|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, you're saying that the game is deadlier if you follow RAW? If yes, how so? Are you saying "well if everybody was playing like Colette you'd have the same results as s_he, and if you don't, it means you're handwaving things and ignoring rules"?I'm saying it can be, particularly with the common aversion to closely examining and dissecting RAW here. You wouldn't have the exact same results, as there are other factors present. Luck of the dice. Player actions. More people than Collette run strict RAW, but I've noticed Collette is usually the one treated with the most hostility for it.
In 13 playtest games I ran/played in while ya'll been busy arguing about treadmills, camel speeds and wrought of drought, I've seen 3 PC deaths (two of which were *cough* a result of everybody at the table forgetting about Hero Points) and 1 near wipe. So I'm kind of going to say that 11 TPKs out of 11 games is a statistical outlier.Have you written play reports of your own? How did you resolve factors such as exploration, or combat, or camel speeds? I'd like to know.
I run strict RAW and I don't get results that are anywhere close. Neither did other GMs I've played with. Neither did folks who took their time to elaborate their playthroughs, and there are some who have a long history of being highly versed in mechanics - the likes of Deadmanwalking, Darksol the Painbringer, magnuskn and others.
I've ran so far 6 playtest games. I've sent the appropriate feedback via surveys, but I've honestly decided to focus my time on playing the game, rather than writing long forum reports and then arguing about them. Not as much free time as in college, I'm afraid.
When I saw situations which I felt like RAW and RAI are disconnecting - such as in exploration mode, which is a neat idea that needs to be fleshed out a little more - I've indicated that in my surveys.
I just don't see how such number of TPKs can be remotely close to the norm. I have the input from myself and other GMs to back me up on this, as well as Paizo's own information on % of deaths in reported games. If I were to guesstime, such level of deadliness would require the GM to assume that every opponent has a sub-genius level of tactical acumen AND the GM her_himself having it as well. While certainly possible, that is far from what I see at an average table, and believe me I've played at quite a few.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the topic of TPK has been declared to no longer be germane to this thread, I won't argue about it further. My original issue was not even the veracity or lack thereof of the TPK reports, but the mean-spirited calls to disregard certain posters. Again, feedback is the entire point of this playtest. Yours, mine, Collette's, John Lynch 106's, et cetera. This forum should not be a toxic place. I appreciate the playtest information you have collected. Events play out differently from table to table. Transparent play-by-plays and stated methodology are helpful in analyzing the results. That's just how it is.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see how such number of TPKs can be remotely close to the norm. I have the input from myself and other GMs to back me up on this, as well as Paizo's own information on % of deaths in reported games. If I were to guesstime, such level of deadliness would require the GM to assume that every opponent has a sub-genius level of tactical acumen AND the GM her_himself having it as well. While certainly possible, that is far from what I see at an average table, and believe me I've played at quite a few.
One interesting thing I noticed when reviewing one of Collette's reports is that they have all the enemies move on the same initiative, and I believe that they said that they do focus fire as well. If the only healer goes down on round 1 to that, then I suspect it's likely to snowball into a TPK as people go down one by one, and no one gets back up.
I'm wondering if initiative variation needs to be a question on the surveys, because I'm pretty sure that could heavily affect results.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One interesting thing I noticed when reviewing one of Collette's reports is that they have all the enemies move on the same initiative, and I believe that they said that they do focus fire as well. If the only healer goes down on round 1 to that, then I suspect it's likely to snowball into a TPK as people go down one by one, and no one gets back up.I'm wondering if initiative variation needs to be a question on the surveys, because I'm pretty sure that could heavily affect results.
From Page 304 of the Playtest Rulebook:
"The GM rolls initiative for any potential adversaries
in the encounter. If the potential adversaries include a
number of identical creatures, she could roll once for the
group as a whole and have them take their turns within
the group in any order she wishes. She could even change
the initiative order within the group from round to round."
Certainly not mixed groups of enemies, but identical creatures are allowed by RAW. Particularly deadly with archers.
One interesting thing I noticed when reviewing one of Collette's reports is that they have all the enemies move on the same initiative, and I believe that they said that they do focus fire as well.
