|
Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.
From pg.3 of the playtest doc.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.
From pg3 of the playtest doc.
What's interesting about this is that the goals are all framed in terms of ease of use and ease of adoption. What's missing is anything around making the game fun. Even the specific examples are framed around making it easier to build characters and NPC's.
As I dive into more and more details of the game I get the eerie feeling that the driving forces were making life easier on the GM and new players. Whether or not the game is fun to play seems to have taken a back seat.
Edited to add: I also agree with posters earlier in the thread who assert that PFS is a big component of the game design. Many of the rigid rule structures and class balancing decisions seem geared for problems that are found in Society play, where the GM has to rigidly adhere to published rules, and the party makeup is essentially random.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For example, Expert Weapon Rank can be seen as the approximate equal of Weapon Focus in PF1.
Given this is actually class-locked, I'd argue that's actually closer to the equivalent of getting full BAB in whatever class you're in. It's similar to how Monks get higher proficiency in unarmed strikes in 2E vs Flurry giving them full BAB in 1E.
Just because two things give a similar boost doesn't mean they're directly comparable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.
From pg3 of the playtest doc.
What's interesting about this is that the goals are all framed in terms of ease of use and ease of adoption. What's missing is anything around making the game fun. Even the specific examples are framed around making it easier to build characters and NPC's.
As I dive into more and more details of the game I get the eerie feeling that the driving forces were making life easier on the GM and new players. Whether or not the game is fun to play seems to have taken a back seat.
Edited to add: I also agree with posters earlier in the thread who assert that PFS is a big component of the game design. Many of the rigid rule structures and class balancing decisions seem geared for problems that are found in Society play, where the GM has to rigidly adhere to published rules, and the party makeup is essentially random.
My group is having fun with the mechanics. And the playtest so far has been the most fun I've had GMing in combat. The unique actions and reactions of creatures are awesome.
As MathMuse has pointed out in his analysis (which I generally agree with), they have, in my opinion, failed in this respect.
PF1E Core had more character diversity than does 2e.
Do you mind giving me some examples of where 1e core has more character diversity than 2e? Thinking about all of the 'trap' feats in 1e core has me thinking. Was there really much diversity or was there only the illusion of diversity. I'm pretty sure every single 2h melee character I've played has been built pretty much the same. Same with every single archer build. The only differences were some class features. Like my archer paladin just used smite as a swift action rather than my archer ranger who had favoured enemies. Other than that they had the same feats and the same items and equipment. They weren't really a whole more diverse.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, monsters are more fun to GM this edition because they have cool abilities and strategies, but the enjoyment should still be PC-first and I'm not sure if they got that right.
Also, they keywords are decent in a lot of cases, but as has been said, they can also make it very hard to understand some stuff if you don't read all of them. Like how "Operate Activation" inehrently means it costs 1 resonance per use, "Press" means it doesn't work unless MAP is -4 or more and others that interact with the status conditions in weird ways. Sometimes you read the text of a feat and it sounds awesome, then realize it sucks once you actually dissect it (Furious Focus). But overall it's good for knowing if you need a free hand or if it provokes an AOO from just the tag. Will just be hard for new players to get it until they memorize all of them.
Also, they keywords are decent in a lot of cases, but as has been said, they can also make it very hard to understand some stuff if you don't read all of them. Like how "Operate Activation" inehrently means it costs 1 resonance per use, "Press" means it doesn't work unless MAP is -4 or more and others that interact with the status conditions in weird ways. Sometimes you read the text of a feat and it sounds awesome, then realize it sucks once you actually dissect it (Furious Focus). But overall it's good for knowing if you need a free hand or if it provokes an AOO from just the tag. Will just be hard for new players to get it until they memorize all of them.
I mean this stuff seems to be the job of the GM at the beginning. I made sure that I had the rules down before we had our first session. Whenever there was a problem at the table or a player asks me about a certain ability I'd tell them what the traits mean and how that ability works specifically. We are now into the 2nd chapter and I think every player has got the system down. (only one of them really reads much of the book while we aren't playing). around ~10 hrs to fully understand rules and stuff doesn't seem that much different from every other rpg out there. Maybe 5e is different? I haven't played much of it. Only watched some podcasts.
Do you mind giving me some examples of where 1e core has more character diversity than 2e?Sure.
I'm pretty sure every single 2h melee characterRight here. The fact that you said "character" and not, let's say, "fighter" is the biggest difference.
players can still build a dual-wielding rangerYes, players can build a dual-wielding ranger, because ranger has a lot of feat support for that build. There's not a lot of feat support for other styles.
The point I'm trying to make is that PF1 had more build diversity because there wasn't as much ability siloed into classes. There were feats you could take to advance a fighting style that weren't utterly dependent on your class features like the ranger is on Hunt Target, or the paladin with Retributive Strike.
I don't understand your example. I was talking about 1e the 2h characters ive made. 2h fighter, 2h inquisitor, and 2h barb felt exactly the same. there was 0 reason for going off the build path of power attack/furious focus/weapon focus.
I like the fact that different classes with the same fighting style will still play differently. Doesn't that add MORE diversity?
