Bugleyman's 2E reaction thread (probably *not* what you're expecting)


General Discussion


14 people marked this as a favorite.

So I’ve finally finished my first read-through of the playtest rules (and have NOT yet had a chance to actually playtest, though I hope to soon), and wanted to share my impressions.

I’m honestly quite surprised at the direction the design team has taken. Second edition as it stands now is a BIG step away from simulationism, as evidenced by things like a flat +1/level to most things, abstractions like Bulk, Resonance, and the disconnect between how PCs and NPCs/monsters are built. Granted, there are some places where the design seems to be clinging to simulationism (for example, the main way of increasing melee damage is through magic weapons; I would have expected something like 13th Age, where melee damage scales with level). But, to my eyes at least, the overall direction is clear.

I’m surprised because I believe a similar direction was one of the main things that drove people away from 4E (even if it isn’t always articulated in exactly those terms). Consequently, the 2E transition seems very unlikely to appeal to a substantial chunk of 1E players, and even leave them feeling betrayed (the way they chose to express those feelings is another question entirely, but I digress). Further, this chunk probably includes many of the most devoted fans, who tend to spend the most.

I suspect the design team is too far down the road to radically change direction; otherwise, I might actually suggest they go back to the drawing board and produce a cleaned up, clarified 2E that cleaves much closer to the 1E chassis. Not because that’s the direction that I would personally prefer – it isn’t – but because I’m not sure such a radical shift is the best path for the long-term health of the game. I wonder if they might be abandoning their niche. That is, of course, largely speculation on my part, and I’ll leave it at that.

As to the direction we’re actually getting: The graphic design is a huge step up, the action economy is a vast improvement, and the tactical gameplay seems to be largely intact. Meanwhile, the importance of the character optimization metagame – which I personally loathe – seems to have been greatly reduced.

Again, there are places where I would (and have) suggested tweaks, and I expect to find more when I actually get to playtest. Overall, however, I’m quite pleased. But I definitely appreciate why many people aren’t.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
I suspect the design team is too far down the road to radically change direction; otherwise, I’d actually suggest they go back to the drawing board and focus on a cleaned up, clarified 2E that cleaves much closer to the 1E chassis. Not because that’s the direction that I would personally prefer – it isn’t – but because I’m not sure such a radical shift is the best path for the long-term health of the game. It feels like they might be abandoning their niche. That is, of course, largely speculation on my part, and I’ll leave it at that.

Apparently they're open to completely throwing everything out the window and starting again if the reaction's bad enough, though the general sentiment seems to be a sense of disbelief as far as that statement goes. Still, we will see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
Apparently they're open to completely throwing everything out the window and starting again if the reaction's bad enough, though the general sentiment seems to be a sense of disbelief as far as that statement goes. Still, we will see.

I don't see how that could possibly be viable at this point unless they were to push the release date.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Bugleyman, get a handful of writers in a room and they could knock out a new ruleset in a few months.

You mentioned the simulationism of needing a magic sword to up your damage. I rather dislike that. It's weird to me that a high-level mage can, y'know, cast any spell he has without needing a 'high-level magic staff,' but a high-level fighter isn't that threatening with a mundane dagger.

In this case, I want the game to simulate fantasy fiction. And in fantasy fiction, the heroes never need magic items to be heroic.

(You'd still need to figure out something interesting for magic weapons to do, but adding extra damage dice ain't it.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Apparently they're open to completely throwing everything out the window and starting again if the reaction's bad enough, though the general sentiment seems to be a sense of disbelief as far as that statement goes. Still, we will see.
I don't see how that could possibly be viable at this point unless they were to push the release date.

That's an option. I think Vic Wertz made the post though I can't seem to find it, but if the rewrites are bad enough the release date will be pushed back.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

the thread definatley delivered what the thread title promised, because THAT:

bugleyman wrote:

I suspect the design team is too far down the road to radically change direction; otherwise, I might actually suggest they go back to the drawing board and produce a cleaned up, clarified 2E that cleaves much closer to the 1E chassis. Not because that’s the direction that I would personally prefer – it isn’t – but because I’m not sure such a radical shift is the best path for the long-term health of the game. I wonder if they might be abandoning their niche. That is, of course, largely speculation on my part, and I’ll leave it at that.

is the kind of statement I was attacked for two day ago. If they go down that path of PF2 they risk alienating too many costumers.

Alchemaic wrote:

Apparently they're open to completely throwing everything out the window and starting again if the reaction's bad enough, though the general sentiment seems to be a sense of disbelief as far as that statement goes.[/quote

I can't remember the saying that. I remember them saying they were going for the 'more extreme' options in SOME cases to see if they could get away with it


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
unless they were to push the release date.

Vic said that was a possibility if they needed to rework too much stuff.

Vic Wertz wrote:
If the overwhelming response from playtesters was that we we needed to rethink the entire action economy, we would. And if it turned out we couldn't make our deadlines because of that, we would delay the launch.