That would make an impact. I ran a two year Pathfinder First Edition campaign (finished at session 57) with a houserule that removed initiative and had all enemies act on the same turn. Players acted not in initiative order but in seating order. It drastically changed combat and made focus fire from intelligent foes a much more significant threat...alternatively, I think it lead to a lot of static combat and I've decided not to use that houserule again. Initiative can be a pain to track but the system is balanced for it and it leads to more dynamic situations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One interesting thing I noticed when reviewing one of Collette's reports is that they have all the enemies move on the same initiative, and I believe that they said that they do focus fire as well. If the only healer goes down on round 1 to that, then I suspect it's likely to snowball into a TPK as people go down one by one, and no one gets back up.I'm wondering if initiative variation needs to be a question on the surveys, because I'm pretty sure that could heavily affect results.
From Page 304 of the Playtest Rulebook:
"The GM rolls initiative for any potential adversaries
in the encounter. If the potential adversaries include a
number of identical creatures, she could roll once for the
group as a whole and have them take their turns within
the group in any order she wishes. She could even change
the initiative order within the group from round to round."Certainly not mixed groups of enemies, but identical creatures are allowed by RAW. Particularly deadly with archers.
Nobody's arguing that it isn't RAW, the rules are pretty clear that running initiative individually or in groups is up to the GM. However, that variation may also affect combat results, so perhaps including an option in the GM playtest surveys for "Did you group similar creatures in initiative or use separate rolls for each?" might be a good idea.
I personally group initiative if there are a large number of identical enemies or multiple groups of identical enemies, but only when playing on a mat - tracking which creature is which can get hard using just dry-erase markers, but initiative trackers like the one on Roll20 make it easier for me.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Between "could" and "should" and "shall" there's this funny lacunae of judgment and flexibility.
My reading of Colette's journals makes me feel like if I was reading a record of players going up against an AI set to "exterminate". That's certainly one way you can play D&D/PF, but I'd hazard a guess it's not the way a statistically average table plays it. Neither it's one that people should look at as representative experience of PF2.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody's arguing that it isn't RAW, the rules are pretty clear that running initiative individually or in groups is up to the GM. However, that variation may also affect combat results, so perhaps including an option in the GM playtest surveys for "Did you group similar creatures in initiative or use separate rolls for each?" might be a good idea.
I agree, I believe it would help immensely.
I grouped similar creatures and didnt get a bunch of TPKs. But, at the end of the day, the dice are the dice.
I grouped similar creatures and didnt get a bunch of TPKs. But, at the end of the day, the dice are the dice.
I group similar monsters. We'll see if it becomes more lethal when I start part 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a point worth considering that if a GM is playing an encounter without holding back NPCs have a number of advantages.
1) They are controlled by a single mind, so don't need to discuss any plans and can co-ordinate for maximum effectiveness.
2) Their turns are often simultaneous which means co-ordination is easier and harder for players to disrupt.
3) Environmental factors often suit them better, darkness, underwater, cliffs. NPCs in these areas often have abilities that ignore these factors players have to deal with.
4) Higher attack numbers makes focus fire easier and lower defenses matter less when you can whittle down your opponents quicker.
5) Focus fire can often target the characters capable of healing or dealing with larger numbers of foes leaving the players without valuable tactical options.
Points 1 and 5 are probably best dealt with by GM advice, restricting focus fire like that as an advanced tactic to particularly brilliant or coordinated foes.
On Point 2 I think hero points are a great idea but their use could be expanded, such as spending 1 to change your initiative to act immediately if you have not already acted this turn which could help disrupt these gang ups and unfortunate initiative orders.
On Point 3, I think abilities and equipment to help deal with these unusual encounter factors need to be checked for specifically, is Light the cantrip good enough at dealing with foes in Darkness and so on. Shold it be one action to cast, with the option to add a second action to cast it at range?
At noon Pacific, I think.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Between "could" and "should" and "shall" there's this funny lacunae of judgment and flexibility.
My reading of Colette's journals makes me feel like if I was reading a record of players going up against an AI set to "exterminate".
