring the effects of shield blocking. Or if the character moved or drew a weapon, then the 2nd attack needs a 10% chance of success to favor it over raising a shield, which is pretty likely.
Paizo seems to be throwing some complicated tradeoffs of odds into their combat system. That is not simplification.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Want to use a shield? You have to use an action every single turn in order for your shield to count.Yeah, this one bothers me, too. I can understand raising the shield once. It would be like drawing a sword or shifting your two-handed sword held aside in one hand to a two-handed fighting grip. But is the fighter so flabby that he can hold the shield for only 6 seconds without conscious effort? It feels like having to draw a sword every turn.
Merisiel in ENWorld took a feat called Nimble Dodge that gives her the same +2 as a shield, but it costs a reaction rather than an action. Valeros wanted the same trick, so he has Reactive Shield, which lets him raise his shield as a reaction in response to a hit or a critical hit. Which is bady worded: does he raise his shield after the shield bonus no longer helps stop the attack or does he back up time to stop the hit retroactively? If the later, can he do it after his player heard the exact attack roll value to judge whether the shield would help or not? He wants to save his reaction for attacks of opportunity, after all.
I will say that raising the shield and shield block are better then merisiel's nimble dodge. 1 action raising shield to interpose against attacks (+2 AC) then if someone hits you you can negate some of its damage. 2 actions for it possibly but that is still more options. Also shields in use don't tend to stay in 1 place and need to be moved into place to counter weapons. I don't necessarily think that you should have to raise it every turn but that is also what they are doing for other classes to with other things like spell casters needing to concentrate costing an action. Raising a shield is you working on concentrating on your shield arm. (The further down that hole I go the less I like it because TWF is my favorite fighting style and it does not look good for it with those thoughts)
Even Reactive shield is better then Nimble dodge as Reactive Shield allows you to raise your shield into position giving you the AC boost after the hit has been confirmed. Allowing you the option of negating the hit or critical.
As for Your GM not letting you know the Numbers he rolls, I am not your GM I can't speak for him but I usually like to roll where everyone can see and then announce the actual to hit number.
<snip>I will say that raising the shield and shield block are better then merisiel's nimble dodge. 1 action raising shield to interpose against attacks (+2 AC) then if someone hits you you can negate some of its damage. 2 actions for it possibly but that is still more options. Also shields in use don't tend to stay in 1 place and need to be moved into place to counter weapons. I don't necessarily think that you should have to raise it every turn but that is also what they are doing for other classes to with other things like spell casters needing to concentrate costing an action. Raising a shield is you working on concentrating on your shield arm. that hole I go the less I like it because TWF is my favorite fighting style and it does not look good for it with those thoughts)
Even Reactive shield is better then Nimble dodge as Reactive Shield allows you to raise your shield into position giving you the AC boost after the hit has been confirmed. Allowing you the option of negating the hit or critical.
As for Your GM not letting you know the Numbers he rolls, I am not your GM I can't speak for him but I usually like to roll where everyone can see and then announce the actual to hit number.
I will be the GM during the playtest at my house, so I have to worry about interpreting the rules correctly. I have previously told the player the roll so that they can compare it to their character's AC. In contrast, I keep the enemy's AC secret until they have narrowed down the range. Am I also supposed to also keep the enemy's attack bonus secret? (I could record the PCs' ACs and consult the value quietly.)
Another thread, Can Shields Only Take 3 Hits, discusses the possible limits of Shield Block. We will know the relevant details on August 2.
Better than increasing AC by raising a shield and reducing danage by shield blocking is preventing all damage by hitting the opponent in another attack and knocking the opponent unconscious. Shields compete for that third action and they compete against two-handed weapons and two-weapon fighting for the hand, so they need to function well to be worth using given the alternatives.
