Spoilers on Update 1.5 from the Twitch Stream

[KyleS]

F it, I'm done. I'm done tired of trying to talk to someone who has to argue every single point and every single letter of someone's post to try and prove that their hatred for something makes them 100% completely right and correct and everyone else has no idea what they're talking about and are therefore wrong. This has turned into a straight up argument fest for the sake of causing argument because of intolerance to have an actual debate. Some great things that have been brought up that can be discussed that can bring up great conversation on how to improve upon ideas and why others may not be the best route to take. However it has now been drowned out by useless argument that has become repetitive and stale. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets locked as well.

[HWalsh]

BryonD wrote:

So you are saying *I* have gotten better at art? Cuz you would be wrong.

I highly doubt that. In fact I'll hazard to say that you just don't notice your level of improvement due to it being slow and gradual. You may not be any better at drawing, or painting, or sculpting, but I'm willing to bet that there are things you picked up that you don't even realize are skills.

I say this as someone who has a background in art.

You can look at someone's art and probably spot things you have seen your wife or daughter do. You can say things like, "Those shadows don't look right." or "Those colors don't compliment that well."

You wouldn't be trained in it, which is what you'd need to make art, but you've gained general knowledge about it. You probably know some key words too, like in illustration you probably know the terms cross hatching and the like.

You might know things like "Kirby dots" and you probably have a grasp on things like symmetrical vs asymmetrical art. It is highly likely that you know the names of certain techniques, or even little things like "my wife uses an old brush that is kind of wide when she dry brushes."

You may not even know the term dry brush, but if you have watched her at all I am sure you can explain "how" she does something, even if you can't do it yourself.

[Jason Bulmahn]

So...

A thread that started out with a decent recap of what happened in the most recent twitch stream has now derailed into a +level argument (with the 4E comparison thrown in for flavor).

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

At the current time, we are not considering removing it from the system, and we will not be discussing it further in this thread.

If folks want to continue to discuss the spoilers and news about 1.5, go right ahead. If folks fail to do so, this thread will be locked.

[Edge93]

I certainly like that damage spells are getting a bit of a boost in damage (and that it's at base and not scaling) but it does make me a little sad as looking at the examples given I think it might end up with me having a similar gripe to one I had with 5e (Using this as an example because they both have a similar system of spells having a base effect at their base level and getting stronger by using higher level slots instead of growing directly with your level. I like PF2's scaling way better in general though. Funnily both also have spells per day that are both unaffected by ability scores and much lower quantity than PF1. Not something I have a problem with but just a similarity I notice), that is that using similar blast spells at x spell level that started at different levels may not work too well.

The example that always comes to my mind is 5e Burning Hands vs. Fireball. Both are fire blasts, one hits a 15 foot cone while the other hits a 20 foot burst centered pretty much anywhere you darn well please within the space of a battlefield. Burning Hands starts as a level 1 spell with 3d6 damage and gains 1d6 per spell level. Fireball starts as a level 3 spell with 8d6 and gains 1d6 per spell level.

So if Burning hands and Fireball are cast at the same level Burning Hands will always be 3d6 weaker. This bugs me because they cost the same resource and I feel Fireball already has enough of an advantage in that it has a generally more useful AoE and range. With the damage difference and general useability difference Burning Hands just feels lame, but if their damage was the same you'd still mostly use Fireball but you might keep Burning Hands around for if it becomes useful. I personally love the idea of a good back-up-out-of-my-face blast for if an enemy advances on the "helpless" Mage, give them second thoughts.

That said, given that the scaling of damage spells in PF2 is roughly twice as strong as 5e, so even if we have this general effect the difference between low level and higher level blasts cast at the same level will be weaker. Like if PF2 Burning Hands and Fireball became 3d6 and 8d6 base like in 5e, the difference would only be 1d6 instead of 3d6 (Specifically, cast at level 3 in 5e would be 5d6 vs. 8d6, PF2 would be 7d6 vs. 8d6), that's hardly noticeable.

So yeah, I guess looking at it it's likely that this potential problem will hardly even exist if at all, I just wanted to bring it up because it's what came to mind when I saw the prospective change.

And no offense is meant by any 5e comparisons, just using that because it's a system I've played a little that had something similar to what looks like is coming up here.

