| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every character needs a high charisma. If you have class powers you need charisma to power them, even if charisma is not your prime stat.
Even if you do not have powers, you still need it to fuel your magic and alchemical items. Sure, those items work somewhat without Focus, but to be fully effective you need to expend Focus.
If that wasn't enough, everybody needs intimidate. Demoralizing enemies is among the most effective actions you can take because of how it makes most other actios more effective.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely don't like how class powers work off of Charisma instead of a class's main (or secondary) ability. Like I have a Dwarf Monk and Druid who had quite a few powers and spell points, and I left Charisma at 8 as a deliberate decision of "I'll use fewer potions, I guess."
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the most important stat in the game, except for your primary stat. And DEX, since people like both hitting things and having the AC to not get crit constantly. And CON, since we all like making Fort saves and having HP.
I don't know, it seems like having multiple stats that all do useful things is the only reason to even have a stat system. If every class only has two stats they care about and then a bunch they don't, why with having stats at all?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every character needs a high charisma. If you have class powers you need charisma to power them, even if charisma is not your prime stat.
Even if you do not have powers, you still need it to fuel your magic and alchemical items. Sure, those items work somewhat without Focus, but to be fully effective you need to expend Focus.
If that wasn't enough, everybody needs intimidate. Demoralizing enemies is among the most effective actions you can take because of how it makes most other actios more effective.
So
1
This is still experimental and is explicitly only to be used in the test scenario they provided.2
If I'm being honest I'm happy to see less stats that people can just completely ignore, I just want them to do something with intelligence now.3
I do think however that there needs to be some sort of class baseline that is added for classes that use powers. Ie monks get +3 focus in addition to racial and charisma or some such.
I agree here. Having every stat be useful in a way is fantastic. I love Pillars of Eternity for that reason (even if they made it nearly impossible to decide what stat to boost). STR has damage/encumbrance (and could probably use a little boost), DEX has reflex/AC, CON has HP/fort, WIS has will/perception, CHA has focus/social skills. INT doesn't matter after level 1. At all. Please do something with it to make it matter in some way.
I also agree with having a higher baseline Focus for some classes. Especially Wizards and Monks, the two classes probably most associated with the real-world concept of focus. Clerics have needed charisma before so that doesn't bother me. Druids might need a little help too though. Maybe model them on their wild shape order by making different orders use different stats. Really not sure there.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the most important stat in the game, except for your primary stat. And DEX, since people like both hitting things and having the AC to not get crit constantly. And CON, since we all like making Fort saves and having HP.
I don't know, it seems like having multiple stats that all do useful things is the only reason to even have a stat system. If every class only has two stats they care about and then a bunch they don't, why with having stats at all?
You forgot Wisdom so you have a better initiative if you get jumped and are less likely to get jumped and less likely to get charmed/blinded/dominated/etc.etc.
Lol
Hey, you forgot INT because...
Oh.
Nevermind.
Move along, nothing to see here...
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's a big difference between "I have a weakness in a save, low armor class, or low HP because one of Dex, Wis, or Con is low" and "I am unable to use my powers granted by my class because my Charisma is low" particularly when nothing about the thematics of the class indicate "people with this class are charismatic."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there's a big difference between "I have a weakness in a save, low armor class, or low HP because one of Dex, Wis, or Con is low" and "I am unable to use my powers granted by my class because my Charisma is low" particularly when nothing about the thematics of the class indicate "people with this class are charismatic."
Then sorcerers have had an incredible thematic problem for a very, very long time. Nothing about sorcerers suggest charisma except that apparently charisma gives you an inherent tie to magic. So if focus doesn't make sense, neither do sorcerers.
I hope I don't sound antagonistic. I just think your argument doesn't hold water in a world where sorcerers exist because they're "charismatic".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely don't like how class powers work off of Charisma instead of a class's main (or secondary) ability. Like I have a Dwarf Monk and Druid who had quite a few powers and spell points, and I left Charisma at 8 as a deliberate decision of "I'll use fewer potions, I guess."