But let's not talk just shields. Spellcaster have powerful spells with limited spell slots and spell points, and weaker cantrips. Martials, instead of managing their spell resources, have the challenge of managing the action economy of their turns. That could be interesting, but a few trap actions could ruin the flavor. In the long run, people will learn to avoid the traps, just like people don't use Feint in PF1 because it is not worth the effort without the improvement feats. In the short run, it will make PF2 look maladjusted. As master_marshmallow said, "This is a mathematical flaw in the system." Good design could nullify the flaw, but the previews have not given enough detail to tell good design from bad design.
|
Martial combat: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Combat has changed a lot, and I don't think for the better of the enjoyment of the players or the DMs. Most of your combat actions are going to cost you two actions. This is done as a balancing act against each other, but inherently it infringes upon the entire reason the new action economy was invented in the first place, i.e. to enable player agency and grant more freedom. Granted you still have that freedom, but not if you want to use the feats you took to make your character better at doing what you want from it. Most of your turns will revolve around a single action (probably to move or use another class ability) and a single attack. Or, in the case of Double Slice, two attacks that are supposed to have exactly half the value of a single attack. Want to use a shield? You have to use an action every single turn in order for your shield to count. But why is this? It so happens that the new engine for d20 rolls influence the game design so much that weapon damage is now almost entirely variable based. This means either fistfuls of dice, or for the frugal players, you'll be rolling the same damage dice over and over again anywhere from 2-18 times for one single attack. Math ensues and the distribution of damage potential still hasn't been explained in how the new enemy and CR system works. We know you expect to land critical hits a lot more often, because martial characters are designed around the concept of their higher proficiency bonuses bumping their primary attacks into that critical range. (For the mathematically astute, this means that your secondary attacks at -5 are just as likely to hit, but much less likely to crit). Simple math tells you that something like, Power Attack, becomes null once your ability to land extra hits gets far above how much extra damage you can expect to get from its benefits by simply swinging your sword twice, as if using it you can expect double damage from a single hit, without it you can roughly count on double and a half damage. This is a mathematical flaw in the system, and Power Attack is not alone in how these calculations work, but it was the first and probably the most important example. Martial Combat is in a bad place.
What is your solution?
Having Power Attack (the example given) cost a single action but be 1/round?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest concern is definitely action economy taxing, as everything-is-an-action really makes freedom of UAE pointless. I'm afraid that in this edition we'll still have must have feats, except instead of those granting the biggest bonuses, the must have ones will be action cost reducers.
Resonance and multiclassing are my two secondary concerns, while the system as a whole has a really big potential. Whether it lives up to it we shall truly see in about a year (playtest is still useful metric though).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the Action Economy is my favourite part (I also use the RAE from Unchained, with a few extra tweaks to help it along), but all the micro-action terms: Operate Activation action, Basic interact action, etc, have me concerned.
I also worry that the 4-tiiers of success could slow down play, we'll see soon enough!
I am very curious about whether all the various action tags (manipulations, operate etc) are as clunky and awkward as they seem or if they manage to generally make the game run smoother and are usually fairly invisible. Getting rid of AoOs has really run havoc over my ability to understand what reactions will look like and what will provoke them, especially since a lot of them seem like they will occur when the character is specifically targeted. While I find it all confusing for now, I also find that confusion a little exciting as I am hopeful that combats will be much more dynamic than figuring out how to teleport the melee specialist into full attack range and then standing still till everything is dead.
Martial combat: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Combat has changed a lot, and I don't think for the better of the enjoyment of the players or the DMs. Most of your combat actions are going to cost you two actions. This is done as a balancing act against each other, but inherently it infringes upon the entire reason the new action economy was invented in the first place, i.e. to enable player agency and grant more freedom. Granted you still have that freedom, but not if you want to use the feats you took to make your character better at doing what you want from it. Most of your turns will revolve around a single action (probably to move or use another class ability) and a single attack. Or, in the case of Double Slice, two attacks that are supposed to have exactly half the value of a single attack. Want to use a shield? You have to use an action every single turn in order for your shield to count. But why is this? It so happens that the new engine for d20 rolls influence the game design so much that weapon damage is now almost entirely variable based. This means either fistfuls of dice, or for the frugal players, you'll be rolling the same damage dice over and over again anywhere from 2-18 times for one single attack. Math ensues and the distribution of damage potential still hasn't been explained in how the new enemy and CR system works. We know you expect to land critical hits a lot more often, because martial characters are designed around the concept of their higher proficiency bonuses bumping their primary attacks into that critical range. (For the mathematically astute, this means that your secondary attacks at -5 are just as likely to hit, but much less likely to crit). Simple math tells you that something like, Power Attack, becomes null once your ability to land extra hits gets far above how much extra damage you can expect to get from its benefits by simply swinging your sword twice, as if using it you can expect double damage from a single hit, without it you can...