Speculation I've seen, that I'm somewhat inclined to believe, is that the player base of PF1e shifted from it's initial release until now, in the sense that early on it was largely 3.x players who didn't want to move on to 4e. While many of those players still play PF, the release of 5e brought many of them back to that system. Meanwhile PF added to its player base people who played 4e or 5e, but left due to problems with that system (or, for some, the discontinuation of it in 4e's case). If this is true, then it would stand to reason that the long term health of the product wouldn't come from appeasing those players who may have already jumped ship for 5e, but to try for broader appeal.

Now, as someone who did move over to 4e briefly, and then just gave up on the system as the faults became harder and harder to ignore, I feel like 2e isn't exactly meeting that goal, if that is in fact their goal. What was promised seemed to include, yes a move away from simulationism, but one which retained the freedom of options of 1e. While it'd be a bit silly to compare the freedom that came post CRB in 1e to the playtest of 2e, it seems that even comparing 1e CRB to playtest, classes seem more pidgeonholed into stereotypes (which oddly enough was probably the biggest fault that drove me from 4e), both in terms of combat (No light armor fighters, fighting styles restricted to certain classes, ect), and in terms of skills and other out of combat things (signature skills being immutable and assigned by class, Totem Anathema and druid order anathema restricting certain flavorful, but atypical, concepts, not to mention the non-mechanical but grossly stereotypical "If you're an [X Class] you likely..." ect sections)


That does make me wonder how viable it would be to either add material, or rework what is available to add more variety to the classes. Although I hope that there are plans to offer new options that add both breadth and depth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:

the thread definatley delivered what the thread title promised, because THAT:

bugleyman wrote:

I suspect the design team is too far down the road to radically change direction; otherwise, I might actually suggest they go back to the drawing board and produce a cleaned up, clarified 2E that cleaves much closer to the 1E chassis. Not because that’s the direction that I would personally prefer – it isn’t – but because I’m not sure such a radical shift is the best path for the long-term health of the game. I wonder if they might be abandoning their niche. That is, of course, largely speculation on my part, and I’ll leave it at that.

is the kind of statement I was attacked for two day ago. If they go down that path of PF2 they risk alienating too many costumers.

I think my message at the time (admittedly a message delivered with increasing frustration) is that for the most part it wasn't the sentiment I disagreed with, but the manner in which it was delivered.

I also still firmly believe that staying with 1E was not an option. A great many of the reactions I've seen have seemed to me like angry variations of "I don't like it because it is different," which is an illogical position to take when change is a foregone conclusion. Human, but illogical.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?

I kind of feel like they could have off-loaded a lot of the potency rune damage into proficiency. In fact, I wouldn't mind if it all came from proficiency and you only had to worry about neat effects on magic weapons and armor.

Either way, if damage increased with static modifiers it would be much easier to have different sources contribute without exploding the number of dice and damage.


Tholomyes wrote:
Speculation I've seen, that I'm somewhat inclined to believe, is that the player base of PF1e shifted from it's initial release until now, in the sense that early on it was largely 3.x players who didn't want to move on to 4e. While many of those players still play PF, the release of 5e brought many of them back to that system. Meanwhile PF added to its player base people who played 4e or 5e, but left due to problems with that system (or, for some, the discontinuation of it in 4e's case). If this is true, then it would stand to reason that the long term health of the product wouldn't come from appeasing those players who may have already jumped ship for 5e, but to try for broader appeal.

Around the time of the 1E beta, I made the argument that sustaining the company on an ever-dwindling 3.5E fanbase was not possible. I still suspect that to be true, which means that Paizo was successful in finding new players.

However, I think you might be conflating "people who came from 3.5E" and "simulationists" to some extent. There is overlap, sure, but I don't think that is the same group. One might also speculate that those who aren't simulationists would have been among those most likely to have been peeled off by 5E before now.

The question remains: How much of the current 1E player base will find 2E appealing? I think it's impossible for us, or even Paizo, to know for sure. And of course there are also people like me, who have largely left PF 1E behind, but might be brought back by 2E.

It's a risk either way, but the only thing worse than making the wrong choice would have been making none. At least they aren't making the mistake of clinging to an ever-shrinking playerbase.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the crux of 2E is that adventurers of the same level aren't terrible or incredibly amazing compared to one another, at least at the basics of each skill.

I'm OK with that since you can justify a lot of things with experience, and minor magic can always help. For example, a Wizard climbing could be helped by him using minor magic. Well, that's how I view it anyway, otherwise I can't see how being level 20 would make you that good at everything that is untrained.

I think the main problem I have with the game is TERMINOLOGY.

One of the main reasons people found it easy to transition from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder was there were relatively few changes to terminology, everything was very familiar.

2E changes the terminology of many terms NEEDLESSLY. For example, why did they need to change Bull Rush and call it Shove?

It makes relearning everything a huge pain and there's no reason at all for this. I'll write more on this later but this is one thing that makes the game unfamiliar to all of the current fans, and there's too much of it.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?

After some discussion, it almost feels like PF2e was designed to make every little operation in the game be more time-consuming and cumbersome for the average gamer.

That way your gutcheck when picking your fantasy tabletop system is "wow, PF2e is way more heavy than 5e".