Here's another example: Try making an archer rogue with 1e core. Yikes. Utter trash. You can only get sneak attack on the first round. and your feat starved and BAB is bad. Compare that to the 2e intimidate rogue build. It's actually pretty damn good with a short bow. You can get sneak attack every round with frighten. And it comes fully online as low as level 4.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mind giving me some examples of where 1e core has more character diversity than 2e? Thinking about all of the 'trap' feats in 1e core has me thinking. Was there really much diversity or was there only the illusion of diversity. I'm pretty sure every single 2h melee character I've played has been built pretty much the same. Same with every single archer build. The only differences were some class features. Like my archer paladin just used smite as a swift action rather than my archer ranger who had favoured enemies. Other than that they had the same feats and the same items and equipment. They weren't really a whole more diverse.As MathMuse has pointed out in his analysis (which I generally agree with), they have, in my opinion, failed in this respect.
PF1E Core had more character diversity than does 2e.
As opposed to PF2 where every duel wield is going to be Fighter or Ranger? Or Archer is going to pick from the same? Every Barbarian is going to pick probably the same two Totems, every cleric feels forced to pick up some Healing domain Deity, and Monks really need Dragon Style....
Yeah. PF2 is looking to be far more Diverse then PF1 eyup yup.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another example: Try making an archer rogue with 1e core. Yikes. Utter trash. You can only get sneak attack on the first round. and your feat starved and BAB is bad. Compare that to the 2e intimidate rogue build. It's actually pretty damn good with a short bow. You can get sneak attack every round with frighten. And it comes fully online as low as level 4.
Nice Strong Intimidate build. Seems a good upgrade over PF1 Rogue.
Upgrade over it's Intimidate Build. Not it's Ranged.
So how would you make an Archer in PF2 with Rogue? Considering all the good archer feats are locked to Fighter and Ranger now(And even then Ranger is debatable).
Or will every Archer Rogue need to be an Intimidate build? How is this more diverse than PF1's feat tree locked Rogue?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 character builds were definitely full of feat traps. But at least you could pick from a variety of classes and choose the same feats to compliment your class. I’m honestly surprised to hear so much reference to 4e on the boards... wasn’t PF1 successful because it was the 4e killer? Why model PF2 after 4e?
I think a lot of the system’s problems would be mitigated if the numbers were lowered similar to 5e and +10/-10 in combat & skill checks nixed. Take the problem with skill check DCs putting players on treadmills and what not. In 5e they never change. A dc to climb a steep slope will be 20 at level 1 and 20 at level 20. Because you don’t have a +28 at level 20 (in 5e you might have a bonus +11 or 12 with a max of +15), there is still tension and drama in this challenge. Just because you are level 20 you are more likely to succeed. In PF1 &2 due to number inflation the world just doesn’t make any sense. You have to inflate monster AC and attacks/skill DCs to insane levels to match PC numbers which breaks immersion and ultimately the game around 12th level when the disparity between the lvl 12 and a lvl 1 PC is huge.
Also by lowering the overall number creep it makes all the +1 effects people are having issues with become relevant. The math behind 5e of max 30 AC and +15 attack/skill is pretty solid in creating a believable, functioning fantasy world. Not to mention a balanced game.
For me the perfect PF2 would be 5e numbers but pathfinder tactics / wide variety of build options within a class. Obviously that’s a huge overhaul and most likely not going to happen but it still surprises me number creep was kept in PF2.
players can still build a dual-wielding rangerYes, players can build a dual-wielding ranger, because ranger has a lot of feat support for that build. There's not a lot of feat support for other styles.
The point I'm trying to make is that PF1 had more build diversity because there wasn't as much ability siloed into classes. There were feats you could take to advance a fighting style that weren't utterly dependent on your class features like the ranger is on Hunt Target, or the paladin with Retributive Strike.
I don't understand your example. I was talking about 1e the 2h characters ive made. 2h fighter, 2h inquisitor, and 2h barb felt exactly the same. there was 0 reason for going off the build path of power attack/furious focus/weapon focus.
I like the fact that different classes with the same fighting style will still play differently. Doesn't that add MORE diversity?
When I built Abu Two yesterday, I did successfully build a dual-wield ranger. However, I was trying to build a high-skill ranger who could live off the land. Though ranger has more trained skills than most classes, it cannot improve those skills until 3rd level.
Let me introduce Muffin, another gnome I played. My daughter created her for a Serpent's Skull campaign and I took over the character when my daughter moved to another state. Muffin was a wilderness-survival barbarian, going for Guarded Stance, Raging Swimmer, Raging Leaper, and Night Vision rather than Greater Beast Totem and other high-damage options. It was necessary, because Serpent's Skull starts with everyone shipwrecked. Survival and exploration is their greatest need, and climbing well was more valuable than high damage. She fought with a two-handed lucerne hammer. She had Dodge and Mobility because in a party that lacked a cleric and any magic items, avoiding damage was vital.
By the time I took over Muffin, the party had returned to civilization and then left civilization again for a jungle adventure. Now that she had a little healing available, she put her Mobility to work in an unusual combat style. Against the large monsters common in the jungle, that had terribly high initiatives, she would run past the monster and attack from behind. She would deliberately trigger an attack of opportunity, but Muffin's Mobility and small size often made that miss. Then the party rogue would rush in without worrying about an attack of opportunity from the monster's 10-foot reach and flank for a sneak attack.
