Thank you for this conversation.
Actually, a Monk can start with AC 16 pretty readily (Dex 18, +1 Level, +1 Expert), and can be up to 18 at 2nd level (with those shiny new Bracers). It's not quite on par with heavy armor wearers at low levels, but it's not bad at all.What about the fact that he starts out with a max AC of 15, (16 with Crane) and every other melee class can get 16+ easily, most of them without having to go max dex and sacrifice damage? I'll grant it's not a huge difference, but
A. small differences matter more, and
B. that's a monk specifically optimized for AC (probably sacrificing some damage), vs everybody else who gets their AC just by picking the right option for the dex they wanted.
Dunno how I messed that up. Guess I forgot the level bonus? Good catch though, that does close the gap quite a bit.
But yes, I'm concerned with Str Monk AC if they don't also have a serious secondary Dex focus. I'm hopeful for a Class Feat to use Wis instead of Dex for this purpose, that'd be cool and thematic without being broken.
That sounds like a legit idea. I'd kind of like to see some kind of ironskin abilities to go with a Str build Monk.
Rogue has to max dex as well, but the way they stacked Rogue doesn't really sacrifice anything for an 18 dex, since it applies to his damage with most of his weapons.Rogue AC never really goes up except via level. A Monk can equal them by 2nd level and exceed them over time, and their damage actually winds up much better than a Rogue in the long run unless going Crane (in which case their AC is better real quick), just because the Rogue is stuck with 1d6 weapons, while the Monk can get 1d8 ones easily. Which makes a big difference this edition.
True. I do feel like there needs to be some better way to upgrade proficiency. The fact Rogues wind up stuck with pretty much no way to boost their AC is a little sad.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that if you make proficiency upgrades readily available to everyone suddenly you have Wizards with Legendary proficiency in swords and there really is just no reason not to play a Wizard/Fighter.
At this point I'd like to see yet another layer of feats with stuff like proficiency upgrades that martials get the same level casters get spells, with zero way for casters to get into this feat list. There has to be something the martial classes can do that a caster can't just take for themselves when they want to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True. I'm not saying to be able to increase all the way though, just get an increase. Fighters don't get legendary armor by default, but they can feat into it. Why couldn't rogues feat into expert in armor?
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm Apalled that Fighter can't get Quick Draw and Barbarian can't get Power Attack or Double Slice. I think some abilities really need to be moved onto "General" feats and then giving more of them like PF1. Class feats should be things that are very particular to a specific class and not something that forces you to multiclass just to get Quick Draw.
I also believe the Wizard lv1 abilities are not very balanced with each other, specially the school powers. The majority of them make me wish I was playing 5E instead (Where they are actually cool), specially the Diviner one. Not feeling like 2 actions and a spell point to add +1d4 to 1 limited choice of skill check on the next turn is gonna be very memorable. The choice of school should be more of a big deal than a cantrip-tier power.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the Bulk of a person: I think it might help to think of Bulk less in terms of pounds and more in terms of how hard things are to carry.
Nope, that doesn't help as bulk is fundamentally broken. Look at this situation:
A belt pouch can hold up to 4 items of light Bulk.Filcher’s fork is a light spear so I can carry FOUR spears in a belt pouch.
or 4 light steel shields
or 4 starknives
or 4 javelins
or 4 blowguns
or 40 arrows
or 4 Sawtooth sabres
OR
A simple strip of leather [a sling] is light.
10 lead bullet for the sling is light.
it's as easy to carry 10 loose lead shot as 1 sling...
or 100 loose lead bullets are as easy to carry as a single sling staff.
I can keep going but it's not going to get better for BASE bulk use without adding the oddity of [deadweight] creatures somehow being much easier to carry.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also has anyone seen that the humble Shuriken is our new ranged weapon overlords? While it only does a 1d4, it adds str, is - bulk so any 'non-vast amount' doesn't weigh you down and has a reload of 0 for a thrown weapon. Add to that monks can flurry with it makes Monastic Weaponry seem like a must have feat.
I wonder how many - bulk Shuriken can fit in one of those belt pouches?
Also has anyone seen that the humble Shuriken is our new ranged weapon overlords? While it only does a 1d4, it adds str, is - bulk so any 'non-vast amount' doesn't weigh you down and has a reload of 0 for a thrown weapon. Add to that monks can flurry with it makes Monastic Weaponry seem like a must have feat.
I wonder how many - bulk Shuriken can fit in one of those belt pouches?
I'd say roughly 30 from logic, but that's actually how many L items fit in it... Why do we need Bags of Holding again?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm Apalled that Fighter can't get Quick Draw and Barbarian can't get Power Attack or Double Slice. I think some abilities really need to be moved onto "General" feats and then giving more of them like PF1. Class feats should be things that are very particular to a specific class and not something that forces you to multiclass just to get Quick Draw.
