All these TPKs. Curious:


General Discussion

151 to 200 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
arcaneArtisan wrote:
That's what sneaky scout-type characters are *for*.

There is no such thing as a sneaky scout in PF2, at least not at low levels. And even at high levels, your best sneaky scout is probably the cleric or the druid.

The best scouts are the cleric and the druid because Perception is locked to Wisdom, all forms of detection from creatures to traps are locked to Perception, and cleric and rogue have Wisdom as key abilities.

The best sneaks are the rogue and ranger, since Stealth is locked to Dex, and rogue and ranger have Dex as key abilities. But, their Perception will never be better than the cleric's or the druid's, and to get it equal they have to invest their ability boosts in Dex to get a 16. I posit that high-wisdom rangers and rogues are not typical builds.

You can, later in the game, get a sneakier cleric or druid (or at least, you can now that Signature Skills are gone), but your rogue and ranger will never be as good at Perception because you can't invest in it except by raising your Wisdom. Similarly, your cleric and druid will never be as good as the ranger or rogue at Stealth because once you are trained in a skill all advancement is fixed, and the only way to improve it from that point forward is to raise their Dex.

Wouldn't someone with better perception proficiency progression be a better choice? Wis 16 expert and wis 18 trained are the same, but going from 18 to 20 takes 10 levels, whereas going from expert to master is 7 for fighters, rangers, and rogues with rogues get legendary at 13, rangers at 15.

A cleric/druid could keep close through buying alertness, but they aren't going to be the best. On top of that, fighter and rogue have some serious feat support for perception beyond the base roll.

All of this is moot because you cannot scout. To scout requires that you both sneak and look out for the enemies. The exploration mode rules say that you have to pick 1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The exploration rules end when you roll initiative, but that doesn't mean combat starts if the scout is undetected. Encounter mode would start, your scout would continue stealth checks and start making seek checks as well as they search the area. It would be nice to have formalized rules for encounter mode ending due to one party remaining unaware of the other, but it still functions as it did previously.

I think. Isn't that how the modes work?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's what bugs me the most here. In an attempt to prevent optimizers from dominating the game like they allegedly did in PF1, and lower the barrier to entry for new players by making it easier to make characters with less game knowledge, we have been given PF2.

And yet, he we are, having conversations about how to get the best scouts in PF2, because the obvious choice (the rogue) is not the answer.

How has this made the game better?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That's the biggest thing there; every Fortitude Saving Throw in that adventure can be easily avoided if the players are smart enough and approach the relevant encounters the right way,

Please stop insulting my players, because that is what you are doing.

A3 is only optional if you are the GM because they players don't know what's optional.

The Fort saves in A6 are only avoidable if you know the thing that causes it is optional. See A3 for the definition of "optional".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The playtest kinda has to be Hard Mode.
That's where the edges & stress points are.

Expressing discontent w/ Hard Mode is just as valid as expressing appreciation. Hopefully Paizo PF2 products will allow for both styles of play as options.

Just realized this might be why Clerics seem so necessary. They have the most resources, so seem required when resources are stretched. My group has done well w/ a Paladin & Druid (Animal) handling the healing tasks (w/ a Bard for emergencies which haven't occurred).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
arcaneArtisan wrote:
It sounds like maybe the difficulty level has indeed increased a bit, but nothing I've heard suggests the situations are unrealistically dangerous or dangerous to a degree that reduces the level of fun to be had in the game. It just sounds like some people are assuming they're as superhumanly tough as they were in First Edition and that's not the case any longer--and it means reckless tactics actually get you killed sometimes. Even then, I've seen very few descriptions of people suffering TPKs that they both blame on...
^^This. Exactly this. Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG, not a Superhero RPG.

Superhero isn't directly indicative of power level anyway. Spider man and superman are on completely different scales and both are super heroes, and there are quite a few fantasy characters I don't like spidey's odds against.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So far TPKS for me only happen when the GM rolls massive Crits and drops the healer. Once that happens then the party has big problems. Play Test is heal heavy over arcane heavy.


John Mechalas wrote:

Here's what bugs me the most here. In an attempt to prevent optimizers from dominating the game like they allegedly did in PF1, and lower the barrier to entry for new players by making it easier to make characters with less game knowledge, we have been given PF2.

And yet, he we are, having conversations about how to get the best scouts in PF2, because the obvious choice (the rogue) is not the answer.

How has this made the game better?

Conversations aren't a bad thing. The game appears to be better because there is no obvious exploit to become a significantly better scout, other than the obvious choice of improving the stats that involve them (DEX and WIS). There are some Stealth Skill Feats that can improve sneaking, and maybe some magic, but beyond that, there doesn't appear to be anything a new player couldn't intuit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In the wilderness the 'obvious' scout is a Ranger, not a Rogue. At least, as I imagine the classes.