Muffin was a two-handed barbarian very different from the standard mold. And she is the most recent two-handed weapon character I played, not an exceptional example. She was also the second most dangerous character in the party, so it was not a bad build.
Here's another example: Try making an archer rogue with 1e core. Yikes. Utter trash. You can only get sneak attack on the first round. and your feat starved and BAB is bad. Compare that to the 2e intimidate rogue build. It's actually pretty damn good with a short bow. You can get sneak attack every round with frighten. And it comes fully online as low as level 4.
Okay, the challenge is a 1st Edition rogue archer. Start with an elf, since they gain longbow proficiency. First-level feat is the notorious feat tax Point-Blank Shot. At 2nd level, the rogue gains a rogue talent. I take Combat Trick for a combat feat, Precise Shot. I now have a workable rogue archer. Was that supposed to be difficult?
As for the 2nd Edition intimidate rogue, I guess Dire Ursus means a rogue who took the You're Next 1st-level rogue feat and became an expert in Intimidation at 2nd level. It will be hard to persuade that rogue to use his shortbow (no Weapon Familiarity (Elf) because longbows were nerfed) since his Finesse Striker damage won't apply. The rogue can sneak attack a flat-footed foe at any distance, which is better than the 30-foot requirement in 1st Edition. But the rogue wants to be 30 feet away, so that he can attempt to demoralize another opponent via You're Next to give it a -1 penalty to checks and saving throws for one turn.
Okay, that is better than the 1st Edition rogue archer because 2nd Edition removes the feat taxes on archery. That is great, except that foes will have bows, too. But I don't see why a rogue with You're Next is supposed to be fantastic. Did I get the build wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay so..., I had put this as an edit to my LAST post but Paizo kinda ate that(Backtracked too far, what does that mean). And I can't seem to edit that one for some reason, So I'll put my edited here. Just know this works off my last one a bit.
Edit: Agh I should be less confrontational here.
PF1 had a lot of trap options, we can agree on this point I believe. Some of them are just bad but others were just discarded as "Not good enough" or useful to a build in question.
There is nothing in PF2 as of writing that lead me to believe the second part will not happen again.
Everything is new, things are different, we don't have enough practice and experience. So things are exciting, they'er unexpected, it's cool to see what new ideas, builds, or strange character we can come up with under the new system. This is a stage I think everyone goes through when it comes to getting into a new game or system.
But then that slowly fades, and the numbers come in. With +'s being so rare and valuable along with Crit being fairly easy to expect and build into, I feel PF2 will push far harder to get those bonuses than PF1. Any way to make it easier to crit or avoid being hit by them will see a higher value placed on them(A guess mind you).
So we slowly chip away at what feats are "Not good" or "Not useful Enough" and get to the optimal math after awhile. Ranged Rogue? Gonna need Intimidate build. Melee Fighter? Math might say to give up 2 feats for Spell casting for personal buffs(AND No Resonance Cost). Monks are expected to take X style feat because the others are good but not the Best Flat Bonus you can get so why bother?
See people are glad that with all the bonuses being so close it doesn't matter. I would like to flip that around and say that with the math being so close, people will look far harder for anything that CAN put them ahead. Now is this better or worse than PF1's "Stack EVERY BONUS Known" way of playing, I don't know. But I've seen systems that gave too much(And most was ignored) and systems with tighter balance(Only for players to shoot for any buff no matter how small) and I'm unsure as to just HOW much to give without running into either problem.
But I do expect lessor or 'trap' options are going to be defined or at least applied to certain feats and abilities. If only because that's how the game and community works.
Build a PF1 Archer Rogue. Get a new player and a vet to do it. You'll probably get 2 very different characters if left to their own devices(If the Vet can even stomach it).
In PF2 however, we are all still kinda in that "New player" camp of "Oh what's this do", "If this works than maybe", and "Hey would this be cool if...".
I just question how long it will be till the magic of a new different system fades away and the bland carbon copying of X guide/community approved/PFS best build comes in.
So sorry if I was a bit bullheaded in my first version and maybe this bit of venting helps show my worry.
Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.
From pg.3 of the playtest doc.
Thank you, catman123456, for posting this. I had just skimmed the preamble and overlooked the statement of intent.
I wonder whether the two examples, dual-wielding ranger and elemental-focused druid, naming only class and combat style is a reflection of the designer's focus. When I summarize my Pathfinder characters: wizard's daughter bloodrager Val Baine, clueless brawler Dewey Baros, wilderness-survival barbarian Muffin, time oracle lost-heir Amaya Amatatsu, cheerful gnome monk ranger Abu Gorgoni--their combat technique is not the first or second thing that comes to mind.
I wonder whether the two examples, dual-wielding ranger and elemental-focused druid, naming only class and combat style is a reflection of the designer's focus.