A little playtesting and it's pretty apparent that the game (as it exists today in the playtest) finds every possible way to be bulkier than its 5e counterpart (which some folks will like and some will not like).

1. Watching players have to roll more dice (and instead of pick the highest, making them add them all up). To me, it seems like folks are getting worse at basic addition each day.

2. Watching players figure out how to use 3 actions per turn (vs an action and bonus action). "Guys, whats the best way for me to use my last action?"

3. Watching players remember if their action took 1 action, 2 action or 3 actions, or a variable number and what that variable number of actions does.

4. Watching some players take 3 move actions and start counting out squares on a tactical map and lose their place and then have to start over and wonder where they started again.

5. Having players who are a bit math handicapped tell you, "uhh, I hit in the low 20s" and then telling them you need an exact number because you now need to determine if they beat the target by more than 10 since the effect will be different (or vice versa) and then waiting so folks who used to give you "low 20s" as a result" now need to always deliver the exact number.

This will certainly be an uphill battle for PF2e. While a better balanced system from PF1e, he switch cost from PF1e to PF2e is substantially higher than from PF1e to 5e, which will mean many groups stick to PF1e or if they opt to switch they switch to the system that's easier to switch to.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Thanks for reasonable first impression, B. Paizo's livelihood depends on getting this right, so I feel pretty confident that they will do what they need to do to find the sweet spot.

Side note, given some of the posts in these forums, perhaps Paizo should alienate some of them. *coughs*


RangerWickett wrote:

Bugleyman, get a handful of writers in a room and they could knock out a new ruleset in a few months.

You mentioned the simulationism of needing a magic sword to up your damage. I rather dislike that. It's weird to me that a high-level mage can, y'know, cast any spell he has without needing a 'high-level magic staff,' but a high-level fighter isn't that threatening with a mundane dagger.

In this case, I want the game to simulate fantasy fiction. And in fantasy fiction, the heroes never need magic items to be heroic.

(You'd still need to figure out something interesting for magic weapons to do, but adding extra damage dice ain't it.)

100% agree, which is why I think weapon damage sticks out as an example of clinging needlessly to (what I meant as) simulation; that is, simulating the "real world." Meanwhile, games that openly try to simulate fiction tend to be called "narrative." See: Dungeon World.

I see why simulationists would resist this change, but it seems to be the direction the industry is moving. I certainly prefer it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?

Gamers. Love. Dice.

As a gamer if they want a +3 or to roll another d6 and I bet they'll choose to roll more often than not. They love to roll, so why not indulge that love? Maybe mathematically it makes more sense to have a static bonus, but I have so many dice, why not use them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?

Gamers. Love. Dice.

As a gamer if they want a +3 or to roll another d6 and I bet they'll choose to roll more often than not. They love to roll, so why not indulge that love? Maybe mathematically it makes more sense to have a static bonus, but I have so many dice, why not use them?

Personally, I also believe that martial characters need a way to scale damage that comes much closer to the way spell-casters do (which right now is multiple dice). I just don't like the way they've chosen to tie it to the weapon in 2E. If feels like an artifact. Just scale it base on character level (and to a lesser extent, class). Besides, is it really that "unrealistic" for a high level fighter to do more damage with a weapon? I honestly don't find that to be much of a stretch...at least not as it pertains to living creatures. Could get a little wonky with objects, but again, only if you are trying to simulate "reality."


Elorebaen wrote:
Paizo's livelihood depends on getting this right, so I feel pretty confident that they will do what they need to do to find the sweet spot.

They certainly have more skin in the game than any of us do (though given this board of late, one might be forgiven for believing otherwise :P).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?

I kind of feel like they could have off-loaded a lot of the potency rune damage into proficiency. In fact, I wouldn't mind if it all came from proficiency and you only had to worry about neat effects on magic weapons and armor.

Either way, if damage increased with static modifiers it would be much easier to have different sources contribute without exploding the number of dice and damage.

I think a part of this push was to try and simplify the math, actually.

For example: I'm playing in a face to face Wrath of the Righteous campaign, and when we take the time to fully buff, the Paladin's damage roll adds the following:

Roll Weapon die (2d6 for large falchion) + Strength (which may be buffed due to Boiling Blood (Half-orc)) + Weapon modifier (+5) + Power Attack + Smite + Divine Favor + Inspire Courage + 2d6 Holy + one or two other modifiers that may have been added on, depending on which buffs were cast. It's a lot to remember, and it sometimes takes him several minutes to add everything up because he has to remember which buffs are active and which aren't. Plus he's a crit fisher, so he tends to crit a lot and has to remember what multiplies and what doesn't. And when he's swinging 4-5 attacks on a full attack (depending on haste), his turns can take a long time.

In PF2E, he won't be adding as many modifiers, and instead will roll more dice. The numbers will be right in front of him, instead of us having to remind him what each one is or look them up. That should help with the math - as will buff spells requiring an action to concentrate on them.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phntm888 wrote:
In PF2E, he won't be adding as many modifiers, and instead will roll more dice. The numbers will be right in front of him, instead of us having to remind him what each one is or look them up. That should help with the math - as will buff spells requiring an action to concentrate on them.