Yep. I think I'm really not a fan of charisma feeling all devouring.
I mean, I'd be fine with it for say, fighters, rogues, rangers, non-ki monks, barbarians, running off charisma focus as mentioned.
Sorcs I think I like the idea of them actually being bosses with focus powers, so I'd be happy with something like this, plus easier access to increased points.
Clerics, Wizards, Druids, I all very much want to be able to run on their primary stat. Given how alchemist seems pretty fun with some of the changes (bar mistform elixir which seems far too weak) I'm personally biased towards wanting them to potentially have it run off int in some way.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I think this is the change that means I'm giving up on the Playtest.
My druid (built around wild shape) is now almost non functional.
Any scenario with more than 2 encounters and the druid can't use what they're built around. Previously, it had both Wild Claws AND Wild Shape, using two different pools, so pretty much could last a reasonable adventure.
Now, nope.
This is a pretty massive change to test only in one level 5 adventure and only with pretest characters.
I am very, very, strongly unimpressed
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I think this is the change that means I'm giving up on the Playtest.
My druid (built around wild shape) is now almost non functional.
Any scenario with more than 2 encounters and the druid can't use what they're built around. Previously, it had both Wild Claws AND Wild Shape, using two different pools, so pretty much could last a reasonable adventure.
Now, nope.
This test doesn't affect the rest of the playtest though. They even ask us NOT to use the resonance test rules. I don't think it's fair to assume the final version of this will lead to wild (or any order really) druids being useless.
The new focus thing is a good system but has side-effects like this. I would rather something be done to fix this and improve the new system rather than return to old resonance (assuming those are the 2 options).
Not willing to draw the line and pay for it.
This test doesn't affect the rest of the playtest though. They even ask us NOT to use the resonance test rules. I don't think it's fair to assume the final version of this will lead to wild (or any order really) druids being useless.Well, I think this is the change that means I'm giving up on the Playtest.
My druid (built around wild shape) is now almost non functional.
Any scenario with more than 2 encounters and the druid can't use what they're built around. Previously, it had both Wild Claws AND Wild Shape, using two different pools, so pretty much could last a reasonable adventure.
Now, nope.
The Cleric's channel energy was unaffected since it isn't powered by spell points so I assume wild shape will be in the same boat. This just tanked your ability to use Wild Claws though.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have specifically stated that non-Charisma Classes who utilize Powers will get bonuses to their Focus.
What those bonuses are is not yet known, but it is entirely possible that, say, a Druid will wind up with Focus equal to their Wisdom + Charisma + 1 or more from Ancestry + bonuses from Feats.
That would be more points than they have now.
That also may not occur, or not precisely like that, but panicking or dropping the playtest when they have clearly stated that this issue will be addressed seems silly to me.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have specifically stated that non-Charisma Classes who utilize Powers will get bonuses to their Focus.
What those bonuses are is not yet known, but it is entirely possible that, say, a Druid will wind up with Focus equal to their Wisdom + Charisma + 1 or more from Ancestry + bonuses from Feats.
That would be more points than they have now.
That also may not occur, or not precisely like that, but panicking or dropping the playtest when they have clearly stated that this issue will be addressed seems silly to me.
We are firmly dedicated to making sure characters of non-Cha primary classes that use powers will have the tools they need to enjoy use of their powers. But we also would like to not do this by swapping out Charisma because keeping Charisma around allows for more creative and disparate character choices where you might take Charisma as a secondary stat for your wizard to get even more if you wanted to be Int and Cha like an arcanist, say, instead of the cookie-cutter Int>Dex>=Con>=Wis wizard build in the current playtest, and the sheer creativity is one of the coolest things about the Pathfinder community.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad that we're making sure non-Cha primary classes have tools, but the two classes hit hardest here seem to be the Druid and the Monk since (assuming a Druid who wants to fight in melee) you're spread pretty thin on attributes, since you need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis already because of things like "needing to hit" and "needing to do damage" and "needing to not die."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are firmly dedicated to making sure characters of non-Cha primary classes that use powers will have the tools they need to enjoy use of their powers. But we also would like to not do this by swapping out Charisma because keeping Charisma around allows for more creative and disparate character choices where you might take Charisma as a secondary stat for your wizard to get even more if you wanted to be Int and Cha like an arcanist, say, instead of the cookie-cutter Int>Dex>=Con>=Wis wizard build in the current playtest, and the sheer creativity is one of the coolest things about the Pathfinder community.They have specifically stated that non-Charisma Classes who utilize Powers will get bonuses to their Focus.
