An alternate take on PF2- Trying to fix the 'feel' of the game


General Discussion


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so having had a couple weeks to mull it over and get some perspective, I think I can finally articulate what my main problem with PF2 is. It's not the mechanics, it's the flavor. I'm sure that PF2 is a perfectly serviceable, mechanically sound game (or at the very least, will be by the end of the playtest) so, instead of trying to overhaul the way numbers work (though I do think it should be 1/2 level for proficiency, that's neither here nor there) I'm going to try and take a stab at keeping the game as close to how it currently is numbers-wise (though perhaps just a bit stronger in a couple areas. It's okay for someone to be actually good at something, Paizo.) while overhauling the 'feel' of everything. That way, a lot more people can be happy. Through all of this, I'm going to try and keep all of the apparent design goals intact, perhaps even better off than before. I'm not going to remove an aspect simply because I don't like it, I'm going to try and head in the same direction that Paizo seems to be heading with PF2, whether I like it or not.

However, this is also a lot of different points, so I'm going to break it down into different subsections, each focusing on their own aspect. The common theme throughout all of this is to try and get rid of as many redundant parts as possible, streamline it, make things feel less arbitrary, and make everything feel rewarding from a mechanical standpoint, while also keeping all numbers as close as possible to how they are now. So, without further ado:

Part 1: Make Abilities Great Again (Ability Scores):

Okay, first things first: Ability Scores (as much as I love them and wish they would never leave) need to die in PF2. Make the modifier the only thing that actually applies to anything, and instead of bonuses adding +2 to your ability score, they are simply +1 to your ability modifier. So far as I can tell, nothing actually keys off of an odd-score number, and you'll only really ever have an odd number in your primary stat, after it's +4. Speaking of which…

+4 is a weird cap.
Here's a quick suggestion to appease the powergamers: make your design walls invisible. You don't need to say "you can never start with a score greater than 18 when creating your character" because that's redundant. It's already impossible to have an ability modifier higher than +4 with the current setup of generating ability scores. Saying it just makes the powergamers annoyed and feeling like they're being intentionally stonewalled out of their preferred playstyle. I'll go more into that later on, as well.
However, you may be wondering, "how are the +1 to ability scores on level-up supposed to work if there are no more ability scores?" Well, to that I say "they don't."
Why is there the cap exactly? Sure, it's to reward diversifying your level-up ability points, but with the way it's all set up now, you're already incentivized to spread out your ability points. No stat is entirely useless (though INT is close, but that's irrelevant here) and by boosting 4 different stats every time, you can't pile up a ton of bonuses onto one score anyway. Yes, I know I said that I would try to keep the numbers as close to how they are now as possible, but really, think about how big of a difference this actually is. Over the course of 20 levels, at the end of it all, there will be a +2 difference between the previous setup and this one. +2. When you're already getting +20 from your level. Yes, that is an extra 10% chance to hit, and an extra 10% chance to crit, but this is your defining attribute, the one thing that you, a level 20 being, that can move mountains, cause earthquakes, and smack divine heralds around with one hand tied behind your back, this is the ability you have trained and worked on your entire career to make it your best attribute. An extra +2 almost feels kind of small then.

But, of course, it's spread out through your levels. At level 1-4, your scores would be the same as they are without this system. At level 5-14, you have an extra +1, which, while not insignificant, is also hardly drastic. It's only at level 15+ that the full +2 over where you would 'normally' be actually comes into play, and by then, people are getting to be Legendary in skills and other craziness. Overall, it's a small buff, but one that comes with a ton of streamlining, gets rid of the 'arbitrary 18' cap that's currently there, and if you want to keep rolling for stats a thing, simply roll 1d6-2 for a similar distribution to your standard roll 3d6 for a stat. But ability scores are only the tip of the iceberg.

Part 2: Legend of the Sword (Proficiency):

Okay, so Proficiencies. At the moment, a +1/+2/+3, while better with the current system than P1e, still doesn't quite feel like it lives up to the 'so high that you’ll go down in history' promise of the rulebook. Yes, I know that Skill Proficiencies unlock additional options, but that doesn't account for the fact that Legendary doesn't feel all that great on it's own. So, let's bundle them automatically with additional bonuses, stolen from similar areas. Just have all of these written in the section on Proficiency, and never worry about them again:

Saving Throws:
Expert: It's actually fine as it is, especially as a starting rank.
Master: Just include the 'treat any success you have with this saving throw as a critical success' as part of the Master proficiency rank. Most classes (except for the poor Monk, so far as I can tell) get them at the same time anyway. If you package them together, you can save space and make it seem like your Master rank in a save actually makes you a master.
Legendary: Have it so, when you're Legendary in a saving throw, you treat a Crit Fail as a regular Fail, and a Fail as a success. It's pretty similar to how Improved Evasion works now, but by making it an inbuilt part of Legendary Proficiency, it really feels like you're living up to the 'going down in history' line given.

Weapon:
For this, I'm going to kill two birds with one stone: Magic Weapons are even more required than in P1e, and it would be much nicer if they weren't. So, instead of your sword's +X bonus determining how many dice you roll, make it based on Proficiency. It gives the Fighter something unique and cool (rolling multiple dice from level 1), and while the Fighter will certainly be dealing much more damage than intended with the current Potency runes early on, it's one class whose progression could be moved around slightly to make it fit the curve better. Of course, even still, if each level of proficiency granted an extra +1 to the dice pool, it would cap off way too early, unless you set Legendary to give +2 dice, providing quite the jump at once, but still making the progression go 1dx-2dx-3dx-5dx, only slightly ahead of when each bump would come with the current Potency system. Admittedly, doing this would require giving other classes the ability to increase their Weapon Proficiency, which does step on the fighter's toes a little, but it could be made up for by giving them to the Fighter earlier than other classes gain them (perhaps Legendary Proficiency for a single weapon/group being a Capstone or level 19 ability), or giving them the damage boost other ways.