Exactly, many of these are meta-factors distinct from enemy "tactics" but simply assumptions about game scope. Essentially any ambiguity was invitation for maximal harshness. Which can have certain playtest value in ID'ing wording issues etc, but isn't so relevant in "over-all game judgement".
E.g. the repetitive complaints re: Knowledge Crit Fails was illuminated when in passing it was eventually revealed they were operating on understanding each result "must be actionable" (which is nowhere in RAW). And actually, the entire approach there was odd, having every character roll these "because they could". When of course they could also just Aid, or not even do that if they feared an Aid Crit fail. But then they dwell on profusion of Crit Fails.
Or the BBEG who was specified to be involved in non-combat activity before encounter and tactics say "activates buff on 1st round, and fights to death". SOMEHOW they get from that to assumption BBEG must attack on first round. AND therefore conclude BBEG already has weapon drawn (in order to buff+move+attack on 1st round) even though nothing indicated that. And then complain result is TPKs from BBEG front-loaded assault.
Now, to extent their harsh interpretations are made clear, there is certain value at micro level, but nobody can specify EVERY single assumption, so I feel there is certainly plenty more dubious rulings that we can't know of, yet could have similar impact on big picture. Regardless, independent of any of this, normal statistical practice is to throw out top and bottom out-liers. Obviously their reporting on specific mechanics can reveal weakness in wording (I don't think advice on single enemy Init is good, 3-4 Init groups of 'mixed' composition is probably best alternative to individual Init), and simple approach of GM "playing to the hilt" can also be valuable, but relevance of their approach to "over-all" judgement is nigh farcical.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how you can admit such interpretations or readings are valid and in the same breath advocate for ignoring the accompanying results. It happened at certain tables which have already been admitted to abide by RAW. It didn't happen at others. So what is the issue? What is with the hostility?
|
|
hostility is unwarranted.
but ** spoiler omitted **
I can work with that. Glad you think so too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to say that it is heartening to see a lot of folks excited for this next round of changes. We know that we can't please everyone, but we are working hard to make this game better every day, and all of your feedback is helping us make that happen.Yup it is exciting.
I will say though.. that something that might be good to include this Monday or next is..
cleaning the terms for Splash Damage.
There are a lot of people who think the main target does take splash and many who think everything but the target takes splash. UNLESS its missed.
I haven't watched the stream for part 2 where there was an alchemist but i kind of doubt they call out the rolled damage vs calling out total damage.
This discrepancy is almost certainly causing some hiccups with regards to Alchemist's feedbackThough the twitch stream did show it applying splash to the target of an acid flask at least.
I saw a post from Mark Seifter that said that the target also takes the splashing damage
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw a post from Mark Seifter that said that the target also takes the splashing damage
For reference, here:
Enhancements are negated if the attack deals 0 damage. Large or Medium or any other size, you add the splash damage from a hit to the normal hit damage. This gets very nice with the 4th level alch feat that the bomber might have had to increase splash to Int modifier.
And here:
I think the update indicates that the splash + hit damage is combined into one, but not 100% sure that it does. Regardless, that's the intent.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One interesting thing I noticed when reviewing one of Collette's reports is that they have all the enemies move on the same initiative, and I believe that they said that they do focus fire as well. If the only healer goes down on round 1 to that, then I suspect it's likely to snowball into a TPK as people go down one by one, and no one gets back up.
I'm wondering if initiative variation needs to be a question on the surveys, because I'm pretty sure that could heavily affect results.
The other two GMs in my group and I do the same thing for the playtest (single init and focus fire) but we have not had any TPKs as of yet (playing Chapter 3 now)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other two GMs in my group and I do the same thing for the playtest (single init and focus fire) but we have not had any TPKs as of yet (playing Chapter 3 now)One interesting thing I noticed when reviewing one of Collette's reports is that they have all the enemies move on the same initiative, and I believe that they said that they do focus fire as well. If the only healer goes down on round 1 to that, then I suspect it's likely to snowball into a TPK as people go down one by one, and no one gets back up.
I'm wondering if initiative variation needs to be a question on the surveys, because I'm pretty sure that could heavily affect results.