What those bonuses are is not yet known, but it is entirely possible that, say, a Druid will wind up with Focus equal to their Wisdom + Charisma + 1 or more from Ancestry + bonuses from Feats.
That would be more points than they have now.
That also may not occur, or not precisely like that, but panicking or dropping the playtest when they have clearly stated that this issue will be addressed seems silly to me.
Is this not disingenuous to say you can have CHA as a secondary stat when monster's +to hit is balanced around hitting a full plate fighter 50% of the time. I suppose if monster and NPC stats were made more reasonable at release this won't be an issue, but as of now DEX is needed as a secondary stat. Although I suppose non CHA casters can just make CHA a secondary stat and burn a feat on paladin multiclass to at least not be crit'd on every hit.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad that we're making sure non-Cha primary classes have tools, but the two classes hit hardest here seem to be the Druid and the Monk since (assuming a Druid who wants to fight in melee) you're spread pretty thin on attributes, since you need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis already because of things like "needing to hit" and "needing to do damage" and "needing to not die."
Monks definitely have to make significantly more sacrifices than, say, a wizard, for a Cha build, and we have a special eye on monks most of all in this process, yes. For classes like cleric and druid where warpriest/battle druid is somewhat of a different focus than the more castery-focused role, it might be OK because you can pick which is more important by choosing to take some Strength vs Charisma, but we'll need to look carefully at how that works with, say, wild druids (who use Strength for their wild shape pool, making it less optional than it is for other druids).
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad that we're making sure non-Cha primary classes have tools, but the two classes hit hardest here seem to be the Druid and the Monk since (assuming a Druid who wants to fight in melee) you're spread pretty thin on attributes, since you need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis already because of things like "needing to hit" and "needing to do damage" and "needing to not die."Monks definitely have to make significantly more sacrifices than, say, a wizard, for a Cha build, and we have a special eye on monks most of all in this process, yes. For classes like cleric and druid where warpriest/battle druid is somewhat of a different focus than the more castery-focused role, it might be OK because you can pick which is more important by choosing to take some Strength vs Charisma, but we'll need to look carefully at how that works with, say, wild druids (who use Strength for their wild shape pool, making it less optional than it is for other druids).
Yeah, but Intelligence is still going to be the least useful stat, and practically any adventuring party is going to be a very tired wizard or alchemist and their party of idiots.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this not disingenuous to say you can have CHA as a secondary stat when monster's +to hit is balanced around hitting a full plate fighter 50% of the time. I suppose if monster and NPC stats were made more reasonable at release this won't be an issue, but as of now DEX is needed as a secondary stat.
Much as I agree that the monster math is off, calling anyone disingenous is a bridge too far, I think. And you can have up to three secondary Abilities in PF2, possibly 4 in some cases and at high levels, since you can raise 4 scores every time you raise them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but Intelligence is still going to be the least useful stat, and practically any adventuring party is going to be a very tired wizard or alchemist and their party of idiots.I'm glad that we're making sure non-Cha primary classes have tools, but the two classes hit hardest here seem to be the Druid and the Monk since (assuming a Druid who wants to fight in melee) you're spread pretty thin on attributes, since you need Str, Dex, Con, and Wis already because of things like "needing to hit" and "needing to do damage" and "needing to not die."Monks definitely have to make significantly more sacrifices than, say, a wizard, for a Cha build, and we have a special eye on monks most of all in this process, yes. For classes like cleric and druid where warpriest/battle druid is somewhat of a different focus than the more castery-focused role, it might be OK because you can pick which is more important by choosing to take some Strength vs Charisma, but we'll need to look carefully at how that works with, say, wild druids (who use Strength for their wild shape pool, making it less optional than it is for other druids).