Armor:
I can't quite think of something that might fit Armor as an automatic Proficiency bonus, though one possibility I did think of is to increase your critical hit/decrease your critical miss threshold by your bonus (that is, an Expert in armor would need, for example, a 20 to hit, but would need a 31 to crit, and the attack would be a crit fail for 11 or lower. Legendary would be base 20, but takes a 33 to crit, and less than 13 to crit fail). It would be something interesting, for sure, but I'm not entirely sure how well it would work.

Skills:
Skills, at the moment, have too much randomness IMO. Letting them reduce randomness inherently wouldn't be bad. Including Assurance as automatically instead of as a feat for all skills (perhaps an automatic 5 for Untrained skills) would be a nice bonus, but another possibility would be:
Expert: Natural 1s are not an automatic failure, but count as though you rolled a -2 on the dice
Master: Natural 1s are not an automatic failure, but simply count as though you rolled a 1
Legendary: If you roll less than 5 (or 10?), treat the roll as though you had rolled a 5 (or 10)
This just allows for characters whose skills are supposed to be beyond belief to not absolutely fumble and crash through the window 1 in 20 times. It doesn't add anything, but it does make failure less likely on your best skills, which is always nice.

Spells:
For this, I believe we will have to segway to the next section planned, but essentially, I think those that are at least Trained in spellcasting should add their Proficiency modifier (or perhaps twice it?) to their Mana pool. Now, what's Mana you may ask? Well, as it happens...

Part 3: Mana and Magic Wands (Resonance/Spell Points):

So, my understanding of what Resonance is supposed to achieve is threefold: it is supposed to reduce CLW wand spam, it's supposed to make Charisma important, and it's to keep a million 1/day uses from different items simply being switched between with no penalty beyond the cost to buy a dozen Quick Runner's Shirts (for example). The problem is that it goes a bit overboard and feels icky from a story perspective. So, how can we fix Resonance while keeping its design goals intact?

Well, let's introduce a different pool, called Mana. Mana is the inherent magical ability that all creatures have. It's used to make magical items, use magical abilities, and is the power that allows creatures to cast spells (though that's not part of the Mana pool). Mana would replace both Resonance and Spell Points, to reduce things to track.

So, all creatures have a Mana pool of 3+their CHA modifier (the exact number isn't key to the idea, it's just an example) This doesn't increase with level, and is simply the amount of magical energy a creature has to work with. Spellcasters (and pseudocasters, like the Paladin- anyone who gets a Spell Pool now, but also Alchemists, because come on) also add their casting modifier to this amount, including double-dipping CHA for sorcerers and the like. This represents their additional studies providing additional insight into manipulating magic, their god providing extra power, or simply a complete and utter domination of magical energy through sheer personality. From this pool, both magical items and Spell Powers are used. Now, this may seem to be a strictly worse version of Resonance, with a boost to spellcasters while Martials are left out to dry. However, there is a new golden rule in play:

Anything that takes Mana to use, adds Mana to the pool.

So, if you get a new class ability that takes 3 Mana to use, it adds (at least) 3 Mana to the pool. That way, everything can be treated as its own individual 1/day power, or you can steal some points from one place and use them another if you really need them. This also applies to magical items as well, which now have two new values: Capacity and Cost. Capacity is the amount of Mana an item comes with, and it refreshes every morning when your own Mana pool does as well. Cost is the amount of Mana an item takes to use. However, when an item has a constant effect as well as an activated one, the constant effect is Invested, which takes an Action to do, same as now. The difference is, you can also use an Action to de-Invest your Mana from the object and use it elsewhere. So, perhaps your Cloak of Elvenkind has a Capacity of 3, has an invisibiliy active effect with Cost 2, an Invested Stealth bonus with a Cost of 1, and you're down to your last point of Mana, but you really need to turn invisible. So, you take an Action to de-Invest your Mana from the Stealth bonus and use it, in addition to your last free Mana point, to activate the cloak's invisibility as another Action.

Now, to prevent characters from simply buying a hundred 1 Capacity items and using them to power 8 Cost abilities (or whatever), simply place a cap on the number of (let's call them Attuned) items that one can have at a time (perhaps equal to 1/2 level+ CHA modifier?), and any spent points are applied to however large your Mana pool is at the time. If you remove an item that gives you a Capacity of 2, after having used those Mana points, then Attune an item with Capacity of 3, the item only gives you 1 more Mana that you can spend.

So, if that all sounds way too complicated, here's how it works: For worn items, once an item is Attuned, you can do two things (depending on the item): either Invest a Mana point (temporarily) to gain its passive effect or Spend a Mana (permanently) to use its active power. If you de-Attune the item later, you get back any points you've Invested, but not those you're Spent (which only come back with rest).

Now, all this may seem great, but doesn't cover any items other than Worn items. This is what gives us a great way to make different item types feel unique, and would work as follows:

Scrolls/potions: Do not require Mana to use, but have a different limit that prevents a bunch from all being used at once (perhaps no more than *CHA modifier* per 10 minutes or something, that stops endless spamming, but also doesn't cut into daily magic item use). No Cost, no Capacity, no Attunement

Wands: Require 1 Mana/spell level to use, and can be used at-will provided you have the Mana for it (functionally acting as a 'spell in a can' that anyone can use). No Cost, no Capacity, no Attunement.

Staves: Requires a variable amount of Mana to use, but doesn't provide any Mana to the pool, rather functioning as a battery for the storage and later use of Mana (put in 1 Mana and it keeps it indefinitely- essentially allowing you to pre-use Mana for a later day), and count towards your Attunement limit

Worn Items: as above

Rods: Count as Worn Items for Attunement, Cost, and Capacity

Weapons/Armor: Can be used for their passive abilities without Attunement, but for activated abilities, they do require Attunement.

