| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably should of been on the class section but good points all around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably should of been on the class section but good points all around.May have messed that up cause I an on my phone. Maybe a mod can move it?
Yeah I think that is a thing they are able to do.
I do agree about giving them more skills also I think the skills in general need to be worked on a bit my current thought is that they should all work like catfall where they drastically improve as your proficiency improves.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level 1 Fighters add +6 to their attack. All level 1 casters I built so far added +3 as I always ended up with Dex or Str 14. On the damage side of things the fighter mostly rolled d12 or d10 +4 while my casters either rolled d4 and d6 and added nothing when dex based or rolled d10 or d12 and added +2 when str based. All in all pretty close to each other and I am fine with that.
You have a peculiar definition of "pretty close".
Well If the wizards did the same single target damage without expending a spell slot that would make the fighter pretty superfluous. Its better then the previous d3 for acid splash that didn't scale anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcaster DPR is really, really bad. Even with high level single target blasting spells. Fighters are doing great in combat compared to the spellcasters against everything except a horde of AOE fodder.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is one of the better martial classes in the playtest, if not the best. He has the most different fighting styles and decent options for them.
I think all he needs is more skills, no reason for him to only be at 3. I think he should at least be bumped up by one, if not two starting skills.
I guess he could also use armor upgrades for light and medium (currently only heavy).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Korahir (quotes for long messages don't seem to work for me) in regards to why I say he is one of the better martials and what martials are.
MY definition of Martials are non casters. The Martial/Caster divide. So Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue. The only one I am on the fence with is the Alchemist, but he is currently in a special class called SUCKS (But i am sure he will get fixed, I have faith).
So out of those classes I listed, I would say the Fighter and Rogue are the best off currently in the playtest. I didn't say the fighter was perfect, but he is very good at his role (fighting things in any way you would want to). He should have more skills, (I would go with all martials but the rogue should get more skills) and then he could contribute outside combat.
I think martial class is defined in PF2 by a class that gets str/dex as a key ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.
Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.
Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."
I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.
Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.
Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."
You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.
Minor thematic class features on even levels would help the fighters out of combat versatility while not increasing its combat power. These would match the extra spell slot spell casters get and the extra skill proficiency increase rogues get on even levels.
The every day switchable feat doesn't fit for me thematically. I feel like a they should select a number of feats they can switch between. This would fit the same theme of versatility while not increasing power too much because they only have access to one at once.
Example: At level 9 choose three feats. You may use an action to treat yourself as having one of these feats. When you use this action you lose access to previously selected feats. These feats can't be used as prerequisites.
At level 13 choose three more feats. When you use that action you may treat you self as having one of the feats selected at 9th level and one of the feats selected at 13th level, or as having two of the feats selected at 9th level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.
Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.
Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."
I just like the image of two Samurai facing off against each other and subtly adjusting their stance to take advantage of perceived openings and defend against imagined counter attacks.
It's so fightery to be able to say "Hey, that guy looks like he's better at dodging than he lets on. It's clear as day." Pros have an eye for that kind of thing!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3) All characters of equal levels should equally good at combat
I would disagree with this axiom. I would instead suggest the following:
3) All characters of equal level should be capable of making substantial contributions in a combat encounter.
Some characters can be better than others in combat, what matters is that it is reasonably well bounded such that they aren't so much better as to render their other party members irrelevant. It's perfectly okay for different characters to have different places to shine. The prevalence of combat in the game system does mean that we should expect a minimum level of competency from all character classes in that regard, but equality isn't necessary.
3) All characters of equal levels should equally good at combatI would disagree with this axiom. I would instead suggest the following:
3) All characters of equal level should be capable of making substantial contributions in a combat encounter.
Some characters can be better than others in combat, what matters is that it is reasonably well bounded such that they aren't so much better as to render their other party members irrelevant. It's perfectly okay for different characters to have different places to shine. The prevalence of combat in the game system does mean that we should expect a minimum level of competency from all character classes in that regard, but equality isn't necessary.
If people are similar enough that the fighter does not feel special, then in what sense is he specialized? But by the same token, if the fighter feels special at combat, then he is special at "the whole game" which is silly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If people are similar enough that the fighter does not feel special, then in what sense is he specialized? But by the same token, if the fighter feels special at combat, then he is special at "the whole game" which is silly.3) All characters of equal levels should equally good at combatI would disagree with this axiom. I would instead suggest the following:
3) All characters of equal level should be capable of making substantial contributions in a combat encounter.
