Marshmallow's character options review / discussion thread


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

12 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll most likely be doing a few threads over the next couple weeks to talk about the entire system as a whole, but as I skim through the pages to find something I want to discuss, all I keep finding is more and more reasons to be skeptical of this release. (Or excited to really get to work on solving some issues I see, optimism notwithstanding)

Character Sheets
this is easily the ugliest character sheet I've seen across most editions. Landscape? Gross. I don't like how much space having four bubbles takes up, and I especially don't like that they are four separate bubbles, I think a 4 tiered radially symmetrical shape that you can fill in as your proficiency improves for that particular aspect of your character is a much better, more concise, and more efficient way to organize it. I don't like my stats being in the bottom corner, seeing as all my other numbers factor them in, they seem more important to have up top.

Ancestries
I don't mind the bare bones nature of each ancestral chassis, I enjoy the fact that each race is more or less just a baseline and that what was once a large character building exercise which slowed down character creation, however most of these options seem and feel very weak to me. This is where I learned that you don;t gain access to critical specializations without investing feats into the weapon(s) you want to use. And you have to use a feat to gain access to them in the first place. That's a really effing bad start. Dwarves remain the superior race, with darkvision and the inability to be encumbered by armor as far as speed goes along with stat boosts in the two most important stats (maybe not if you count DEX, but they can have that too).

Here's where I'll throw in my desire for orcs to not only exist, but they round out the medium sized characters for stat distribution, since there is no medium race that gets a bonus to charisma.

Classes
Yuuuuuck. For starters, why are there class symbols? Ranger looks like it should be druid and I have no idea what the sorcerer is supposed to mean. Nix these. Also the repetitiveness cannot be complained about enough, most of the class build-ups have to be sifted through literally the same words over and over again explaining how character progression works. The table does fine, though I think the table should intentionally not include the progressions that are parallel to all characters, I'm fine with dead trees, but not excessive dead trees.
Without going into too many specifics for my own sanity, there are way too many feats and/or options that are repeated almost exactly across multiple different classes, but with different arbitrary restrictions and sometimes different names despite the fact that they do the same exact thing. Also we get a lot of stuff that has dumb arbitrary level restrictions which inevitably create dead feats. I have to be a 14th level alchemist to gain a +2 on nature and Religion? And only in certain circumstances? Weak and unbalanced fluff is rife throughout these. I'd rather have a few select options to weigh against each other rather than an entire book of coal that I mist sift through to find the diamonds.

Also, many of these feats are untenable as far as gameplay goes. Why does Furious Focus exist at all? The only time you can use it ever is when you plan on using all three of your actions to make strikes, thus reinforcing the old 'full round actions' without it just being a 3-act action. It's a false choice and its application is not obvious to someone who doesn't have any experience with this or similar action systems (like Unchained RAE).

Power Attack is also worse than our math threads pointed out. It gets one die increase and your secondary attack functions like it's your tertiary attack, making it statistically much worse than double slice.

In fact, most of these feats and abilities seem to be mutually exclusive and cannot be combined since they all seem to take their own action designations. This takes the old 'standard action attack action' verbiage and creates a whole game where individual feats seem to be designed like spells, but are not balanced like spells.

Also, why do feats that grant powers not include the text of those powers? Why does there need to be a whole entry for a feat that comes down to: "you can use this spell, go look this spell up"?

Overall, I find that the feats that exist across the board need to exist across the board and do not need to be reprinted and tagged with different classes in mind. Let [combat] feats be athing again, and make a list of them universal for characters instead of giving us the same feats 6 times over with different prerequisites and tags when they are literally word for word the same feat. This isn't just for combat feats either, there are abilities that do the same things as say, evasion, but have different names for different classes.

This is a mess to read and it just makes me angry and not excited to play or build characters.

Sadly, this only applies to martial characters for the most part, I do think [metamagic] feats should be listed once and be universal, but for the most part the abilities the casters get seem to line-up with what I would expect and actually want from PF2. I'm fine with the nerfs, but even with the nerfs they are still more powerful and more free than martial characters are and that sickens me because it defeats the purpose of even writing this new edition imo.

This should be plenty to discuss for now, feel free to correct anything with citations, I haven't read the whole pdf yet, just organizing my impressions as I sift through it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

There is a lot to go through in one post, but one thing I certainly agree with is having more general feats that martials can use to differentiate themselves in terms of combat styles, and maybe allow the use of class feats to get them, since general feats are less common now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Power Attack is also worse than our math threads pointed out. It gets one die increase and your secondary attack functions like it's your tertiary attack, making it statistically much worse than double slice.

I'm actually curious to see how this pans out mathematically.

I've got a level 12 Fighter I can test on this. For the purposes of notation, be has 20 Str and a +3 bastard sword, swinging at +22 for 6d12+5. Target will be the level 12 Valkyrie, with 31 AC. Hits on 9-18 for average 44, crits on 19-20 for average 88. Average hit is 30.8.

If I give him a +3 longsword and shortsword instead (both +3 thanks to Doubling Rings), he swings for 4d8+5 and 4d6+5. First hit is 23 hit, 46 crit, and second is 19 hit, 38 crit. Average is 16.1+13.3, averaging 29.4.

Conclusions: Power Attack still outdamages Double Slice.

Side note: man, it's a lot easier to run calculations in this edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

I'll most likely be doing a few threads over the next couple weeks to talk about the entire system as a whole, but as I skim through the pages to find something I want to discuss, all I keep finding is more and more reasons to be skeptical of this release. (Or excited to really get to work on solving some issues I see, optimism notwithstanding)

Classes
Yuuuuuck. For starters, why are there class symbols? Ranger looks like it should be druid and I have no idea what the sorcerer is supposed to mean. Nix these. Also the repetitiveness cannot be complained about enough, most of the class build-ups have to be sifted through literally the same words over and over again explaining how character progression works. The table does fine, though I think the table should intentionally not include the progressions that are parallel to all characters, I'm fine with dead trees, but not excessive dead trees.

I think the devs are generally in the mindset of flexibility and openness when it comes to changes, so I'm still in the 'excited to really get to work on solving issues' mood.

I agree about the repetitiveness of the information given the class tables. There's a lot more base, general stuff that all classes get compared to prior editions, but I'd still like to see all of that in a general table at the beginning of the classes chapter, and leave the class table for class specific items. As it is, the tables look way too crowded.

And the class symbols confuse me as well; I don't think they're used anywhere else in the book? What's the point of them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Power Attack is also worse than our math threads pointed out. It gets one die increase and your secondary attack functions like it's your tertiary attack, making it statistically much worse than double slice.