I hope so. "Wizard's daughter" and "lost heir" and "cheerful" aren't things we need a game designer for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our aim is to make the game easier to learn and simpler to play, while maintaining the depth of character and adventure options that has always defined Pathfinder. In this version of the game, for example, players can still build a dual-wielding ranger or an elemental-focused druid, but doing so is easier and more streamlined. Along those same lines, a lich is still the same terrifying foe that it’s always been, but now Game Masters can build one to add to their stories in about half the time.
From pg3 of the playtest doc.
What's interesting about this is that the goals are all framed in terms of ease of use and ease of adoption. What's missing is anything around making the game fun. Even the specific examples are framed around making it easier to build characters and NPC's.
As I dive into more and more details of the game I get the eerie feeling that the driving forces were making life easier on the GM and new players. Whether or not the game is fun to play seems to have taken a back seat.
Edited to add: I also agree with posters earlier in the thread who assert that PFS is a big component of the game design. Many of the rigid rule structures and class balancing decisions seem geared for problems that are found in Society play, where the GM has to rigidly adhere to published rules, and the party makeup is essentially random.
PF is hard to GM compared to a lot of systems even with PFS (and it has gotten harder as time goes on). Cutting down PC combos seems like the industry standard to make it easier to GM (at least that's what they did in 5e). Lack of GM's is one possible slow death of PF.
No one has ever said that 3.5 or PF was easy on new players (except with irony or a belly full of rotgut--Viva Thunderbird!). An aging player base plus few new players=another possible slow death of PF.
In short, the goal of PF2 is to prevent the slow death of PF. I think Paizo is shooting for the Goldie Locks spot of more...
I think that is why you see a pretty warm reception to things like the new action economy, and the severe reduction in stacking a bajillion magical items/bonuses.
These are ideas that attempt to fix real problems.
The flat level-based scaling for everything might be a good idea, but I am at a loss as to what it fixes (Wizards needed full BAB?), and I could say the same about the heavy restrictions on signature skills, skill uses, class feats, multiclassing etc. Are these things easier?
That is why I would like to know what exactly the intent was for these big system changes from the developers. The stated goals are far too vague and they don't relate to the systems that really seem to be stirring conflict.
I think that is why you see a pretty warm reception to things like the new action economy, and the severe reduction in stacking a bajillion magical items/bonuses.
These are ideas that attempt to fix real problems.
The flat level-based scaling for everything might be a good idea, but I am at a loss as to what it fixes (Wizards needed full BAB?)
Maybe it's there to replace the bajillion bonuses that used to make your character get stronger as you level up?
And it fixes a level-based disparity problem, where a typical cleric archer starts out tolerable but gets relatively worse compared to enemy AC every level.
And it's simple to understand.
It has bad side effects, but it's not without purpose.
I think that is why you see a pretty warm reception to things like the new action economy, and the severe reduction in stacking a bajillion magical items/bonuses.
These are ideas that attempt to fix real problems.
The flat level-based scaling for everything might be a good idea, but I am at a loss as to what it fixes (Wizards needed full BAB?)
Maybe it's there to replace the bajillion bonuses that used to make your character get stronger as you level up?
And it fixes a level-based disparity problem, where a typical cleric archer starts out tolerable but gets relatively worse compared to enemy AC every level.
And it's simple to understand.
It has bad side effects, but it's not without purpose.
I am not sure that this is the case for the cleric archer... I think they are just as far behind in PF2 as they would be in PF1 since they don't get the proficiency increases. The only difference in PF1 is the 3/4 BAB, which was certainly a thing, but the fix to action economy probably does more to fix this since it doesn't gate iteratives behind BAB.
My guess is that they want to homogenize accross all classes and builds so that they can create APs with the guarantee that everyone can make the Perception/Craft/Diplomacy/Stealth etc. checks at a certain guaranteed rate with very tightly controlled math. This would also apply to saving throws, AC and pretty much everything else that sits within a +/-5 variance regardless of character or build.
You could be right... I could be right...but I would prefer to hear the developers reasons rather than having to guess... and then judge the system based on my assumptions rather than their stated goals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like diversity and choices are here in a more constraining way. You've got lots of resources and lots of buckets, but each one is severely constrained in what you can do with it.
ie: Feats. I used to get feats and I could use them on largely anything I wanted, although if you were optimizing there was clearly certain really good options. Now I appear to get more feats, but most of them are severely constrained in what they can be used for (skill feat, class feat, ancestry feat all spring to mind). It's an illusion of having a lot of options, because what I really have is a few options spread out over lots of different buckets.
I've also got Spell Points, which are a resource that out of the box on my Cleric can do exactly one thing. If I pay a specific kind of feat I can make them do a second thing, but that only applies to one domain and the one I picked had a power that kind of sucks (Travel's advanced power) so I'm probably not doing that. That means I have this resource and rules around it that really aren't doing anything of interest except making me remember more terms.
Then I've got Resonance, another resource that are used for a specific thing. My character had nothing that consumed enough of it that I ever had to care about it. I imagine that would change a lot when you have more stuff, but thus far it was something I had to learn that had no relevance on the adventure I did whatsoever.
Then I had channel, which was super important but really didn't have any choice behind it. Need to heal someone? Use a point of that. When it runs out, we rest. That was it. Undeniably important, but not mechanically interesting as there's no real choice in using it.
