In PF2 instead you have no real choice. You either roll lots of dice, or you'll be underperforming.
To me, this is not very good design.
Some things were already rolling tons of dice. Sneak attack, ...
You're rolling significantly fewer attacks, so any time lost with more damage dice is gained by not rolling a fourth attack in the turn.
It seems fine to me.
The extra damage dice just shorten the combat. The monsters roll more dice too. They often have the better weapons.
I don’t think that following a specific feat tree or specific classes/spells (rogue, fireball, spells, etc.) is a much of a choice. You had to work along specific paths to optimize your character. If you didn’t optimize your character, it wasn’t as interesting compared to people who are optimized.
Could there be tweaks to make it better? Absolutely! This is a playtest.
But +5 weapons? That’s on the DM - not on the game mechanics.
|
The only problem I have is finding enough d8s and d12s for my players, particularly on crits.Find a way to roll digital dice.
Not as satisfying though.
Oh yes, I have a dice calculator app on my phone I'm quite fond of, but it is not nearly as satisfying or dramatic as rolling dice on the table in front of the other players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer the large die pools for sure. I like that the damage rolls have higher variation now. I was never a fan of PF1E and 3.5's large static modifiers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A +5 weapon can do 6 D X damage.
From my experience, it takes longer to count and is a lot less consistent then it was in PF 1.
I don't like that the magic weapon grind takes precedence over everything else, and it isn't a function of character skill.
It's pretty much the worse aspect of the Christmas Tree to me, and they've made it much more egregious.
There are so many mid and high level stories that you just can't tell now if you aren't given your gear on schedule. Or if it's taken away. Or don't have your golf bag with you 100% of the time.
Also wrecks d4 and d6 weapons.
Armor is similar, in that if you don't have it _all_ of your defensive numbers are just flatly wrong and you'll fail.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my players didn't like it, I'd houserule that a +X weapon adds the weapon's average die of damage, rounded down, to each hit per plus. So a +2 Longsword would deal 1d8+8 instead of 3d8, a +1 dagger would do 1d4+2, and a +5 Greatsword would deal 1d12+30. It would certainly give a feeling closer to classic Pathfinder, even though I prefer rolling dice, personally.
If my players didn't like it, I'd houserule that a +X weapon adds the weapon's average die of damage, rounded down, to each hit per plus. So a +2 Longsword would deal 1d8+8 instead of 3d8, a +1 dagger would do 1d4+2, and a +5 Greatsword would deal 1d12+30. It would certainly give a feeling closer to classic Pathfinder, even though I prefer rolling dice, personally.
I really like where your head is at but I will note that your averages are going to be a little low by .5 per +1. That skews the damage calculations towards favoring larger damage dice more than even in the current system. The fix is maybe as simple as just adding an additional 1 damage for every +2, though.
I could also see someone wanted to do a sort of hybrid method where you turn half your damage dice into static modifiers just to keep die pools small while maintaining slightly higher variance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like gaining additional dice as you level up and gain more powerful weapons, but I do feel like the damage is weighted a little too heavily towards weapon potency as the sole arbiter right now.
Going from 10.5 average damage with your greatsword to 46 average damage (5*6.5 from magic +6.5 base +7 strength) leaves you with 70% of your damage per hit reliant on those +'s. It also feels to me that five dice is around where adding them all up starts to drag things down.
I think what I'd prefer is:
I like gaining additional dice as you level up and gain more powerful weapons, but I do feel like the damage is weighted a little too heavily towards weapon potency as the sole arbiter right now.
Going from 10.5 average damage with your greatsword to 46 average damage (5*6.5 from magic +6.5 base +7 strength) leaves you with 70% of your damage per hit reliant on those +'s. It also feels to me that five dice is around where adding them all up starts to drag things down.
I think what I'd prefer is:
Weapons grant additional damage dice, but only up to 4dX. This would hit at 6th, 12th and 18th levels. The idea would be to match it to weapon quality rather than potency runes (which would still increase the bonus to hit). So an expert greatsword is 2d12, master is 3d12 and legendary is 4d12.
To compensate for the lost damage, return to the paradigm from PF1 of baking in bonus damage into class mechanics. Barbarian rage damage bonus can be higher, rogue sneak attack more powerful, fighter gains Starfinder-style weapon specialization, etc. This way, the effectiveness gap of low damage dice weapons to high damage dice weapons can be smaller as well.
I'd dig that for sure. If part of this solution can from reducing enemy HP, then that would have the welcome side effect of keeping things like power attack more relatively valuable for longer.
@OP: i for one enjoy the fistful of dice approach (though my group plays online via roll20, which makes a major difference there), i just wish it were tied to the character's proficiency/skill/badassitude, rather than their weapon's.
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.
That's interesting. To me, the fact that the roll is pointless (which I agree on, by and large), is an *advantage*. The narrative of the action should lean more heavily on the understanding between player and storyteller, rather than the luck of the dice. As a result, I love having options on how to affect a tactical / social situation, but also reliability in *how* to affect them, once I make a decision. Which, in turn, makes the current chances of succeeding at skills, landing attacks or pierce saving throws in PF2 fairly disappointing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A +5 weapon can do 6 D X damage.
From my experience, it takes longer to count and is a lot less consistent then it was in PF 1.
Wizard fireballs do 10 dice of damage at max, and at least five dice off of a wand, where it can be cast dozens of times.
An 11th level fighter specialized for two-weapon fighting will be rolling anywhere from four to five times to attack, and anywhere from four to eight dice if those attacks hit. A16th level fighter (much closer to the type of character who would be sporting a +5 weapon) specced in such fashion will be rolling for sure anywhere around 20+ dice (attacks and weapon dice together) every time they get a full attack - and most such players don’t spec themselves out such unless they have plans to full attack a la quick runner’s shirts, etc.
Therefore, attacking once or twice a round (realistically speaking, even at 20th level) for six dice at a time doesn’t really worry me much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.That's interesting. To me, the fact that the roll is pointless (which I agree on, by and large), is an *advantage*. The narrative of the action should lean more heavily on the understanding between player and storyteller, rather than the luck of the dice. As a result, I love having options on how to affect a tactical / social situation, but also reliability in *how* to affect them, once I make a decision. Which, in turn, makes the current chances of succeeding at skills, landing attacks or pierce saving throws in PF2 fairly disappointing.
I like reliability, but I'm not really a fan of die rolls accompanied by a drastically higher flat modifier. It just sort of feels weird to me.
Honestly maybe Shadowrun has warped my mentality, but impracticality aside, I actually really like the massive bucket of dice approach - it's easily predictable, but variable enough that it doesn't feel weirdly fixed.
On the flip side - generally not a fan of leaving everything to a single die roll. E.g. I'd probably hate a game where all damage was just "roll a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12 as appropriate".
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.That's interesting. To me, the fact that the roll is pointless (which I agree on, by and large), is an *advantage*. The narrative of the action should lean more heavily on the understanding between player and storyteller, rather than the luck of the dice. As a result, I love having options on how to affect a tactical / social situation, but also reliability in *how* to affect them, once I make a decision. Which, in turn, makes the current chances of succeeding at skills, landing attacks or pierce saving throws in PF2 fairly disappointing.
In addition, it takes a lot longer to add up 6d12+5 than it is to add up 1d8+40.
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.That's interesting. To me, the fact that the roll is pointless (which I agree on, by and large), is an *advantage*. The narrative of the action should lean more heavily on the understanding between player and storyteller, rather than the luck of the dice. As a result, I love having options on how to affect a tactical / social situation, but also reliability in *how* to affect them, once I make a decision. Which, in turn, makes the current chances of succeeding at skills, landing attacks or pierce saving throws in PF2 fairly disappointing.I like reliability, but I'm not really a fan of die rolls accompanied by a drastically higher flat modifier. It just sort of feels weird to me.
Honestly maybe Shadowrun has warped my mentality, but impracticality aside, I actually really like the massive bucket of dice approach - it's easily predictable, but variable enough that it doesn't feel weirdly fixed.
On the flip side - generally not a fan of leaving everything to a single die roll. E.g. I'd probably hate a game where all damage was just "roll a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12 as appropriate".
Spellbound Kingdoms, Ironclaw, and--most popularly--Savage Worlds use a system like that and I like those games quite well (even though Ironclaw is a furry game for dang ol' furries). That dice technique has its strengths and weaknesses but I don't know if those dice systems work for Pathfinder well.
Spellbound Kingdoms, Ironclaw, and--most popularly--Savage Worlds use a system like that and I like those games quite well (even though Ironclaw is a furry game for dang ol' furries). That dice technique has its strengths and weaknesses but I don't know if those dice systems work for Pathfinder well.I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.That's interesting. To me, the fact that the roll is pointless (which I agree on, by and large), is an *advantage*. The narrative of the action should lean more heavily on the understanding between player and storyteller, rather than the luck of the dice. As a result, I love having options on how to affect a tactical / social situation, but also reliability in *how* to affect them, once I make a decision. Which, in turn, makes the current chances of succeeding at skills, landing attacks or pierce saving throws in PF2 fairly disappointing.I like reliability, but I'm not really a fan of die rolls accompanied by a drastically higher flat modifier. It just sort of feels weird to me.
Honestly maybe Shadowrun has warped my mentality, but impracticality aside, I actually really like the massive bucket of dice approach - it's easily predictable, but variable enough that it doesn't feel weirdly fixed.
On the flip side - generally not a fan of leaving everything to a single die roll. E.g. I'd probably hate a game where all damage was just "roll a d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12 as appropriate".
I'm sure it works well for some people, just not my cup of tea.
It's like how (albeit less extreme than), while I understand that a lot of people like FATE, I have absolutely zero intention of ever running it.
In addition, it takes a lot longer to add up 6d12+5 than it is to add up 1d8+40.
Ha! Tell it to a friend of mine.
She can probably do 1d8+40, but 1d8+39 would be incredibly more difficult.Rolling 15d6, at least she can count the dots! :)
Anyway, no, I'm not a fan of rolling so many dice. I'm still sticking with my original Basic D&D set of 6 dice, plus an extra d6 and d10. If I have to roll for a 10d6 fireball, I roll times the same dice ten times and add up.
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.That's interesting. To me, the fact that the roll is pointless (which I agree on, by and large), is an *advantage*. The narrative of the action should lean more heavily on the understanding between player and storyteller, rather than the luck of the dice. As a result, I love having options on how to affect a tactical / social situation, but also reliability in *how* to affect them, once I make a decision. Which, in turn, makes the current chances of succeeding at skills, landing attacks or pierce saving throws in PF2 fairly disappointing.
Well, this was a discussion about damage, not accuracy. If this was an attack roll of 1d20+40, the d20 is relevant to the action, becuase the target is some number between 40 and 60 most of the time. In contrast, when I say the roll in 1d8+40 is pointless, it because so little of the damage depends on the die that I feel like the roll is wasting my time. When I GM in PF1 at mid levels, most combats end with me saying "you hit, don't bother rolling damage, it's over". It's not the biggest thing in the world, but it's a little annoying.
Now, I can see your point that it may be better to have the roll pointless, but in that case I would suggest that damage could be the result of some formula, and do away with the die entirely. I'd be fine with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that the weapon's die matters in later levels. I think there could maybe be some more static bonuses, but I like where we are at now.
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.
I tend to roll inordinately bad for damage. Well below average more often than not, and it doesn't matter what dice I use.
I'd much rather take my d8+30 than 6d8+8. I'll get better results on the former. And it's just more dependable damage anyway, which I usually prefer.
I like that the weapon's die matters in later levels. I think there could maybe be some more static bonuses, but I like where we are at now.
Yeah.
I actually don't like where we are now... but I think the numbers are good enough. Can't please everyone but I think what we have is 'just right' to the point you can probably shift the numbers a bit to the left or right and not see too much of an issue.
Basically what I'm saying is that while I don't like the numbers, it's easy enough to work around/homebrew than it probably would be for PF1.
That said, not going to homebrew till playtest is over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.I tend to roll inordinately bad for damage. Well below average more often than not, and it doesn't matter what dice I use.
I'd much rather take my d8+30 than 6d8+8. I'll get better results on the former. And it's just more dependable damage anyway, which I usually prefer.
Not to make this advice sound like a broken record, but check if your dice are biased.
Funnily enough I'd probably go with the d8+8 as it's 0.5 more damage on average.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like rolling something like 1d8+40 for damage in PF1, it makes the roll pointless. So, I guess I'm in favor of rolling more dice as a better alternative. I can see how it may become tedious, though. In that case, I'd just roll over some app, or roll20.I tend to roll inordinately bad for damage. Well below average more often than not, and it doesn't matter what dice I use.
I'd much rather take my d8+30 than 6d8+8. I'll get better results on the former. And it's just more dependable damage anyway, which I usually prefer.
Not to make this advice sound like a broken record, but check if your dice are biased.
Funnily enough I'd probably go with the d8+8 as it's 0.5 more damage on average.
[tangent] I agree. Also, they almost certainly have some bias. Standard die manufacturing techniques are not big on precision. Air-bubles, uneven edge rounding, non-perfect shape and more can alter their performance. I've been doing a Chi-squared statistical test for all all of my D20s with 1000 rolls each, and it has helped my rolls at the table quite a bit by eliminating bad ones. This is tough for large numbers of dice, so I haven't attempted it on any other dice. There is that salt-water float test, but in my experience it doesn't really seem to correspond with results in rolling.
Getting something with more of a focus on precision, like Gamescience or Zucati (my current favorite) can help. Precision machined dice are even better, but expensive. I've got 3 machined aluminum 20s and a d12, and I love them.
My understanding is that small and light dice are probably best avoided. Larger and heavier ones have more momentum when rolled, which can overcome imbalances better than those little ones. So the cubes of tiny d6s, while really convenient, might not be the best choice.[/tangent]
My solution to this is to scrap the potency rune thing altogether.
The game needs weapons that are more powerful, and I like the Item Quality thing PF Playtest has going on.
-4 for crap gear
0 for normal gear
+1 for expert gear
+2 for master gear
+3 for legendary gear
Apply those numbers to attack and damage for weapons, and AC/TAC/Saves for armor. This entirely replaces Potency runes. This will make the low magic crowd happy, and it will remove a layer of confustion that the system currently has: "so the item quality is master, but I have these other potency runes which may or may not completely replace some or all of the bonus from the item quality..."
Property Runes stay largely the same. An expert weapon can get 1 rune worth of property runes, master 2, legendary 3.
You're getting your extra dice of damage from property runes, and the property runes that add multiple dice are doing so on crit effects.. vorpal and so forth..
This would lower the trajectory of damage potential, so of course spell damage and monster HP would need to be re-tuned as well.