But mundane scouting barely makes sense in a magical setting. Anyone without darkvision is going to be hopeless at scouting out dark areas guarded by enemies with darkvision. An expendable familiar is a better choice to risk than a PC who might roll a 1 at any moment and then end up fighting a group of bad guys on their own. And anyone who can turn invisible and teleport to safety (or walk through a wall, or turn into a tree, or wild-shape...) has major advantages over someone with no magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
arcaneArtisan wrote:
It sounds like maybe the difficulty level has indeed increased a bit, but nothing I've heard suggests the situations are unrealistically dangerous or dangerous to a degree that reduces the level of fun to be had in the game. It just sounds like some people are assuming they're as superhumanly tough as they were in First Edition and that's not the case any longer--and it means reckless tactics actually get you killed sometimes. Even then, I've seen very few descriptions of people suffering TPKs that they both blame on...
^^This. Exactly this. Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG, not a Superhero RPG.

How is PF2 less superhero than PF1? I associate "everyone is good at everything" (the Ostog the Untenured problem) with superheroes, not fantasy. The Wizard doesn't suddenly become an Olympic long jumper because they're high level... except in PF2 they do.

PF2 characters (on average) have more HP and more AC than PF1, as far as I can tell. The specialists could beat PF2 but people who didn't focus would be way behind PF2. The Barbarian skinny dipping in lava is easily possible in both. The Wizard doing the same thing in PF1 without magic, not so much (possible with enough Con, just difficult). In PF2 a level 20 Wizard with 10 Con has 120 HP and with 24d6 max for taking a dip in lava has a 99.99% chance of surviving (I think there's a few more 9s, actually). In PF1 with 10 Con it's basically the reverse (a 99.99% chance of dying). The naked frail Wizard taking a dip in lava without magic just screams superhero to me.

Also, a naked Fighter had an AC of 10+Dex in PF1 and could be killed in an ambush by peasants. In PF2 they have 10+level+Dex and whoever is ambushing them better be within a few levels of them if they want to hit at all. If I had to call one fantasy and one superhero it'd be first and second, respectively. The second one could also be fantasy but less "realistic" and more "demigod" (which isn't much of a stretch from superhero).

Seriously, why is PF1 the more superhero of the two? Because you can pile on a bunch of magic armor and doodads to make yourself super powerful? That's high fantasy. Superheros are about your innate powers. Or in this case, "proficiency".


Ed Reppert wrote:
I get the sense that some people define "fun" as being overpowered for the critters and situations one meets. :-(

In a literal sense, yes. PCs are expected have many fights over the course of a campaign and have at least a decent shot at surviving them. Cumulative probability ensures that if evey fight is a coin flip or worse, that will not happen.

_
glass.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
glass wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
I get the sense that some people define "fun" as being overpowered for the critters and situations one meets. :-(

In a literal sense, yes. PCs are expected have many fights over the course of a campaign and have at least a decent shot at surviving them. Cumulative probability ensures that if evey fight is a coin flip or worse, that will not happen.

_
glass.

Anything long-term really.

A long-time campaign with 200+ fights need better survivability than a convention one-shot with 3.

Pro-active multi-step plans need better skill odds than reactive room-by-room investigation, with stuff like heist movies and the old Mission Impossible TV series as extreme examples. (yes, some part of the Big Plan always breaks in those and has to be patched up with some inspiration, but not 50% of it!) And yes, some of us likes to mix up linear monster-slaying with such stuff for a varied play style.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
^^This. Exactly this. Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG, not a Superhero RPG.

Repeating this like a mantra doesn't make it anymore true.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a fantasy RPG where you play Big Damn Heroes. Not rat catchers who need to go back to catching rats sometimes to make ends meet (Warhammer FRPG 1e or 2e, at least one game of Rolemaster I played).


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
^^This. Exactly this. Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG, not a Superhero RPG.
Repeating this like a mantra doesn't make it anymore true.

So what? I am not doing that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
^^This. Exactly this. Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG, not a Superhero RPG.
Repeating this like a mantra doesn't make it anymore true.
So what? I am not doing that.

It is the general sentiment which I've seen people expouse on the boards which gets my goat. It is blatantly untrue at higher levels. I'm not sure if the people who believe Pathfinder doesn't turn into superheroes have ever played over level 12.


Or maybe your definition of super heroes is different.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
^^This. Exactly this. Pathfinder is a fantasy RPG, not a Superhero RPG.
Repeating this like a mantra doesn't make it anymore true.
So what? I am not doing that.
It is the general sentiment which I've seen people expouse on the boards which gets my goat. It is blatantly untrue at higher levels. I'm not sure if the people who believe Pathfinder doesn't turn into superheroes have ever played over level 12.