What this system allows for, is for characters to have a number of magical items, all of which work perfectly fine on their own, and even can have a couple of limited-use abilities, same as for P1e. However, if push comes to shove, and you *really* need that extra fireball from your wand, you can, as a last resort, pull magic from your sword to power it, leaving your sword drained of magical energy but still being able to cast that last spell. The important distinction between this and Resonance, though, is that you never have to choose between having the passive abilities of your items and using their activated abilities. Rather, all items come with enough magical power to do *both*, and the option to lose passive bonuses to use an active power. Also, it keeps Casters and Martials distinct and with their own spin on magic- casters have to balance the magic they have on them with their own abilities, while still having more subtle options with what to do with their magic items, and Martials can load up on trinkets without worrying about how it impacts their class abilities. Actually, while we're talking about martials and casters....

Part 4: Swords and Sorcerery (Caster/Martial Disparity):

This section is quite a bit shorter than my others, since it's far too broad a subject for me to get into the details, ironically. Basically, it's the difference between Casters and Martials.

Martials should function at 100% capacity all day, perhaps with some options to push them up to 125% capacity a couple times per day.

Casters would ideally function at 50% the capacity of the Martial all day, 75% most of the day, 100% a few times per day, and 125%/150% once or twice per day.

Basically, Casters only have 1-3 of their highest-level spell for use each day. Please don't make that equivalent to what the martial is doing at 100%. Make the few high-level spells you have equal to 125%-150% of what the Martial can put out, then mid-level spells at 100% of the Martial, with low-level spells and Spell Powers equivalent to 75% of the Martial, and Cantrips at 50%. However, when considering this, keep in mind the opportunity cost. It usually takes 2 Actions to cast a spell, meaning a Cantrip should be comparable to a single swing of a sword, a Spell Power equal to 3/2 of a sword swing, a mid-level spell equivalent to 2 swings of the sword, and a high-level spell equivalent to 3-4 swings of a sword. With utility spells largely nerfed to the point of extreme nichehood, it would be nice for a dedicated blaster to keep pace with a fighter. Heck, buff utility too, at least to the point of usability. Why can't my mid-level wizard be flying everywhere he goes? Make the spells Uncommon if you must, but at least present RAW rules to accomplish most of what could be done in P1e. The Rarity system is a goldmine for you. Use it. It's okay if a spell is more powerful than the "baseline" if it requires GM approval. But that's straying a bit far from the point I'm trying to make with this whole mess, so onwards!

Part 5: Invisible Walls and Munchkins (General Feel):

Okay, just to get it out of the way, I love optimizing. It's why I enjoy the game so much, to make the most powerful character I can. That said, none of this is to cater to me and people like me for any reason other than making it feel better. Not more flexible so that we can make OP characters, just making it feel like the game isn't slapping us every time we try to play it the way we like.

I touched on this a little earlier, but the first step here is to simply not write "At 1st level, a character can never have any ability score that’s higher than 18." That 'never' feels like a slap in the face, and is redundant besides. There's no way to apply more than 4 boosts to a single ability score, so it really doesn't matter. By simply omitting that one line, you can make people like me happy. It doesn't matter that nothing mechanically changes, by not using an absolute, it still gives optimizers the thrill of thinking 'maybe there's a chance.' The fact that there isn't is irrelevant. We love the hunt, even if it turns up with nothing to show for it.

The main thing to think about for people like us is to, whenever possible, remove a hard cap, and instead replace it with a soft cap that has more or less the same value. Let's use Controlling Undead as an example here. The playtest text reads, "You can’t have more than four undead minions at a time." So, how about, instead of simply having a hard cap of 4, instead replace it with a soft cap of about the same range. A couple of possibilities would be to either have it be equal to 1 (or 2)+ your Spellcasting Proficiency bonus. That way, at the end of the game, there's still only 4-5 undead being controlled by a single character, but there's a natural scaling progression and a distinct feeling of improvement. Alternatively, simply put "You can’t have more undead minions than your Charisma bonus at a time." That way, since Charisma would be a secondary stat for most necromancers (except for Sorcerers and Bards, plus Oracles later I suppose), it will be less than 4 at level 1. At level 5, it might hit 4, and will never exceed 7 at most, for classes whose primary ability is Charisma, and at level 20. For almost all of the time, the number of controlled undead still stays comfortably in the range of 4, preventing too much action economy abuse. Of course, with my previously proposed Ability overhaul, that number could be bumped up as high as 9 controlled undead, but that would only be for those characters built around charisma, with items and every possible boost going into it, and is nowhere near as bad as P1e, with still a very good cap on the number.

Basically, the fewer times the word 'never' shows up, the happier we are. It's sort of like WoW's Rested Experience. Back when it was the Unrested penalty, it was universally hated. All that it took to completely change everyone's option was to rename it. That's all it'll take here, too.

...Phew. That was a lot. Anyway, that's just my opinion. Remember, my goal is to keep the math basically as close as possible to how it currently exists, while making your character actually feel distinct and powerful in their own right, at least moreso than they currently do. So what do you all think of this take on the system? Do you like it, do you hate it, do you think a couple things should be different?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I can agree with you on points one, two, and five. Although I can't really agree with changing resonance to anything else. It should just be gotten rid of because of a few reasons. First, it over complicates the game. Second, there are already things in place to prevent magic item spam, such as items being much more pricey, the action economy making it disadvantageous to switch between magic items on the fly, and item slots still existing. I don't have enough play experience on point four to give a solid opinion of it yet though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, I sort of agree with you on Resonance- I’m not a fan of it (it’s a bit of a common theme), but if the devs want something like it, I figure that trying to streamline it and make it into having interesting (but essentially optional) choices, plus with an interesting flavor, is the best outcome we can really hope for. Remember, all of these are under the assumption that the base mechanics don’t change much if at all, and are trying to disrupt it as little as possible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to point out that there are non-power gamer reasons to want a unusually high stat.

Personally, I like the idea of playing a "big dumb strong guy" or the "frail wizard". Heck, I have a swashbuckler in PF1 that has a 6 in CON, and starts with a 20 in DEX - a martial glass cannon.

The problem in PF1 was that you could reliably dump certain stats to no real detriment in order to boost other stats that were MUCH more beneficial.

ALL attributes should be important for ALL characters. This way, playing the "big dumb strong guy" comes with benefits AND penalties.