Some characters can be better than others in combat, what matters is that it is reasonably well bounded such that they aren't so much better as to render their other party members irrelevant. It's perfectly okay for different characters to have different places to shine. The prevalence of combat in the game system does mean that we should expect a minimum level of competency from all character classes in that regard, but equality isn't necessary.
The Fighter is already this in PF1 sort of. He still suffers a lot for not being able to contribute in most scenarios. Combat is prevalent, but far from the only thing.
You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.
Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.
Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."
what is using a knowledge skill to "pokedex" a monster you encounter (learning it's abilities, weaknesses, and lore), then?
even dragon's dogma has that (wolves hunt in packs! ogres are weak to fire, milord!), it's staggeringly easy to roleplay being given information and sharing that with the party. a fighter being able to probe their enemy's defenses at a glance sounds like a wonderfully thematic ability.
You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.
Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.
Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."
what is using a knowledge skill to "pokedex" a monster you encounter (learning it's abilities, weaknesses, and lore), then?
even dragon's dogma has that (wolves hunt in packs! ogres are weak to fire, milord!), it's staggeringly easy to roleplay being given information and sharing that with the party. a fighter being able to probe their enemy's defenses at a glance sounds like a wonderfully thematic ability.
I'm saying that knowing terms like "AC" by a PC is not the same as a Player. IF your character knows this, it doesn't work.
People are complaining that REsonance feels "gamey" imagine know the AC of an enemy?Hey guys, my senses tell me that this boss has high AC in the 40, we should run. What is AC for the others?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.
Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.
Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."
what is using a knowledge skill to "pokedex" a monster you encounter (learning it's abilities, weaknesses, and lore), then?
even dragon's dogma has that (wolves hunt in packs! ogres are weak to fire, milord!), it's staggeringly easy to roleplay being given information and sharing that with the party. a fighter being able to probe their enemy's defenses at a glance sounds like a wonderfully thematic ability.
I'm saying that knowing terms like "AC" by a PC is not the same as a Player. IF your character knows this, it doesn't work.
People are complaining that REsonance feels "gamey" imagine know the AC of an enemy?Hey guys, my senses tell me that this boss has high AC in the 40, we should run. What is AC for the others?
wait wait wait wait.
you can ALREADY identify the abilities and DCs of an enemy monster. how does that differ at all between knowing they have an AC of 30 over having a DC15 fortitude paralyzing stinger and being weak to acid damage?the end result is:
player: alright, i try to identify the enemy's defenses.
DM: roll it.
player: *dice rolling, looks to nodding DM who notes it's a success*
DM: the warrior's defense is as hard as iron. he's got an armor class of 40.
*whistles and "uh oh's" around the table*
player: *pauses, then in-character to the other players* "His defense... it has no openings! We may want to reconsider our approach, or work together to force an opening."
literally the same as someone knowledge-ing the monster, and both can and has been handled just fine for RP just fine since 3.5e. I have no idea why you feel there's a distinction, or that it will somehow be worse (especially compared to resonance)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was tinkering around with the math a little bit, and I think proficiency really should scale to +4, as it makes interacting with the game a lot easier. If AC and DC are generally calculated off the base, then proficiency can and should be about improving odds of criticals by about the same margin you want them to happen. Right now, the game is built seemingly around things scaling not off 0, but off the most optimized builds, so fighters are the kings of damage because they get the best attack bonus in the game.
I'd be fine with this, if it wasn't detrimental to the rest of the classes existing. I'd want something more along the lines of all full martial classes getting up to +4, mediums to +3 (literally 3/4 BAB), and poor getting +2 (literally half BAB). If we scale AC and DC off proficeincy = 0, then your crit chance goes up to around 20% on builds that only start with 16 in their primary stat, and 25% in builds that start at 18. That's 25% in the best possible scenario. Trading actions to improve the crit range is more important than improving damage, so I expect a lot of fighters to build optimally just so the game plays right.
Feint is really important, and I suspect we'll see it a lot when people realize how important that +2 to hit really is. I think fighters should retain Deception as a signature skill, and both the fighter and rogue should be getting feats to improve it. That or give more classes the ability to improve their to hit, ideally by taxing actions, the trade off being a tax on potential damage for improved favor to crit.