I actually don't hate your idea there, and as you level (or increase your proficiency more likely) it can also apply to secondary and tertiary attacks, that'd be good. Requirements would need to matter, I'd like to see the different styles cater to different weapon configurations more directly; for example: [Power Attack] could require the use of a two-handed weapon, [Double AttackSlice] could then explicitly require an agile/finesse weapon or a shield, and I'd even like to see a Duelist Strike feat that does the duelist/swashbuckler thing for a one-handed build.
Theorycraft BS:
Power Attack in my initial thoughts would take a negative to AC, and as your proficiency goes up, you can choose a bigger negative to AC to add additional dice, up to 3 more dice, additional dice = proficiency. AC penalties stack for the turn so doing so a lot can make you a really easy target and leave you open to critical hits.
Double Attack should give a weak/pseudo version of the quickened condition, giving you another action but only to attack with your agile/finesse weapon or shield boss (which may already be an agile/finesse weapon and might not even need to be listed). I could see it giving another bonus action for secondary and tertiary strikes as you level, or increase your proficiency, more likely. I was honestly thinking of giving it a CON prerequisite, to represent the stamina it takes to swing both weapons around. Hitting with both attacks should trigger a rake, with scaling damage similar to how Power Attack scales its damage.
I think tying feats effects to the proficiency mechanic with respect to the weapon you are using could be really good, and it gives the fighter an actual edge more than bigger numbers when he gets his proficiency up sooner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest concern is definitely action economy taxing, as everything-is-an-action really makes freedom of UAE pointless. I'm afraid that in this edition we'll still have must have feats, except instead of those granting the biggest bonuses, the must have ones will be action cost reducers.
Resonance and multiclassing are my two secondary concerns, while the system as a whole has a really big potential. Whether it lives up to it we shall truly see in about a year (playtest is still useful metric though).
I'm also quite concerned about the bolded above. Especially because based on past Paizo experience with PF1E, they use feats to patch sections of their game that don't feel quite right.
Last I remember from the Glass Cannon Podcast preview, striding, then vaulting over an obstacle, then striding again was 3 separate actions. If all movement is broken up inelegantly like this, I suspect they may add a number of feats that allow you to combine or streamline movement capabilities.
I'll use the same format for my thoughts.
D20 System/Everything is modular, and based on feats: I like these as well, nothing to really add other than excitement.
Different Modes of Play: It will be interesting to see how this actually plays out. I feel like most tables loosely ran like this it just gives actual rules to it. It will probably require fine tuning so players can actual make money and/or items of value. Could remove the need to find piles of gold everywhere you go.
Action System: I personally am excited to see what they do with this. I expect feats to play greatly into what you can do with the actions allowed. Sudden charge combining 2 strides and an attack into 2 actions is a nice starting place. I'm also curious to see how this plays with haste, as in, can you sudden charge twice now or does the bonus action have to be exactly a stride or attack. This system gives the building blocks to make some fancy maneuvers.