I also believe the Wizard lv1 abilities are not very balanced with each other, specially the school powers. The majority of them make me wish I was playing 5E instead (Where they are actually cool), specially the Diviner one. Not feeling like 2 actions and a spell point to add +1d4 to 1 limited choice of skill check on the next turn is gonna be very memorable. The choice of school should be more of a big deal than a cantrip-tier power.
When I saw class and skill feats being a thing I was sort of happy because I imagined it meant that you could take, idk, something like Destructive Rage without completely wasting a feat because it was just part of a Barbarian-Exclusive list anyway, or that maybe you'd finally want to ever take Awareness or Skill Focus.
Then I saw the book.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plate Armor sort of needs to have penalties so everyone who can afford it doesn't wind up wearing it (which would have thematic problems). It's not good for realism but is good for game balance.
Except that Plate Armor is so bad that in almost two decades of playing D&D, I've never worn it.
Between the speed penalties and the high ACP, I always stick to light armor (or mithril medium) for my fighters, even tho I'm proficient in any.
Not only are crippling penalties of Plate Armor unrealistic, they're contrary to theme. I don't play a fantasy swordsman to be slow, lumbering and clumsy.
It's all the worse now that the Fighter is only getting Expert and Master proficiency in heavy armors, telling DEX fighters to essentially get bent, and abilities to reduce the speed penalties that the PF1 fighter had by 7th level, the PF2 doesn't get until 17th.
I'd say roughly 30 from logic, but that's actually how many L items fit in it... Why do we need Bags of Holding again?
LOL well at worst, it's be 40 as you can put 40 arrows/bullets in. ;)
The correct answer is ALL the Shuriken. LOL
I can work with this. So I have allx3 if I put on 3 pouches...
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A whole thread of DMW's musings ? WOOOHOOO
Less need to stalk your posts one by one ;-)
If I get only one positive thing out of the preview blogs and threads, it is discovering DMW. You are now in my pantheon of GREAT game people, right up there with Endzeitgeist (demigod of reviews), Mark Seifter (lord of talented yet kind and open devs everywhere) and Marc Radle (patron saint of classy authors).
Awesome job you are doing : impressively exhaustive collection of all things written and said during the previews and the ability to put it all together in a fine analysis, even and respectful tone even when responding to acrimonious posts or correcting complete misunderstandings, informative posts filled with facts.
The list just goes on. Thanks a lot for what you give us.
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that Plate Armor is so bad that in almost two decades of playing D&D, I've never worn it.
Between the speed penalties and the high ACP, I always stick to light armor (or mithril medium) for my fighters, even tho I'm proficient in any.
I've actually seen and run Plate Armor wearers many times. Not having to worry about Dex and still having AC is really great. My most recently made character in PF1 has Full Plate, for example, and I had to take Heavy Armor Proficiency for it and everything.
Not only are crippling penalties of Plate Armor unrealistic, they're contrary to theme. I don't play a fantasy swordsman to be slow, lumbering and clumsy.
I actually disagree. Being somewhat less competent at acrobatics and the like while wearing Full Plate is pretty on-theme. Most people are shocked to discover you can do cartwheels in full plate.
But more importantly, even if they went too far in making it bad (which they may have in PF2, I'm more skeptical of PF1), there needs to be some sort of balancing factor, y'know?
It's all the worse now that the Fighter is only getting Expert and Master proficiency in heavy armors, telling DEX fighters to essentially get bent, and abilities to reduce the speed penalties that the PF1 fighter had by 7th level, the PF2 doesn't get until 17th.
I agree that moving in heavy armor being a lower level ability might be fine.
Really, I think every Class should have something like Barbarian Totems, where you choose from a list of options that effect what your focus is as a character. A Fighter might get the choice of something like this for heavy armor, a light-armor focused option, and a few more options based on other fighting style options.
telling ... to essentially get bent...This holds true for every character archetype that doesn't fit Paizo's ideal right now.
It's a playtest, I'm sure a lot more character types will be available in the final version than are available at the moment. Especially if we keep things civil in regards to requesting more such options.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, add me into the group of internet randoms who appreciate your words here on this forum. You are helping everyone stay a little more sane through this process!