This is certainly true for me (in ten years, we’ve never made it to level ten without a TPK). I’ve played low level, mythic PF1 (the mythic rules seemed to me to be pretty super heroey) but never high level stuff.

I wonder if trying to make high level play more palatable in PF2 for those who don’t like it in PF1 sets up an inevitable “conflict of expectations” with those that do?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Or maybe your definition of super heroes is different.

A level 20 Monk is someone who literally punches out dragons the size of palaces. I'm not sure how to categorize this as anything else than a superhero story.

Steve Geddes wrote:

This is certainly true for me (in ten years, we’ve never made it to level ten without a TPK). I’ve played low level, mythic PF1 (the mythic rules seemed to me to be pretty super heroey) but never high level stuff.

I wonder if trying to make high level play more palatable in PF2 for those who don’t like it in PF1 sets up an inevitable “conflict of expectations” with those that do?

I'm pretty sure it does, since the approach so far seems "make everything like the low levels", which plainly doesn't work for me.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, and I wonder if "beef up the martials" would put off a significant number of those who don't like high level play - maybe they want the same general power level that they enjoy in PF1 but on a kind of "slow burn".

As I say, I'm not qualified to have an opinion really. There do seem to be a lot of "warnings" to Paizo though - I worry that there's basically a whole bunch of contradictory non-negotiables, depending on who you talk to. I don't envy Paizo.

It seemed to me to be grossly unpopular, but I quite enjoyed the Heroic/Paragon/Epic tier approach of 4E - it basically divided the ruleset into three separate games and meant you could set your campaign in the appropriate set of rules to give the tone you were looking for. Pretty sure anything so explicit is a nonstarter for PF2 (I don't think I ever met anyone besides me who liked it!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah, and I wonder if "beef up the martials" would put off a significant number of those who don't like high level play - maybe they want the same general power level that they enjoy in PF1 but on a kind of "slow burn".

It's quite possible. There seems to be a sharp divide in the fanbase, between people who enjoy low-level play, but never (or seldomly) played high-levels and the people who regularly did high-level gaming. The game does change around level 12 and it is not for everyone. The question is if hacking off the people who enjoyed high-level gaming is the way to go for Paizo. It's not for me, for sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah, and I wonder if "beef up the martials" would put off a significant number of those who don't like high level play - maybe they want the same general power level that they enjoy in PF1 but on a kind of "slow burn".
It's quite possible. There seems to be a sharp divide in the fanbase, between people who enjoy low-level play, but never (or seldomly) played high-levels and the people who regularly did high-level gaming. The game does change around level 12 and it is not for everyone. The question is if hacking off the people who enjoyed high-level gaming is the way to go for Paizo. It's not for me, for sure.

Yeah, I've even found 7th level (4th-level spells) is when things can start to change. They could really leverage Legendary to open up epic style play.


magnuskn wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Or maybe your definition of super heroes is different.

A level 20 Monk is someone who literally punches out dragons the size of palaces. I'm not sure how to categorize this as anything else than a superhero story.

Steve Geddes wrote:

This is certainly true for me (in ten years, we’ve never made it to level ten without a TPK). I’ve played low level, mythic PF1 (the mythic rules seemed to me to be pretty super heroey) but never high level stuff.

I wonder if trying to make high level play more palatable in PF2 for those who don’t like it in PF1 sets up an inevitable “conflict of expectations” with those that do?

I'm pretty sure it does, since the approach so far seems "make everything like the low levels", which plainly doesn't work for me.

Level 20 Monks punching out Dragons with ease just means the Dragons are being played poorly, because no smart Dragon would fall for that scheme. At best, you can say Zen Archer Monks shoot Dragons out of the sky, but even then the most calculating and powerful of Dragons will have measures in place to circumvent this from being done so easily.

I do agree the higher level options seem very bland and uninspired at the moment. I'm not really seeing much change from how the lower levels play out compared to the higher levels from current experience, assuming a same-party composition for each level. On top of that, numerous tactics that were once viable are just too bad or too clunky to work with unless you take feat taxes, and even then some don't even have that workaround; with the game making that assumption of having/spending those options just to be able to do X is absolutely lame.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a DM/GM for over 36 years, I have TPK'd only one party, and only because they were totally stupid and ignored my "hints & suggestions". In two sessions of PF play testing, I have brought 2 characters to "0" hps neither died. I could have killed a character by hitting him when he was down, but I chose to hit another character. I believe that if you have an evil GM you will have more character deaths. I believe that the GM is not the Monsters he plays and that "playing in character" often leads to a game that is NO FUN!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
And yet, he we are, having conversations about how to get the best scouts in PF2, because the obvious choice (the rogue) is not the answer.
Conversations aren't a bad thing. The game appears to be better because there is no obvious exploit to become a significantly better scout, other than the obvious choice of improving the stats that involve them (DEX and WIS). There are some Stealth Skill Feats that can improve sneaking, and maybe some magic, but beyond that, there doesn't appear to be anything a new player couldn't intuit.