Class Design: I think the classes are pretty solid where they are. I honestly think they may make it difficult to add many more of meaning. I'm the opposite on Paladin, for the most part. I disagree with their choice of LG only. I really like the Righteous Ally ability line though, I believe this can make some pretty interesting characters and adds an additional RP element to play with. The Litanies can make a pseudo support caster paladin, possibly able to stand back and guard their allies to make use of Retributive Strike (which I'm not crazy about but we'll see how it actually looks). I think it's important to look at all the abilities a class has and realize that feats will probably be able to enhance any or all of these. So you could ignore a feature you don't like to further enhance the ones you do.
Martial Combat: I personally prefer Martial characters over Casters, even if its a Cleric I know I'll be wading into melee. The 3 action system section talked about how I felt about feats affecting action economy and I'll re-emphasize that here. I think early on, I agree, you don't have a large amount of options to actually do. But as you progress your feats will open up tactical options. Sudden charge spares you a feat to get you into melee, Pirate Archetype gave a similar one with a few more requirements. I'm hoping each Martial class will have a few things only they can do to adjust their action economy that is accessible via multi-classing. I think that is the only way for martial to martial multi-classing will be competitive with Martial to Caster multi-classing. For instance, maybe Rangers get an upgraded Double Slice to use as their 3rd action to do 4 total attacks, 2 with each of their weapons, in melee. Or combine Sudden Charge and Double Slice for a 3 action activity to get them into the action with reduced penalties.
Spellcaster Combat: I initially thought Spellcaster combat seemed bland in purely moving, or raising a shield, and casting with the only choice being which spell. But the ability to adjust how many actions you can cast a spell with does open up more options beyond that. Hopefully some buddies pick pure casters so I can see it in action but they are generally in short supply in my group.
Equipment: I'm mildly excited about the new item system. I don't think I've seen enough info to make any judgments though. Just hope Trinkets aren't overly expensive because they don't see too exciting yet.
Archetypes: I'm very interested in seeing how Archetypes play out. I think they need a separate Dedication than Multi-classing, but the Playtest will decide that. I feel like Archetypes will be very hard to balance and be desirable by more than a few classes. I hope they can make it more than an RP decision. I also hope some will be acquired by Skill feats and others by Class feats. Could allow it little more variance and strength and make some otherwise obscure ones more desirable.
Overall, I am very glad they are updating to second edition and am pleased with their method to do so. I think most games need a new edition every so often to condense the amount of material needed and put their experience to use to make a better system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Want to use a shield? You have to use an action every single turn in order for your shield to count.But is the fighter so flabby that he can hold the shield for only 6 seconds without conscious effort? It feels like having to draw a sword every turn.
It's more like spending an action to use your sword every turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree on most points, in particular on your evaluation of the action economy. For what I have seen, most classes sems to be balacend around 1 big attack (either feat or spell) and using the third action to set up defenses. The moment you need to move this whole setup jumps the shark. Let's not start talking when we want to manipulate something like draw an item or change grips. I still hope they implement the 5e rule of "1 free manipulation action per round".
In theory, I really like the idea of classes spending feats on being able to do things like letting them re-grab their two handed weapon as a part of the action to attack with it, or (as seen with the Seelah pregen) not needing a free hand to use iconic abilities, because it does make those characters feel like they are trained in the specific kind of combat that they tend to engage in, but the wording on all those terms does not feel very intuitive at this point and I foresee just as much "wait, is that a manipulate action?" types of questions as we ever saw "is that a standard action or a swift action?"
Which is a bummer because the 3 action economy otherwise feels like it should be really great.
EDIT: A part of me even wonders if it wouldn't have been easier for characters to get 6 actions and have almost every action require 2 actions, leaving some of the simpler stuff as just 1 action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In theory, I really like the idea of classes spending feats on being able to do things like letting them re-grab their two handed weapon as a part of the action to attack with it, or (as seen with the Seelah pregen) not needing a free hand to use iconic abilities, because it does make those characters feel like they are trained in the specific kind of combat that they tend to engage in, but the wording on all those terms does not feel very intuitive at this point and I foresee just as much "wait, is that a manipulate action?" types of questions as we ever saw "is that a standard action or a swift action?"
Which is a bummer because the 3 action economy otherwise feels like it should be really great.