The more I read, the more I'm convinced that there is simply no way for character creation/progression to be meaningful or even fun without them making a TON of feats universal, rather than class-locked. And, in addition to that, adding in feats that just don't exist for whatever reason. For instance, why is Double Slice locked behind only Ranger and Fighter? Why, as a Ranger, can I not take feats to improve two-handed weapons without multiclassing? Why, as a fighter, can I not improve light armor? Why, as anything, am I limited in which skills I can max out, provided I'm willing to invest so much into them?My preference would actually be for there to just a be a General Feat that lets you dabble in other Class's stuff. That lets you keep each Class very focused while allowing you to pick up other Class's things without being punitive.
Emphasis mine.
I've been following the playtest blogs silently for a few months now, mostly with an optimistic point of view - I was eager to see the "full rules" without making any rash judgements on incomplete information, especially since the Devs have more or less stated some pretty positive design goals, such as modularity and options for classes and the like.
But since I've opened up the book, and tried to build a couple characters, I can't help but feel like the whole class chassis is really screwed up. I want classes to have their choice of iconic abilities, and then choice in how to specialize themselves outside of that chassis. The fighter armour prof. is a good example - we should be able to choose what weapon [group] and armour we increase proficiency with, and not at the expense of other, supposedly "exciting" class features (ie feats), nor the ability to stretch out into other areas of development (skill feats is a step in the right direction, if they weren't woefully sad and honestly just straight up unappealing to choose... but that is another topic).
Which leads me to your comment - from my experience attempting to create 2 MC characters, multiclassing is broken. The Sorcerer already loses class feats to both his bloodline (which wouldnt be so bad if the abilities weren't lackluster, although I feel would still end up feeling punitive regardless) AND his spell proficiency progression - meaning that the soonest a Sorcerer can get a "Full" Multiclass archetype (3 feats) is level 8, at the expense of ALL his class feats.
It just seems... wrong. Forgive me if it sounds like a strong reaction - tbh I wasn't expecting to be so put off by the full rules. FWIW I'm going to try to write up my thoughts regarding making these 2 characters in another thread.
It feels like every class has been shoved into a tiny box. And in this tiny box, they've disassembled the classes into feats and called it "freedom of choice." It's totally cool if only rangers and druids can get animal companions, or clerics getting channeling, because these are central themes of the class. What is not cool is that you can't actually deviate from the class, all while being told that the modular system is somehow freeing.
I can't help but agree. Illusion of choice is coming up in a big way here, and it's really putting me off :/
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
A whole thread of DMW's musings ? WOOOHOOO
Less need to stalk your posts one by one ;-)
If I get only one positive thing out of the preview blogs and threads, it is discovering DMW. You are now in my pantheon of GREAT game people, right up there with Endzeitgeist (demigod of reviews), Mark Seifter (lord of talented yet kind and open devs everywhere) and Marc Radle (patron saint of classy authors).
Wow. That's a heck of a compliment. I'm honored to be placed in such august company.
Awesome job you are doing : impressively exhaustive collection of all things written and said during the previews and the ability to put it all together in a fine analysis, even and respectful tone even when responding to acrimonious posts or correcting complete misunderstandings, informative posts filled with facts.
The list just goes on. Thanks a lot for what you give us.
You're very welcome. I try to be polite and helpful and it's always nice to hear that people are noticing.
First off, add me into the group of internet randoms who appreciate your words here on this forum. You are helping everyone stay a little more sane through this process!
I'm glad that my posts are helping people. :)
On your main point: I'm not sure that multiclassing being feat intensive is a problem in and of itself. Burning basically all your Class Feats on a multiclass strikes me as a reasonable price to pay for what one should grant.
I do agree that even people not multiclassing are more restricted than they perhaps should be in regards to Class Feats, and that multiclassing may (or may not) get quite enough bang for your buck in terms of lost Feats, but I'm not sure losing out on options is an unreasonable price to pay for what multiclassing should grant.
I do agree entirely that more options are good and necessary, I'm just not sure multiclassing is the place to look for low cost ones.
I'll also note that some but definitely not all of this problem is inherent in this being a playtest. Individual lists of Class Feats will inevitably expand drastically, it's the ability to dabble in other lists and have more Feats on an individual character that are long-term issues in need of solving.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On your main point: I'm not sure that multiclassing being feat intensive is a problem in and of itself. Burning basically all your Class Feats on a multiclass strikes me as a reasonable price to pay for what one should grant.
I agree - in the majority of cases, I actually think the fighter MC, for example, is a much better use of a feat than (imo) many of the options available as class feats.
Perhaps it's just at the front of my mind since I've been trying to build these characters all day, but I think it shows itself as a symptom of the problem more than anything else. Someone upthread (and elsewhere) mentioned that MCing or just archetypes in general could be moved to and/or shared across general feats.