Spell slots at least still require thinking out what you want to do and give you difficult choices with limited resources, so there's that. But the rest of it was "this skill uses a point of this bucket, and when it runs out you can't do that one anymore." Nothing was gained by having three or four seperate power buckets over having a single one that all of those abilities required.
Maybe it'll feel different at higher level. I really need more experience playing to say for sure. How it felt playing so far was that there was complexity for the sake of still having complexity and it wasn't particularly meaningful.
I wonder whether the two examples, dual-wielding ranger and elemental-focused druid, naming only class and combat style is a reflection of the designer's focus.I hope so. "Wizard's daughter" and "lost heir" and "cheerful" aren't things we need a game designer for.
A game designer did pay attention to one of them.
Eternal Hope: Gnomes rarely lose hope and are always confident that even hopeless situations will work out. Gnomes with this racial trait receive a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against fear and despair effects. Once per day, after rolling a 1 on a d20, the gnome may reroll and use the second result. This racial trait replaces the defensive training and hatred racial traits.
My cheerful gnome grabbed that trait as soon as the APG was published.
Seriously, the designers described the cultures of the people of Golarion and I based my characters on those cultures.
Val Baine was an NPC in Fires of Creation, the ethnically Kellid daughter of the lost wizard. When my players invited her into their party to search for her father, I statted her out as a cross between a wizard and a barbarian. Bloodrager was close enough. That compromise was key to playing that character as a wildcard anchor for the party. That Val had an Air Elemental bloodline and wielded a pistol in one hand and a saber in the other was fun, but it was not key.
Amaya of Westcrown was a substitute for the lost heir in The Brinewall Legacy, designed to be equal level and pull her own weight in the party. Playing support without hogging the limelight was key to that character. That her Tongues curse was worse than most and no-one could understand her in combat was a plot point I added to sideline her. That she was also a high-Dexterity character using Dervish Dance for damage was mere flavoring, not key.
As a GM, I need versatility to make the NPCs work with the party without overshadowing the party. That versatility is not about combat. I hope that Pathfinder 2nd Edition gives me the proper kind of versatility.
We have had a lot of fun playtesting too. I've mostly enjoyed GMing a lot more and the players seem to find the encounters more varied.
My group is having fun with the mechanics. And the playtest so far has been the most fun I've had GMing in combat. The unique actions and reactions of creatures are awesome.
I find it boring myself or at least annoying. Having to double check each time what has AoO, feeling preasured to get ALL 3 swings in, knowing my players are doing the same thing as me...
How is this more varied? What actions are people finding that are different and unique and awesome? I seriously have to watch someone else play cause this does not seem in anyway different from PF1's "Oh I have to stand still and Full attack + Swift Action" combat system.
Oh it looks different. It reads different. It might be different.
Then everyone still plays it like PF1 from what I'm seeing so the point was what?
Edit: I will say I've only messed around with parts 1 and 2 of the Doomsday Dawn. Maybe the other Modules or later parts have more varying monsters but I'm looking at the bestiary and only see a few that look interesting on the one hand and annoying on the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is why you see a pretty warm reception to things like the new action economy, and the severe reduction in stacking a bajillion magical items/bonuses.
These are ideas that attempt to fix real problems.
The flat level-based scaling for everything might be a good idea, but I am at a loss as to what it fixes (Wizards needed full BAB?)
One of the reasons is to prevent sheer incompetence on the part of the party in a good amount of scenarios at high levels. There's a lot of high-level enemies (and characters) that can't see an avalanche coming down on their heads (this is an actual example from something that happened to our level 13 party. In retrospect, it was a bad idea putting that guy on watch.) Similarly, many can't climb or swim at all, and can't leap over a small gap. Not really things you'd expect of country-saving heroes.
The level-based scaling fixes that. It also allows for TAC numbers much closer to AC, so that touch-based attacks don't automatically hit.
I think that is why you see a pretty warm reception to things like the new action economy, and the severe reduction in stacking a bajillion magical items/bonuses.
These are ideas that attempt to fix real problems.
The flat level-based scaling for everything might be a good idea, but I am at a loss as to what it fixes (Wizards needed full BAB?)
One of the reasons is to prevent sheer incompetence on the part of the party in a good amount of scenarios at high levels. There's a lot of high-level enemies (and characters) that can't see an avalanche coming down on their heads (this is an actual example from something that happened to our level 13 party. In retrospect, it was a bad idea putting that guy on watch.) Similarly, many can't climb or swim at all, and can't leap over a small gap. Not really things you'd expect of country-saving heroes.
The level-based scaling fixes that. It also allows for TAC numbers much closer to AC, so that touch-based attacks don't automatically hit.
You know, I have seen this argument before, and I think it has some merit.
But couldn't you fix some of these things (like climbing, swimming, jumping over a small gap etc.) by removing them from the skill-check requirement altogether?
Couldn't we just say that everyone CAN do all the basic versions of these things until they want to something truly outside the norm? Like swim up a waterfall or climb a wall of ice? You don't need +level scaling for that. It would also help to make a lot of these skills feel less mundane since training would automatically assume something more than the usual usage.