I'm actually curious to see how this pans out mathematically.

I've got a level 12 Fighter I can test on this. For the purposes of notation, be has 20 Str and a +3 bastard sword, swinging at +22 for 6d12+5. Target will be the level 12 Valkyrie, with 31 AC. Hits on 9-18 for average 44, crits on 19-20 for average 88. Average hit is 30.8.

If I give him a +3 longsword and shortsword instead (both +3 thanks to Doubling Rings), he swings for 4d8+5 and 4d6+5. First hit is 23 hit, 46 crit, and second is 19 hit, 38 crit. Average is 16.1+13.3, averaging 29.4.

Conclusions: Power Attack still outdamages Double Slice.

Side note: man, it's a lot easier to run calculations in this edition.

The frequency of critical hits destroys any ability to reliably calculate damage averages, especially given the huge probability distribution that damage now relies on. The AC numbers you have there is disconcerting at best.

Statistically, your odds of landing a crit with two weapon strikes is exponentially better than with one, and the averages become less reliable the further into the game's progression you get. DPR cannot be reliably represented with average values anymore, it requires one to consider the entire distribution spread for any one attack.

Over the course of an entire character's career from 1-20, as you increase dice you will see your values approach average, per the law of averages, but in the momentary instance of actual gameplay such math is not reliable.

In your math you need to include the odds of critting with both weapons or just a single weapon.

Then you need to compare to the damage potential for simply not using those feats and keeping your actions free and you end up with a lack of balance, there was more than one thread demonstrating this, though Mark tried to assure us this wouldn't be the case, that's not how the numbers actually work.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Power Attack is also worse than our math threads pointed out. It gets one die increase and your secondary attack functions like it's your tertiary attack, making it statistically much worse than double slice.

I'm actually curious to see how this pans out mathematically.

I've got a level 12 Fighter I can test on this. For the purposes of notation, be has 20 Str and a +3 bastard sword, swinging at +22 for 6d12+5. Target will be the level 12 Valkyrie, with 31 AC. Hits on 9-18 for average 44, crits on 19-20 for average 88. Average hit is 30.8.

If I give him a +3 longsword and shortsword instead (both +3 thanks to Doubling Rings), he swings for 4d8+5 and 4d6+5. First hit is 23 hit, 46 crit, and second is 19 hit, 38 crit. Average is 16.1+13.3, averaging 29.4.

Conclusions: Power Attack still outdamages Double Slice.

Side note: man, it's a lot easier to run calculations in this edition.

The frequency of critical hits destroys any ability to reliably calculate damage averages, especially given the huge probability distribution that damage now relies on. The AC numbers you have there is disconcerting at best.

Statistically, your odds of landing a crit with two weapon strikes is exponentially better than with one, and the averages become less reliable the further into the game's progression you get. DPR cannot be reliably represented with average values anymore, it requires one to consider the entire distribution spread for any one attack.

Over the course of an entire character's career from 1-20, as you increase dice you will see your values approach average, per the law of averages, but in the momentary instance of actual gameplay such math is not reliable.

In your math you need to include the odds of critting with both weapons or just a single weapon.

Then you need to compare to the damage potential for simply not using those feats and keeping your actions free and you end up with a lack of balance, there was more than one...

Has anyone figured out a way to represent the entire distribution spread for any one attack of DPR reliably yet? I tried and failed miserably and just ended up estimating 50%ish damage ranges and 90% damage ranges


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, if you're criticizing people's instances of maths. Giving us actual maths to showcase your points is a good idea.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Power Attack is also worse than our math threads pointed out. It gets one die increase and your secondary attack functions like it's your tertiary attack, making it statistically much worse than double slice.

I'm actually curious to see how this pans out mathematically.

I've got a level 12 Fighter I can test on this. For the purposes of notation, be has 20 Str and a +3 bastard sword, swinging at +22 for 6d12+5. Target will be the level 12 Valkyrie, with 31 AC. Hits on 9-18 for average 44, crits on 19-20 for average 88. Average hit is 30.8.

If I give him a +3 longsword and shortsword instead (both +3 thanks to Doubling Rings), he swings for 4d8+5 and 4d6+5. First hit is 23 hit, 46 crit, and second is 19 hit, 38 crit. Average is 16.1+13.3, averaging 29.4.

Conclusions: Power Attack still outdamages Double Slice.

Side note: man, it's a lot easier to run calculations in this edition.

The frequency of critical hits destroys any ability to reliably calculate damage averages, especially given the huge probability distribution that damage now relies on. The AC numbers you have there is disconcerting at best.

Statistically, your odds of landing a crit with two weapon strikes is exponentially better than with one, and the averages become less reliable the further into the game's progression you get. DPR cannot be reliably represented with average values anymore, it requires one to consider the entire distribution spread for any one attack.

Over the course of an entire character's career from 1-20, as you increase dice you will see your values approach average, per the law of averages, but in the momentary instance of actual gameplay such math is not reliable.

In your math you need to include the odds of critting with both weapons or just a single weapon.

Then you need to compare to the damage potential for simply not using those feats and keeping your actions free and you end up with a lack of balance, there was more than one...

No, that already takes critting with both into account. I did forget the crit specialization in this (which ups the second crit damage by 0.38 average), but your chances of critting with both are slim. Off the top of my head, 0.1*0.2, or 2%, including crit specialization. Critting with only one is 1-(0.9*0.9), or 19%. I can list out how all the numbers add up, but no matter how you add it up, the math will still be the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
You know, if you're criticizing people's instances of maths. Giving us actual maths to showcase your points is a good idea.

Was on mobile, and we've already had multiple threads on the very specific topic of maths.

Still, I'm not one to not indulge->

f(Power Attack)= 2dx+ STR
crit(Power Attack)= 2(2dx+STR)

f(Double Slice)= dy+STR + dz+STR
crit(Double Slice)= 2(dy+STR) +dz+STR
crit'(Double Slice)= dy+STR + 2(dz+STR)
crit''(Double Slice)= 2(dy+STR + dz+STR)

When calculating potential damage one must consider the odds of a single crit, or a double crit. In either case, let's use the numbers above we get something like this:

6d12+5, [11, 77] range 66
crit [22, 154] range 132

4d8+5, [9, 37] range 28
4d6+5, [9, 29] range 20
both hit, [18, 68] range 50
first crit, [18, 74] range 56
*first crit plus second hit, [27, 103] range 76
second crit, [18, 58] range 40
*first hit plus second crit [27, 95] range 68
both crits [36, 132] range 96

If you notice the size of the range, you'll know that whenever that range gets lower your numbers will always be mroe reliable and you can count on the probability math a lot more with two weapons, considering the possibility of a single crit to not only happen more often, but to have consistently more reliable and better numbers because as the range gets lower the average becomes more consistent.