I guess what I'm really trying to get at is that it highlights the fact that there are cases (such as the sorcerer) where certain things that should be a given for a class - ie, increases to spell casting proficiency, which is something everyone spell caster should want mechanically - seem to be eating up the slot of a class feat that is already at a premium. Proficiencies should be things characters get on top of features, imo, if they are important enough to keep the game balanced as levels progress.
Of course, I think there should be another optional feat / choice somewhere to improve them even more - there doesn't seem to be a way to consciously choose to increase your spell DCs, for example.
Tldr; I want to use the feats to make my characters feel different, and thus need enough options and slots/choices to actually flesh that out.
Individual lists of Class Feats will inevitably expand drastically, it's the ability to dabble in other lists and have more Feats on an individual character that are long-term issues in need of solving.
I think the reason I am concerned about this is that it seems like a major problem to fix - once you start changing the chassis of a few classes, you start having to rebalance all of them, and that's something I'm skeptical of being within the scope of the playtest. BUT - enough doomsaying for now ;) I'm glad that other people here are recognizing it, at least :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But more importantly, even if they went too far in making it bad (which they may have in PF2, I'm more skeptical of PF1), there needs to be some sort of balancing factor, y'know?
Isn't that what the max Dex bonus is for? And the fact that not everyone gets heavy armor prof in the first place, and would have to spend feats to do so?
I'm not opposed to having some degree of ACP, but -5 and Clumsy is steep in this system, where skills are +level instead of +level+3. Five points is the difference between legendary and untrained. And shouldn't your armor proficiency be reducing that to some degree, like the PF1 Fighter's Armor Training did?
One look at the armor table and I know that I'm going to be eschewing light and medium armors in this system, too.
I have a lot of hopes for this system as a way to fix the structural flaws that PF1 inherited from 3E, but they seem to be doubling down on a lot of them instead. I intend to run a playtest, but so far what I'm seeing has been deeply troubling.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, add me into the group of internet randoms who appreciate your words here on this forum. You are helping everyone stay a little more sane through this process!
Add me as well, because I've been quietly observing the playtest forum for several weeks now and DMW is one of the few posters worth following. He puts a huge amount of effort into researching information, collating it for other members, answers endless queries from the less informed (over and over again, in many cases) and does it all with courtesy, patience and aplomb. Nobody would dare call him biased toward any edition, crusade or company and this thread is the first one I turn to when I check in each day to see what's been happening. If there was a title for Forum Sage and All Round Nice Guy, he'd own it. :)
Like many others, I can see good and bad in the playtest. The layout looks beautiful (until you need to cross reference an obscure term) and the processes look much easier than PF1 - once I can get my head around the differences. The problem is that there's so many little issues that have me itching to house rule them - signature skills, proprietary feats, race/ancestry balance, obscure changes to items etc. I've barely scratched the surface of the game compared to others, but they're even obvious to me. Paizo staff tell us to trust them, go ahead and play the game, because the balance/math is there, even if we can't see it. I'm finding that difficult because the rulebook itself shows hints of other design choices that were either discarded, or couldn't make the final layout in time.
At this stage I'm going to wait and see how others fare with their games (my group is still a few weeks away from playing), as well as seeing the responses from Paizo staff after they return from GenCon and start posting feedback. My desire is for a middle ground between PF1 and 5E, which is something PF2 should be able to provide, assuming we can debug it a bit!
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a playtest, I'm sure a lot more character types will be available in the final version than are available at the moment.
You may as well say "all issues will be magically fixed", though. Bringing up problems that we can see in the playtest, especially when the playtest itself says nothing to the effect of "but wait there's lots more we just didn't put it in the book" except for multiclassing and archetypes, is kind of the point of the playtest. You're meant to pick apart the rules based on what they've given you, rather than faith that there's more to it and that a poorly designed feature is actually really good combined with some unprinted feat or that this or that way of play is going to be available, especially when it's not one or two classes with the pigeonhole problem.
Especially if we keep things civil in regards to requesting more such options.
To be honest, if the civility of valid criticisms are a major factor in whether or not they're addressed, something is already wrong.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree - in the majority of cases, I actually think the fighter MC, for example, is a much better use of a feat than (imo) many of the options available as class feats.
Yeah, Fighter Multiclass is very solid.
Perhaps it's just at the front of my mind since I've been trying to build these characters all day, but I think it shows itself as a symptom of the problem more than anything else. Someone upthread (and elsewhere) mentioned that MCing or just archetypes in general could be moved to and/or shared across general feats.
I think a lot of goods would be served by making General Feats (which you only ever get five of, bear in mind) a lot more powerful and able to take Class Feats (including just grabbing at least low level ones from other Classes) if you so desired.