And the two games I played in did so and DID have TPK's so I'm not sure where we're all going with this... :P I'm not sure what all of this has to do with update 1.3.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW I just finished part 3. No TPKs so far. I also played Ilvoresh VERY smart, as if he had information on the PCs weakness (which was a little bit of my own interpretation not 100% raw, but I wanted to stress the system.) and abusing mirror image. was a really close fight but the PCs came out victorious. Either way, it's probably not worth just going back and forth in forum posts. Paizo has the data. They can decide if the TPKs are too many or too few (which they have with this new update and new dying rules!)
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I've had no TPKs, or even character deaths (though Drakus was close), and I've tried to stick to the RAW (though some ambiguities and mistakes due to the rules being new have definitely creeped in), and I definitely use one initiative roll for multiple foes of the same type.
However, whether the foes use good tactics varies a lot depending on the foe. for example, the first Goblins encounter in Chapter 1 they used s@~*ty tactics as suggested, for example. Doing that is RAW...but results in less deadliness than having them be tactically proficient. The manticore in Chapter 2 and poltergeist in Chapter 3 also used non-optimal tactics as befit their low Int, which makes those fights a fair bit easier.
Looking through Colette's logs, I'd say they actually include about as many mechanical errors as my own games (which isn't a huge number, I'm just clarifying). For example, in Chapter 2 they had both elementals in the Earth/Water room attack at once, something that should almost never happen (they attack when you get within movement range of them specifically, and do so due to mystical bindings so they can't really choose otherwise, and are on opposite ends of the room...frankly, I don't think you can even get to within range of the Earth Elemental before the Water Elemental attacks).
The big difference being that my errors are likely to be in the PCs favor (ie: if I'm not sure which interpretation is correct I go with the one that favors the PCs), while all the ones I note in Colette's stuff make the PCs lives harder. That's probably confirmation bias for both of us, in many ways...
I see no reason to try and impugn anyone's credibility, though. All the fights they list as TPKs my group had at least decent amounts of trouble with and could've lost to bad rolls. 11 straight TPKs is a statistical outlier, sure, but it's hardly impossible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did place them on opposite sides of the room, and I found that the earth elemental could still reach the PCs using earth glide. The earth elemental was very much within movement range.
It can't Earth Glide through water and is on an island/outcropping, which means it needs to go straight down at least 15 feet before going sideways at all, and it only has 20 foot movement, and only attacks when people are within one action's worth of movement. It could swim instead, but that's an action all its own (which can't be combined with Earth Glide) and ten feet at most (well, 15 feet with a crit, I guess...but it can't predict that).
On this topic, I currently have one playthrough report of In Pale Mountain's Shadow, two of The Rose Street Revenge, two of Raiders of Shrieking Peak, two of Arclord's Envy, and one of Affair at Sombrefell Hall all currently unwritten, mostly because of fatigue, recovery, and lack of motivation. All have been TPKs. Should I bother writing up these reports even though they will soon be completely obsoleted by update 1.3?
On one hand, it seems like a complete waste to have run all of these sessions only to have come up with no reports in the end. On the other hand, those reports really are meaningless in the face of update 1.3.
Starting from the front and moving back means that I will be writing progressively more outdated Writing one of each seems like a poor number of sample sizes.
Furthermore, many of the TPKs have had the dying rules and skill bonuses/DCs as a linchpin, and further and further alterations to those means that the TPKs could very well have been avoided.
If it were me, I'd do a brief summary (ie: what encounter the party died on and maybe a couple of salient events), but nowhere near as detailed as some of your previous ones due to the rules changes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I placed the minor earth elemental on the part of the island adjacent to the wall. I reasoned that that would not, in fact, require it to swim, so it could go directly into earth gliding.
And my argument is, basically, that I'm pretty sure that's not correct by the RAW. It'd need to either Swim or Jump to get to the wall.
And, of course, there's the issue of when it can perceive the PCs at all as well...
I also want to say that it is heartening to see a lot of folks excited for this next round of changes. We know that we can't please everyone, but we are working hard to make this game better every day, and all of your feedback is helping us make that happen.
Agreed 1000%. Our group has always had faith in the devs' intent with this new edition and playtest (even when we shook our heads and thought "what the expletive were they thinking here?").