That wasn't what I was getting at, so I'll try again.

Among the goals of the Playtest we have: 1) eliminate the wide power variance (in particular, cut back on OP builds), 2) make the game easier to learn and play by simplifying rules, 3) lower the barrier to entry so players aren't overwhelmed with a sea of options that they have to navigate properly to produce a viable character.

Now, let's say your character concept is "sneaky scout character". Given the above design goals, it's logical to assume that a new player wanting "sneaky scout" would look at the classes and say "rogue" if they were in a city or dungeon setting and "ranger" in a forest setting. Done.

That new player will very reasonably expect that their rogue or ranger will be the go-to for detecting pits, traps, and what's around the next corner, and the best at sneaking around. But that's not what happens. We know from the math and from playing the game that the cleric and druid will always be better at perception because 1) they have an 18 Wis, and 2) they will almost certainly boost their Wis when boosts are granted at later levels. So right out of the gate, the new player is not the best at finding traps because they are outshined by the cleric and druid (at least the druid makes thematic sense in the forest, but still...)

We also know from the game that the new player is probably not going to build their rogue and ranger with an 18 primary stat and 16 Wis because those classes need other scores to be higher, nor are they going to be built with an 18 Wis because it's impossible under the rules.

So, to be the best at detecting things, we on the forums are having a conversation about how to build the best "sneaky scout" character because the "obvious" choice is wrong, which means you have to optimize and navigate a sea of options. One of the primary design goals of the Playtest has failed.

So my point is, the Playtest is fundamentally broken in this area.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My group had a 1/2 down on the first encounter. We wiped on the 3rd.

I don't really wanna rehash everything - but based on this thread some notes:


  • We had 3 people who could heal - but no cleric - this was intentional as we wanted to see how it would work (no paladin either) - all healing was used up by the end of the 2nd encounter
  • The GM did stress the time limit - he mentioned we were 10 minutes from town - we might have rested - but we play the game as 'you should do more than 1 thing a day' - in PF1 we'd play until we were burnt out - we felt it was cheap to keep resting - to the point that our group in Hell's Vengeance recently had a 'come to deity' moment with the GM when we were down to 0 resources and still have 8 encounters to go - he had to be frank with us as we considered trying to trudge onward. Playing low resources is part of the fun. Having to rest after 1 encounter isn't. Even at level 1. 3 encounters in a single day shouldn't be lethal - it was - sorry.

  • You play like PF 1 - no, monsters would use a single move and hit twice. We actually did OK fighting the goblins, but the rules of dice (yes - this is actually true) say that the more enemies you fight - the more likely there will be a crit. This is why low level monsters like ogres (in mass) can still be a threat in RotRL book 3 - it just takes one crit with a x4 weapon to bring one of those 'heroes' back to reality. Welcome to PF2 where everything is like an ogre with an ogre hook - fine if they roll low.

  • Did you report? Yes - but not within the 'survey window' - because real life has kept us to two sessions so far - we gave up on adventure 1 - we are moving to adventure 2 this week - I'll report on that also even if it's late - because we honestly want the system to get better - the dying rules are already better.

  • Did you use the rules? No house rules at all - this is by the book and no fudge or 'rule of cool' allowed - we felt it wouldn't help the playtest to fudge the numbers - if GM's are letting players live just to keep the game going - it doesn't help the system.

Just to note - punching an elder dragon (as big as a house) and being able to do damage at all to it - is superhero - that's not 'punching a dragon with ease' that just fighting it at all.

I never understood the 'no magical powers for martials at high levels it's just anime' crowd - if you can take dragon breath to the face you are a superhero and magical - that same breath just melted a suit of adamantium armor behind you. Unless you play with the old 'more than 50 damage in a single attack means roll a fort save or die' rule (no one I have ever met uses this rule) then you are a superhero. I don't care if you prefer low level play - but stop putting unrealistic constraints at the high end of the game you don't like anyway.

*cough* /rant off

That all said - actually out of 4 players - only one perma deathed - the other 3 regained consciousness 1/2 way out of the dungeon - after we played through 4 rounds of saves (exciting gameplay to be sure!) or the GM would have handwaved us dead. I forced the issue to see if we'd live - we did - so the system does have a high degree of survivability - however my character - having been brought to the bring of death so many times in a single day - gave up adventuring.

The other two survivors felt the same way. Epic tales to be sure.