I guess what I'm really trying to get at is that it highlights the fact that there are cases (such as the sorcerer) where certain things that should be a given for a class - ie, increases to spell casting proficiency, which is something everyone spell caster should want mechanically - seem to be eating up the slot of a class feat that is already at a premium. Proficiencies should be things characters get on top of features, imo, if they are important enough to keep the game balanced as levels progress.
This is true to some extent, but balancing casters with martial characters is also really tricky and important (and I suspect the impetus behind this). Personally, I'd add more Skills and Skill Options to the non-casters, and thus allow a slight power balance shift, but the balance point is both tricky and important.
Of course, I think there should be another optional feat / choice somewhere to improve them even more - there doesn't seem to be a way to consciously choose to increase your spell DCs, for example.
The issue with this idea is really the tight math of the system, it sorta breaks down if you can do things like this. I'm actually a fan of that and prefer for Feats to be options rather than just another +1 to X.
I want to use the feats to make my characters feel different, and thus need enough options and slots/choices to actually flesh that out.
Definitely. I just feel like options are a better way to serve that goal, and avoid inflating numbers, than direct math bonuses.
Isn't that what the max Dex bonus is for? And the fact that not everyone gets heavy armor prof in the first place, and would have to spend feats to do so?
Fair enough. I'm not at all against reduced penalties.
Indeed, one of the best suggestions I've heard thus far for improving Strength is to make all ACPs slightly higher but then allow everyone to reduce them by their Strength Modifier. That would make strong people verging on immune to ACP, especially as they level.
I'm not opposed to having some degree of ACP, but -5 and Clumsy is steep in this system, where skills are +level instead of +level+3. Five points is the difference between legendary and untrained. And shouldn't your armor proficiency be reducing that to some degree, like the PF1 Fighter's Armor Training did?
That's actually a neat idea. They already do that with armor quality, making Proficiency work that way too would make sense and be fun. Combined with the above Strength-based idea
One look at the armor table and I know that I'm going to be eschewing light and medium armors in this system, too.
Do you mean medium and heavy?
I have a lot of hopes for this system as a way to fix the structural flaws that PF1 inherited from 3E, but they seem to be doubling down on a lot of them instead. I intend to run a playtest, but so far what I'm seeing has been deeply troubling.
I personally feel like the structure is very sound and fixes a lot of PF1's problems. It's the specific details of implementation that leave me a little cold.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Add me as well, because I've been quietly observing the playtest forum for several weeks now and DMW is one of the few posters worth following. He puts a huge amount of effort into researching information, collating it for other members, answers endless queries from the less informed (over and over again, in many cases) and does it all with courtesy, patience and aplomb. Nobody would dare call him biased toward any edition, crusade or company and this thread is the first one I turn to when I check in each day to see what's been happening. If there was a title for Forum Sage and All Round Nice Guy, he'd own it. :)
Wow. I'm feeling the love here, folks. I'm very pleased so many people find my presence on the forum useful and pleasant.
Like many others, I can see good and bad in the playtest. The layout looks beautiful (until you need to cross reference an obscure term) and the processes look much easier than PF1 - once I can get my head around the differences. The problem is that there's so many little issues that have me itching to house rule them - signature skills, proprietary feats, race/ancestry balance, obscure changes to items etc. I've barely scratched the surface of the game compared to others, but they're even obvious to me. Paizo staff tell us to trust them, go ahead and play the game, because the balance/math is there, even if we can't see it. I'm finding that difficult because the rulebook itself shows hints of other design choices that were either discarded, or couldn't make the final layout in time.
At this stage I'm going to wait and see how others fare with their games (my group is still a few weeks away from playing), as well as seeing the responses from Paizo staff after they return from GenCon and start posting feedback. My desire is for a middle ground between PF1 and 5E, which is something PF2 should be able to provide, assuming we can debug it a bit!
Stay tuned! I'll almost certainly be posting stuff from my playtest group (and will link it here...I'm gonna use this thread as something of a central hub for other playtest threads I start, I think), which will be starting next week, and we'll see how well it works in play. I actually suspect the play experience itself will be pretty good.
You may as well say "all issues will be magically fixed", though. Bringing up problems that we can see in the playtest, especially when the playtest itself says nothing to the effect of "but wait there's lots more we just didn't put it in the book" except for multiclassing and archetypes, is kind of the point of the playtest. You're meant to pick apart the rules based on what they've given you, rather than faith that there's more to it and that a poorly designed feature is actually really good combined with some unprinted feat or that this or that way of play is going to be available, especially when it's not one or two classes with the pigeonhole problem.
Oh, absolutely and I've mentioned several such problems myself. But there remains a significant difference between structural problems that might easily last into the final game if not pointed out and 'not enough content' problems, which will very likely go away over the course of time.