This is probably the best explanation I've ever read for rolling more dice - when the alternative is a person having a half-dozen floating modifiers that they may or may not forget.

This deserves to be a "Designer's Sidebar" in the finished product, if they continue to go with more dice as part of the system.

This is almost boardgame-esque - i.e. a player who normally rolls grey dice, you could image "Bardic Inspire" dice always being red or Smite dice being blue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?

After some discussion, it almost feels like PF2e was designed to make every little operation in the game be more time-consuming and cumbersome for the average gamer.

That way your gutcheck when picking your fantasy tabletop system is "wow, PF2e is way more heavy than 5e".

A little playtesting and it's pretty apparent that the game (as it exists today in the playtest) finds every possible way to be bulkier than its 5e counterpart (which some folks will like and some will not like).

1. Watching players have to roll more dice (and instead of pick the highest, making them add them all up). To me, it seems like folks are getting worse at basic addition each day.

2. Watching players figure out how to use 3 actions per turn (vs an action and bonus action). "Guys, whats the best way for me to use my last action?"

3. Watching players remember if their action took 1 action, 2 action or 3 actions, or a variable number and what that variable number of actions does.

4. Watching some players take 3 move actions and start counting out squares on a tactical map and lose their place and then have to start over and wonder where they started again.

5. Having players who are a bit math handicapped tell you, "uhh, I hit in the low 20s" and then telling them you need an exact number because you now need to determine if they beat the target by more than 10 since the effect will be different (or vice versa) and then waiting so folks who used to give you "low 20s" as a result" now need to always deliver the exact number.

This will certainly be an uphill battle for PF2e. While a better balanced system from PF1e, he switch cost from PF1e to PF2e is substantially higher than from PF1e to 5e, which will mean many groups stick to PF1e or if they opt to switch they switch to the system...

Have you ever played a high level Pathfinder Game where each caster takes 10 minutes each round? I don’t think it will be much more or less cumbersone than that.

But back to your points?
1- Yeah, You can’t go lower that 5e so going for more dice will make E2 stand out for that player that may want to try it. Level 20 barbarian Crit rolls 12d12 Muahahaha!

2- Once you get used to it is more or less the Same, in 5e a level 11 Fighter will attack 3 or 6 times and move attack keep moving and keep attacking is standard in 5e.

3- if you are used to: Player: I used my swift action, my main action and my move action, I’m good. Gm: ok next turn. Player: I’m using an immediate action to cast a spell. And then in his next turn. Player: I’ll use my swift action and then your GM: You used your immediate action so you can’t use your swift this turn, Palyer: I totally forgot that I Used it, Gm: Sure you did.

4- It happens all the time in Pathfinder and 5e, like all the time, for me at least once per session one player at the middle of movement says: where was I, o I forgot how many feet I moved. So nothing new here.

5-Maybe your GM can know your passive bonuses and you just tell them the roll and he will tell you if it crit or not.

People may like it or not, but I don’t find anything in the system that is more or less complicated than 1e pathifinder. Sure you have learn al the new action system, so you have more stuff to learn, and sure some players have known this rules (3.5) for many years.

But like any system after a couple of sessions with a good GM where you tell him what you want to do and he tells you how the system handles it, it's going to be fine.

But well this is a beta test to test, and that’s what I’m going to do.


Alchemaic wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I suspect the design team is too far down the road to radically change direction; otherwise, I’d actually suggest they go back to the drawing board and focus on a cleaned up, clarified 2E that cleaves much closer to the 1E chassis. Not because that’s the direction that I would personally prefer – it isn’t – but because I’m not sure such a radical shift is the best path for the long-term health of the game. It feels like they might be abandoning their niche. That is, of course, largely speculation on my part, and I’ll leave it at that.
Apparently they're open to completely throwing everything out the window and starting again if the reaction's bad enough, though the general sentiment seems to be a sense of disbelief as far as that statement goes. Still, we will see.

I'm pretty sure that if there is an overwhelming negative reaction, they'd stop and change course.

HOWEVER, I don't think such thing (an overwhelming negative reaction) is possible. Sure, plenty of people is angry. Plenty of other people is pleased. There is not an overwhelming majority of unhappy people, by any stretch of imagination, specially among those who have actually played the thing in Conventions and such.

There is a difference between an overwhelming majority being unhappy, and the overwhelming majority of feedback being negative. It is perfectly possible than a minority of people create a majority of posts (be it positive or negative), but I'm confident that Paizo will look at the survey, and the majority of people, way more than they'll look at the majority of the posts here.

And I doubt PF2 will get worse than "split" reviews. Certainly I do not expect overwhelming (read, 75%+) of negative reactions. I know I'm going to give a positive one, so there's that.

Shadow Lodge

ReyVagabond wrote:
Have you ever played a high level Pathfinder Game where each caster takes 10 minutes each round? I don’t think it will be much more or less cumbersone than that.

Oh God, yes, I have.

My wife has regularly left the room to make brownies from scratch in between her turns during high level play.

I've probably GM'd for at least 1000 different players over the decades and PF/3.5 has a problem when folks can grab their phones and do their 'dailies' in many different phone-based games between turns.