EDIT: A part of me even wonders if it wouldn't have been easier for characters to get 6 actions and have almost every action require 2 actions, leaving some of the simpler stuff as just 1 action.
What a radical idea- a way to differentiate between "full" actions, and "half" actions.
Maybe we could call them standard and move actions, for simplicity sake?
I prefer passive and active, every active action could be subbed for up to two actions.
Give everyone a free passive action each round (3.5 actions) and include the 5 foot step.
I feel like the shield is a big hang up for people.
I feel like this wouldn't be the case if the shield was broken down to the following:
Buckler: As is now.
Anything larger: AC bonus is always on - 1h weapons only - still have reactions to block
Tower Shield: action to turtle
- This would give different shields a different feel - make bucklers what they are intended (not defense unless using them actively) and seem much more ... rational in how shields are depicted.
|
|
Right on, what do you mean by power fantasy?I agree and in some cases feels like the power fantasy has been greatly reduced by it.
I also worry that the 4-tiiers of success could slow down play, we'll see soon enough!
I am just hoping that the spells that use the 4 saves feel the power fantasy of the spell. Power fantasy meaning that a spell do what it suppose to do. If the spell only does what it should do on a critical failure it is only doing what it should be doing 5% of the time. I.E. Phantasmal Killer will only kill 5% of the time because the failiure is a little dmg and then a debuff. Critical Failure is possible death. The power fantasy of phantasmal killer is that an illusion is sent to kill you if the killer does not kill almost ever then it is not fulfilling the power fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest concern is definitely action economy taxing, as everything-is-an-action really makes freedom of UAE pointless. I'm afraid that in this edition we'll still have must have feats, except instead of those granting the biggest bonuses, the must have ones will be action cost reducers.
Resonance and multiclassing are my two secondary concerns, while the system as a whole has a really big potential. Whether it lives up to it we shall truly see in about a year (playtest is still useful metric though).
I'm also quite concerned about the bolded above. Especially because based on past Paizo experience with PF1E, they use feats to patch sections of their game that don't feel quite right.
Last I remember from the Glass Cannon Podcast preview, striding, then vaulting over an obstacle, then striding again was 3 separate actions. If all movement is broken up inelegantly like this, I suspect they may add a number of feats that allow you to combine or streamline movement capabilities.
only being able to properly parkour around by 9th level after several feats does sound like pathfinder's MO, yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am just hoping that the spells that use the 4 saves feel the power fantasy of the spell. Power fantasy meaning that a spell do what it suppose to do. If the spell only does what it should do on a critical failure it is only doing what it should be doing 5% of the time. I.E. Phantasmal Killer will only kill 5% of the time because the failiure is a little dmg and then a debuff. Critical Failure is possible death. The power fantasy of phantasmal killer is that an illusion is sent to kill you if the killer does not kill almost ever then it is not fulfilling the power fantasy.Right on, what do you mean by power fantasy?I agree and in some cases feels like the power fantasy has been greatly reduced by it.
I also worry that the 4-tiiers of success could slow down play, we'll see soon enough!
remember that critical failure is failing teh DC by 10 or more (OR) rolling a natural 1. with the usual amount of DC amping specialization in casters, that should be more than a 5% chance, but yes, that certainly would nerf many effects that were previously very good (see: reliable).
the whole system adds a lot of instability to magic in general, and i could see it causing casters to specialize even more heavily into no-save spells (if such things still exist in 2.0) if you only get the "actual/intended" effect of a spell if the enemy crit-fails.
i'm not sure all spells will be like that, however--i mostly see the save-or-suck/lose/die spells getting that treatment, with critfails on otehr spells being a bigger whammy than intended (taking double damage, adding secondary statuses on top, etc)
|
|
I am just hoping that the spells that use the 4 saves feel the power fantasy of the spell. Power fantasy meaning that a spell do what it suppose to do. If the spell only does what it should do on a critical failure it is only doing what it should be doing 5% of the time. I.E. Phantasmal Killer will only kill 5% of the time because the failiure is a little dmg and then a debuff. Critical Failure is possible death. The power fantasy of phantasmal killer is that an illusion is sent to kill you if the killer does not kill almost ever then it is not fulfilling the power fantasy.Right on, what do you mean by power fantasy?I agree and in some cases feels like the power fantasy has been greatly reduced by it.