I think you could also just add certain skills to a list of "general" skills like perception, that DO follow the automatic scaling if they are considered to be necessary investments, while keeping other skills like Perform or Arcana unscaled for untrained characters.
I can see where you are coming from, but I don't think that some of the bad choices that were possible should obviate the notion of choices entirely. Lets just fix the things that were problems and let everything else fall to player agency.
Okay, that is better than the 1st Edition rogue archer because 2nd Edition removes the feat taxes on archery. That is great, except that foes will have bows, too. But I don't see why a rogue with You're Next is supposed to be fantastic. Did I get the build wrong?
Yes Dread Striker at level 4 lets you treat frightened characters as flat footed. Allowing you to get sneak attack + a nice little debuff every turn on a successful demoralize check. Compare this to 1e bow rogue who: Cannot sneak attack unless it's the very first turn and they go first, Has bad base attack bonus meaning they won't be able to utilize rapid shot and deadly aim well at all (which is the core of every archer build in 1e), and is going to be far behind on feats anyways compared to a fighter or a ranger.
You know, I have seen this argument before, and I think it has some merit.But couldn't you fix some of these things (like climbing, swimming, jumping over a small gap etc.) by removing them from the skill-check requirement altogether?
Couldn't we just say that everyone CAN do all the basic versions of these things until they want to something truly outside the norm?
One of the games I'm in right now is Rise of the Runelords, and our party is a level 17 Cleric (me), Slayer, Fighter, and Mystic Theurge. There are a number of things where the skill gap is so large that even attempting them with the full party is doomed to fail.
The stealth gap between the top and bottom is somewhere around 40. Cleric (me) is at -4 stealth and is so bad at it that doing a stealth check is a waste of time, because any check the Slayer can possibly fail, I can't possibly succeed (invisiblity isn't exactly a cure all at this level since stuff can routinely see through it). If we try to stealth as a group, my ineptitude at it causes the whole group to fail, and our DM actually house ruled a group stealth rule such that it takes two players failing to group fail simply so that we could at least have attempting it as an option.
Diplomacy is the same in the other direction, where I will do it (or the Theurge if I can't, who can use Linguistics), and the other two will simply not. One person's knowledges outclass everyone else to such a degree that in most cases there's no point in anyone else rolling, two people can spot things a mile away while one can't see something that isn't right in front of them, and on and on it goes.
The gaps become so wide that it becomes exclusionary. It's not that one person should do it because they're better, it's that one person should do it because if it's not trivial for that person, nobody else has a snowball's chance in hell of doing it.
The 2e system needs some tweaking as the gap between untrained and expert feels smaller than it sounds like it maybe should, but the intention is to not create these skill check situations where only one player can be involved and everyone else is sidelined. It's one of the things I like about the system. My 2e Cleric may not excel at Athletics, but it's at least possible to climb up the mountain as I gain levels because I'll never fall hopelessly far behind everyone else.
Okay, that is better than the 1st Edition rogue archer because 2nd Edition removes the feat taxes on archery. That is great, except that foes will have bows, too. But I don't see why a rogue with You're Next is supposed to be fantastic. Did I get the build wrong?Yes Dread Striker at level 4 lets you treat frightened characters as flat footed. Allowing you to get sneak attack + a nice little debuff every turn on a successful demoralize check. Compare this to 1e bow rogue who: Cannot sneak attack unless it's the very first turn and they go first, Has bad base attack bonus meaning they won't be able to utilize rapid shot and deadly aim well at all (which is the core of every archer build in 1e), and is going to be far behind on feats anyways compared to a fighter or a ranger.
Is that before or after getting Rapid Reload?And You're Next needing a kill to trigger in the first place. Assurance too so you can just ignore rolling.
I don't know if it's better or not but the build seem to need to take all your feats anyway to make it work.
Side note maybe we can move this over to Class discussion.
How is this more varied? What actions are people finding that are different and unique and awesome? I seriously have to watch someone else play cause this does not seem in anyway different from PF1's "Oh I have to stand still and Full attack + Swift Action" combat system.Oh it looks different. It reads different. It might be different.
Then everyone still plays it like PF1 from what I'm seeing so the point was what?
Heal comes to mind. I did that as a single action, as a two action ranged, with or without healing hands (for an extra action), as a burst AoE... all in one encounter. Depending on if I needed to move or such. That was new and interesting.
Every other spell I have? I can move and cast the spell as-is, and that's it. Exactly like PF1. Most of the other players I saw were in a similar boat except the Bard, who had some more variety.
The mechanics do seem to allow more options in action usage, but they really aren't using it to full effect right now.
And then there's Shields... which just seem clunky as hell to me, mechanically.
I don't know if it's better or not but the build seem to need to take all your feats anyway to make it work.
It takes exactly 2 class feats to come online. In fact you could actually skip You're Next and just get Dread Striker, but the feat is so damn good with the build that there's no point that you would. Demoralize is 1 action, so you can sacrifice your 3rd attack at -10 to instead just demoralize with your first action. If a success, your target is frightened 1. With dread striker that makes them flat footed. so they take a -2 to AC (more likely to crit which is nice with the deadly trait on the shortbow) and your next two attacks if they hit will deal sneak attack damage. On top of all this the target is debuffed until the end of his next turn.