I'd love to see all newer era TTRPGs try to make it so the "touches" (to use a basketball analogy) a player gets in combat happen more often than they do today.

I'd want to improve upon 5e even for how frequently action comes back around to "out of turn players" ~ maybe not Hackmaster style, but I'm not sure codifying 3 actions per turn and loading everyone with more dice to roll is the right direction.

This is particularly salient with any new modern game.

If you go back to a 1E/2E game, it's actually way better for holding player engagement in combat since players know their turn is coming around much sooner. The 3E+ era took a step backwards with attacks/actions per turn per player at the same time in history it gave everyone a portable computer in their hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?
Gamers. Love. Dice.

This.

I made a house rule in PF1 to make turns faster, allowing to take average damage for dice rolls (ie: 35 instead of 10d6 fireballs). NOBODY USED IT, EVER, except me, the GM, when I have to control a lot of NPC in a big battle. That's it. All my players would rather roll. I know all my players would roll 10d6 fireballs over a 1d6+32 fireball, even if the average is the same for both. EVERY.SINGLE.TIME.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Personally, I also believe that martial characters need a way to scale damage that comes much closer to the way spell-casters do (which right now is multiple dice). I just don't like the way they've chosen to tie it to the weapon in 2E. If feels like an artifact. Just scale it base on character level (and to a lesser extent, class). Besides, is it really that "unrealistic" for a high level fighter to do more damage with a weapon? I honestly don't find that to be much of a stretch...at least not as it pertains to living creatures. Could get a little wonky with objects, but again, only if you are trying to simulate "reality."

The enormous reliance on a good magic weapon to deal relevant damage in a high level game makes me shudder at the thought of being disarmed, or some other terrible thing happening to your weapon.

I do prefer the scaling damage to arise from skill. I don't like the idea at all that my legendary hero is only a hero because he carries that one sword that's worth more than a castle.


RangerWickett wrote:

Bugleyman, get a handful of writers in a room and they could knock out a new ruleset in a few months.

You mentioned the simulationism of needing a magic sword to up your damage. I rather dislike that. It's weird to me that a high-level mage can, y'know, cast any spell he has without needing a 'high-level magic staff,' but a high-level fighter isn't that threatening with a mundane dagger.

In this case, I want the game to simulate fantasy fiction. And in fantasy fiction, the heroes never need magic items to be heroic.

(You'd still need to figure out something interesting for magic weapons to do, but adding extra damage dice ain't it.)

As someone who plays arcane casters 90% or more of my playtime, I'm actually OK with having to have more powerful magic items to keep my magic strong, as long as it actually does it, and the DM stops doing dickish crap like having imps steal my spellbook while I sleep and lets everyone else keep their gear (luckily most DMs don't do that stuff anymore unless all the PCs lost all their gear). In games where the DM lets me, I inevitably craft magic staffs that do things like Heighten spells by 1 and/or apply metamagic rod effects X times a day as I cast and such.

As it stands right now however, you're kinda getting your wish. Caster spells don't seem to scale unless the caster prepares/upcasts those spells with higher level spell slots.


I must be in the minority then, because I hate rolling lots of dice and prefer rolling fewer dice and having a large flat bonus to even out the variance.

Phntm888 wrote:
Roll Weapon die (2d6 for large falchion) + Strength (which may be buffed due to Boiling Blood (Half-orc)) + Weapon modifier (+5) + Power Attack + Smite + Divine Favor + Inspire Courage + 2d6 Holy + one or two other modifiers that may have been added on, depending on which buffs were cast. It's a lot to remember, and it sometimes takes him several minutes to add everything up because he has to remember which buffs are active and which aren't. Plus he's a crit fisher, so he tends to crit a lot and has to remember what multiplies and what doesn't. And when he's swinging 4-5 attacks on a full attack (depending on haste), his turns can take a long time.

If your player isn't writing out on their character sheet what their usual damage value is then maybe that's what's going wrong.


Since 3.0 I have made Cheat sheets for me and my group when needed for all possible buff variations that the group could reasonably provide regularly.


Forseti wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Personally, I also believe that martial characters need a way to scale damage that comes much closer to the way spell-casters do (which right now is multiple dice). I just don't like the way they've chosen to tie it to the weapon in 2E. If feels like an artifact. Just scale it base on character level (and to a lesser extent, class). Besides, is it really that "unrealistic" for a high level fighter to do more damage with a weapon? I honestly don't find that to be much of a stretch...at least not as it pertains to living creatures. Could get a little wonky with objects, but again, only if you are trying to simulate "reality."

The enormous reliance on a good magic weapon to deal relevant damage in a high level game makes me shudder at the thought of being disarmed, or some other terrible thing happening to your weapon.

I do prefer the scaling damage to arise from skill. I don't like the idea at all that my legendary hero is only a hero because he carries that one sword that's worth more than a castle.

That kind of dependence has always been present since D&Ds origins. In 3.5/PF1 if a GM steals/sunder/dispel your main weapon you are basically screwed, not to mention the nightmarish times in AdD&D. If I remember correctly, in PF2 what makes magic weapons truly powerful are the runes/gems attached to them, and the quality of the weapon/armor in question affects the maximum level of power you can attach.