It beats Strength quite easily (assuming you aren't either an Int-caster or Str-martial of course), but both of them are low. For build variety and overall balance between classes using various ability scores, I'd prefer if we could give more heft to Strength (and Int to a lesser extent, more trained skills is at least a fun reason to raise it, whereas more encumbrance is not), but that shouldn't stop us from giving Charisma something cool; hypothetical Charisma that does not give focus (to all or some classes) is so far below both Strength and Int unless you were building a Cha-focused character anyway.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It beats Strength quite easily (assuming you aren't either an Int-caster or Str-martial of course), but both of them are low. For build variety and overall balance between classes using various ability scores, I'd prefer if we could give more heft to Strength (and Int to a lesser extent, more trained skills is at least a fun reason to raise it, whereas more encumbrance is not), but that shouldn't stop us from giving Charisma something cool; hypothetical Charisma that does not give focus (to all or some classes) is so far below both Strength and Int unless you were building a Cha-focused character anyway.
I tend to agree. Personally, I like the (before suggested) idea of boosting Strength by raising Armor Check penalties slightly but having them reduced by your Strength Modifier. That really helps heavily armored people work properly.
I personally don't know for Int, though extra Trained skills are actually pretty cool, and giving it back more extra Languages would be much better in this edition given how hard they are to acquire otherwise.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Cleric's channel energy was unaffected since it isn't powered by spell points so I assume wild shape will be in the same boat. This just tanked your ability to use Wild Claws though.
Totally unclear to me, actually.
Wild Shape is "a special power granted (usually) by your class and it doesn't use a spell slot". Does that come from the old Wild Shape pool or from the new pool ? I honestly have no idea. Not sure Paizo does either :-)
What I DO know is that any playtest data coming out at this point may or may not have any value. I'm not talking about just the one scenario, I'm talking about Doomsday Dawn. What value is the data that includes a Druid using his Wild Shape Pool? That character may act completely differently.
My reaction is obviously emotional. But this is the first time that PF2 has become a game that I absolutely will not play if it stays in its current form.
I also don't think that playtesting this with one scenario with pre defined Level 5 characters will tell Paizo anything interesting about the new rules. Its far, far too narrow a test. Paizo can NOT get good data from that one data point and I'm worried that they apparently wouldn't agree with that statement
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For those in a (potentially) panic, trying to see if this changes a specific build/class they already are working on, or who are concerned about the narrow scope of this particular test. I'd like to point at a particular couple points near the bottom. I think it's worth re-reading. Bolding for emphasis:
We can say with confidence that the printed rules in the Playtest Rulebook won't be in the final version of the book as is. The Resonance Test is an experiment to see whether there's still an interesting idea in there. The most extreme case we might end up with looks more like Pathfinder First Edition, with something like the items you see in the Resonance Test, but with no extra benefits for spending Focus Points.
The Goal, is to see, in a limited fashion: "Is this a good start?" Before going all in, and rebuilding Monk/Druid/Wizard/Whathaveyou.
They acknowledged it's limited scope, intentionally, with the intent to build from here, IF, it's liked.
_____
My first take, is that it has promise. I would personally prefer to go from 1/day to 'Baseline, always on ability' or Baseline consumable AND Focus bonus abilities. That most likely would require some fancy tight-rope walking on balancing amount of available Focus.
___
One of the major gripes that I've seen over the past couple weeks has been: "I get the math, but XYZ just doesn't feel ... FUN". A limited test like this SHOULD be enough to get the answer to: "Is this change ... Fun?" without having to spend more than the 30-40(More?) man hours needed to write up the 28 page Test document, the Blog post, and however many pages of changes the Scenario itself has to rebuild EVERYTHING.