You can even crit on the demoralize to make them frightened 2.
It's an awesome build.
Or pair up with a Bard and ask him to use Dirge of Doom to keep your enemies perpetually frightened. Later on, Scare to Death lets you literally kill someone by scaring them.I don't know if it's better or not but the build seem to need to take all your feats anyway to make it work.
It takes exactly 2 class feats to come online. In fact you could actually skip You're Next and just get Dread Striker, but the feat is so damn good with the build that there's no point that you would. Demoralize is 1 action, so you can sacrifice your 3rd attack at -10 to instead just demoralize with your first action. If a success, your target is frightened 1. With dread striker that makes them flat footed. so they take a -2 to AC (more likely to crit which is nice with the deadly trait on the shortbow) and your next two attacks if they hit will deal sneak attack damage. On top of all this the target is debuffed until the end of his next turn.
You can even crit on the demoralize to make them frightened 2.
It's an awesome build.
Yup that's another thing I like about 2e. You have a lot more reasons to actually work together. Our Sorcerer was casting fear at least once per fight on the most threatening target so that our Dread Striker rogue was getting big damage on their sneak attacks. I could see an intimidate build Fighter working well in that party as well.
I don't know if it's better or not but the build seem to need to take all your feats anyway to make it work.
It takes exactly 2 class feats to come online. In fact you could actually skip You're Next and just get Dread Striker, but the feat is so damn good with the build that there's no point that you would. Demoralize is 1 action, so you can sacrifice your 3rd attack at -10 to instead just demoralize with your first action. If a success, your target is frightened 1. With dread striker that makes them flat footed. so they take a -2 to AC (more likely to crit which is nice with the deadly trait on the shortbow) and your next two attacks if they hit will deal sneak attack damage. On top of all this the target is debuffed until the end of his next turn.
You can even crit on the demoralize to make them frightened 2.
It's an awesome build.
1 Feat isn't a build. And if it's this good, I expect it to be brought down in power or moved up the Level requirement.
This is something I would expect to start coming online at level 8 or so.
Not to mention this is crippled against anything that is Mindless or can't be feared.
Yup that's another thing I like about 2e. You have a lot more reasons to actually work together. Our Sorcerer was casting fear at least once per fight on the most threatening target so that our Dread Striker rogue was getting big damage on their sneak attacks. I could see an intimidate build Fighter working well in that party as well.
Fighter only gets 1 feat to help and that only amps the Rogue up. Well their flat damage, helps with crits.
Oh yeah it definitely has it's downsides but that's what makes it balanced right? The "build" part of it is focusing your skill increases /feats on intimidate, and then you have a few options. You could take fighter dedications and try for some of those archery based feats or you could stick with Rogue feats which there are a few that are really nice to have.
If you do come up against mindless or fearless opponents you might have to get in the fray with a melee weapon and try for flanks. But the good thing is: you aren't taking dumb archery feat taxes, so your melee capabilities really aren't hindered too much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah it definitely has it's downsides but that's what makes it balanced right? The "build" part of it is focusing your skill increases /feats on intimidate, and then you have a few options. You could take fighter dedications and try for some of those archery based feats or you could stick with Rogue feats which there are a few that are really nice to have.
If you do come up against mindless or fearless opponents you might have to get in the fray with a melee weapon and try for flanks. But the good thing is: you aren't taking dumb archery feat taxes, so your melee capabilities really aren't hindered too much.
Down side is running into a handful of guys that it won't work on and might never show up in your game?
Yeah okay.
And no that's not a "Build". That's 1 feat. That's stupidly strong for 1 feat. How else do you "Build" for it? You seem to need NOTHING else. It's a Specialty skill and you get more than enough Skill Feats. One and Done feels very off to me.
Also why yes, your melee isn't hampered by taking "dumb archery feat taxes". Your Ranged isn't getting boosted either so just take your Rapier and do better.
All this has done as shown me that "Hey you want an Intimidate Build? You NEED Rogue". Huh, I really wanted to be Alchemist but I guess I need to Rogue. Big Scary Fighter can't build Intimidate without Rogue Dedication just not possible.
|
I don't think that's stupidly strong for one feat. You have to remember that this time around, they've made it much easier to apply the flat-footed condition. Consequently they've scaled back how much damage sneak attack can do, and which weapons it can be applied to. So, if we compare it to a 4th level greatsword fighter, fighter is going to have a +2 bonus to hit over the rogue before conditional, or circumstance bonuses. Damage for the greatsword is going to be 2d12+5 versus 2d6+2 with a composite shortbow, plus 1d6 on the sneak attack. So the rogue needs that flat-footed condition and sneak attack to keep up on the accuracy/damage front.
So something that requires an extra action, with a decent chance of failure, to keep up with the heavy hitter, when they can also gain the accuracy bonus doesn't sound overpowered to me. I think it is a decent mechanic though to get comparable results, so the rogue has to try to hide, or flank, or demoralize to take advantage of the enemy, kind of like a rogue is supposed to.