But what 1.3 shows us is positive proof that the devs are willing to make large scale changes to make the game right(1). This update, combined with other posts by Paizo folks made in the last week and a half has reenergized my enthusiasm for the playtest (it was flagging). I'm looking forward to the back half again :)(1)'Right' in this case does not mean 'the particular rules that our little group likes the best', but rather an enjoyable, playable game system evocative of the feel of PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And my argument is, basically, that I'm pretty sure that's not correct by the RAW. It'd need to either Swim or Jump to get to the wall.What is the width necessary for a strand of water to be considered an obstacle that forces swimming or jumping? The distance between the island and the wall is, at most, one foot.
Could this debate perhaps be taken to another post as it is really moving away from "Twitch 9-21: Preview of Rules Update 1.3"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could this debate perhaps be taken to another post as it is really moving away from "Twitch 9-21: Preview of Rules Update 1.3"?And my argument is, basically, that I'm pretty sure that's not correct by the RAW. It'd need to either Swim or Jump to get to the wall.What is the width necessary for a strand of water to be considered an obstacle that forces swimming or jumping? The distance between the island and the wall is, at most, one foot.
Sure, I'll drop it here and not post again. But Vic's argument is where my head was at for that ruling, for the record.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
SO I just saw the twitch stream, and one thing really popped out and made me nervous.
We are getting the 12 archetypes today, we all knew that, but Jason also said that the fighter Multi-class will no longer give heavy armor proficiency, meaning that any character that wants to focus on armor instead of weapons, is better served taking the Paladin MC instead of the Fighter.
This is a problem for me, and has been one of my biggest concerns about PF2 since we first learned about the Paladin class, because Characters should not be MCing into Paladin to gain Armor proficiencies.
Personally, I think the problem is that best Armor proficiency is tied to a narratively designed class, and would much rather see a mechanical base class with an awesome Archetype that goes the LG paladin route, but it doesn't look like that is in the works.
I am excited to see the update today, I am just concerned that we are going to see once again that tying Armor to alignment and anathema on a mechanical level is a huge mistake, that is getting further and further baked into the game.
Even if the alignment restriction is relaxed on the Paladin, I just don't see why a wizard that wants to get heavy armor should be able to do it with one feat if they want to take all the oaths of a paladin, instead of a more basic knight or champion class that would focus them on Armor without adding narrative baggage that doesn't make sense.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with the added multiclass options, I'm still not going to advocate for my group to switch to PF2 at this point. Niche protection isn't a valuable concept to me. Characters with multiple equal focuses (e.g. Fighter 2/Rogue 2), characters with more than two focuses (e.g. Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Wizard 1), and characters that change their mind what their focus should be (eg. Fighter 2/Wizard 8 with Wizard only happening at 3rd level and beyond) are far more important options than niche protection. This current design only supports dabbling.
But your Fighter 4/ Rogue 4/ Wizard 4 is a crap Fighter, a crap Rogue and a crap Wizard. Any straight-classed level 12 character is more viable than that (well, maybe except Rogue 12 ;-P)
Your "important options" are cripplingly inadequate under PF1. They exist solely to trap people who don't have enough system mastery to spot that.
Even with the added multiclass options, I'm still not going to advocate for my group to switch to PF2 at this point. Niche protection isn't a valuable concept to me. Characters with multiple equal focuses (e.g. Fighter 2/Rogue 2), characters with more than two focuses (e.g. Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Wizard 1), and characters that change their mind what their focus should be (eg. Fighter 2/Wizard 8 with Wizard only happening at 3rd level and beyond) are far more important options than niche protection. This current design only supports dabbling.
Like all of those options (the ones with wizard) are so bad in 1e that they shouldn't even be considered options though...
SO I just saw the twitch stream, and one thing really popped out and made me nervous.
We are getting the 12 archetypes today, we all knew that, but Jason also said that the fighter Multi-class will no longer give heavy armor proficiency, meaning that any character that wants to focus on armor instead of weapons, is better served taking the Paladin MC instead of the Fighter.
This is a problem for me, and has been one of my biggest concerns about PF2 since we first learned about the Paladin class, because Characters should not be MCing into Paladin to gain Armor proficiencies.