The problem with PF2 is that you CAN'T play the "big strong dumb guy", unless the rest of the players agree to not put an 18 in their STR score, and you voluntarily dump INT.

I'm not saying we should let people play a 40 STR character with 1s in everything else at level 1. There should be some sort of diminishing returns incorporated, such as having to pay for a 20 by taking a -2 to 2 other stats.

On the topic of magic gear, I agree with your general sentiment. I wanted magic gear to do magical stuff that was cool(like shoot lasers), but not necessary to be an effective adventurer. Multiplying your damage dice makes these weapons required in order to keep up. I'd rather that be tied to proficiency, as you said. In fact, I'd rather ALL intended stat boosts be tied to character growth and not gear. This makes magical gear feel more special, as the GM isn't practically obligated to hand it out in order for you to be able to progress.

I like the idea of having a unified system for Spell Points, Resonance, and "times-per-day" use abilities. I'm not sure about your implementation, but I like the general idea. There have been so many times I have wanted to burn a use of smite as a paladin in PF1 to have more "lay on hands" because we just happened to not be fighting anything "smite-able" today, and we could really use the healing.

I personally like the idea of casters being balanced on a risk/reward system. Magic is supposedly dangerous to those who attempt to wield it, but there are virtually no rules that imply this at all. Let casters wield immeasurable power, at the cost that they have to deal with magical backlashes occasionally.

Perhaps some sort of system where casters build up some sort of "magical toxicity" that they have to roll checks against. If they fail a check, a random bad occurrence happens, and the toxicity resets. Give casters ways to mitigate this build up (perhaps by expending mana), and let them cast their weaker spells without risking build-up. At that point, we might not even need spell slots per day.

On your last point, I like the idea of "instead of walls, have hills that get progressively steeper".

Having a 20 in a stat at level 1 is possible, but costs 2 ability boosts. A 22 costs an additional 3. (And so on and so forth.)

At a certain point, a player will decide that it isn't worth it to have a higher score, but that point will be different for different players, and you haven't straight-jacketed them into a fixed system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:


Martials should function at 100% capacity all day, perhaps with some options to push them up to 125% capacity a couple times per day.

Casters would ideally function at 50% the capacity of the Martial all day, 75% most of the day, 100% a few times per day, and 125%/150% once or twice per day.

Why the crippling of caster classes? Why should a martial type run at 100% most of the day with spikes of 125% twice, while a caster type runs at significantly less than 100% most of the day and also only gets spikes of 125% twice? Even caster power spikes of 150% twice still seems like it would be overall less powerful than a martial character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally I agree that the feel of the game has changed a bit. There is much less option to make a character that is highly powerful in any particular area. There is also less of a possibility to make a character that is too underpowered. Reminds me of the 'no child left behind' policy that also translates into 'no child allowed ahead'. But that is a different matter.

It would be nice to make rules that cater to the power gamers. Allow people to make characters that are overly powered in some particular area or other at the expense of being competent at most anything else. But when that happens, a GM facing a mixed group will have difficulty making a game that is enjoyable to everyone. Challenges that would be worthy of the power gamer's characters would be overwhelming to the more balanced characters. And challenges that would be appropriate to the balanced characters would either be a cake walk to the power gamer, or would also be overwhelming - depending on if the challenge caters to the area of expertise of the power gamer's character or not.


breithauptclan wrote:


It would be nice to make rules that cater to the power gamers. Allow people to make characters that are overly powered in some particular area or other at the expense of being competent at most anything else. But when that happens, a GM facing a mixed group will have difficulty making a game that is enjoyable to everyone. Challenges that would be worthy of the power gamer's characters would be overwhelming to the more balanced characters. And challenges that would be appropriate to the balanced characters would either be a cake walk to the power gamer, or would also be overwhelming - depending on if the challenge caters to the area of expertise of the power gamer's character or not.

This is where balancing the campaign comes in. The power gamer is (ideally) only exceptional at one or two things. When these things come up, they get the glory. When they don't, they get to play second fiddle to the rest of the party.

In order to challenge the Power Gamer, a GM should make them perform tasks that they aren't spec'd into.

Occasionally, you may want to throw something at the Power Gamer that challenges them in their area of expertise, but in those cases, I find that it is better to let the other players know that they should let the Power Gamer handle it, and give them something more their speed.

For example, lets say the Power Gamer is a Fighter, and he has optimized combat at the cost of mental skills.

The Power Gamer should be put in situations where his mental skills determine his success or failure when you want to challenge him. (Don't let them "sit out".)

An example was brought up a while back in a Blog Post about PCs needing to sneak in to the BBEG's party. Requiring the Fighter to disguise himself and act like a party-goer could lead to some interesting moments. Perhaps he get's kicked out, and now the party has to either go on without him, or find a way to sneak him back in?


breithauptclan wrote:

Generally I agree that the feel of the game has changed a bit. There is much less option to make a character that is highly powerful in any particular area. There is also less of a possibility to make a character that is too underpowered. Reminds me of the 'no child left behind' policy that also translates into 'no child allowed ahead'. But that is a different matter.

It would be nice to make rules that cater to the power gamers. Allow people to make characters that are overly powered in some particular area or other at the expense of being competent at most anything else. But when that happens, a GM facing a mixed group will have difficulty making a game that is enjoyable to everyone. Challenges that would be worthy of the power gamer's characters would be overwhelming to the more balanced characters. And challenges that would be appropriate to the balanced characters would either be a cake walk to the power gamer, or would also be overwhelming - depending on if the challenge caters to the area of expertise of the power gamer's character or not.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition character creation, where Harrison Bergeron meets TTRPGs!


Yes, absolutely. And a GM that can do that is definitely the GM that I want to find and play with.

But doing that kind of campaign balancing is not an easy task. Especially for new GMs.

If anyone can come up with a magic mechanic that would allow a new GM to easily create a balanced campaign with an unbalanced player party, that would be ideal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lost me on make such and such great again.