This is not to say we shouldn't talk about such problems, but it's occasionally worth reminding ourselves which category a problem is likely to fall into.
To be honest, if the civility of valid criticisms are a major factor in whether or not they're addressed, something is already wrong.
The civility of valid criticisms being relevant is inevitable. People are simply more inclined to respond well to civility than to people being uncivil to them. If you wish to persuade people to your point of view, you do so with courtesy and reason. Angry tirades or rhetorical tricks are great for getting the crowd of spectators on your side, but poor tools for convincing the person you are being uncivil towards.
And, from the perspective of actually getting the game's final version changed, the people at Paizo are the only relevant ones to convince, in the end.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mean medium and heavy?
*facepalm* I did. Too late to edit now, tho.
On the subject of things proficiency should do, I'm disappointed that weapon proficiency doesn't add to weapon damage at all, and doesn't seem to unlock much in the way of new abilities that I've seen so far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First Impression:
I don't really understand the griping with Signature Skills. Master feats appear to be a small percentage of the skill feats available in the current list. Legendary will be meaningless for 95% of groups. If they maintain the current ratios then you'll end up with more than enough options for Skill Feats Expert and lower.
That said, there are a whole lot of skill feats that should just be baseline functions of the skill.
Stealth seems really hard. You can't make a distraction, hide, and then jump someone in combat. Even the Goblin ancestry with Really Sneaky can only do so if they critically succeed a Stealth check. It feels like they tried really hard to make it so that you couldn't use Stealth to deal damage.
A Halfling can use their allies as cover to hide. That seems pretty neat, but they can't actually use it midcombat to try to sneak attack.
In conclusion: Rogues are really railroaded into flanking in melee.
I'm also a bit concerned about Damage. Player Damage doesn't seem to scale much or if at all just looking at the character classes. Magic Weapons appear pretty binary and add more dice to the equation but static damage numbers appear lacking. Which leads to...
I'm also a bit concerned about the Encounter classifications. Specifically higher CL encounters for challenging/Solo Bosses seem extraordinarily high. Health totals are fairly large on both Players and Creatures so I'm a bit concerned about combats consisting of hitting each other with wet noodles for 4 hours.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I just missing it... or it is currently impossible for anyone to become an Expert (or better) in Light Armor? I sort of expected Fighters to get a more mutable form of Armor Mastery. I.E. Become a Master of Shields and an Armor Type of choice, and experts of all other armor types. It seems odd they can even choose Dex as their primary stat when their Class Features push them exclusively into Heavy Armor. For example, I see the bones of a 'swashbuckler's' features in the class-feats list... But cannot imagine a swashbuckler having to wear Half-Plate or Split Mail to maximize their AC. Likewise for a classic fantasy Archer, whom I usually imagine in light or medium armor.
The General Feat list would benefit from Casting, Weapon, Armor, and Shield (etc) Expertise and Mastery having been included in the general feats list. So that degree of proficiency isn't totally locked to Trained sans Class Features.
I would have prefered to see the universal (or at least non-class-specific) aspects of advancement get their own table like they did in 1st edition pathfinder. Cramming the advancemwnt rules for Ancestry and General Feats into the class features section and reprinting it over and over seems wasteful and makes it harder to identify what I am getting because I am a Character, and what my character is getting because they are an Alchemist instead of a Wizard.
I also think there should have been a Cross-Class Feat list, despite knowing such a list creates minor formatting problems with adding classes later; so that the devs don't waste design space reprinting Widen Spell, Cantrip Expansion, and Steady Spellcasting over and over again. Instead of just printing it once and tagging all the classes which can take it. For example, Widen Spell should technically have both the Cleric and Wizard traits. The benefits of this being that the Developers will be free to give every class access to feats that they deserve without being constrained by the added line-count of reprinting the same feat two to six more times.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why the Fighter can't get Expert and Master in all armors like they do in all weapons. Which armor you wear is going to depend on your Dex and how much you care about skills and speed. It doesn't make much sense to restrict it to only heavy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm Apalled that Fighter can't get Quick Draw and Barbarian can't get Power Attack or Double Slice. I think some abilities really need to be moved onto "General" feats and then giving more of them like PF1. Class feats should be things that are very particular to a specific class and not something that forces you to multiclass just to get Quick Draw.
I also believe the Wizard lv1 abilities are not very balanced with each other, specially the school powers. The majority of them make me wish I was playing 5E instead (Where they are actually cool), specially the Diviner one. Not feeling like 2 actions and a spell point to add +1d4 to 1 limited choice of skill check on the next turn is gonna be very memorable. The choice of school should be more of a big deal than a cantrip-tier power.