John Mechalas wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
John Mechalas wrote:
And yet, he we are, having conversations about how to get the best scouts in PF2, because the obvious choice (the rogue) is not the answer.
Conversations aren't a bad thing. The game appears to be better because there is no obvious exploit to become a significantly better scout, other than the obvious choice of improving the stats that involve them (DEX and WIS). There are some Stealth Skill Feats that can improve sneaking, and maybe some magic, but beyond that, there doesn't appear to be anything a new player couldn't intuit.

That wasn't what I was getting at, so I'll try again.

Among the goals of the Playtest we have: 1) eliminate the wide power variance (in particular, cut back on OP builds), 2) make the game easier to learn and play by simplifying rules, 3) lower the barrier to entry so players aren't overwhelmed with a sea of options that they have to navigate properly to produce a viable character.

Now, let's say your character concept is "sneaky scout character". Given the above design goals, it's logical to assume that a new player wanting "sneaky scout" would look at the classes and say "rogue" if they were in a city or dungeon setting and "ranger" in a forest setting. Done.

That new player will very reasonably expect that their rogue or ranger will be the go-to for detecting pits, traps, and what's around the next corner, and the best at sneaking around. But that's not what happens. We know from the math and from playing the game that the cleric and druid will always be better at perception because 1) they have an 18 Wis, and 2) they will almost certainly boost their Wis when boosts are granted at later levels. So right out of the gate, the new player is not the best at finding traps because they are outshined by the cleric and druid (at least the druid makes thematic sense in the forest, but still...)

We also know from the game that the new player is probably not going to build their rogue and ranger with an 18...

Errr. Just so you were aware, at Level 1, ability spread dependent of course, a cleric/Druid with +4 wisdom will have a +5 perception (+4 wis, + 1 level) and a Rogue who builds for scouting could easily have a +5 perception as well (+3 wis, +1 level, +1 expert proficiency).

At level 5, this disperity increases, assuming that you do not take Alertness.

Cleric w/o Alertness = 9 (+4 wis, +5 level)
Cleric w/Alertness = 10 (+4 wis, +5 level, +1 expert prof)

Rogue = 10 (+4 wis, +5 level, +1 expert prof)

The next Milestone is at 10. Again, I'll list a cleric with and without alertness.

Cleric w/o Alertness = 15 (+5 wis, +10 level)
Cleric w/Alertness = 16 (+5 wis, +10 level, +1 expert)

Rogue = 16 (+4 wis, +10 level, +2 master)

And finally at 20, because why not.

Cleric w/o Alertness = 26 (+6 wis, +20 level)
Cleric w/Alertness = 27 (+6 wis, +20 level, +1 expert)

Rogue = 28 (+5 wis, +20 level, +3 master)

This leaves a Rogue with a one feat advantage and a marginal score edge.
All of this was assuming no magic items.
And most importantly, this assumes the Rogue doesn't take trap finding or is not playing a favorable race, ie one without a perception bonus.

So your statement that a cleric is the best trapfinder/scout is disingenious. They need to spend a feat. Without the feat they have no way to increase proficiency, and any items available to a cleric/Druid are also available to a rogue. Furthermore, some traps require a specific proficiency rank to perceive if I recall correctly, further advantaging the Rogue. Even if you factor items in, I think it will stay similar.

It really just depends on your ability priorities while building you character, and what you envision your character as. The above character can still have favorable dex, and OK con. I will grant you a 10 in both int and cha sucks, but this is a matter of priorities. And with the way ability increases work, you could still very easily wind up with a final rogue spread of (14, 22, 18, 14, 20, 16) at level 20 without any items.

Keeping in mind that fully optimizing ability scores cannot get you higher than a 22 in a given ability, without outside influence while using default generation (+2 favorable ancestry, +2 background, +2 key mod, +2 at level 1) for 18 max at level 1, 19 max at level 5, 20 max at level 10, 21 max at 15 and 22 max at 20.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Syndrous wrote:
Errr. Just so you were aware, at Level 1, ability spread dependent of course, a cleric/Druid with +4 wisdom will have a +5 perception (+4 wis, + 1 level) and a Rogue who builds for scouting could easily have a +5 perception as well (+3 wis, +1 level, +1 expert proficiency).

Err...just so you were aware, I am aware of that because I already brought it up.

And you are optimizing now by giving the Rogue a Wis of 16. Now your starting character scores are 18,16,12,12,10,10 or 18,16,14,10,10,10 or 18,16,14,12,10,8. Under the character creation mechanics, the first is the only possible outcome if your ancestry is human. The last one is as close to min-maxing as you can get by the rules.

Then you are further optimizing by increasing the Rogue's Wis instead of Dex at Level 5.

I would call this a fringe build, but YMMV. And it more or less proves my point: you have to optimize and do something atypical to make the rogue equal to or better than the cleric.

Edited to add: And let's not forget that initiative is now tied to Perception, too, instead of Dex. Now the cleric tends to be at the top of the initiative order, too.