I have yet to play much on higher levels, as we're only playing DD and only partway through the second adventure, but I fail to see how the feel needs fixing. I have my issues with specifics of the game, but the 5 issues listed here don't really make it feel any worse to me, with some even feeling better. Ability scores, for instance: I like the fact that ability score caps are lower than in previous editions, and I like the fact that you get diminishing returns past 18. It makes it so the 18 in your prime ability score is desired, but not wholly necessary (or at least feel necessary). The only one I sort of agree with is #4, but it's a bit nebulous as to what X% of a martial's capacity is, given that a numerical 50% is different than a feel of 50% power, which is different from a narrative impact of 50%, which is different from... ect.

So, there are things I'd change, but I fail to see the idea that Paizo is delivering a feel that is in somehow need of fixing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, quick summary for those without a ton of patience:

Ability scores should just be replaced with just bonuses.

Weapon Proficiency should grant bonus dice, not Potency Runes, and Proficiency in general should automatically include bonuses gained at similar points in character growth, not as separate abilities.

Resonance and Spell Points should be combined into ‘Mana’, and anything that would require Mana to use would also give Mana to the character.

Martials should be good for consistency, Casters should be able to nova.

And wherever possible, replace a hard cap with an already-existing soft cap (Controling Undead, for example, could be based off of CHA modifier or Spell Proficiency instead of having. A hard cap of 4), eliminating the word ‘never’ whenever possible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am really interested in this Expert, Master, and Legendary deal, that they have stuffed that into the other out-of-the-blue shenanigans, into the new PF, no legacy, just word garbage and numeracy bloat, all culminating in mediocre, tepid response.

Come one, Paizo, give me some heat!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Weapon proficiency granting bonus dice is not a good idea. A Cleric, for example, who gets no proficiency upgrades after first level would never have their dice change. Barbarians and Rogues would fall far behind the other martial classes with more proficiency upgrades. Weapon dice are the majority of damage dealt with weapons in PF2, so making that vary across classes just picks winners and losers.

I agree it'd be nice if the +1 increases from proficiency were paired with some non-numerical ability to make them feel more fun and rewarding. These abilities really wouldn't need to be terribly strong; fun and flavorful or nice utility would do the trick.

"Martials are consistent and casters can nova" is a design that is almost impossible to keep playable. If you make the nova too good, casters overshadow the party and get all the flashiest moments and you encourage a 15 minute adventuring day, because even the consistent martial doesn't want to risk his life by going into a tough fight without the nova ready. If the nova is too weak, martials consistently dominate the game and casters don't feel rewarding to play. The relationship is unstable, and as more elements are added to the game over time, would probably break down even if initially such a balance could be achieved. A model where both themes of characters had some resources to manage and something to consistently offer would be far more balanced and could reduce the linear fighter/quadratic wizard problem. I have my doubts that such a thing is possible when using Vancian casting though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
"Martials are consistent and casters can nova" is a design that is almost impossible to keep playable. If you make the nova too good, casters overshadow the party and get all the flashiest moments and you encourage a 15 minute adventuring day, because even the consistent martial doesn't want to risk his life by going into a tough fight without the nova ready. If the nova is too weak, martials consistently dominate the game and casters don't feel rewarding to play.

One alternative way that works out (and I've seen ) is that the casters only do anything significant a few times each day, 'saving' their spells for 'when it matters' and therefore making the relationship one where the fighters/thieves/barbarians/etc clear out the 'trash mobs' while the casters come out and handle the major threats. Not only do you end up with part of the group not having anything significant to contribute most of the time, there's always the knowledge that the only reason the fighter is smashing a kobold mob to bits is because it's not important enough for the caster to spend 'important resources' on. No 15-minute adventuring day, but just as distasteful in a different way.


These simple houserules have vastly improved my PF2 experience.

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.

Potency Runes are omitted.

Trained Armour, Weapon, and Spell Attack Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level.

Level:
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:

These simple houserules have vastly improved my PF2 experience.

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.

Potency Runes are omitted.

Trained Armour, Weapon, and Spell Attack Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level.

Level:
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

That looks boring and uninspiring. Take away the best part (+level), and nerf magic weapons to uselessness.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:


Martials should function at 100% capacity all day, perhaps with some options to push them up to 125% capacity a couple times per day.

Casters would ideally function at 50% the capacity of the Martial all day, 75% most of the day, 100% a few times per day, and 125%/150% once or twice per day.

Why the crippling of caster classes? Why should a martial type run at 100% most of the day with spikes of 125% twice, while a caster type runs at significantly less than 100% most of the day and also only gets spikes of 125% twice? Even caster power spikes of 150% twice still seems like it would be overall less powerful than a martial character.

Caster are above Martial in everything except fighting (and even if they have less reliable dammage, they can totally change a fight with control or area spell).

If you make caster nearly as good as martial, what is the point to play martial ?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

These simple houserules have vastly improved my PF2 experience.

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.

Potency Runes are omitted.

Trained Armour, Weapon, and Spell Attack Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level.

Level:
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

That looks boring and uninspiring. Take away the best part (+level), and nerf magic weapons to uselessness.

Pretty much that.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dαedαlus wrote:
Weapon Proficiency should grant bonus dice, not Potency Runes, and Proficiency in general should automatically include bonuses gained at similar points in character growth, not as separate abilities.

I'm not okay with that at all.

Currently a Wizard can upgrade his staff, put potency rune on it, and then kick ass of anyone that try to make it personnal against him. He still would be less efficient than the Fighter (less proficiency, less Strengh) which make it less likely to hit, but then the magic kicks in for the dammage.

If you make it proficiency it would make difficult to build something like a magus.

I mean, the most iconic wizard ever, Gandalf was the guy that charge in the Orc army and destroy them with a sword. This fantasy should be accesible.

At the start I though about putting the extra dices on the Quality of the weapons (expert and so on), but then I realized it was a bad idea :

- It would make the increase earlier, unless you up the price ... and then it is strickly the same as buying proficiency rune.

- The cap of proficiency rune based on the quality is already the same, in fact.