Bugleyman, you are right; your postt was not what I was expecting. Good for you in saying that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forseti wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Personally, I also believe that martial characters need a way to scale damage that comes much closer to the way spell-casters do (which right now is multiple dice). I just don't like the way they've chosen to tie it to the weapon in 2E. If feels like an artifact. Just scale it base on character level (and to a lesser extent, class). Besides, is it really that "unrealistic" for a high level fighter to do more damage with a weapon? I honestly don't find that to be much of a stretch...at least not as it pertains to living creatures. Could get a little wonky with objects, but again, only if you are trying to simulate "reality."

The enormous reliance on a good magic weapon to deal relevant damage in a high level game makes me shudder at the thought of being disarmed, or some other terrible thing happening to your weapon.

I do prefer the scaling damage to arise from skill. I don't like the idea at all that my legendary hero is only a hero because he carries that one sword that's worth more than a castle.

Me too.

While I think magic weapons should be better, and should matter, (Excalibur et al are part of the genre), I don't think the "+5" part of being magic sould matter that much. I would rather increase the damage with the martial proficiency, for example. Or just level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Automatic Bonus Progression was super nice for solving this issue.


Personally, I'd go for a middle ground between static modifiers and extra dice. Instead of 12d6 I'd like 6d6+21. But I'm not that bothered because it's a high level thing that doesn't ever come up IMC.

Paizo did miss a trick by tying the multiple dice to the weapon quality (normal / expert / master / legendary), when exactly the same quality is attached to the character and scales automatically. Likewise for armour. They'd stated an explicit intention to get rid of the Big Six but elected to keep the Big Two which were easy to eliminate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Automatic Bonus Progression was super nice for solving this issue.

from unchained? i had a rough chart going a similar direction like two weeks before that was released (making it VERY easy to swap over to!) to remove the need for the usual mandatory magical items (belt/headband of [STATS] etc). made for a much smoother game, I must say.

Mudfoot wrote:

Personally, I'd go for a middle ground between static modifiers and extra dice. Instead of 12d6 I'd like 6d6+21. But I'm not that bothered because it's a high level thing that doesn't ever come up IMC.

Paizo did miss a trick by tying the multiple dice to the weapon quality (normal / expert / master / legendary), when exactly the same quality is attached to the character and scales automatically. Likewise for armour. They'd stated an explicit intention to get rid of the Big Six but elected to keep the Big Two which were easy to eliminate.

i agree that swapping bonus dice and armor bonuses (like reducing ACP/movement penalties/etc) over to the character's proficiency would do a lot to help show the character's skill (and prevent becoming harmless if disarmed/taken prisoner!)


WatersLethe wrote:

One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?

I kind of feel like they could have off-loaded a lot of the potency rune damage into proficiency. In fact, I wouldn't mind if it all came from proficiency and you only had to worry about neat effects on magic weapons and armor.

Either way, if damage increased with static modifiers it would be much easier to have different sources contribute without exploding the number of dice and damage.

For d6s at least I'm all set -for a year I was a Shadowrun player and ended up with approx 75 of them (I wanted to try a very silly tactic involving pool amplification for 6 simultaneous pools of 12).


Elleth wrote:
For d6s at least I'm all set -for a year I was a Shadowrun player and ended up with approx 75 of them (I wanted to try a very silly tactic involving pool amplification for 6 simultaneous pools of 12).

You and pretty much every gamer I know. Personally, I'm sure I own at least a hundred six-siders. And it's not like one has to buy a hundred dice sets, either...little boxes containing with several many D6s are readily available at pretty much any gaming store (or online).

Personally, I think needing 10D6 (or whatever) to play your 20ht level fighter is a complete non-issue as far as barriers to entry go. Now having to roll them all the time...


bugleyman wrote:
You and pretty much every gamer I know. Personally, I'm sure I own at least a hundred six-siders.

LOL I have enough dice to choke a t-rex. From microscopic d6's, 1d3's, 1d4's on a 1d8 frame, 1d30's, 1d100, 1d10's on a d20's, ect. Heck I even have a set of memory foam type oversized novelty dice. I think I could fill a 50 gallon drum with them. ;)

It's been ages though since they have seen the light of day as I play online these days.


Confession: I have never played Pathfinder1.

I'm a ridiculously experienced GM, though. I've played at least one D&D game a week (sometimes 3 or more) for thirty years.

I am very curious about PF2 but also dubious. I expect it will be too fussy for me in the end, but we'll have to see. I like 5e, but I don't like the Skill system, or Monster design.

I'm very curious as to how this will go, as it develops.


FitzTheRuke wrote:

Confession: I have never played Pathfinder1.

I'm a ridiculously experienced GM, though. I've played at least one D&D game a week (sometimes 3 or more) for thirty years.

I am very curious about PF2 but also dubious. I expect it will be too fussy for me in the end, but we'll have to see. I like 5e, but I don't like the Skill system, or Monster design.