EDIT - Actually, I think I just realized that there's no description in the book yet that states that if you're proficient with shortbows, you're also proficient with composite shortbows, so I guess that would be 2d6+1, not really a huge deal, considering it's only half strength applied this time around.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF is hard to GM compared to a lot of systems even with PFS (and it has gotten harder as time goes on). Cutting down PC combos seems like the industry standard to make it easier to GM (at least that's what they did in 5e). Lack of GM's is one possible slow death of PF.
No one has ever said that 3.5 or PF was easy on new players (except with irony or a belly full of rotgut--Viva Thunderbird!). An aging player base plus few new players=another possible slow death of PF.
Much of what made PF1 hard to GM was splatbooks. The need to continually enhance and extend the game system to keep players engaged is always at odds with system mastery and ease of adoption. But, I agree PF1 did not start from an easy place because of its 3.5 roots.
There are a lot of good ideas in the Playtest, for sure. The 3 action/reaction system is probably one of the best: it simplifies the game for both the GM and the player and makes the game more fun to play. And the new character creation system is an absolute breeze (cross-referencing and page-flipping aside) which is a boon for new players. I was hoping PF2 would be more ideas like that, and less about containing PC's to a small, rigid box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's stupidly strong for one feat. You have to remember that this time around, they've made it much easier to apply the flat-footed condition. Consequently they've scaled back how much damage sneak attack can do, and which weapons it can be applied to. So, if we compare it to a 4th level greatsword fighter, fighter is going to have a +2 bonus to hit over the rogue before conditional, or circumstance bonuses. Damage for the greatsword is going to be 2d12+5 versus 2d6+2 with a composite shortbow, plus 1d6 on the sneak attack. So the rogue needs that flat-footed condition and sneak attack to keep up on the accuracy/damage front.
So something that requires an extra action, with a decent chance of failure, to keep up with the heavy hitter, when they can also gain the accuracy bonus doesn't sound overpowered to me. I think it is a decent mechanic though to get comparable results, so the rogue has to try to hide, or flank, or demoralize to take advantage of the enemy, kind of like a rogue is supposed to.
EDIT - Actually, I think I just realized that there's no description in the book yet that states that if you're proficient with shortbows, you're also proficient with composite shortbows, so I guess that would be 2d6+1, not really a huge deal, considering it's only half strength applied this time around.
I'm actually going to shut up about this other than a post here. I can't seem to PM, and this really needs to be kicked over class.
Point is, I'm ALREADY seeing by this thread alone that people are starting to figure out the only way to actually play a build right. I need Rogue for an Intimidate build. I need 2-hander to play fighter right. Oh wait no. I need to be 2 hander to play Melee right it seems.
Never mind. What was I expecting.
Let's see. Some searching to find out the classes which are most easily suited to a build that uses fear:
- Barbarian (Raging Intimidation - gives you two skill feats, Terrifying Howl)
- Bard (Versatile Performance)
- Fighter (Intimidating Strike, Shatter Defenses)
- Monk (Dragon Roar)
- Rogue (You're Next, Dread Striker)
- Any caster that wants to use a spell that has saving throws
That seems like a pretty big list.
Point is, I'm ALREADY seeing by this thread alone that people are starting to figure out the only way to actually play a build right. I need Rogue for an Intimidate build. I need 2-hander to play fighter right. Oh wait no. I need to be 2 hander to play Melee right it seems.
Never mind. What was I expecting.
Incorrect. There's a cool Fighter intimidate build that looks great. Haven't seen it in play but Intimidating Strike + Shatter Defences looks awesome.
Rogue lets you get intimidate going more quickly, but fighter's shatter defenses is a necessity. Unfortunately, it works a little oddly as worded. And there's apparently some confusion over whether or not AC is considered a check or not, which is important to determining the value of applying the sluggish condition against someone who already has the frightened condition.
-The monk version locks you into a strength monk build since dragon style isn't finesse nor agile. It's an interesting feat but would likely appear with a fighter archetype to make up for the Lower AC. If it's available through a monk archetype, then I would expect to see it more frequently through archetyping than the natural class.
-Caster fear isn't reliable enough, takes too many actions, and fails too frequently for a resource restricted action.
-The barbarian one removes the typical restriction on intimidating while raging, other than that, it gives you a skill feat at the cost of a class feat. That's not a good trade. Better to take a class that isn't restricted from intimidation in the first place. Free scare to death at 15th level is cool, but that's quite a bit down the line.
-Bard saves you some skill ranks. Does it do anything else for you? As is, you still need to boost your intimidate ranks to qualify for intimidate feats, making the ability worthless for an intimidate focused character.
The only option that grants you rapid unrestricted intimidate is the rogue. Though fighter is likely the better choice depending on how sluggish and frightened stack, and how intimidating strike and shatter defenses interact.
Incorrect. There's a cool Fighter intimidate build that looks great. Haven't seen it in play but Intimidating Strike + Shatter Defences looks awesome.
Point is, I'm ALREADY seeing by this thread alone that people are starting to figure out the only way to actually play a build right. I need Rogue for an Intimidate build. I need 2-hander to play fighter right. Oh wait no. I need to be 2 hander to play Melee right it seems.
Never mind. What was I expecting.
I dont think that combo works as it seems on first reading...