I guess you would need to also add importance of each to area of influence. MAybe another number based on how important. Saves probably be like 3 4 5 (ref fort will) Skills by how useful etc. that said I think int needs a buff still and str probably does but I have no clue what that would look like for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma: Areas of influence - 3
1. Charisma deals with 2 skills.
2. Charisma deals with Focus. (formerly resonance)
It's worth noting that Charisma's two skills have very useful combat abilities - Feint and Demoralize. I'd put them above most of Athletics's Combat Maneuvers (Trip being the possible exception).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that Charisma's two skills have very useful combat abilities - Feint and Demoralize. I'd put them above most of Athletics's Combat Maneuvers (Trip being the possible exception).Charisma: Areas of influence - 3
1. Charisma deals with 2 skills.
2. Charisma deals with Focus. (formerly resonance)
It's also worth noting that Charisma's two skills are actually four skills.
It's also worth noting that Charisma's two skills are actually four skills.It's worth noting that Charisma's two skills have very useful combat abilities - Feint and Demoralize. I'd put them above most of Athletics's Combat Maneuvers (Trip being the possible exception).Charisma: Areas of influence - 3
1. Charisma deals with 2 skills.
2. Charisma deals with Focus. (formerly resonance)
lol. Yes. How did I miss that. Performance and Diplomacy are also skills.
I do find it funny that on Friday we went from "Charisma is a dump stat again" to "Charisma is the most important stat in the game".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also Diplomacy, Deception, and Intimidate are three of the four most useful "damage mitigation" skills in the game, since you don't take damage if you avoid fights.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
4. Intelligence deals with all lore skills.
This is a good point in Intelligence's favor that I shouldn't underestimate either. Before the -4 untrained update, the wizard and alchemist were rocking the Influence system in War for the Crown as much or more than the Cha characters because they could roll obscure lores untrained that were the best skill for any given NPC (much lower DC), take a -2, and still be excellent at it (compared to using a harder skill anyway). With the -4 now, multiclassing bard for Bardic Lore could still be a powerful move for an "Int Influencer."
As for Strength defenses, we had an initial build idea that called for basically a Might save (handling all the knocked prone and combat maneuvers that got moved to Fort saves). The problem with using Athletics as a direct defense, especially with the change to -4, is that the other saves travel together, both in terms of trained or better and the armor potency rune improving them, so PCs that need to defend with their Athletics DC get wrecked unless they raise Athletics as a new "mandatory" skill (this I know because I tried it after we put a kibosh on the Might save idea, and that happened even with -2). Having saves based on all 6 ability scores was also on the early drawing board in terms of having each stat matter in different circumstances (Cha for mind-affecting, Wis for curses and soul-affecting, Int for illusions which wound up getting Perception instead, Str for might-based and combat maneuver stuff and taking Fort stuff that isn't about health, and Dex and Con the same). But of course, that is a pretty big departure (and 5e wound up doing something very very similar too).
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The six save thing for D&D 5e doesn’t work that great in practice because most spells still key off Dex, Con and Wis anyway. It’s rare you need to save off the other three.
If you want Strength to matter more the Armor Check Penalty reduction thrown about would be nice.
Additionally if a PC takes the Raise Shield action (or some kind of Block action [feat gated?]) perhaps they could add Strength to AC or replace Dex with Strength to AC vs Melee attacks. Functionally similar to how finesse weapons let dex Martials shine, a character who uses weapons with the Block Trait could allow Strength warriors to do something about their defense. Because a Dex Ranger with a finesse weapon will be more accurate and have better AC than a paladin at mid levels.
A Might skill would be great for Carrying Capacity, Busting Doors, Bursting Bonds, and lifting heavy objects. The sort of thing that a weightlifter could actually train to better at.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see Intelligence get a boost though, not just in skills department, because
A) Using the Recall Knowledge action in combat is unattractive (at least to my players), it takes an action and maybe provides useful information but mostly allows characters to use tactics the player wants to try anyway.