I think Power Attack and a Duelist's Strike feat could come out of the play test pretty easily based on this philosophy of trading actions for either increased crits or guaranteed damage. If you read through a bunch of posts, you'll know how I feel about Power Attack, but i think it could work wonders if it was a duelist's attack, and included a bonus to hit with it.
Duelist's Strike would improve crit chance, but offer a lower damage dispersal than making multiple attacks, make it require a one-handed weapon and improve its damage by a few steps as you level.
Power Attack should not improve crit chance, but automatically double, and risk a triple on a critical hit. It makes the action cost and the forcing of it being a primary attack worth it.
I also think weapons should scale down in dice size, or scale all the lower damage weapons up by one step. d4 weapons are not very good.
I was tinkering around with the math a little bit, and I think proficiency really should scale to +4, as it makes interacting with the game a lot easier. If AC and DC are generally calculated off the base, then proficiency can and should be about improving odds of criticals by about the same margin you want them to happen. Right now, the game is built seemingly around things scaling not off 0, but off the most optimized builds, so fighters are the kings of damage because they get the best attack bonus in the game.
I'd be fine with this, if it wasn't detrimental to the rest of the classes existing. I'd want something more along the lines of all full martial classes getting up to +4, mediums to +3 (literally 3/4 BAB), and poor getting +2 (literally half BAB). If we scale AC and DC off proficeincy = 0, then your crit chance goes up to around 20% on builds that only start with 16 in their primary stat, and 25% in builds that start at 18. That's 25% in the best possible scenario. Trading actions to improve the crit range is more important than improving damage, so I expect a lot of fighters to build optimally just so the game plays right.
Feint is really important, and I suspect we'll see it a lot when people realize how important that +2 to hit really is. I think fighters should retain Deception as a signature skill, and both the fighter and rogue should be getting feats to improve it. That or give more classes the ability to improve their to hit, ideally by taxing actions, the trade off being a tax on potential damage for improved favor to crit.
I think Power Attack and a Duelist's Strike feat could come out of the play test pretty easily based on this philosophy of trading actions for either increased crits or guaranteed damage. If you read through a bunch of posts, you'll know how I feel about Power Attack, but i think it could work wonders if it was a duelist's attack, and included a bonus to hit with it.
Duelist's Strike would improve crit chance, but offer a lower damage dispersal than making...
What do you mean with Proficiency +4? I agree with your conclusion that the baseline of the game seems to be optimization so it hurts a lot of characters and martial PCs do need bigger numbers and the others need abilities to help them get those numbers when needed. The game seems realy tightly bound (within same level) to ensure the best chars only get like up to 60% success rate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I was tinkering around with the math a little bit, and I think proficiency really should scale to +4, as it makes interacting with the game a lot easier. If AC and DC are generally calculated off the base, then proficiency can and should be about improving odds of criticals by about the same margin you want them to happen. Right now, the game is built seemingly around things scaling not off 0, but off the most optimized builds, so fighters are the kings of damage because they get the best attack bonus in the game.
I'd be fine with this, if it wasn't detrimental to the rest of the classes existing. I'd want something more along the lines of all full martial classes getting up to +4, mediums to +3 (literally 3/4 BAB), and poor getting +2 (literally half BAB). If we scale AC and DC off proficeincy = 0, then your crit chance goes up to around 20% on builds that only start with 16 in their primary stat, and 25% in builds that start at 18. That's 25% in the best possible scenario. Trading actions to improve the crit range is more important than improving damage, so I expect a lot of fighters to build optimally just so the game plays right.
Feint is really important, and I suspect we'll see it a lot when people realize how important that +2 to hit really is. I think fighters should retain Deception as a signature skill, and both the fighter and rogue should be getting feats to improve it. That or give more classes the ability to improve their to hit, ideally by taxing actions, the trade off being a tax on potential damage for improved favor to crit.
I think Power Attack and a Duelist's Strike feat could come out of the play test pretty easily based on this philosophy of trading actions for either increased crits or guaranteed damage. If you read through a bunch of posts, you'll know how I feel about Power Attack, but i think it could work wonders if it was a duelist's attack, and included a bonus to hit with it.
Duelist's Strike would improve crit chance, but offer a
I mean if the values of proficiency scaled up to +4 instead of +3. This would expand the range of the math by 5% and wouldn't really affect much if they included a Novice or something at the lower end.