This new DPR is going to require a lot of new math, averages don;t work anymore for reliable calculations. Remember. the range represents the number of possible outcomes for your damage potential, and the larger that range is combined with lower minimums destroys your ability to rely on averages for calculating DPR.

This is of course, without even factoring in critical specializations or bonus damage from abilities, which naturally double/triple/quadruple up with better numbers on TWF builds.

This is not for debate.


Unicore wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Power Attack is also worse than our math threads pointed out. It gets one die increase and your secondary attack functions like it's your tertiary attack, making it statistically much worse than double slice.

I'm actually curious to see how this pans out mathematically.

I've got a level 12 Fighter I can test on this. For the purposes of notation, be has 20 Str and a +3 bastard sword, swinging at +22 for 6d12+5. Target will be the level 12 Valkyrie, with 31 AC. Hits on 9-18 for average 44, crits on 19-20 for average 88. Average hit is 30.8.

If I give him a +3 longsword and shortsword instead (both +3 thanks to Doubling Rings), he swings for 4d8+5 and 4d6+5. First hit is 23 hit, 46 crit, and second is 19 hit, 38 crit. Average is 16.1+13.3, averaging 29.4.

Conclusions: Power Attack still outdamages Double Slice.

Side note: man, it's a lot easier to run calculations in this edition.

The frequency of critical hits destroys any ability to reliably calculate damage averages, especially given the huge probability distribution that damage now relies on. The AC numbers you have there is disconcerting at best.

Statistically, your odds of landing a crit with two weapon strikes is exponentially better than with one, and the averages become less reliable the further into the game's progression you get. DPR cannot be reliably represented with average values anymore, it requires one to consider the entire distribution spread for any one attack.

Over the course of an entire character's career from 1-20, as you increase dice you will see your values approach average, per the law of averages, but in the momentary instance of actual gameplay such math is not reliable.

In your math you need to include the odds of critting with both weapons or just a single weapon.

Then you need to compare to the damage potential for simply not using those feats and keeping your actions free and you end up with a lack of

...

I have to go through the Bestiary still to get more of a feel for what average AC for a CR appropriate encounter is, but what I've seen itt alone is enough to make me skeptical.

I was under the impression that martial characters would be critting nigh all the time to account for the bad maths, but if you still only crit 5-10% of the time reliably then you're no better off than a wizard swinging a sword. Critical specializations also become unreliable for build choices under such a system because if you only expect to use it a small fraction of the time, then it's generally not worth investing the time to read it or use it.

To really get a fair estimate on damages, you have to compare the size of the comparative ranges and figure out how often you can expect to roll above/below average and compare minimum values. For the Power Attack range above, having 66 different possible outcomes for your math means about 32 of them are unfavorable, where 32 are favorable, and 2 are average. 1/33 chance to roll average, 16/33 chance for it to be bad, and 16/33 for it to be good are really rough numbers to base a build around when I could instead have 1/25 chance to have average, and 12/25 chances on the other hand yields a more consistent distribution and a guaranteed better minimum.

Averages don't take this range into account.


... You know, whilst I honestly see where you're coming from with your point out averages not taking the range of damage into account, and that is quite important to consider as well. Not only do I think you're taking it too far, but...

Well. There's also the [i]feel[i/] of damage. Rolling a 12d6 attack feels a lot more impactful than hitting someone three times with 4d6 imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fury of the Tempest wrote:

... You know, whilst I honestly see where you're coming from with your point out averages not taking the range of damage into account, and that is quite important to consider as well. Not only do I think you're taking it too far, but...

Well. There's also the [i]feel[i/] of damage. Rolling a 12d6 attack feels a lot more impactful than hitting someone three times with 4d6 imo.

Unless you don;t wanna dump 120$ USD on 12 different sets of Chessix dice and end up rolling 4d6 three times anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
To really get a fair estimate on damages, you have to compare the size of the comparative ranges and figure out how often you can expect to roll above/below average and compare minimum values. For the Power Attack range above, having 66 different possible outcomes for your math means about 32 of them are unfavorable, where 32 are favorable, and 2 are average. 1/33 chance to roll average, 16/33 chance for it to be bad, and 16/33 for it to be good are really rough numbers to base a build around when I could instead have 1/25 chance to have average, and 12/25 chances on the other hand yields a more consistent distribution and a guaranteed better minimum.

This is highly misleading, especially when we are talking about rolling 3 or more dice. 16/33 - unfavorable is not a useful mechanic because getting within one or two points of average (so 8+9) will feel much more satisfying than the 1 in 216 times you roll a 3 on damage.

I agree that range and gausian probability needs to factor in to DPR generally, but the more dice you roll, the less overall range is as relevant to average. More dice, ironically counters your claim instead of defending it. 1d6+3 has a much wider range of likely outcomes than 2d6, despite having a smaller potential range.
Edit: not to mention 1d6+7 vs 3d6.

This is what blew up my math, because calculating Standard deviations over discrete potential outcomes that never = 0 were 15 years beyond what I remember learning in statistics.


Of note: the existence of the Doubling rings really breaks the math even more, as Mark even said last time we had a math thread that the inability to get two +5 weapons was meant to be a balancing factor.

Compare (7d12+5) to (5d8+5d6+10) and you'll see what I mean:

Power Attack: [12, 89] (range 77) {avg 50.5}

Double Slice: [20, 80] (range 60) {avg 50}

crit PA: [24, 178] (range 154) {avg 101)
crit' DS: [30, 125] (range 95) {avg 72}
crit''DS: [40, 160] (range 120) {avg 100}

combine the averages that seem comparable to the distribution ratios based on the range and Power Attack will be worse most of the time.

This is assuming at least 10th level for two dice from PA, a single +5 weapon, and doubling rings.


The repetitiveness of class entries is almost certainly to help new players jump into things. Which isn't a bad thing, and I actually like that.

BUT I agree with you on the feat thing. It feels like we need some generic combat feats and allow the relevant classes to just pick them up. It would also free up Class feat space to include more flavorful options, which I feel is sort of an issue with the Ranger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

The repetitiveness of class entries is almost certainly to help new players jump into things. Which isn't a bad thing, and I actually like that.

BUT I agree with you on the feat thing. It feels like we need some generic combat feats and allow the relevant classes to just pick them up. It would also free up Class feat space to include more flavorful options, which I feel is sort of an issue with the Ranger.