Personally, I think the problem is that best Armor proficiency is tied to a narratively designed class, and would much rather see a mechanical base class with an awesome Archetype that goes the LG paladin route, but it doesn't look like that is in the works.
I am excited to see the update today, I am just concerned that we are going to see once again that tying Armor to alignment and anathema on a mechanical level is a huge mistake, that is getting further and further baked into the game.
Even if the alignment restriction is relaxed on the Paladin, I just don't see why a wizard that wants to get heavy armor should be able to do it with one feat if they want to take all the oaths of a paladin, instead of a more basic knight or champion class that would focus them on Armor without adding narrative baggage that doesn't make sense.
You don't HAVE to be a paladin to get the armor proficiency though. You can spend general feats on armor training to get your armor proficiency up in steps. It's just the heavy armor training fighter dedication feat was way too strong an option compared to the other dedication feats if you were a class without any armor training.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a problem for me, and has been one of my biggest concerns about PF2 since we first learned about the Paladin class, because Characters should not be MCing into Paladin to gain Armor proficiencies.
I agree. On one hand it makes perfect sense that the Paladin be the heavy armor/defender class, but the Paladin also has an enormous amount of baggage that I'm kind of uncomfortable with people assuming purely for mechanical benefit.
I think at this point it might be for the best to eliminate the Paladin class entirely and instead replace it with a "Champion" class or similar of which the Paladin is a particular variant (like how Barbarians choose totems or Druids choose orders.)
I'm pretty curious how many of the fighter dedication users in the playtest are taking the dedication for heavy armor versus for the shiny fighter feats. Like I had a Barbarian who took the fighter dedication solely to grab Attack of Opportunity, one Cleric who took it for access to Archery feats, and I know "2 feats for double slice" is a popular DPR maximizing tactic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is definitely not a crap fighter nor a crap rogue. The only thing it was bad at was wizardry and that's because the spell-casting system doesn't support multi-classing. If PF2 finally fixed multiclass spell-casting (without the Prestige Class band-aid) instead of giving this frankly bad system, then PF2 would be many steps towards being a good system.Even with the added multiclass options, I'm still not going to advocate for my group to switch to PF2 at this point. Niche protection isn't a valuable concept to me. Characters with multiple equal focuses (e.g. Fighter 2/Rogue 2), characters with more than two focuses (e.g. Fighter 1/Rogue 1/Wizard 1), and characters that change their mind what their focus should be (eg. Fighter 2/Wizard 8 with Wizard only happening at 3rd level and beyond) are far more important options than niche protection. This current design only supports dabbling.But your Fighter 4/ Rogue 4/ Wizard 4 is a crap Fighter, a crap Rogue and a crap Wizard. Any straight-classed level 12 character is more viable than that (well, maybe except Rogue 12 ;-P)
Your "important options" are cripplingly inadequate under PF1. They exist solely to trap people who don't have enough system mastery to spot that.
What does a good rogue do in PF1? Having a 3.4 BAB and no spell progression made them a laughing stock of a character that was vastly surpassed by the printing of the ACG. The concept of the dibilitating strikes were interesting, but 4 levels were the most anyone was ever going to put into rogue as a MC character. There is something wrong with a Multi-class system in rogue 5/fighter5 is a much worse character than a level 10 fighter, and still a considerably worse character than a level 6 fighter/4 rogue. PF1 multi-classing worked (or didn't work) because martial characters (with the exception of the rogue) were mostly just one big class with a lot of different tag on options (which became even more flexible with archetypes). In many ways, PF1 martial characters were fairly un-classed, with most distinction coming from hand-picking archetypes and feats. But try to add any spell casting element in there and you were either trying to grab one first level buff or utility spell that was better than anything you could do with skills, qualify for an amazing Prestige class, or else you were majorly hurting your character by losing points of BAB that reduced your number of attacks and your ability to hit with them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't HAVE to be a paladin to get the armor proficiency though. You can spend general feats on armor training to get your armor proficiency up in steps. It's just the heavy armor training fighter dedication feat was way too strong an option compared to the other dedication feats if you were a class without any armor training.