The Diviner one is actually the best, it's like a True Strike and saving throw insurance rolled up into one, and costing spell points instead of a 1st level spell slot.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why the Fighter can't get Expert and Master in all armors like they do in all weapons. Which armor you wear is going to depend on your Dex and how much you care about skills and speed. It doesn't make much sense to restrict it to only heavy.
Given the evident focus of the new system - I think that they should get the choice to focus on one of the three armors, and let the player choose. They could even get cool 'fighter only' types of ways to make each of the armor choices even more awesome - but only for fighters.
I'll also tag in that I've been on the lookout for DMW's posts when I go forum searching for the last year or so - I am very appreciative of your time and your approach on these forums. Thank you!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There were a lot of post to go through, so I am not sure if this was pointed out. The multi-classing feats give signature skill. I am aware that may not be a way someone wants to go, but it is possible to get more signature skills.
K-Ray
This is true. However, it's a very specific and restrictive option, and only available for certain Skills.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First Impression:
I don't really understand the griping with Signature Skills. Master feats appear to be a small percentage of the skill feats available in the current list. Legendary will be meaningless for 95% of groups. If they maintain the current ratios then you'll end up with more than enough options for Skill Feats Expert and lower.That said, there are a whole lot of skill feats that should just be baseline functions of the skill.
Couple points:
1) Among Skill Feats the Master and Legendary may be limited yes... for now. But the more books with skill feats that come out, the more a skill you're trying to focus in not being a Signature Skill will hurt.
2) Proficiency isn't just a matter of Skill Feats, but is also intended to be a gate on even ordinary uses of the skill. And trust me, it's going to really suck when the character you're building up as being good at a skill that happens to not be a Signature Skill gets shut down because the GM decided that this particular challenge is a Master tier challenge and you can't go above Expert, meaning you can't even attempt the check with your otherwise perfectly fine modifier.
Am I just missing it... or it is currently impossible for anyone to become an Expert (or better) in Light Armor? I sort of expected Fighters to get a more mutable form of Armor Mastery. I.E. Become a Master of Shields and an Armor Type of choice, and experts of all other armor types. It seems odd they can even choose Dex as their primary stat when their Class Features push them exclusively into Heavy Armor. For example, I see the bones of a 'swashbuckler's' features in the class-feats list... But cannot imagine a swashbuckler having to wear Half-Plate or Split Mail to maximize their AC. Likewise for a classic fantasy Archer, whom I usually imagine in light or medium armor.
Well, Paladins increase their Light and Medium armor proficiencies together 1 step behind their Heavy. No one but the Lawful Good can be above Trained in Light Armor though.
Do you mean medium and heavy?*facepalm* I did. Too late to edit now, tho.
On the subject of things proficiency should do, I'm disappointed that weapon proficiency doesn't add to weapon damage at all, and doesn't seem to unlock much in the way of new abilities that I've seen so far.
Math-wise, I recall Mark Seifter mentioning that a Bard giving +3 to hit to the party is approximately a +50% bonus to damage on average. I'm assume it's the same difference from trained -> legendary.
Math-wise, I recall Mark Seifter mentioning that a Bard giving +3 to hit to the party is approximately a +50% bonus to damage on average. I'm assume it's the same difference from trained -> legendary.Do you mean medium and heavy?*facepalm* I did. Too late to edit now, tho.
On the subject of things proficiency should do, I'm disappointed that weapon proficiency doesn't add to weapon damage at all, and doesn't seem to unlock much in the way of new abilities that I've seen so far.
That implies either a 30% chance of hitting or a 50% chance. A +3 attack bonus increases damage by a lower fraction at all other hit chances.
Of note, the base accuracy of an optimized* martial class against a bestiary creature of equal Level is 55-65%. This is the accuracy of their first attack each round. So Mark Seifter's comment probably *was* assuming 50% chance.
0.55*X+0.3*X+0.05*X+3*(0.05*X)
or equal to 1.05*X
Increasing base accuracy by .15 in the above equation is:
0.7*X+0.45*X+0.2*X+0.2*X+2*(0.05*X)
or equal to 1.65*X
that's more than +50% increase in damage!
(*) An optimized martial class is one that maximizes their primary stat, buys their primary stat boosting item at 14th, and upgrades their weapon's potency at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th. The 55-65% range depends on class, with fighters at 65%, most classes at 60%, and barbs and rogues at 55%. In really the "most optimized" martial class is one that can ensure a -3 penalty to enemy AC at no or minimal penalty to their own attack routine (flatfooted, sluggish 1) and can rely on 100% available heroism for +3 to attack rolls.