My initial thoughts were to create branches of combat styles to mirror the different schools of magic, and include combat styles (mostly stolen from the PF1 ranger) as part of the core chassis of martial builds, so spellcasters have to waste resources to pick them up, but martial characters get at least one freebie.

All of us are new players as far as PF2 is concerned, and if I'm skipping half the entry to get to the parts that matter for what makes the class unique, there's going to be problems. Plus a lot of wasted space in the book.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

Of note: the existence of the Doubling rings really breaks the math even more, as Mark even said last time we had a math thread that the inability to get two +5 weapons was meant to be a balancing factor.

Compare (7d12+5) to (5d8+5d6+10) and you'll see what I mean:

Power Attack: [12, 89] (range 77) {avg 50.5}

Double Slice: [20, 80] (range 60) {avg 50}

crit PA: [24, 178] (range 154) {avg 101)
crit' DS: [30, 125] (range 95) {avg 72}
crit''DS: [40, 160] (range 120) {avg 100}

combine the averages that seem comparable to the distribution ratios based on the range and Power Attack will be worse most of the time.

This is assuming at least 10th level for two dice from PA, a single +5 weapon, and doubling rings.

I definitely have not gotten far enough into the book yet to add magical items effectiveness, but that sounds like a problem with one magical item that may have to be moved to uncommon or rare if it universally makes two-weapon fighting the better option.

I have no skin in the game of Power attack vs Double slice generally, I am just curious if there was a more effective model for representing DPR than Averages, because as far as I can figure, more dice only makes averages a better metric. Bigger dice opens it up again (using D12 instead of 2d6) but figuring it out to defend your hypothesis about ranges is beyond me.


Unicore wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
To really get a fair estimate on damages, you have to compare the size of the comparative ranges and figure out how often you can expect to roll above/below average and compare minimum values. For the Power Attack range above, having 66 different possible outcomes for your math means about 32 of them are unfavorable, where 32 are favorable, and 2 are average. 1/33 chance to roll average, 16/33 chance for it to be bad, and 16/33 for it to be good are really rough numbers to base a build around when I could instead have 1/25 chance to have average, and 12/25 chances on the other hand yields a more consistent distribution and a guaranteed better minimum.

This is highly misleading, especially when we are talking about rolling 3 or more dice. 16/33 - unfavorable is not a useful mechanic because getting within one or two points of average (so 8+9) will feel much more satisfying than the 1 in 216 times you roll a 3 on damage.

I agree that range and gausian probability needs to factor in to DPR generally, but the more dice you roll, the less overall range is as relevant to average. More dice, ironically counters your claim instead of defending it. 1d6+3 has a much wider range of likely outcomes than 2d6, despite having a smaller potential range.
Edit: not to mention 1d6+7 vs 3d6.

This is what blew up my math, because calculating Standard deviations over discrete potential outcomes that never = 0 were 15 years beyond what I remember learning in statistics.

The issue is that favors DS more, because DS rolls more dice and has higher flat numbers.

What do your formulas look like? What should they look like? What input do we need to give to get those numbers there?

Personally, I think the point is moot when comparing the options because Power Attack most of the time is flat out worse than just rolling two attacks without the feat. This was the problem with Vital Strike in PF1 RAE. Unless the odds of hitting become so much worse by that -5 that it's not worth making the attack (indicative of bad design given the focus on crits) then Power Attack is a feat that actively makes you worse.

Trading a whole attack that has -25% chance to hit to instead do just an extra die or two of damage requires the average of the extra dice to supersede your flat bonus. Until level 10, this is not reliable math, though before level 10 I expect those secondary hits to also be not worth much.

I really just do not like the action taxes of balancing feats around the action system, no longer can I make a build based around a combat style like using a feat in conjunction with a specific type of weapon, but now I have to consider every tactical position every round, and if it comes up so often that I don;t want to use the feats that I take, then why did I take them?


master_marshmallow wrote:

All of us are new players as far as PF2 is concerned, and if I'm skipping half the entry to get to the parts that matter for what makes the class unique, there's going to be problems. Plus a lot of wasted space in the book.

There's new and then there is NEW. I think anyone who is interested and experienced enough in gaming to break down the underlying math of the system is definitely not "new" to RPGs in general :)

I think this is set up so someone with little if any gaming experience can potentially open a chapter up and figure out exactly how his character changes as he levels up, rather than having to cross check an additional table. Certainly there are other aspects that still need some fixing presentation wise, but this seem okay.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Fury of the Tempest wrote:

... You know, whilst I honestly see where you're coming from with your point out averages not taking the range of damage into account, and that is quite important to consider as well. Not only do I think you're taking it too far, but...

Well. There's also the [i]feel[i/] of damage. Rolling a 12d6 attack feels a lot more impactful than hitting someone three times with 4d6 imo.

Unless you don;t wanna dump 120$ USD on 12 different sets of Chessix dice and end up rolling 4d6 three times anyway.

???

what kind of gamer doesn't have 12 six siders?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

All of us are new players as far as PF2 is concerned, and if I'm skipping half the entry to get to the parts that matter for what makes the class unique, there's going to be problems. Plus a lot of wasted space in the book.

There's new and then there is NEW. I think anyone who is interested and experienced enough in gaming to break down the underlying math of the system is definitely not "new" to RPGs in general :)

I think this is set up so someone with little if any gaming experience can potentially open a chapter up and figure out exactly how his character changes as he levels up, rather than having to cross check an additional table. Certainly there are other aspects that still need some fixing presentation wise, but this seem okay.

I'd rather cut the fat on the repetitiveness and include the write-ups for the abilities that already demand you go to another section of the book, like the paladin only Champion Powers not being included in the paladin class section while all the feats that gat their access are seems counter-intuitive and it's frustrating to try and read up on the classes actual abilities and potential builds.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Using stuff like bolding sentence to emphasis on how bad something is(while implying a swear word) and words like "Yuuuuuck" sure do make devs want to listen to you <_<


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Of note: the existence of the Doubling rings really breaks the math even more, as Mark even said last time we had a math thread that the inability to get two +5 weapons was meant to be a balancing factor.

Compare (7d12+5) to (5d8+5d6+10) and you'll see what I mean:

Power Attack: [12, 89] (range 77) {avg 50.5}

Double Slice: [20, 80] (range 60) {avg 50}

crit PA: [24, 178] (range 154) {avg 101)
crit' DS: [30, 125] (range 95) {avg 72}
crit''DS: [40, 160] (range 120) {avg 100}

combine the averages that seem comparable to the distribution ratios based on the range and Power Attack will be worse most of the time.

This is assuming at least 10th level for two dice from PA, a single +5 weapon, and doubling rings.