Silver Crusade

magnuskn wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Or maybe your definition of super heroes is different.

A level 20 Monk is someone who literally punches out dragons the size of palaces. I'm not sure how to categorize this as anything else than a superhero story.

Are Hercules and Gilgamesh superheroes (the versions from the Epics, NOT from comics :-))?

I think the answer to that definitely depends on your definition of superhero and different people will answer differently.


John Mechalas wrote:

And you are optimizing now by giving the Rogue a Wis of 16. Now your starting character scores are 18,16,12,12,10,10 or 18,16,14,10,10,10 or 18,16,14,12,10,8. Under the character creation mechanics, the first is the only possible outcome if your ancestry is human. The last one is as close to min-maxing as you can get by the rules. Then you are further optimizing by increasing the Rogue's Wis instead of Dex at Level 4.

I would call this a fringe build, but YMMV. And it more or less proves my point: you have to optimize and do something counter-intuitive to make this make sense.

Why would they not be Optimizing for something you stated they wanted to be the best at? Regardless what the math indicated is that a rogue building for it with 0 feat support ties the cleric at level one and outpaces him as soon as additional boosts come into play. That means someone not optimizing for 16 wis but 14 instead can just take trap-finder to tie the cleric for the only thing that is going to matter.

I'm curious as to where you think most rogues are going to be putting their stats if they aren't going to put a 14 in wis.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Twilight_Arcanum wrote:

Why would they not be Optimizing for something you stated they wanted to be the best at? Regardless what the math indicated is that a rogue building for it with 0 feat support ties the cleric at level one and outpaces him as soon as additional boosts come into play. That means someone not optimizing for 16 wis but 14 instead can just take trap-finder to tie the cleric for the only thing that is going to matter.

I'm curious as to where you think most rogues are going to be putting their stats if they aren't going to put a 14 in wis.

I don't think a 14 Wis is an unreasonable build, and I am not sure why you think I do. It's a 16 Wis build that starts looking like optimization.

Optimization is pursuing highest possible bonuses by having form follow function. Min-maxing is doing that by dumping areas you don't care about.

For a Rogue, remember that you have a ton of skills to tend to. If you put a 16 in Wis, you don't have a lot left for skill training increases. The Rogue can kinda afford that as long as you don't mind making tough choices. But it's a +1 Int bonus at best if you're a human, so maybe human is a bad choice. Now you have to make your rogue non-human to get you a +2 Int bonus.

That's optimizing.

Now, think again about a new player: they choose a Rogue and expect them to be good or better at this out of the box. Then the game starts, and the Cleric says "I have a higher perception bonus". Is that mission accomplished for the Playtest game design? I don't think so.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Or maybe your definition of super heroes is different.

A level 20 Monk is someone who literally punches out dragons the size of palaces. I'm not sure how to categorize this as anything else than a superhero story.

Are Hercules and Gilgamesh superheroes (the versions from the Epics, NOT from comics :-))?

I think the answer to that definitely depends on your definition of superhero and different people will answer differently.

I would say yes, they have qualities and capabilities far beyond the scope of their baseline "setting."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:
Syndrous wrote:
Errr. Just so you were aware, at Level 1, ability spread dependent of course, a cleric/Druid with +4 wisdom will have a +5 perception (+4 wis, + 1 level) and a Rogue who builds for scouting could easily have a +5 perception as well (+3 wis, +1 level, +1 expert proficiency).

Err...just so you were aware, I am aware of that because I already brought it up.

And you are optimizing now by giving the Rogue a Wis of 16. Now your starting character scores are 18,16,12,12,10,10 or 18,16,14,10,10,10 or 18,16,14,12,10,8. Under the character creation mechanics, the first is the only possible outcome if your ancestry is human. The last one is as close to min-maxing as you can get by the rules.

Then you are further optimizing by increasing the Rogue's Wis instead of Dex at Level 5.

I would call this a fringe build, but YMMV. And it more or less proves my point: you have to optimize and do something atypical to make the rogue equal to or better than the cleric.

Edited to add: And let's not forget that initiative is now tied to Perception, too, instead of Dex. Now the cleric tends to be at the top of the initiative order, too.

This bit confuses me. You get 4 stat boosts at level 5. Why aren't you taking WIS and DEX?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:
Twilight_Arcanum wrote:

Why would they not be Optimizing for something you stated they wanted to be the best at? Regardless what the math indicated is that a rogue building for it with 0 feat support ties the cleric at level one and outpaces him as soon as additional boosts come into play. That means someone not optimizing for 16 wis but 14 instead can just take trap-finder to tie the cleric for the only thing that is going to matter.

I'm curious as to where you think most rogues are going to be putting their stats if they aren't going to put a 14 in wis.
I don't think a 14 Wis is an unreasonable build, and I am not sure why you think I do. It's a 16 Wis build that starts looking like optimization.