[Dr. Zerom Brandercook]

Edge93 wrote:

The example that always comes to my mind is 5e Burning Hands vs. Fireball. Both are fire blasts, one hits a 15 foot cone while the other hits a 20 foot burst centered pretty much anywhere you darn well please within the space of a battlefield. Burning Hands starts as a level 1 spell with 3d6 damage and gains 1d6 per spell level. Fireball starts as a level 3 spell with 8d6 and gains 1d6 per spell level.

There is some nuance to this comparison, for one burning hands does not require a material component (kind of a non issue, I know), and for another a fireball is really hard to use with allies on the battlefield, it's quite impractical in small spaces.

I can see many situations where you would either not want to spend a 3rd level spell slot right now, or not want to blow everyone up. I agree some of the spell scaling in 5e isn't perfect, but isn't burning hands 1d4/level, maxing at 5d4 in PF1? I kinda think its ok that the damage is a little less.

I can also see that if you were more of a melee mage, burning hands might actually be superior.

Not trying to take things too far off subject, just wanted to interject since I currently play 5e.

[John Lynch 106]

Edge93: That is exactly why PF2e's Magic system is as broken as D&D 5e's system. Given this I don't understand why spontaneous casters can't scale their spell's spontaneously.

[Dr. Zerom Brandercook]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Edge93: That is exactly why PF2e's Magic system is as broken as D&D 5e's system. Given this I don't understand why spontaneous casters can't scale their spell's spontaneously.

Well to be fair 5e definitely errs on the side of simplicity, and it sometimes comes at a cost. Not everything is tediously balanced and tightly wound, some things are legacy, and some things are situational, or niche. Nothing wrong with that when the whole system is a bit loose anyway.

They have even stated that some spells are better than others of the same level (I think fireball was one of them actually...), and that this was intentional.

5e spells may actually resemble PF1e spells more than PF2e spells do, which is...weird.

But in the end, I think we are comparing two overall pretty different approaches to game design in my opinion.

[Edge93]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Edge93: That is exactly why PF2e's Magic system is as broken as D&D 5e's system. Given this I don't understand why spontaneous casters can't scale their spell's spontaneously.

If spontaneous casters could scale all their spells spontaneously I feel like as things stand that would give them more versatility than prepared casters in terms of number of ways they can use their magic, especially at higher levels where between your on-level spells and your lower ones that have heightened effect you could potentially have over a dozen (or even more) different options you could use your highest level spell slots on. To elaborate, for spells that have heightened effects up to much higher levels a spontaneous caster only needs to spend a spell known of its lowest level, their high level spells known can be exclusively used for high level spells. A prepared caster who wants to cast lower level spells at higher level has that directly competing for space with his higher level spells. While both classes are equal in how many spells per day they can cast, this would give the Sorcerer FAR more options for using those uses throughout the day.

TL;DR spontaneous heightening for all spells I think would be unbalanced with prepared casters unless we had 5e or Arcanist style prepared casting and it's already been made clear that's not where things are headed.

I do feel like we could use more spontaneous heightening slots per day but I personally kinda like the system as-is. Most mage builds I've made in 2e (And I've done quite a few since two of my players are too busy IRL to make characters so I have to make both of their characters for each chapter, before reading said chapter beyond character building guidelines of course) haven't had many spells that they would care to heighten. It wasn't until building characters for Red Flags that I even had to make any hard calls on Spontaneous Heightening spells. And even then there's a feat I could have taken (for the bard at least. Be nice if Sorcerer had it too) to up the spontaneous heightening slots which would have solved the problem handily.

I get why people's mileage varies here but I'm personally just not sure having spontaneous heightening for all spells would be good.

(Also spontaneous heighten slots being changeable daily is a big help IMO)

[Edge93]

Dr. Zerom Brandercook wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

The example that always comes to my mind is 5e Burning Hands vs. Fireball. Both are fire blasts, one hits a 15 foot cone while the other hits a 20 foot burst centered pretty much anywhere you darn well please within the space of a battlefield. Burning Hands starts as a level 1 spell with 3d6 damage and gains 1d6 per spell level. Fireball starts as a level 3 spell with 8d6 and gains 1d6 per spell level.

There is some nuance to this comparison, for one burning hands does not require a material component (kind of a non issue, I know), and for another a fireball is really hard to use with allies on the battlefield, it's quite impractical in small spaces.

I can see many situations where you would either not want to spend a 3rd level spell slot right now, or not want to blow everyone up. I agree some of the spell scaling in 5e isn't perfect, but isn't burning hands 1d4/level, maxing at 5d4 in PF1? I kinda think its ok that the damage is a little less.