I'm very curious as to how this will go, as it develops.

sadly, it looks like there will be precisely one phase of development: this playtest till november, and then no CRB updates (though including a later small side book/update for other materials such as additional multiclass options etc that didn't make it into the first book but are in the crb) until the full release, hopefully implementing suggestions and playtest results, and hopefully not overcorrecting/overlimiting/completely breaking (in the bad way) whatever the fixes were, since there wont be a playtest phase for those fixes.

the full release will be the make-or-break for me, since there's so much potential here, but so much in need of removal or fixing, and i can't in good conscience move my players over to it if it's going to take more books and patches (and then more books for patches to those books, and on and on) to actually get things working properly--i already did that for most of a decade with pf1e, i can't do it again.


AndIMustMask wrote:
sadly, it looks like there will be precisely one phase of development ...

Why do people keep pulling these baseless predictions out of... let's just say thin air, to not get too graphic?

It's almost like it's meant to purposely derail/discredit the playtest and to scare potential playtesters/players away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
sadly, it looks like there will be precisely one phase of development ...

Why do people keep pulling these baseless predictions out of... let's just say thin air, to not get too graphic?

It's almost like it's meant to purposely derail/discredit the playtest and to scare potential playtesters/players away.

it was directly stated by jason bulmahn earlier today.

----------

edit: the relevant part being

Quote:
but other content will be created from your responses to the playtest. That material will likely go straight into the final version of the book. If there are problems from there, they will be handled with errata and faqs as normal.

we're fairly obviously not going to get a second round of playtesting whatever fixes they think will work based on the first round of playtesting/suggestions. my worry is (as stated above) that without playtesting those fixes, we may end up with unforseen breakages in rules, or them having over-limiting their fixes, or their fixes not having accomplished their purpose, and would require an additional purchase to actually see fixed (provided that doesn't also underperform/overcorrect/have it's own issues that need another separate purchase and on and on). we had what, eight years of the rogue being unable to sneak attack in the dark while further books buried the issue in their content's need of fixes and errata.

wanting to see it done right the first round is why i'm bearing down so hard on this first playtest, since it might very literally be the only chance to see any meaningful change made.


AndIMustMask wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
sadly, it looks like there will be precisely one phase of development ...

Why do people keep pulling these baseless predictions out of... let's just say thin air, to not get too graphic?

It's almost like it's meant to purposely derail/discredit the playtest and to scare potential playtesters/players away.
it was directly stated by jason bulmahn earlier today.

Did you edit your original post? Because it didn't contain all the extra stuff from Jason's thread and just sounded much more defeatist.

EDIT: put "original post" instead of "previous post" to clarify I meant the post I quoted first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
sadly, it looks like there will be precisely one phase of development ...

Why do people keep pulling these baseless predictions out of... let's just say thin air, to not get too graphic?

It's almost like it's meant to purposely derail/discredit the playtest and to scare potential playtesters/players away.
it was directly stated by jason bulmahn earlier today.
Did you edit your previous post? Because it didn't contain all the extra stuff from Jason's thread and just sounded much more defeatist.

i did just finish editting it (my previous post in this thread), yes. I dont like double-posting unless it gets too long. I'll go back and mark what was added.

as for the defeatist tone, i do feel rather defeated about all this, but i want this to be good. I'm just not confident in where this is all going to go if it's just going to be business as usual from PF1e


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well put, a fair point.

Since proficiency is close to universal, a chance to how that is calculated would be a fairly minor change.

I'm wondering if the (relatively) simple change of proficiency becoming 1/2 level + rank bonus would improve this perception a lot. It might? Basically reduce the steepness of the level power gradient by 50%,

That change would also remove the need to do the funny calculation that has to happen between spell level and character level that triggered the dev comment 'we even considered making 20 levels of spells, not 10'.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RangerWickett wrote:

Bugleyman, get a handful of writers in a room and they could knock out a new ruleset in a few months.

You mentioned the simulationism of needing a magic sword to up your damage. I rather dislike that. It's weird to me that a high-level mage can, y'know, cast any spell he has without needing a 'high-level magic staff,' but a high-level fighter isn't that threatening with a mundane dagger.

In this case, I want the game to simulate fantasy fiction. And in fantasy fiction, the heroes never need magic items to be heroic.

(You'd still need to figure out something interesting for magic weapons to do, but adding extra damage dice ain't it.)

This is a very good point. Even though I’m looking forward to doing tons of damage with a weapon, Rangerwicketts comment really hit home. Damn, I hate it when the right way is less fun. You don’t know how bad I want to crit with a +4 greataxe, 3 times in one round. Even though I realize the results are way to exaggerated, over criting with a normal greataxe.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

WatersLethe wrote:

One thing I'm curious about, is why there was such a big push to get more damage dice rather than boosting static modifiers? Is rolling handfuls of dice for every melee attack really that important?

I kind of feel like they could have off-loaded a lot of the potency rune damage into proficiency. In fact, I wouldn't mind if it all came from proficiency and you only had to worry about neat effects on magic weapons and armor.

Either way, if damage increased with static modifiers it would be much easier to have different sources contribute without exploding the number of dice and damage.