But the Paladin proficiency is the obvious better path to heavy armor proficiency because it can be done with less feat investment. I have heard developers state clearly that they do not want mechanical advantages to be tied to narrative restrictions on characters, but making the most narratively restricted character have a huge mechanical advantage for Multi-classing is failing to meet this objective.
Fighter proficiency should be focused more on weapons than armor, since that is the idea behind the class. The issue is tying defense, and Armor specifically to the most narratively restrictive class, the paladin.
If the Monk MC boosts unarmored proficiency, this would be a better way to get higher defense casters that would have a reason to find ways to utilize mage armor.
For gish characters really wanting to focus on being half martial half caster, it is probably ok for heavy armor to cost 2 feats instead of one, but it will be a problem if Paladin MC exists as a way to get it in one, but only if you are lawful good and sworn to a deity. But since the Paladin's unique schtick has been declared Armor, it doesn't make sense for Paladin MC to give anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every multi-class option which a player wishes to select must always be supported by a strong background and reason for selection. Gm's who simply allow their players to have 4 levels of Monk and then with no training or campaign specific details allow them to progress Paladin should stick to playing board games.
Put the ball in the Players court and ask why? Don't be afraid to enforce your players into imagining that their characters are more than a set of numbers.
In my opinion, the multi-class rules in PF2 allow interesting character concepts, most of which will be planned from level 1 with a background from your player as to how and why.
The fighter amendment works, as it keeps the whole thing balanced and prevents a Wizard from heavy armour straight away without the expenditure of more (very valuable) feat picks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how you can admit such interpretations or readings are valid and in the same breath advocate for ignoring the accompanying results. It happened at certain tables which have already been admitted to abide by RAW. It didn't happen at others. So what is the issue? What is with the hostility?
They did not "admit" to playing by RAW, the CLAIMED to play by RAW.
Out of the 6 game sessions I've played (Finished Chapters 1-3) we only had 1 PC die in that ENTIRE time, and the GM was very much playing by the RAW, even when it was a detriment to the safety of the party.
I would bet ANY number of dice from my personal collection that the 11/11 TPK claims are at LEAST partially fraudulent, if not wholesale lies to bash the system. Please bear in mind this my opinion only, but I simply don't see this as being anything more than hyperbole, exaggeration, intentional misreading of the RAW and trolling.
Hm. I wonder besides the 10min usage time for "Mundane Healing", if there will be longer term frequency of usage limit, 1/hr? 1/day?
Also curious how the Wound system works... Will "standard" Heal spells remove Wounds at all? (or need extra action to?)
Regardless, the Mundane Healing significantly reduces amount of needed Heals which drove complaints about Resonance/Consumables,
which makes it sort of ironic that it's being done alongside removal of Resonance for Consumables.
Could be that the 'armchair quarterback' guessing as to what the system is intended to accomplish were not correct (or only partly correct) and thus what seems confusing was only inevitable due to the playtest.
I could be just as wrong though ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that the overwhelming majority of effective multiclass characters in PF1 work primarily via selectively grabbing class features from front-loaded classes in order to graft on to a different class (e.g. 1 level of Inspired Blade Swashbuckler so your Swash 1/Investigator 19 will have Dex-to-Damage with a rapier ASAP). People who don't have enough system mastery to spot things like this tend not to think in these sorts of terms; a standard concept for a multi-classed character is something like "I want to be a fighter who has learned some magic" or "I want to be a rogue who breaks good and devotes herself to a deity" and things like this which are "pretty even mixes" of two classes are virtually impossible to do well in PF1 and generally a GM will want to guide a player towards a different class that does both things well.
I find that the Archetype dedication system does well both "I learned a little magic" and "I am an even mix of fighter and wizard". What it doesn't do well is "I was a monk but I stopped and became something else" but I suspect a lot of those character concepts were post hoc justifications for the way their character fit together (we've all been there- I had a dwarf magus who took a level of fighter for an extra BAB and a feat then later retrained out of it; I felt dirty doing this, but it got me Dorn-Dergar master at level 5 instead of 7.)
What I'm not really a fan of in PF2 is "I'm multiclassing fighter to get attack of opportunity" or a specific feat, since it seems like things like that can be made universal options available through investment via some mechanic other than "take a multiclass archetype".