Overall I would either keep it like it is in the playtest or totally get ride of the extra dice (but then you would need to rebalance all HP of the bestiary and nerf all spells because they would outshine every martial)


Pandora's wrote:
Weapon proficiency granting bonus dice is not a good idea. A Cleric, for example, who gets no proficiency upgrades after first level would never have their dice change. Barbarians and Rogues would fall far behind the other martial classes with more proficiency upgrades. Weapon dice are the majority of damage dealt with weapons in PF2, so making that vary across classes just picks winners and losers.

If that's a real issue,then maybe the answer to it would be reducing the amount of HP monsters get, and/or allowing the martial classes to get more weapon proficiency increases. For Barbarians you could have rage increase damage die; and Rogues have a damage die increase in their sneak attack ability, though maybe it could do with another die increase (say, increases at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

These simple houserules have vastly improved my PF2 experience.

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.

Potency Runes are omitted.

Trained Armour, Weapon, and Spell Attack Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level.

Level:
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

That looks boring and uninspiring. Take away the best part (+level), and nerf magic weapons to uselessness.

Strike that, reverse it. Arbitrarily adding +Level treadmill (proved failure with 4th Ed) is boring and uninspiring, dated nonsense from yesteryear.

Also, relying on magic weapons "to keep up" went out of fashion over a decade ago.

Embrace the new era of RPGs, where it is not Nigel Tufnell doing "...but...but this goes to 11..."


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

These simple houserules have vastly improved my PF2 experience.

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.

Potency Runes are omitted.

Trained Armour, Weapon, and Spell Attack Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level.

Level:
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

That looks boring and uninspiring. Take away the best part (+level), and nerf magic weapons to uselessness.

Strike that, reverse it. Arbitrarily adding +Level treadmill (proved failure with 4th Ed) is boring and uninspiring, dated nonsense from yesteryear.

Also, relying on magic weapons "to keep up" went out of fashion over a decade ago.

Embrace the new era of RPGs, where it is not Nigel Tufnell doing "...but...but this goes to 11..."

The issue with these house rules is that now you need to rewrite all the monsters, and I'm sure there are other things that need changing to fit in here too. (Any activity - like High Jump - that uses a static DC for instance).

If the system requires you to make that many changes to 'improve your experience', you're playing the wrong system.


I like that utility spells are restricted. Nerfing Fly makes scouting and climbing much more relevant. It also fits to what you said about casters being better once or twice a day: the ranger can scout better than the wizard most of the time, but if you really need it the wizard can fly around invisibly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I can't quite think of something that might fit Armor as an automatic Proficiency bonus,

How about reducing the Armor Check Penalty, much like how fighters had Armor Training in PF1? Eliminating speed penalties? As it stands, the downsides of wearing heavy armor are pretty brutal.

Quote:
So, instead of your sword's +X bonus determining how many dice you roll, make it based on Proficiency.

This idea has been floating in other threads, and while I love the idea of making the damage increase tied to level progression instead of magic items, basing it on proficiency has a ton of problems. Proficiency increases are wildly uneven across different classes, and only the fighter gets Legendary weapon prof. You're going to wind up with huge variance in the damage between different characters, even martial characters.

My preference would be to add proficiency bonus (including level) to damage like we do to every other stat.


Mekkis wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

These simple houserules have vastly improved my PF2 experience.

+Level is omitted.

Touch Armour Class is omitted.

Spell Attacks are made with your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, etc).

Item (magic) bonus for weapons and extra damage dice is omitted.

Potency Runes are omitted.

Trained Armour, Weapon, and Spell Attack Proficiency Bonus/Extra Weapon Damage Dice by Level.

Level:
2-4: +1/2 x weapon damage dice
5-8: +2/3 x weapon damage dice
9-12: +3/4 x weapon damage dice
13-16: +4/5 x weapon damage dice
17-20: +5/6 x weapon damage dice

That looks boring and uninspiring. Take away the best part (+level), and nerf magic weapons to uselessness.

Strike that, reverse it. Arbitrarily adding +Level treadmill (proved failure with 4th Ed) is boring and uninspiring, dated nonsense from yesteryear.

Also, relying on magic weapons "to keep up" went out of fashion over a decade ago.

Embrace the new era of RPGs, where it is not Nigel Tufnell doing "...but...but this goes to 11..."

The issue with these house rules is that now you need to rewrite all the monsters,

Not really, as you are simply omitting +Level from *everything*.

So, with treadmill:

20th-level Fighter (+20) with 22 Str (+6), legendary proficiency (+3), and a +5 magic weapon, has +34 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 44.

Without treadmill:

20th-level Fighter with 22 Str (+6), legendary proficiency (+3), and a +5 magic weapon, has +14 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 24.

Nothing has changed in regards to what you need to roll for a success/crit, etc.

Another example of with and without treadmill:

Fighter, AC 45, +34 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 44, +35 to hit
Ghoul, AC 15, +7 to hit

Fighter, AC 25, +14 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 24, +15 to hit
Ghoul, AC 14, +6 to hit

Liberty's Edge

All level systems are treadmills. Stop using the term or admit to yourself you want a system where everyone is identical and no one improves ever.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think this topic would be a fantastic topic to talk about on the Twitch stream.

I've heard comments in that past that for some reason the +1/2 level increase did not work. I'd like to hear their insight as to why. Also, I think it would provide the transparency necessary for many more players to understand why the system exists.

Please make this happen @Dan_servo.


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

Vic you just invented 5th Ed!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Red Rabbit wrote:
I like that utility spells are restricted. Nerfing Fly makes scouting and climbing much more relevant. It also fits to what you said about casters being better once or twice a day: the ranger can scout better than the wizard most of the time, but if you really need it the wizard can fly around invisibly

It is nice that skills get a chance to shine, but quite a few utility spells have had their utility reduced so much that the spell may as well not exist. There is a happy medium to be found, but as long as spell casting classes look like a better multiclass dip for rogues than a full class, the job hasn't been done.