Actually, a rogue with Wis 16 can happen "organically", since... What other ability do you need as a rogue?

Str -> rogues have sneak attack and Dex to damages. No need for Str.
Dex -> this is where they have a 18.
Con -> the effect on HP is weak, the effect on Saves is the same as Wis. And Wis has skill associated and Per etc. No characters should dump Con, but no character should pump it either.
Int -> more trained skills? Trained-only Skills do nothing thanks to the DC and the skills of the monsters. Int is the universal dump stat. There isn't any race with an Int flaw and it makes me sad.
Cha -> yes, that's useful. As much as Wis?

Str 10 Dex 18 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 12 looks like a standard array for rogues. Yes that's optimization, but that's optimization that comes naturally once you understand what Int and Con actually do.

In the other hand, no other class can afford for a Wis 16 (except for cleric and druid of course). Every one needs primary stat 18 (to have 50% success rate at some roll) and Dex 16 (to avoid OTK).

If you want a class that isn't intuitive to build: Barbarian. Con looks useful, so I can imagine a player putting his 16 in Con. And then he dies because he doesn't have Dex 16 nor heavy armor and con does basically nothing for survivability. Edit: or the alchemist with the super-secret Str requirement to wear your kits and potions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:


All of this is moot because you cannot scout. To scout requires that you both sneak and look out for the enemies. The exploration mode rules say that you have to pick 1.

Rogues have a trapfinder feat (LVL1) that allows them to sneak and automatically look for traps. Looking out for enemies is not an exploration tactic, everyone is already automatically doing that. The Search tactic applies to looking for secret doors and hazards.

So rogues can scout for hazards while sneaking with a level 1 feat.


Charisma is pretty great for rogues. Their intimidate chain is good and the free stat they get due to dex to damage allows them to max it out as much as possible. There's also quite a bit going on for the distraction and feint actions. I'd argue charisma is a good candidate for a co-primary rogue stat. I'd expect the standard to be
10, 16, 12, 10, 12, 14 before racials.

I agree though, a 10, 16, 12, 10, 14, 12 is the other option. It should be more common than cleric/druid with alertness.

It mostly comes down to how skill success and failure look in the final product. As it stands, I like the wisdom rogue grabbing the fighter's revealing stab feat for the full perception kit. Though why that's a fighter feet in the first place is a little odd.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Or maybe your definition of super heroes is different.

A level 20 Monk is someone who literally punches out dragons the size of palaces. I'm not sure how to categorize this as anything else than a superhero story.

Are Hercules and Gilgamesh superheroes (the versions from the Epics, NOT from comics :-))?

I think the answer to that definitely depends on your definition of superhero and different people will answer differently.

Chiun is a superhero. Remo Williams becomes one, eventually. Kwai Chang Caine is not a superhero.

Danny Rand, aka Iron Fist, is a superhero. Nobody who's not a superhero can make his fist glow like that. :)

Hercules and Gilgamesh were, iirc, demi-gods. I suppose that qualifies them as superheroes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pauljathome wrote:

Are Hercules and Gilgamesh superheroes (the versions from the Epics, NOT from comics :-))?

I think the answer to that definitely depends on your definition of superhero and different people will answer differently.

I would most definitely regard them as superheroes of their time. I mean, what do you think current superheroes are but modern version of superhuman heroes of legend?


The goblin rogue I made to test an idea or two has Dex 18, Cha 16, Because intimidate is good in a fight and other face skills (& some resonance) support his 'Honest merchant! Buy now for best finest glowingest alchemy! Limited time only!' vibe. He'd definitely like a druid along to spot things, preferably riding his backpack in pest form so they might be able to use his own stealth skill.

Silver Crusade

Rogues have no real need for Str or Int — those are the dump stats.


PCScipio wrote:
Rogues have no real need for Str or Int — those are the dump stats.

The new version of UMD requires Int for half of its checks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
Rogues have a trapfinder feat (LVL1) that allows them to sneak and automatically look for traps.

I find it kind of weird that this is a feat rather than a class feature.

PF2 is selling this myth of customization, but in reality what it's done is eliminate class features that you got for free and replaced them with optional feats (and fewer of them).

PCScipio wrote:
Rogues have no real need for Str or Int — those are the dump stats.

It's true about Str, not necessarily about Int. Remember, your starting Int determines how many trained skills you have at Level 1, and Trick Magic Device makes it not so cut-and-dry.


John Mechalas wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
Rogues have a trapfinder feat (LVL1) that allows them to sneak and automatically look for traps.

I find it kind of weird that this is a feat rather than a class feature.

PF2 is selling this myth of customization, but in reality what it's done is eliminate class features that you got for free and replaced them with optional feats (and fewer of them).