I mean, you can talk about ranges all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the likelihood of actually getting the top and bottom 18 results are insanely slim. This graph should make it obvious. By your logic, my kineticist's average damage should not be able to be calculated (17d8+34) but the math shows differently. Most of the high and low numbers are negated by the other dice averaging the result. The spot you should be worried at is low levels - 2d12+4 vs 1d8+1d6+8 - where getting a low number is comparatively easy.

Certainly, double slice is a decent amount more likely to connect with one of the two attacks - in my sample, chance of doing 0 damage is 16% compared to Power Attack's 40% - but when Power Attack hits, it does more damage in the vast majority of cases. Double Slice is better against things with higher AC, but I'm pretty sure that Power Attack is more efficient against things with lower.

Regarding making two attacks vs Power Attack, I'll show the math when I'm not on a phone with 15% battery, but I'm willing to bet that the 25% higher crit chance will bear out. This is definitely a calculation I would have expected Mark Seifter to have done already.


Cyouni wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Of note: the existence of the Doubling rings really breaks the math even more, as Mark even said last time we had a math thread that the inability to get two +5 weapons was meant to be a balancing factor.

Compare (7d12+5) to (5d8+5d6+10) and you'll see what I mean:

Power Attack: [12, 89] (range 77) {avg 50.5}

Double Slice: [20, 80] (range 60) {avg 50}

crit PA: [24, 178] (range 154) {avg 101)
crit' DS: [30, 125] (range 95) {avg 72}
crit''DS: [40, 160] (range 120) {avg 100}

combine the averages that seem comparable to the distribution ratios based on the range and Power Attack will be worse most of the time.

This is assuming at least 10th level for two dice from PA, a single +5 weapon, and doubling rings.

I mean, you can talk about ranges all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the likelihood of actually getting the top and bottom 18 results are insanely slim. This graph should make it obvious. By your logic, my kineticist's average damage should not be able to be calculated (17d8+34) but the math shows differently. Most of the high and low numbers are negated by the other dice averaging the result. The spot you should be worried at is low levels - 2d12+4 vs 1d8+1d6+8 - where getting a low number is comparatively easy.

Certainly, double slice is a decent amount more likely to connect with one of the two attacks - in my sample, chance of doing 0 damage is 16% compared to Power Attack's 40% - but when Power Attack hits, it does more damage in the vast majority of cases. Double Slice is better against things with higher AC, but I'm pretty sure that Power Attack is more efficient against things with lower.

Regarding making two attacks vs Power Attack, I'll show the math when I'm not on a phone with 15% battery, but I'm willing to bet that the 25% higher crit chance will bear out. This is definitely a...

Low levels is what I'm worried about most, this is true, as acknowledged ip thread as you progress through 20 levels your numbers will more consistently approach average.

But in a single night? Not exactly.


Planetouched would be a better pick for the final race than orc I feel, especially given charisma bonus doesn't exactly scream "Orc". I'm actually genuinely surprised it wasn't a human ancestry option. Everyone in the ancestry preview comments seemed to expect it would be.

I agree ancestry requiring a feat is a bad idea. This wasn't indicated in the preview.


deuxhero wrote:
Planetouched would be a better pick for the final race than orc I feel. I'm actually genuinely surprised it wasn't a human ancestry option.

If enough people like the way half [race] is done, then I'd hope for a few, like plane touched and dragon soul. I'd be stoked to have them all core options.


I did go back and check ACs on the other level 12 monsters. They range from 29-32, 29 mainly being things that are more caster-like, while 32 is a dragon.

I also did some quick math on Power Attack, and it looks like it only beats two swings in scenarios where you'd need to near-crit (19-20, at least on a bastard sword at level 12) with the second attack to hit. That's really not very useful after a certain point, and extremely situational. I know it's a level 1 feat, but I'd still expect more out of it.


Average still will work to tell us what is the... average damage (duh).

The variance and deviation from mean will be more than in PF1, but the average still gives us the info we want, which is which build gives us the most average damage


The class symbols look amazing in my opinion and others in my group think they look good too.
Also a benefit of power attack is overcoming high levels of resistance or hardness to deal damage. Better to subtract resistance once than twice.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

Average still will work to tell us what is the... average damage (duh).

The variance and deviation from mean will be more than in PF1, but the average still gives us the info we want, which is which build gives us the most average damage

Yeah the average is still the average, but the deviation range is huge, and the expected curve in the middle of the graph will have a much wider range of results, of which only half are in your favor.

Perhaps I didn't define how I use the term 'better' because everyone seems to think I'm demanding Power Attack do massive amounts of damage which simply isn't true, I'd rather it have a smaller distribution range and higher minimum values, because if the averages are the same, TWF is just plain better for those two reasons.

TWF automatically counts both attacks against resistance once, for example.

Also the open and press traits seem like good ideas, but will need work to make truly coherent strategies. I'd want to see some more effort in building stylized feat trees.


Messing around with ideas a little bit, not in any offical feedback manner, but in theorycraft to get something put together for comparison:

In writing this, I realized our math was off earlier, as Power Attack should be adding two dice by the time we can calc for +5 weapons.

PA: [13, 101] (range 88) {avg 57}
crit PA: [26, 202] (range 176) {avg 114)

Double Slice: [20, 80] (range 60) {avg 50}
crit' DS: [30, 125] (range 95) {avg 72}
crit''DS: [40, 160] (range 120) {avg 100}

This matters, because it shows PA with a higher average than DS with no crits, which means it relies on DS not landing a single crit for it to be better, but it still technically is so long as crits become difficult to land. Once you can crit somewhat often and the odds of crit'DS showing up increases (which it invariably will per the law of averages) you'll notice PA feels lackluster by comparison, as DS will have much better odds of doing roughly 50% more damage a proportionate amount of time more often based on the number of attacks you roll (which is doubled for DS obvsiously).

Idea 1: Power Attack stays exactly the same, but doubles STR to damage.
using the above figures: (8d12+5) -> (8d12+10)
old PA: [13, 101] (range 88) {avg 57}
crit PA: [26, 202] (range 176) {avg 114)

*PA: [18, 106] (range 88) {avg 62}
*crit PA: [36, 212] (range 176) {avg 124}

This raises the minimum values to come closer to, but still not exceed DS, and it yields a very slightly higher average, while maintaining the same distribution range. It solves one of my issues, but leaves the other exactly in tact, and it throws balance off slightly, which might not be bad unless you demand all combat styles do equal damage (I don't believe that should be a goal because different options should have different consequences).