Drakhan Valane wrote:
All level systems are treadmills. Stop using the term or admit to yourself you want a system where everyone is identical and no one improves ever.

Not really, and everyone is not identical nor improves because you lower number inflation/open up monster threat ranges, that makes absolutely no sense. Also, as you can see in the above example, the 20th-level fighter still auto-crits the ghoul (regardless of treadmill or not).

Playing with +Level (which I am) is fun, I just enjoy playing with the +Level dial for certain campaigns/settings. It's more to with the sorts of stories/characters you want to tell.


Malk_Content wrote:
Vic you just invented 5th Ed!

Ha, I am still looking for that 3.75, I never really got!


Malk_Content wrote:
Vic you just invented 5th Ed!

I was in them middle of writing that very thing on last Saturday when the forums crapped out again. :)


breithauptclan wrote:

Yes, absolutely. And a GM that can do that is definitely the GM that I want to find and play with.

But doing that kind of campaign balancing is not an easy task. Especially for new GMs.

If anyone can come up with a magic mechanic that would allow a new GM to easily create a balanced campaign with an unbalanced player party, that would be ideal.

So you want a game where everyone is balanced - sorry but I find that boring. People aren't balanced in the real world everyone is good at some things and bad at others that's what make life interesting -same with a game. It seem people want a video game where they can have pve or pvp and it all works with no real input from gm. D&D was about a PARTY. Yes the mage did great at killing lots of little guy but sucker at the boss and could fight 1 maybe 2 battles in a day. The Rogue was the opposite ie could do his stuff all day and was great vs bosses but sucker versus minions. The cleric hkept everyone alive and acted as a backup fighter and t uu e fighter kept it all together because he could fight all day every day. Balance without being Balanced.


breithauptclan wrote:

Yes, absolutely. And a GM that can do that is definitely the GM that I want to find and play with.

But doing that kind of campaign balancing is not an easy task. Especially for new GMs.

If anyone can come up with a magic mechanic that would allow a new GM to easily create a balanced campaign with an unbalanced player party, that would be ideal.

So you want a game where everyone is balanced - sorry but I find that boring. People aren't balanced in the real world everyone is good at some things and bad at others that's what make life interesting -same with a game. It seem people want a video game where they can have pve or pvp and it all works with no real input from gm. D&D was about a PARTY. Yes the mage did great at killing lots of little guy but sucker at the boss and could fight 1 maybe 2 battles in a day. The Rogue was the opposite ie could do his stuff all day and was great vs bosses but sucker versus minions. The cleric hkept everyone alive and acted as a backup fighter and t uu e fighter kept it all together because he could fight all day every day. Balance without being Balanced.


Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:


I mean, the most iconic wizard ever, Gandalf was the guy that charge in the Orc army and destroy them with a sword. This fantasy should be accesible.

Obligatory "Gandalf isn't really a wizard...." comment

Using him as an example for why a Wizard should be able to wield a sword is not really fair, despite him (at least narrative wise and aesthetically) being a "wizard".

Quote:
If you make it proficiency it would make difficult to build something like a magus.

Not at all. In fact one of the simple solutions would be to create a Feat/Ability that allows you to substitute Proficiency to accomplish that.

I.E.

Magical Weapon Caster
Prerequisites: Ability to Cast Spells
Benefit: Choose one Weapon Group. You can treat your Proficiency level for the purpose of using Magical Weapons equal to the Proficiency of your Spellcasting for that Weapon Group.

You could do the same with Rogues and light blades using Stealth as the substitute Proficiency.

I still think the system would benefit from an indirect tie instead of a direct one

I.E. Proficiency doesn't govern the damage increase of the weapon, only the level of damage increase you are capable of, so a +1 Sword would require Expert Proficiency in Blade Weapon Group. This means that at level 1, your proficiency doesn't grant you the damage increase, but when you DO find a Magic Weapon you can only utilize up to a +2 as an Expert (and a +3-5 would be effectively the same).

We see this type of interaction occur narrative wise all time (only some of "X" can unlock the items true power).


Vic Ferrari wrote:

Not really, as you are simply omitting +Level from *everything*.

So, with treadmill:

20th-level Fighter (+20) with 22 Str (+6), legendary proficiency (+3), and a +5 magic weapon, has +34 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 44.

Without treadmill:

20th-level Fighter with 22 Str (+6), legendary proficiency (+3), and a +5 magic weapon, has +14 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 24.

Nothing has changed in regards to what you need to roll for a success/crit, etc.

Another example of with and without treadmill:

Fighter, AC 45, +34 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 44, +35 to hit
Ghoul, AC 15, +7 to hit

Fighter, AC 25, +14 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 24, +15 to hit
Ghoul, AC 14, +6 to hit

Sure, if you're only concerned with the cases of 'equal levels and thus no difference in removing +level' or 'so far apart level wise that even when removing +level, there's effectively little difference' I can see how you might think +level is pointless, but imagine, just for a moment, that combats might not be in either one of these two cases. Crazy, I know, but in the case of a 20th level fighter, instead of fighting a pit fiend, fights 2 Adamantine golems, or three Mariliths or four shemhazians, which the book says are approximately the same challenge as the pit fiend. With +level it becomes:

Fighter, AC 45, +34 to hit
Adamantine Golem, AC 41, +31 to hit
Pride Demon (Marilith), 39 AC, +30 to hit
Mutilation Demon (Shemhazian), 38 AC, +29 to hit

Without +level it becomes:

Fighter, AC 25, +14 to hit
Adamantine Golem AC 23, +13 to hit
Pride Demon (Marilith), 22 AC, +13 to hit
Mutilation Demon (Shemhazian), 22 AC, +13 to hit

which as you can see, isn't as big a gap, and defeats much of the purpose of the new action and crit system. PF2e balances action economy vs hit/crit chance. in the first example, the Mutilation Demons will have 4 actions for every action the fighter gets, but the fighter's chance to crit is higher, and they get more bang for their second or third attack action buck. In the second example, they hit only slightly more often than vs the pit fiend, but have to contend with an unfavorable action economy.