This is increasing customization. It allows a player to remove the bits of the rogue that they may not use. Additionally, Mark Seifer for one, has said that they intend to make more class feats. What we have right now is what was immediately available for play-testing and in my eyes represent "core" customization paths.

What we have now is also the most extreme variant of PF2. I won't lie, I am loving the changes. My martial players feel like they are keeping up with the magic users, my magic users don't feel that they carry the weight of the party on their shoulders, and my players in general were more into their characters, and looked at combat more as a tactical challenge because they knew that bad tactics could get them killed.

PCScipio wrote:
Rogues have no real need for Str or Int — those are the dump stats.

Ii's true about Str, not necessarily about Int. Remember that, in addition to the UMD issue, your starting Int determines how many trained skills you have at Level 1.

A Rogue has 10 trained skills at level 1, regardless of Int.

The UMD issues are a non-issue actually, unless I am failing to read it properly.

The following is relevant:

Playtest Core Rulebook wrote:

If you activate a magic item that requires your

spell roll or spell DC and you don’t have the ability to cast
spells of the relevant type (such as arcane or divine), you have
the untrained proficiency rank and can use the highest of
your Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma modifiers.

This means that a 16 Int or 16 Wis get you the same ability with Trick Magic Item. This makes Wisdom the stronger of the two stats, especially in light of saves and perception being so valuable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bingo. If you want to Trick Magic Item, use Divine and Primal Items, because you're boosting your WIS.

John Mechalas wrote:

It's true about Str, not necessarily about Int. Remember, your starting Int determines how many trained skills you have at Level 1, and Trick Magic Device makes it not so cut-and-dry.

*Checks errata about Rogue Skills*

Okay, I'm seeing that Rogues get Stealth or Thievery, then 9+INT skill trainings at level 1. 10 skills for an INT 10 Rogue seems sufficient to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Syndrous wrote:
This is increasing customization. It allows a player to remove the bits of the rogue that they may not use.

But overall it's "less" of everything. Characters don't feel inspiring, and part of the reason for all these TPK's is that monsters are build by different rules. The power disparity between PC's and monsters is problematic, and forces PC's into particualr builds.

Quote:
This means that a 16 Int or 16 Wis get you the same ability with Trick...
EberronHoward wrote:
Bingo. If you want to Trick Magic Item, use Divine and Primal Items, because you're boosting your WIS.

Hmm. OK. The Rogue picture isn't looking as bad as I thought. It does feel like they are being forced into a higher Wis, but I am being convinced that a 14 Wis will be OK, and a 16 Wis isn't terribly punishing.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You need to be trained in at least one of the magical traditions to take the "trick magic item" feat.


Ed Reppert wrote:
You need to be trained in at least one of the magical traditions to take the "trick magic item" feat.

The Rogue has 9 skills to make trained, and can take anyone of the 4 magical tradition skills that they wish.

Silver Crusade

magnuskn wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

Are Hercules and Gilgamesh superheroes (the versions from the Epics, NOT from comics :-))?

I think the answer to that definitely depends on your definition of superhero and different people will answer differently.

I would most definitely regard them as superheroes of their time. I mean, what do you think current superheroes are but modern version of superhuman heroes of legend?

Apparently I'm in the minority. I don't view the epic heroes/demi gods/gods of legends as superheroes.

Obviously, they're on the same power scale. But there are significant differences in the way that they act and are presented (IMO). Note - I'm an old fart so my view of superheroes is mostly as they were in the 60s and early 70s. And I've read at least some of the Epics (translated into English). But Thor doesn't pretend to be a human doctor, he doesn't fly around with his hammer, etc.

But yeah, if they're superheroes then high level (deliberately left undefined :-)) pathfinder is definitely a game of superheroes.


Gaterie wrote:
Con -> the effect on HP is weak, the effect on Saves is the same as Wis. And Wis has skill associated and Per etc. No characters should dump Con, but no character should pump it either.

Hm, CON also boosts your Fort save odds, and you really don't want to get poisoned or have to roll against the Dying status more than you will by dint of the universal coin toss...

Silver Crusade

EberronHoward wrote:
Okay, I'm seeing that Rogues get Stealth or Thievery, then 9+INT skill trainings at level 1. 10 skills for an INT 10 Rogue seems sufficient to me.

My halfling rogue for The Lost Star had Acrobatics +5, Athletics 0, Deception +3, Diplomacy +3, Intimidation +3, Lore (Ancient Osirion) +1, Medicine +3, Religion +3, Society +1, Stealth +5, Thievery +5. I originally was going to go with 12 Int, but I couldn't find another skill that I really wanted.

For reference, my stats were Str 8, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 14.

If later I really want another skill, I can take a multiclass feat after my level 5 stat increases.

151 to 200 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / All these TPKs. Curious: All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.