I can also see that if you were more of a melee mage, burning hands might actually be superior.

Not trying to take things too far off subject, just wanted to interject since I currently play 5e.

True, I suppose there is a bit more to it. I almost never find myself in smaller-than-Fireball spaces which I suppose colors my perception a bit. XD

And yeah, PF1 Burning Hands was AWFUL. I think it's telling when Mythic Burning Hands is still rarely desirable over regular Fireball. XD

[Hythlodeus]

Cyouni wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

level to skills you never intended to invest in.

And this right here is the part where I abandonded all hope for the playtest. Expecting your character to be good at everything, not having any weaknesses is just not a gaming style I feel comfortable with and would definately hate to see at my table. It's this entitlement that the Paladin shouldn't suck at sneaking in relation to the Rogue that leads to a mindset that gives us Lvl to ALL skills, even to those that make no sense to have in the first place.

1.2 broadened the field a little bit, opened the gap, but 1.2 just wasn't enough to make the difference big enough, since it kept the horrible level to skills in the system

I'm sure glad mythological heroes weren't cripplingly bad at the vast majority of things they'd encounter, otherwise we wouldn't have myths.

Not having level to skills makes that happen. It leads to "mythological hero" level power in very few aspects, and the inability to jump over a 10 foot pit, or drown in a pond, in the rest.

meh, mythological heroes would find ways around that. could they not think out of the box or cast fly or something? to me, that is to a certain degree what the game is about, to find solutions, to overcome hurdles by being creative, not by not thinking at all, because the math of the game is fixed in a way that no character can suck

edit: Oops, saw Jason's comment just yet. good to know this will be worked on, sad to see it will not be removed. moving on

[Ninja in the Rye]

While I very much feel that damage spells need a serious boost and I know that people love rolling dice, but I feel like there's a limit on how many dice I actually want to roll and count every time I cast a spell and these numbers are pushing past it.

Combine this with the chance of rolling all 1/2s on top of the chance of the target saving against it.

Personally I think it would be better to replace, say, half of the dice on each spell with average damage instead of rolling and counting. You'd trade high end potential for more consistency and things resolving quicker at the table.

[MaxAstro]

@Edge93: While the difference shouldn't be extreme, it is important that fireball be a stronger spell than heightened burning hands.

Otherwise, why bother learning fireball? You could learn a completely different spell and increase your overall utility instead. By choosing to learn fireball you have expended additional character resources, so the extra power of the spell over burning hands is rewarding you for that.

But on the other hand, if the difference is too extreme, then heightened spells aren't viable.

-----

On another topic, I'm really happy to see Paizo officially address the math being too tight/success chance being too low.

So we all agree that no one needs to make the 50% comment ever again until we see what that address looks like, right? :P

[Elleth]

MaxAstro wrote:

@Edge93: While the difference shouldn't be extreme, it is important that fireball be a stronger spell than heightened burning hands.

Otherwise, why bother learning fireball? You could learn a completely different spell and increase your overall utility instead. By choosing to learn fireball you have expended additional character resources, so the extra power of the spell over burning hands is rewarding you for that.

But on the other hand, if the difference is too extreme, then heightened spells aren't viable.

-----

On another topic, I'm really happy to see Paizo officially address the math being too tight/success chance being too low.

So we all agree that no one needs to make the 50% comment ever again until we see what that address looks like, right? :P

I personally was really happy when I realised that upscaled burning hands was the same damage as fireball here. It felt consistent to me.

The thing is, fireball has considerable advantages that aren't raw damage, and I really like that (20 foot burst at 500 foot range is tactically insane). In a similar vein, I was happy to see lightning bolt become mildly stronger at base than Fireball. Acknowledging the utility of the different blast areas.

[MaxAstro]

Agreed. "Stronger spell" doesn't need to mean "more damage".

[Vic Ferrari]

Dr. Zerom Brandercook wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Edge93: That is exactly why PF2e's Magic system is as broken as D&D 5e's system. Given this I don't understand why spontaneous casters can't scale their spell's spontaneously.

Well to be fair 5e definitely errs on the side of simplicity, and it sometimes comes at a cost. Not everything is tediously balanced and tightly wound, some things are legacy, and some things are situational, or niche. Nothing wrong with that when the whole system is a bit loose anyway.

They have even stated that some spells are better than others of the same level (I think fireball was one of them actually...), and that this was intentional.