And the same goes in the reverse. The post level 20 foes get that same upshot vs the heroes level 20, which helps combat the boss-battle action economy problem that the game has always had.

And while this all seems academic at level 20, the same holds true for level 5s fighting gnolls or orcs, or fighting a young dragon as a boss battle. I don't necessarily like the rate of bonus increase from an aesthetic level, but I will gladly accept that, in exchange for worthwhile mechanical effects.


Tholomyes wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Not really, as you are simply omitting +Level from *everything*.

So, with treadmill:

20th-level Fighter (+20) with 22 Str (+6), legendary proficiency (+3), and a +5 magic weapon, has +34 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 44.

Without treadmill:

20th-level Fighter with 22 Str (+6), legendary proficiency (+3), and a +5 magic weapon, has +14 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 24.

Nothing has changed in regards to what you need to roll for a success/crit, etc.

Another example of with and without treadmill:

Fighter, AC 45, +34 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 44, +35 to hit
Ghoul, AC 15, +7 to hit

Fighter, AC 25, +14 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 24, +15 to hit
Ghoul, AC 14, +6 to hit

Sure, if you're only concerned with the cases of 'equal levels and thus no difference in removing +level' or 'so far apart level wise that even when removing +level, there's effectively little difference' I can see how you might think +level is pointless,

I don't think it's pointless, it leverages the 4-tiers of success deal more than without, vs. lower/higher level creatures, etc. I just prefer a different spread, in general, so I play with and without.

Scarab Sages

Midnightoker wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:


I mean, the most iconic wizard ever, Gandalf was the guy that charge in the Orc army and destroy them with a sword. This fantasy should be accesible.

Obligatory "Gandalf isn't really a wizard...." comment

Using him as an example for why a Wizard should be able to wield a sword is not really fair, despite him (at least narrative wise and aesthetically) being a "wizard".

Quote:
If you make it proficiency it would make difficult to build something like a magus.

Not at all. In fact one of the simple solutions would be to create a Feat/Ability that allows you to substitute Proficiency to accomplish that.

I.E.

Magical Weapon Caster
Prerequisites: Ability to Cast Spells
Benefit: Choose one Weapon Group. You can treat your Proficiency level for the purpose of using Magical Weapons equal to the Proficiency of your Spellcasting for that Weapon Group.

You could do the same with Rogues and light blades using Stealth as the substitute Proficiency.

I still think the system would benefit from an indirect tie instead of a direct one

I.E. Proficiency doesn't govern the damage increase of the weapon, only the level of damage increase you are capable of, so a +1 Sword would require Expert Proficiency in Blade Weapon Group. This means that at level 1, your proficiency doesn't grant you the damage increase, but when you DO find a Magic Weapon you can only utilize up to a +2 as an Expert (and a +3-5 would be effectively the same).

We see this type of interaction occur narrative wise all time (only some of "X" can unlock the items true power).

That didn't solve the issue that this topic is adressing though.

Magic weapon are still mandatory.


Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

That didn't solve the issue that this topic is adressing though.

Magic weapon are still mandatory.

Yes, I would prefer if the bonus to hit and extra damage dice were dependant on Trained proficiency and character level.

Magic weapons can cover other, more interesting things.

Scarab Sages

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

That didn't solve the issue that this topic is adressing though.

Magic weapon are still mandatory.

Yes, I would prefer if the bonus to hit and extra damage dice were dependant on Trained proficiency and character level.

Magic weapons can cover other, more interesting things.

That create other issues so...


Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

That didn't solve the issue that this topic is adressing though.

Magic weapon are still mandatory.

Yes, I would prefer if the bonus to hit and extra damage dice were dependant on Trained proficiency and character level.

Magic weapons can cover other, more interesting things.

That create other issues so...

Such as...?

Scarab Sages

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

That didn't solve the issue that this topic is adressing though.

Magic weapon are still mandatory.

Yes, I would prefer if the bonus to hit and extra damage dice were dependant on Trained proficiency and character level.

Magic weapons can cover other, more interesting things.

That create other issues so...
Such as...?

You would need to change a lot of proficiencies to avoid huge damage gap between some classes (for instance the Barbarian which is already bellow the curve after the 2nd level). But that would also affect the accuracy and potentially impact the balance overall (in a bad or good way I don't know).

As someone showed with methametical analysis a +1 to accuracy is HUGE in PF2.

You would also need to give some class build-in tools to stay relevant. Or give everyone (except caster) legendary.

That would also require a total remake of the economy system.

Another solution that I saw often on topics would be to supress potency runes and make it quality weapon only.
But that also would need to change the pricing and that would delay the +1 accuracy To the level where you also get the dice. Which leads to a less smoother progression and would require an update of all the bestiary.


Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

That didn't solve the issue that this topic is adressing though.

Magic weapon are still mandatory.

Yes, I would prefer if the bonus to hit and extra damage dice were dependant on Trained proficiency and character level.

Magic weapons can cover other, more interesting things.

That create other issues so...
Such as...?

You would need to change a lot of proficiencies to avoid huge damage gap between some classes (for instance the Barbarian which is already bellow the curve after the 2nd level). But that would also affect the accuracy and potentially impact the balance overall (in a bad or good way I don't know).

As someone showed with methametical analysis a +1 to accuracy is HUGE in PF2.

You would also need to give some class build-in tools to stay relevant. Or give everyone (except caster) legendary.

That would also require a total remake of the economy system.

Another solution that I saw often on topics would be to supress potency runes and make it quality weapon only.
But that also would need to change the pricing and that would delay the +1 accuracy To the level where you also get the dice. Which leads to a less smoother progression and would require an update of all the bestiary.

Ah, yes, the economy system, I was just thinking of maths, works out the same (just built in/assumed your weapon at 17th level is +5, is all). Could do the same with magic armour plusses. 4th Ed had a variant Inherent Bonus rule (DMG 2), for this very sort of thing.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / An alternate take on PF2- Trying to fix the 'feel' of the game All Messageboards

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