(**) Yes, I've spent the last couple of days deep-diving the math, parsing the bestiary, and other fun but obsessive things :>
That implies either a 30% chance of hitting or a 50% chance. A +3 attack bonus increases damage by a lower fraction at all other hit chances.Math-wise, I recall Mark Seifter mentioning that a Bard giving +3 to hit to the party is approximately a +50% bonus to damage on average. I'm assume it's the same difference from trained -> legendary.Do you mean medium and heavy?*facepalm* I did. Too late to edit now, tho.
On the subject of things proficiency should do, I'm disappointed that weapon proficiency doesn't add to weapon damage at all, and doesn't seem to unlock much in the way of new abilities that I've seen so far.
are you taking in account the bonus to crit chance?
I mean in terms of increasing the amount of damage on a single hit, not increasing the average damage-per-round by being more likely to hit/crit. Right now damage progression is mostly tied to magic weapons (stat increases add to it slightly), I'd rather have a skill factor to it just like AC has now.
are you taking in account the bonus to crit chance?That implies either a 30% chance of hitting or a 50% chance. A +3 attack bonus increases damage by a lower fraction at all other hit chances.Math-wise, I recall Mark Seifter mentioning that a Bard giving +3 to hit to the party is approximately a +50% bonus to damage on average. I'm assume it's the same difference from trained -> legendary.Do you mean medium and heavy?*facepalm* I did. Too late to edit now, tho.
On the subject of things proficiency should do, I'm disappointed that weapon proficiency doesn't add to weapon damage at all, and doesn't seem to unlock much in the way of new abilities that I've seen so far.
Yeah. In review what I missed is that at low hit chances (5-25%) the increase is more than 50%, and that a full attack probably gives you one or more attacks with a hit chance in that range. For a single attack with a hit chance of 35-45% or 55%+ the increase is less than 50% if that matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Paladins increase their Light and Medium armor proficiencies together 1 step behind their Heavy. No one but the Lawful Good can be...
I did eventually run across that, it feels like some of the other martial classes were supposed to advance lighter armor proficiencies too... and somehow they just overlooked that when writing the barbarian, ranger, and rogue.
Fun factoid though, it isn't just paladins who can hit legendary in an armor category. Almost anyone can meet the hard prerequisites for Grey Maiden by 8th level (including wizards) via the Fighter Archetype + Great Fortitude; a few classes can get in at 6th with more or less investment. Grey Maiden advances Shields and one specific suit of Heavy Armor to legendary (which is fine armor if you dumped your Dexterity).
This at least sets the precedent that Archetypes are at least one acceptable method of expanding or improving your combat-proficiencies.
Well, Paladins increase their Light and Medium armor proficiencies together 1 step behind their Heavy. No one but the Lawful Good can be...I did eventually run across that, it feels like some of the other martial classes were supposed to advance lighter armor proficiencies too... and somehow they just overlooked that when writing the barbarian, ranger, and rogue.
Fun factoid though, it isn't just paladins who can hit legendary in an armor category. Almost anyone can meet the hard prerequisites for Grey Maiden by 8th level (including wizards) via the Fighter Archetype + Great Fortitude; a few classes can get in at 6th with more or less investment. Grey Maiden advances Shields and one specific suit of Heavy Armor to legendary (which is fine armor if you dumped your Dexterity).
This at least sets the precedent that Archetypes are at least one acceptable method of expanding or improving your combat-proficiencies.
Anybody interested in a Gray Maiden Monk build?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought classes were straigth jacked in this system and there was no customization possible.
I thought classes were straigth jacked in this system and there was no customization possible.
It's a lot more restrictive than PF1, partly because there just isn't that much support material for multiclassing in the playtest, partially because they're trying to avoid abusive builds, and partially because the non-spellcasting multiclass feats are kind of lackluster.
That said, it's not like there's no customization. I mean, I just built a level 20 monk that uses heavy armor and shields and matches the Tank Paladin's AC. I don't really know how the rest of its numbers/abilities match up though, that was my first 20 level build for the playtest. Probably won't even get to start playing the playtest for like a month because my group is all busy pretty much all of August. :(
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought classes were straigth jacked in this system and there was no customization possible.
This is definitely an overstatement.
Heck, most classes have several "subclasses" built in (e.g Order of Druid) and it is pretty easy to mix/match abilities from different "subclasses".
There is multiclassing and archetypes. Together with the usual customization offered by heritages, feat, skill and spell selection.
Its the PLAYTEST of the FIRST book. Paizo is (for very good reason) focused on the big issues right now. There will be more options in the actual book and then the usual flood of options in later splat books