B) After first level your rate of improving skills is mostly fixed by your class and feat choices. Intelligence doesn’t help you get any skills past trained. It’s like getting bonus skill ranks at 1st level, putting them in class skills for the bonus +3 and then never getting additional ranks for intelligence each level thereafter. Your intelligence should help you get some extra skills up to Legendary.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually Intelligence granting Bonus Lore trainings/proficiency boosts every level would be great because it means you can be trained in more of a variety of weird topics. Like Batman or Sherlock as you bring up weird or esoteric facts about incredibly obscure trivia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if Strength improved Shield Block somehow?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually Intelligence granting Bonus Lore trainings/proficiency boosts every level would be great because it means you can be trained in more of a variety of weird topics. Like Batman or Sherlock as you bring up weird or esoteric facts about incredibly obscure trivia.
Huh, I like that idea of bonus lores. I'm not sure what the most mechanically elegant way to implemented but lore access in general could stand to be improved.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if Strength improved Shield Block somehow?
I was wondering if you added your Strength modifier to the damage mitigated by the shield's hardness it would useful early on but less effective later. For example at level 1 you would go from reducing damage by 5 but with Strength of 18 you block 9, a 80% increase. At level 20 you might a legendary heavy adamantine sturdy shield preventing 21 points normally now preventing 28 a 33% increase. Compared to monster damage though 4 vs 1d6+4 at first level is very different than 7 vs. 6d10+12 at 20th
While I do think Strength is undervalued by some classes, I don't think it will go away I have been seeing a number of builds that use Strength to turn classes into viable melee attackers including Battle Clerics, Magic Striking Wizards and Sorcerers (Muscle Wizards) Buffed Bards (Basically High Str/Cha bards that Inspire and melee with a big weapon usually with Fighter Dedication) and Wild Shaping Druids (who need it for both number of wild shapes which is way low and getting their hit high enough after 13th when forms stop progressing given Dragon Form is not properly tuned)
I am concerned right now for one of the Druid builds, the Storm Druid that relies on Tempest Surge and grabbing Spell Point feats to increase their uses. That build just died in the resonance test.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you could translate high Int into more expert/master/legendary skills instead of just trained skills that might help make Int better. Maybe something like at 14 and 18 int designate one skill which you are trained in as a signature skill you get a free boost at 2nd 7th and 13th levels in that skill.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every character needs a high charisma. If you have class powers you need charisma to power them, even if charisma is not your prime stat.
Even if you do not have powers, you still need it to fuel your magic and alchemical items. Sure, those items work somewhat without Focus, but to be fully effective you need to expend Focus.
I don't really agree. Your attack stat must still always be maximized, and Dex is still always next. You _might_ want a higher charisma IF you have an actually good class power (which is rare), otherwise you just want a point or two for emergency healing.
This rejiggering of Resonance to Focus lends itself to extremes.
A) You either want a lot for an excellent class power you want to spam
or
B) You don't really care except for emergency healing.
Either way, it isn't particularly interesting or fun, and it definitely means doing fewer interesting things with class powers, regardless of class. Monks, for example, should just give up on being anything but Dex strikers with a bit of Str/Con/Wis. Wizards should give up outright on school powers and focus on not being obliterated by HP damage or crit failing saves.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the most important stat in the game, except for your primary stat. And DEX, since people like both hitting things and having the AC to not get crit constantly. And CON, since we all like making Fort saves and having HP.
I don't know, it seems like having multiple stats that all do useful things is the only reason to even have a stat system. If every class only has two stats they care about and then a bunch they don't, why with having stats at all?
You forgot Wisdom so you have a better initiative if you get jumped and are less likely to get jumped and less likely to get charmed/blinded/dominated/etc.etc.
Lol
Hey, you forgot INT because...
Oh.
Nevermind.
Move along, nothing to see here...
Isn't Int supposed to help you remember that other thing, what was it?
Crap, I forgot.