Idea 2: Power Attack adds no additional dice, but instead adds a flat number to damage equal to your level. Assume 20th level characters using +5 weapons to compare
above figures: (8d12+5) -> (5d12+25)
old PA: [13, 101] (range 88) {avg 57}
crit PA: [26, 202] (range 176) {avg 114)

**PA: [30, 85] (range 55) {avg 57}
**crit: [60, 170] (range 110) {avg 115}

This one is more interesting in some ways. The average is the same for regular hits, but one higher on crits. That's small enough a difference to call them equal imo, considering there are distribution ranges to contend with here. Speaking of which, this cuts the range down significantly, thus improving your odds of reaching that average value and giving you ultimately higher minimums, and smaller ranges which is good, especially when the average is the same. The issues come from how good the feat is across your career compared to the original to see if it works better.

Compare some levels:
lvl 1 (2d12+5) vs (d12+6)
[7, 29] (range 22) {avg 18}
crit: [14, 58] (range 44) {avg 36}

[7, 18] (range 11) {avg 12.5}
crit: [14, 36] (range 22) {avg 25)

lvl 5 (introduce +1 weapons) (3d12+5) vs (2d12+10)
[8, 41] (range 33) {avg 24.5}
crit: [16, 82] (range 66) {avg 49}

[12, 34] (range 22) {avg 23}
crit: [24, 68] (range 44) {avg 46)

lvl 10 (introduce +2 weapons) (5d12+5) vs (3d12+15)
[10, 65] (range 55) {avg 37.5}
crit: [20, 130] (range 110) {avg 75}

[18, 51] (range 33) {avg 34.5}
crit: [36, 102] (range 66) {avg 69)

lvl 15 (introduce +3 weapons) (6d12+5) vs (4d12+20)
[11, 77] (range 66) {avg 44}
crit: [22, 154] (range 132) {avg 88}

[24, 68] (range 44) {avg 46}
crit: [48, 136] (range 88) {avg 92)

The conclusion to draw here is that adding level to damage instead of adding two dice overall yields results that end up ridiculously close to the same numbers, but with a huge difference in the size of the distribution range, by level 5 you can't tell the difference between adding dice and adding flat numbers. It also isn't overpowered at low levels, which is nice. How this compares to rolling multiple attacks will still most likely lead to Power Attack being a wasted feat, however. That's an issue I have still.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I also agree that many feats are givne the level tag just to pad out the higher level lists to be same size as others. Most of the class feats should be low level in case you want to build a character around them. There's nothign wrong with more bare high-level lists. PF1 just had basic talents (levels 2-10) and advance talents (10+). And that was pretty good.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
I also agree that many feats are givne the level tag just to pad out the higher level lists to be same size as others. Most of the class feats should be low level in case you want to build a character around them. There's nothign wrong with more bare high-level lists. PF1 just had basic talents (levels 2-10) and advance talents (10+). And that was pretty good.

Q4E

I love this idea so much it isn't even funny. I would rather have a robust list of potential options to grab at lower levels so I can actually customize my character, rather than picking from one or two options every level. This was an issue with the vigilante in PF1 where your social talents didn't really offer choices, it was more of a binary thing.

I'd like the feats to scale in power based on your level, and have most of the options available early.

CorvusMask wrote:
Using stuff like bolding sentence to emphasis on how bad something is(while implying a swear word) and words like "Yuuuuuck" sure do make devs want to listen to you <_<

I think cherry picking a sentence and a half, ignoring the content of the post, and intentionally flaming people snarkily for upvotes will drive the devs away from threads more than highlighting a few particular aspects of the game to be coming from a bad start with slightly more colorful language.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with that one. Making the feats be "normal and advanced" like PF1 traits will really help build diversity, while still gating the stronger builds for the higher levels.

Maybe even 3 levels, like normal (2-10), advanced (10+) and legendary (16+¿?) to make some truly incredible ones available for later


2 people marked this as a favorite.
slightlyprime wrote:

The class symbols look amazing in my opinion and others in my group think they look good too.

Also a benefit of power attack is overcoming high levels of resistance or hardness to deal damage. Better to subtract resistance once than twice.

That's certainly an important point, but I'm not sure how much it comes into play given resistance is usually being reduced in favour of granting weaknesses instead, and Power Attack is significantly worse at exploiting those. For example, in the level 12 monsters, it works better against the Valkyrie and Lich, but worse against everyone else. I suppose it works, as a level 1 feat, but I'd appreciate if it did approximately equal damage outside of those scenarios.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

I agree with that one. Making the feats be "normal and advanced" like PF1 traits will really help build diversity, while still gating the stronger builds for the higher levels.

Maybe even 3 levels, like normal (2-10), advanced (10+) and legendary (16+¿?) to make some truly incredible ones available for later

When writing my encounters and campaigns in PF1, I divided the power levels of the game by scope with divided the spell levels into three groups (this was easy because of how metamagic rods worked), so if combat-like feats scaled in power compared to each 3 spell levels, and were divided into different 'schools/styles' to mirror spellcasting I think the game would be much smoother in execution.

If say fighter exclusive feats included some of the combat feats and added extra umph to them (like the vigilante and stamina tricks in PF1) I would be a very happy camper.

I just really need to enforce that I HATE having a feat tax for critical specialization effects, and if I do have to waste a feat on it, why not just call it improved critical and make it a universal feat like before instead of writing a different feat for every class that gives you critical specializations for a single or selected group of weapons based on your class? That's less freedom, not more.


While we are on the subject of Double Slice, what are our thoughts in comparing it to Flurry of Blows?

I haven't actually run the numbers yet, but even considering the better action economy of FoB, it seems like Double Slice is just hands-down better. If a character is using all three actions in a round for straight-damage attacking, then two Strikes at full bonus plus one at -8 just seems a whole lot better than one at full, one at -4, and two at -8.

Certainly, one could argue that Monks aren't supposed to be DPS monsters, but one would think that they should be able to hit reliably, even if their individual attacks don't result in quite as much damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kung-Fu Joe wrote:

While we are on the subject of Double Slice, what are our thoughts in comparing it to Flurry of Blows?

I haven't actually run the numbers yet, but even considering the better action economy of FoB, it seems like Double Slice is just hands-down better. If a character is using all three actions in a round for straight-damage attacking, then two Strikes at full bonus plus one at -8 just seems a whole lot better than one at full, one at -4, and two at -8.

Certainly, one could argue that Monks aren't supposed to be DPS monsters, but one would think that they should be able to hit reliably, even if their individual attacks don't result in quite as much damage.