They've taken a lot of d20s out of players hands (a number of playtest GMs literally pre rolled a very largr number of our skill checks) so I suspect they wanted players to get the satisfaction of rollibg large numbers of dice somewhere.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Forseti wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Personally, I also believe that martial characters need a way to scale damage that comes much closer to the way spell-casters do (which right now is multiple dice). I just don't like the way they've chosen to tie it to the weapon in 2E. If feels like an artifact. Just scale it base on character level (and to a lesser extent, class). Besides, is it really that "unrealistic" for a high level fighter to do more damage with a weapon? I honestly don't find that to be much of a stretch...at least not as it pertains to living creatures. Could get a little wonky with objects, but again, only if you are trying to simulate "reality."

The enormous reliance on a good magic weapon to deal relevant damage in a high level game makes me shudder at the thought of being disarmed, or some other terrible thing happening to your weapon.

I do prefer the scaling damage to arise from skill. I don't like the idea at all that my legendary hero is only a hero because he carries that one sword that's worth more than a castle.

Me too.

While I think magic weapons should be better, and should matter, (Excalibur et al are part of the genre), I don't think the "+5" part of being magic sould matter that much. I would rather increase the damage with the martial proficiency, for example. Or just level.

Me too, outside the current playtest, my houserules are (and how the Pit Fiend shakes out, with a few format changes):

+Level is omitted.

Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Quality/magic Item bonus omitted):

Expert +2 to hit/2 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Master +5 to hit/4 x Weapon Damage.
Legendary +8 to hit/6 x Weapon Damage Dice.

Armour Proficiency (potency runes omitted):

Expert +2
Master +5
Legendary +8

Pit Fiend
Devil, Evil, Fiend, Large Lawful

Perception +15; greater darkvision, true seeing
Languages Celestial, Common, Draconic, Infernal, telepathy 100 ft.
Skills +2; Acrobatics +15, Arcana +15, Deception +16, Diplomacy +15, Intimidation +15, Religion +15, Society +15, Stealth +15, Survival +17
Str 28, Dex 26, Con 28, Int 26, Wis 28, Cha 26

AC 24, TAC 21; Fort +13, Ref +11, Will +10, +1 conditional to saves vs. magic
HP 300, fast healing 30; Immunities fire; Resistances physical 15 (except silver), poison 15; Weaknesses good 15

Commander's Aura (aria, divine, enchantment) 100 ft.
Commanded or allied evil creatures of lower level than the pit fiend within the aura gain a +1 circumstance bonus to attack, rolls, damage rolls, AC, saves, and skill checks.

Frightful Presence (aura, divine, emotion, enchantment, fear, mental) 20 feet, DC 18

Attack of Opportunity (1 reaction)
Disruptive In addition to its normal triggers, the pit fiend’s Attack of Opportunity can also be used when a creature within the pit fiend’s reach uses an action with the concentrate trait. Furthermore, the pit fiend doesn’t take the normal –2 penalty when it makes an Attack of Opportunity.

Speed 35 feet, fly 60 feet

Jaws (1 action) +15 (melee, reach 10 feet), Damage 4d8+18 piercing plus pit fiend venom
Claw (1 action) +15 (melee, agile, reach 10 feet), Damage 3d6+18 slashing
Tail (1 action) +15 (melee, reach 10 feet), Damage 3d8+18 bludgeoning plus Improved Grab
Wing (1 action) +15 (melee, reach 15 feet), Damage 3d6+18 slashing
Constrict (1 action) 20 bludgeoning
Wingover (1 action) The pit fiend Flies and makes a wing Strike at any point during its movement.
Improved Grab (free action) A pit fiend can use Improved Grab with its tail Strike

Pit Fiend Venom (poison) Saving Throw Fortitude DC 20;
Maximum Duration 10 rounds; Stage 1 6d6 poison and drained 1 (1 round); Stage 2 7d6 poison and drained 2 (1 round); Stage 3 8d6 poison and drained 3 (1 round).

Divine Innate Spells DC 20; Constant (8th) true seeing; 10th meteor swarm, miracle (once per year), power word stun (×2); 5th dimension door; At Will bind soul, dimension door, dispel magic (8th), divine decree (8th), fireball (8th), scrying, wall of fire (8th)

Rituals infernal pact, shape devils (see sidebar)

Masterful Quickened Casting
Frequency Once per round
Trigger The pit fiend starts to cast an innate spell of 8th level or lower. The spell must require two or more spellcasting actions to cast.
Effect The pit fiend chooses one of the spell’s spellcasting actions. The pit fiend doesn’t need to use that action to finish casting the spell.


just swap the bonus dice to character proficiency rather than weapon bonus level (they even rank up the same!), armor too (since that helps decrease the ACP and speed penalties, iirc). makes the character more competent when not using their usual gear (or using no gear at all!), and lets weapon and armor choice be a customizable tool to approach combat with (such as the weapon traits, enchantments for secondary effects like ghost touch etc), rather than their only lifeline for damage-dealing.

edit: woah, where'd that post go? now this one seems like it's coming outta nowhere.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Bugleyman's 2E reaction thread (probably *not* what you're expecting) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion