Nope, they kept Channel as its own pool of high level heal spell slots (looking at the premade cleric). It seems it is still 3+cha and it is separate from focus.
I really hope they reconsider this. The amount of healing from channel is ludicrous and just isn't needed in a world with Treat Wounds.
Nope, they kept Channel as its own pool of high level heal spell slots (looking at the premade cleric). It seems it is still 3+cha and it is separate from focus.
I really hope they reconsider this. The amount of healing from channel is ludicrous and just isn't needed in a world with Treat Wounds.
Well, I'm glad they didn't roll it into one, since that would mean Domain powers are super niche and have to compete with max level Heal spells, and same goes for consumables. At the same time, I think something this powerful shouldn't be left to one class explicitly. Others can do it with some investment, but it's nowhere near as strong or plentiful, and takes a majority of a character's career to pull off, and is extremely limited.
I would be fine if they just made monsters less deadly and simply got rid of Channel Energy as a feature altogether.
Darksol:
Frankly, the last thing I would want is a bunch of classes being able to spam this amount of healing in combat. Its a close to a non-starter for me as a GM.
The heightened PF2 Heal spell is quite powerful compared to other iterations. To take such a spell and give ANY character such a large set of heightened castings (effectively MULTIPLYING their highest level slots) is frankly just not good.
I would be real hard pressed to create encounters I feel comfortable with that wouldn't get overly swingy in the face of such a large pool of healing.
The solution:
Remove channel (Paizo can figure out whether to have it use Focus or Spontaenous Conversion or whatever) and nerf monsters as necessary. This has an added bonus of removing a pool to track.
Nerfing monsters sufficiently will remove healing as a thing you do at all, since if you can get to the end of the combat without it, Treat Wounds makes the problem go away.
Everybody hitting each other for small percentages of HP gives combat at a snail pace and everybody feeling week, and that's a non-starter for me as a player.
Tridus:
From my understanding, monsters are overtuned according to Paizo themselves - especially at lower levels. They made changes to npcs after they removed a grazing attack mechanic. They are probably going to be adjusted down anyways.
|
With Focus now being implemented, does that mean Channel Energy now has to compete with magic items, Domain powers, and so on, because it's all being rolled into one resource?
No. Channel is still listed separately on Kyra's sheet. Presumably something like wild Shape would be the same. The only things 'combined' are Spell Points and some parts of Resonance.
That's a very roundabout way solving this. There's no need to have an "automatic bonus progression" if the system keeps behaving consistently as it does for every other level besides those where it "expects" (More like demands) the PC's to have those items. If they expect +1 Potency rune or the character buying a Potency Item, then it's just a matter of baking the numbers in the already baked numbers! Why have a +2 spike just to force character buying items? If this is an unchangeable gap, then give the PCs the bonuses at the expected level. For example, in Starfinder, at level 3 characters gain "Weapon Specialization" which allows them to add their level to damage, it's not a 100% good example, but why not give a feature at the expected level that increase the saving throws or award proficient characters with more die to their weapons?
I would agree that it is a roundabout way of solving the problem. I would disagree that it is a very roundabout way of solving the problem; It is simply baking in the acquisition of said items into character progression, largely as suggested.
It is also, and perhaps more importantly, a compromise.
There are a number of core concepts that are extremely unlikely to be removed, no matter how vocal a minority (and I include myself in this) support such changes. And so, much like Vancian casting, I accept that it will almost certainly be part of the Core Rulebook, and instead prefer to advocate for an early-release supplement with the optional rules that can cater to my fringe preferences.
Being attuned to a single weapon or armor keeping the restriction while shifting the power from the weapon to the character. You'll still not be able to use backup weapons and will only be a fighter that can use your favorite stick.
Given you can only wear one set of armor at a time, I'd suggest that being able to change what your "armor of the day" is each morning isn't exactly inflexible. If it's not flexible enough, perhaps spending Focus could let you shift your attunement in a shorter period.
Similarly, with weapons, suggesting that at 12th level having a +3 greatsword, +2 composite longbow and +1 warhammer, with the ability to switch the bonuses around (or to different weapons) on a daily basis, might not be enough flexibility is... not a very compelling argument. Yes, it means that characters will have to choose a primary weapon for the day, and secondary weapons are less than optimal - but that actually applies equally (or more so) in Pathfinder 1, where melee characters could have a ranged weapon, but without the same investment of cash, feats and ability scores, it was usually sub-optimal compared with the combat style they have optimised for.
To me, they just need to restructure the proficiency system and award the potency effects (extra die, bonus to skills and saving throws) at the level they deemed appropriated instead of taxing players with buying their intended items just to make the math fit.
In short, make the math work without presuming the PC's will be obligated to buy certain items. Remove the illusion of choice already, it's already time.
It's an interesting idea, but also has issues with how different classes gain proficiency - having only the fighter ever hit 6 weapon dice, and clerics who don't multiclass rendered ineffectual in melee would get very old, very fast. Which means that each class that uses weapons (i.e. potentially all of them unless you want to stonewall character concepts) must be able to achieve legendary proficiency with them, which has issues in and of itself.
Thus... I would disagree.
I would suggest instead that Proficiency and Quality should go towards attack bonuses - as they currently do - but damage should scale directly off level. The "automatic potency" actually does this, but were you to implement it more directly, it would be "At 4th level, and every 4 thereafter, your attacks deal an additional weapon damage dice".
Segue: And on the topic of Proficiency... I am curious as to how the math would look if each proficiency level gave a +2 instead of a +1; i.e. a high level fighter with legendary proficiency in martial weapons would be at +6 to attack over... say... a cleric (who didn't multiclass) who is merely trained, or +4 over a cleric (who did multiclass) who is an expert.
Yes, it broadens the numbers, but only by +3 by 20th level compared to the current numbers - about the same impact of a heroism spell at that level - but I am not sure that is actually a problem, as right now my gut instinct is that the math is a little too tight ()
Given you can only wear one set of armor at a time, I'd suggest that being able to change what your "armor of the day" is each morning isn't exactly inflexible. If it's not flexible enough, perhaps spending Focus could let you shift your attunement in a shorter period.Similarly, with weapons, suggesting that at 12th level having a +3 greatsword, +2 composite longbow and +1 warhammer, with the ability to switch the bonuses around (or to different weapons) on a daily basis, might not be enough flexibility is... not a very compelling argument. Yes, it means that characters will have to choose a primary weapon for the day, and secondary weapons are less than optimal - but that actually applies equally (or more so) in Pathfinder 1, where melee characters could have a ranged weapon, but without the same investment of cash, feats and ability scores, it was usually sub-optimal compared with the combat style they have optimized for.
I didn't mean the armor being restrictive with the way you suggested, but regarding weapons, i think there's big difference between changing your +5 magical weapon on PF1e and PF2e, in the first you'll be losing +5 to hit and damage, while losing effectiveness overall, the difference is mostly small, specially because of the bloated bonuses later in the game and +5 dmg while very good to have it's not comparable to be rolling 6d6+X and 1d6~~4d6+X(with a +4 weapon being almost a best case scenario), couple that with the tighter math and critical paradigm and it's way worse for you to change your damage type on PF2e than it is in PF1e.
Also, with damage dice being given to the characters due to their proficiency it would be required to change how the system works, to allow more flexibility for those that never will have legendary proficiency in the current version of the game, to have the option of investing to achieve the same status.
The game will end up better for it, that's what I think. It doesn't even need to be how I'm proposing, but I the current state can't stay, that's for sure.
Right, I believe this served its purpose. Can we all head out to more dedicated, individual threads to discuss the individual parts of the update?
/thread