To make fighters better than everyone else, give them a feat, Weapon Focus, it gives +1/+1 with a specific weapon group, and it's the best feat in the game if you want to play for optimizaion, but whlly unnecessary if you don't.
If proficiency scales to +4, it can also spread out a lot better over the course of different character progressions so it feels more like you're getting better. Classes only ever scale up to +2 unless you're a fighter, and that really doesn't bode well for anyone other than a fighter wanting to claim they're a reliable martial character.
Critical specializations should not be gated by feats or classes, but rather the game should encourage martially inclined builds with tactical choices to crit, rather than forcing a perfect build. It makes switch hitting (and archery in general) unreliable.
I like the new crit system as it is, but I think the way players engage it needs to be expanded.
So by creating a new tnak above legendary or shoving a new one in the middle, right? It would definitely be nice for non-Fighters to be able to get an additional +1 on weapons even if the Fighter also gets it and keeps the lead. Also would make the proficiency tier increases better spread out since some chars get just EXPERT at super high levels for some reason. Some skills could indeed use a +1 along the way, as well (Stealth).
Of course, I wouldn't want monster stats to increase after X level in response to this for it would just maintain the current issues.
So by creating a new tnak above legendary or shoving a new one in the middle, right? It would definitely be nice for non-Fighters to be able to get an additional +1 on weapons even if the Fighter also gets it and keeps the lead. Also would make the proficiency tier increases better spread out since some chars get just EXPERT at super high levels for some reason. Some skills could indeed use a +1 along the way, as well (Stealth).
Of course, I wouldn't want monster stats to increase after X level in response to this for it would just maintain the current issues.
Monster stats seem fine if PCs generally increase by 1.
If it tied to class progression and just gave people different bases I would be happy. I think +2 is too low a difference maker in execution, now that I've seen it in action. Rolling an 18 and not landing a crit when a fighter would have seems intentional, but I would want it to matter a little less if I'm fully optimized for it. Otherwise builds become pretty stale.
You can't mix game definitions with ingame roleplaying. It's impossible.I think Fighters would be served well by expanding on their out of combat potential.
Giving them more skills will go a long way, but I'd like it if they had abilities unique to themselves.
Things like the ability to determine any creature's AC with a glance. Or to know what reactions a creature has access to. It fits the Fighter's theme of being a perceptive combat expert, and provides valuable out of combat info. "Woah, did you notice that guy is really light on his feat? I don't know if I could land a hit on him. Who is he?" or "I get the feeling we wouldn't want to try to run past that guard, he looks like the type with combat reflexes and he'll take a swing at us."
what is using a knowledge skill to "pokedex" a monster you encounter (learning it's abilities, weaknesses, and lore), then?
even dragon's dogma has that (wolves hunt in packs! ogres are weak to fire, milord!), it's staggeringly easy to roleplay being given information and sharing that with the party. a fighter being able to probe their enemy's defenses at a glance sounds like a wonderfully thematic ability.
I'm saying that knowing terms like "AC" by a PC is not the same as a Player. IF your character knows this, it doesn't work.
People are complaining that REsonance feels "gamey" imagine know the AC of an enemy?Hey guys, my senses tell me that this boss has high AC in the 40, we should run. What is AC for the others?
wait wait wait wait.
you can ALREADY identify the abilities and DCs of an enemy monster. how does that differ at all between knowing they have an AC of 30 over having a DC15 fortitude paralyzing stinger and being weak to acid damage?the end result is:
player: alright, i try to identify the enemy's defenses.
DM: roll it.
player: *dice rolling, looks to nodding DM who notes it's a success*
DM: the warrior's defense is as...
Never had a DM tell me "The DC to is X". Abilities are an ability, like "spiting acid". It's not the same saying "his armor is very though" than saying "his AC is 50"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just like the image of two Samurai facing off against each other and subtly adjusting their stance to take advantage of perceived openings and defend against imagined counter attacks.It's so fightery to be able to say "Hey, that guy looks like he's better at dodging than he lets on. It's clear as day." Pros have an eye for that kind of thing!
When you said this, it took me back to the character Elliott Spencer from Leverage:
Parker: You ID'd the weapon from the gunshot sound?
Eliot: It has a very distinctive sound.
[Later]:
Eliot: The tall one? The way he used a knife? Ex Marine. Probably Force Recon.
Hardison: You ID'd a guy off his knife fighting style?
Eliot: It's a very distinctive style.