I also worry that the 4-tiiers of success could slow down play, we'll see soon enough!remember that critical failure is failing teh DC by 10 or more (OR) rolling a natural 1. with the usual amount of DC amping specialization in casters, that should be more than a 5% chance, but yes, that certainly would nerf many effects that were previously very good (see: reliable).
the whole system adds a lot of instability to magic in general, and i could see it causing casters to specialize even more heavily into no-save spells (if such things still exist in 2.0) if you only get the "actual/intended" effect of a spell if the enemy crit-fails.
i'm not sure all spells will be like that, however--i mostly see the save-or-suck/lose/die spells getting that treatment, with critfails on otehr spells being a bigger whammy than intended (taking double damage, adding secondary statuses on top, etc)
The main reason I say 5% is because with the way they tightened up the math it seems to be that most challenges that are around your level the rolls stay around 10 for to hits and saves.
The spell IS deadly. An evil mage casting Phantasmal Killer at commoners will much likely slay them.
When he does so against a hero, well, the hero is much tougher and has a good chance to resist, at least partially. Not wrong, IMHO.
Reversing things, I know that a Wizard PC will probably not waste a spell of that kind on a mook, but even with she aims that at the Big Bad, with the new design extreme results are less likely to happen. For extremes I mean ending the combat with a single move (a boring anti-climax!) and completely wasting the spell.
The common outcome is that you damage and/or debuff the dangerous enemy, but if you are lucky...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell IS deadly. An evil mage casting Phantasmal Killer at commoners will much likely slay them.
When he does so against a hero, well, the hero is much tougher and has a good chance to resist, at least partially. Not wrong, IMHO.Reversing things, I know that a Wizard PC will probably not waste a spell of that kind on a mook, but even with she aims that at the Big Bad, with the new design extreme results are less likely to happen. For extremes I mean ending the combat with a single move (a boring anti-climax!) and completely wasting the spell.
The common outcome is that you damage and/or debuff the dangerous enemy, but if you are lucky...
which to me, sounds like i wouldn't prepare that spell in the first place, if i don't want to use it against mooks, and it's unreliable against major threats--where exactly would i use it?
If they're moving dramatic effects down the critical track, would the same apply to lower end things (see choking cloud -> stinking cloud -> cloudkill), and would cloudkill functionally be just stinking cloud with a more expensive spell level (unless you critically fail with the new numbers) in terms of "average" effect caused?
which to me, sounds like i wouldn't prepare that spell in the first place, if i don't want to use it against mooks, and it's unreliable against major threats--where exactly would i use it?The spell IS deadly. An evil mage casting Phantasmal Killer at commoners will much likely slay them.
When he does so against a hero, well, the hero is much tougher and has a good chance to resist, at least partially. Not wrong, IMHO.Reversing things, I know that a Wizard PC will probably not waste a spell of that kind on a mook, but even with she aims that at the Big Bad, with the new design extreme results are less likely to happen. For extremes I mean ending the combat with a single move (a boring anti-climax!) and completely wasting the spell.
The common outcome is that you damage and/or debuff the dangerous enemy, but if you are lucky...
Nothing is reliable against major threats anymore - that's why they are major threats. What Phantasmal Killer does do is give you a very good chance of a minor debuff (success on the save), a moderate debuff plus some damage (failure on the save), and small chance of a BIG debuff and more damage (critical fail), and a tiny chance of an instant kill (crit fail plus Fort fail). You cast Phantasmal Killer wishing for critical fail, hoping for the fail, and accepting the success. Then you cast again next round, with a greater chance of success next time.