After some reading, I come to the same conclusion, as there are no provisions for making multiple attacks as primary attacks your assessment about making multiple attacks at the bottom seems correct. This is of course, unless the entire point of flurry is to buy an extra attack with one action after you [open] with something else, so you would get something like Flying Kick (empirically worse than Sudden Charge, by a disgusting margin) to get into combat and make a primary attack, then use flurry to make a secondary and tertiary attacks for a whole round's worth of attacks. So it's okay in that sense I feel. Okay is not good, but it's okay.

I personally feel all the options for martial characters are spread out too far among feats and you'll be feat taxed to hell just to have a functional character and won;t get to take the fun abilities.

Feat taxes are rampant and generally make me less excited to build a character if half my feats go into "you can use your weapons as intended by the devs."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Fury of the Tempest wrote:

... You know, whilst I honestly see where you're coming from with your point out averages not taking the range of damage into account, and that is quite important to consider as well. Not only do I think you're taking it too far, but...

Well. There's also the [i]feel[i/] of damage. Rolling a 12d6 attack feels a lot more impactful than hitting someone three times with 4d6 imo.

Unless you don;t wanna dump 120$ USD on 12 different sets of Chessix dice and end up rolling 4d6 three times anyway.

???

what kind of gamer doesn't have 12 six siders?

New players or players that only invested in 4-5 sets of dice instead of 12.

For someone going into a hobby store, learning you want to invest over 100$ on dice just to play the game according to the axiom that fistfuls of dice make the experience better is going to cut off a group of players who are already being expected to drop money on the books.

I have several players who don't own 12 sets of dice, and while it's way easier to obtain mass amounts of dice via amazon, I think making such investment mandatory lest you exponentially increase turn length at the table forcing a new player (or frugal player) to roll the same die over and over isn't as much fun.

Also 'No True Scotsman.'


I confess I don't have 12 d6s, without raiding board games for their dice, I think I only have 7 packed with my RPG stuff.

As for Flurry versus Double Strike, my idea was that it enables Monks to do the "move, attack twice, move away" tactic (even against people with AoO if they take Winding Path at level 10) which is a war of attrition the monk can likely win particularly against people who are slower.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Flying Kick (empirically worse than Sudden Charge, by a disgusting margin)

Honestly, multiclassing Fighter seems eminently better than playing within one's class options in a number of cases.

A Monk might want to multiclass Fighter for access to Double Slice and Sudden Charge. With DS on the front-end, FoB gets much better; and as you mentioned, Sudden Charge is just objectively better than Flying Kick.

A Rogue might multiclass Fighter for Double Slice and Crushing Grab. Double Slicing with Sneak Attack is a beautiful thing, and Crushing Grab is just objectively better than Unbalancing Blow or simply relying on Feint. Sudden Charge is an obviously fantastic option for Rogues, as well, considering their Surprise Attack feature.

A Barbarian might Multiclass Fighter for Double Slice, which is objectively better than Swipe.

Et cetera, et cetera...

I think the big question should be whether to boost these similar-but-inferior feats for other classes, or whether to nerf the similar-but-superior feats for Fighters. Otherwise, I'm expecting we're gonna see a looooooot of Fighter-multiclassing in Playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kung-Fu Joe wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Flying Kick (empirically worse than Sudden Charge, by a disgusting margin)

Honestly, multiclassing Fighter seems eminently better than playing within one's class options in a number of cases.

A Monk might want to multiclass Fighter for access to Double Slice and Sudden Charge. With DS on the front-end, FoB gets much better; and as you mentioned, Sudden Charge is just objectively better than Flying Kick.

A Rogue might multiclass Fighter for Double Slice and Crushing Grab. Double Slicing with Sneak Attack is a beautiful thing, and Crushing Grab is just objectively better than Unbalancing Blow or simply relying on Feint. Sudden Charge is an obviously fantastic option for Rogues, as well, considering their Surprise Attack feature.

A Barbarian might Multiclass Fighter for Double Slice, which is objectively better than Swipe.

Et cetera, et cetera...

I think the big question should be whether to boost these similar-but-inferior feats for other classes, or whether to nerf the similar-but-superior feats for Fighters. Otherwise, I'm expecting we're gonna see a looooooot of Fighter-multiclassing in Playtest.

I honestly was about to post this very concept, after reading through most of the book just now I can say that I LOOOOVE the concept behind the new multiclassing, but I do wish there were more ways to improve proficiency on things like the fighter. I also think rogue's need to increase sneak attack damage on both the class and the multiclass. Spending feats to upgrade dice feels like a tax, especially when it only gets me one d6 instead of one d4. Personally, I don't think the rogue should be a class at all, and it and the fighter could be combined into one specialist class, where Sneak Attack can become a feat to facilitate DEX builds like Power Attack is for STR builds. Oh well, maybe next edition.

Fighter multiclassing on spellcasters especially scratches the itch of gish builds. Magi are possible with the sole exception of Spell Strike, which I think can be added as a [metamagic] feat pretty easily to become accessible to all casters. Warpriests are also ay-okay by this system. Given that proficiency replaces BAB and saving progressions, the ability to add up proficiency with multiclassing seems better than some of the feats that do the same thing, making them redundant if you don;t care about locking away your prestige access, like with say a wizard who doesn't care to become a pirate or a grey maiden. I like cavalier as an archetype, but it makes me think the paladin doesn't even need the option to get a mount.

There's a lot of fat to be trimmed as I'm reading this with some play knowledge on the tactical implementations of the new action system, I'm seeing stuff that I personally know to be trap options but new players and those just learning this system may not see as obvious. Dual-Handed Assault for instance, only seems good because re-gripping a weapon is taxed an action (which is dumb). This feat is so much worse than Power Attack that I don't understand its need to exist. I can spend the same number of actions on just grabbing my sword and swinging it twice and get better damage than just getting +2. Quickdraw being an action and including the Stike with it seems worse than being able to draw the weapon as a free action then using whichever kinds of combat/[Open] feats I want, for another example.

I do not like that these feats all seem to work against each other and it gives me a headache trying to look at potential combinations of options.

I do 100% want a more compiled list of feats to separate into tags, and keep the lists separate from each other, even if they have multiple tags. [Combat], [Metamagic], [Skill], and [General] feats should all go in one section of the book, called feats, where the [Class] feats and [Ancestry] feats can remain with their respective classes and ancestries. I think [Combat] feats could in theory have some restrictions, but be accessible based on proficiency and all martial classes should be able to take them as class feats, where all casters should be able to take [Metamagic] feats as class feats. Multiclassing obviously would open up these new blocks of feats to you so it's not just locking you into a secondary class choice, but genuinely expanding your options.

I want Powers to be included in their feat descriptions, and not to be interlaced with spells in the spells chapter, that's confusing and annoying.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Not to spam, but one of my players was just trying to build a paladin and we realized the class is.... really really bad. And not just by a little bit.

We were looking at ways to increase damage by way of class features, and you simply can't do anything until level 14. Even then, you have to waste an action and a spell point to do Litany of Righteousness (which lasts 1 round and cannot be done to the same creature again) and another action to activate Blade of Justice, for the sole purpose of making a single attack that gets... 6-11 extra damage. If you have a holy weapon by taking the right feats, and take the other feat that gives you 1 good damage just cuz, then you can spend two actions for your one attack that round to do 1d6+ (7-12) extra damage based on how many weapon dice you already have.

Why would I ever waste two actions to get a damage boost that doesn't even come close to equaling my damage from just making an attack, and why do I have to waste 4 feats just to do it?

Action taxes, feat taxes, all for payoff so small that it's not even worth taking.

This is a serious problem with the design all over this book, my player told me he doesn't think we're going to be able to even play and I got told he doesn't even want to try this game.

This is bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
We were looking at ways to increase damage by way of class features, and you simply can't do anything until level 14.

...or you could Multiclass Fighter to pick up Double Slice and other useful martial feats.

Seriously, it's starting to look like Multiclass Fighter is ANYONE'S best option if they want to play a martial style character. Unless they are already playing a Fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kung-Fu Joe wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
We were looking at ways to increase damage by way of class features, and you simply can't do anything until level 14.

...or you could Multiclass Fighter to pick up Double Slice and other useful martial feats.

Seriously, it's starting to look like Multiclass Fighter is ANYONE'S best option if they want to play a martial style character. Unless they are already playing a Fighter.

This sounds very familiar.... Starfinder RPG? Everyone dip Soldier since he's the only clas sthat can do most martial things. I would have imagined this contributed to Multiclass chnages, but it seems like it's still the same deal.

Problem with MC Fighter as Paladin is the Dedicaiton does practically nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Problem with MC Fighter as Paladin is the Dedicaiton does practically nothing.

The Dedication doesn't really help most of the martial classes. A Monk who MC's Fighter isn't likely to wield most of the weapons or any of the armor that the Dedication opens up to him. A Rogue doesn't really gain much from the Dedication, either, except maybe access to the Main-Gauche, which could be interesting. Barbarian's don't benefit much from the Dedication, either.

The Dedication is a feat tax which opens up great martial options for other classes. Arguably, great enough that it's well worth taking for quite a number of build concepts.

EDIT: Honestly, if the Dedication was more useful (say, granting the Attack of Opportunity class feature instead of Fighter Proficiencies) then I think it would be a no-brainer for pretty much EVERY martial class to MC Fighter.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Not to spam, but one of my players was just trying to build a paladin and we realized the class is.... really really bad. And not just by a little bit.

We were looking at ways to increase damage by way of class features, and you simply can't do anything until level 14. Even then, you have to waste an action and a spell point to do Litany of Righteousness (which lasts 1 round and cannot be done to the same creature again) and another action to activate Blade of Justice, for the sole purpose of making a single attack that gets... 6-11 extra damage. If you have a holy weapon by taking the right feats, and take the other feat that gives you 1 good damage just cuz, then you can spend two actions for your one attack that round to do 1d6+ (7-12) extra damage based on how many weapon dice you already have.

Why would I ever waste two actions to get a damage boost that doesn't even come close to equaling my damage from just making an attack, and why do I have to waste 4 feats just to do it?

Action taxes, feat taxes, all for payoff so small that it's not even worth taking.

This is a serious problem with the design all over this book, my player told me he doesn't think we're going to be able to even play and I got told he doesn't even want to try this game.

This is bad.

Do you think they overestimated the DPR contribution of retributive strike at the table (which is either more reliable than AoO or never triggers, depending on your GM), and might've accidentally locked paladin into reach weapons to make it easier to proc?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
slightlyprime wrote:
Also a benefit of power attack is overcoming high levels of resistance or hardness to deal damage. Better to subtract resistance once than twice.

Double Slice adds damage from both attacks together and applies resistances and whatnot to that total.


Kung-Fu Joe wrote:

While we are on the subject of Double Slice, what are our thoughts in comparing it to Flurry of Blows?

I haven't actually run the numbers yet, but even considering the better action economy of FoB, it seems like Double Slice is just hands-down better. If a character is using all three actions in a round for straight-damage attacking, then two Strikes at full bonus plus one at -8 just seems a whole lot better than one at full, one at -4, and two at -8.

Certainly, one could argue that Monks aren't supposed to be DPS monsters, but one would think that they should be able to hit reliably, even if their individual attacks don't result in quite as much damage.

I think they're expecting low level monks to hit and run, especially Str builds. being able to move in, double attack, and move back out is a pretty good deal, tactically speaking. I'd prefer it to be at no penalty myself, but 0,-4 is better than -2/-2, especially at low levels. At least you have good odds with the first one, and the second one is a freebie that might help you out.


Witch of Miracles wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Not to spam, but one of my players was just trying to build a paladin and we realized the class is.... really really bad. And not just by a little bit.

We were looking at ways to increase damage by way of class features, and you simply can't do anything until level 14. Even then, you have to waste an action and a spell point to do Litany of Righteousness (which lasts 1 round and cannot be done to the same creature again) and another action to activate Blade of Justice, for the sole purpose of making a single attack that gets... 6-11 extra damage. If you have a holy weapon by taking the right feats, and take the other feat that gives you 1 good damage just cuz, then you can spend two actions for your one attack that round to do 1d6+ (7-12) extra damage based on how many weapon dice you already have.

Why would I ever waste two actions to get a damage boost that doesn't even come close to equaling my damage from just making an attack, and why do I have to waste 4 feats just to do it?

Action taxes, feat taxes, all for payoff so small that it's not even worth taking.

This is a serious problem with the design all over this book, my player told me he doesn't think we're going to be able to even play and I got told he doesn't even want to try this game.

This is bad.

Do you think they overestimated the DPR contribution of retributive strike at the table (which is either more reliable than AoO or never triggers, depending on your GM), and might've accidentally locked paladin into reach weapons to make it easier to proc?

I think they definitely locked it into a role that my player doesn't want, and the amount of work that goes into doing anything damage inclined is not worth the investment.

My player was also turned away by the fact that you have to spend a feat to upgrade your Lay on Hands to d6s. It's a feat tax to be still worse than you were in PF1, except you can LoH at level 1... yay.

1 to 50 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Marshmallow's character options review / discussion thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.