5e spells may actually resemble PF1e spells more than PF2e spells do, which is...weird.

Yes, per the spell design rules in the DMG, fireball and lighting bolt should both deal 6d6, but purposely bumped them to 8d6, for legacy reasons, and as they are standard innate spells for monsters.

I agree, though, 5th Ed spells are more similar to PF1 spells, than the Playtest spells. 5th Ed, overall, feels more like PF1, than the playtest, to me, so far.

[Elleth]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Yes, per the spell design rules in the DMG, fireball and lighting bolt should both deal 6d6, but purposely bumped them to 8d6, for legacy reasons, and as they are standard innate spells for monsters.

This is a really big pet peeve of mine tbh, I dislike "no brainer" picks on a spell list, it's part of why I'm also happy to see Wish reigned in and gated behind a capstone. On the bright side for me, I feel fairly confident so far from what we've seen that PF2 won't go down the route of making a spell disproportionately good due to legacy reasons alone.

[Staffan Johansson]

JoelF847 wrote:

I hope that any final version of the game doesn't increase damage to damage dealing spells, but instead lowers hp across the board. I get that in a playtest update environment it's a lot easier to increase damage, but there's no reason to have a hp escalation in the game in the first place.

They've actually given a reason for hp escalation: de-emphasizing Constitution.

A 9th level PF1 wizard with Constitution 10 has 34 hp, and buffing Constitution to 14 increases that by 18 to 52 - an increase of over 50%. But a 9th level human PF2 wizard with Con 10 has 62 hp, so the 18 hp increase from Con 14 is only about 30%.

They can't really lower the number of hp you gain from Constitution without either doing something mathematically complex, or by de-emphasizing it by a lot (e.g. by adding Constitution as a fixed bonus at level 1, the way 4e did). So instead, Con grants the same number of hp but diluted by a larger base pool of hp, so the effect isn't felt so much.

Now, you may argue about whether that's a good reason or not, but it's definitely a reason.

[Voss]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like player characters having max HP is fine, and need not change.

Bestiary Monsters, on the other hand should probably have 3 HP numbers printed- Max, Min, and Avg. Something like "HP: 20-40, Avg 30" lets you adjust monsters on the fly, and some antagonists are just speed bumps anyway.

[BryonD]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Please be aware that it is not at all just skills. That is simply the easy topic to discuss.

Not looking to ignore your request, but responding to that one specific point in your post.

[Edge93]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like player characters having max HP is fine, and need not change.

Bestiary Monsters, on the other hand should probably have 3 HP numbers printed- Max, Min, and Avg. Something like "HP: 20-40, Avg 30" lets you adjust monsters on the fly, and some antagonists are just speed bumps anyway.

I kinda like this. Mook-level monsters (3-4 levels below party) like the Babaus in part 5 actually have pretty good endurance it seems like which is generally fine by me but I'd love to have the opportunity to make them shorter lived since they can't do anything to the party anyway and dispatching them just takes a while.

Can be fun to see those crits roll in though, especially when you do like my party's Monk did and criti-kill two of them with one Flurry of Blows, dealing about half their max HP in damage to each. XD

[Lycar]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like player characters having max HP is fine, and need not change.

Bestiary Monsters, on the other hand should probably have 3 HP numbers printed- Max, Min, and Avg. Something like "HP: 20-40, Avg 30" lets you adjust monsters on the fly, and some antagonists are just speed bumps anyway.

We already have that, in the PF1 bestiary, every monster is listed with its hit dice and CON bonus, plus average HP.

When was the last time a GM preparing an adventure actually rolled for the HP instead of going with the average for every monster? Outside of, maybe, upping the leader of the gnoll pack to max HP beacuse?

[HWalsh]

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

[Hythlodeus]

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

[HWalsh]

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

Go ahead, play PFS online. Go to the PFS discord. Right now. I urge you to.

Why? Because I have played a LOT of online PFS and I have never witnessed that level of power gaming and optimizing in my life.

Now, I am not saying that it doesn't happen elsewhere, and I have met some players IRL who run out and get optimization guides to play characters. If you think this *doesn't* happen though, oh yeah, it does.

As someone who *wrote* an optimization guide for Starfinder I can tell you it has been viewed by over 2000 players. Not 2000 times, 2000 individual downloads. Those guides aren't popular if people aren't using them.

[PossibleCabbage]

Lycar wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like player characters having max HP is fine, and need not change.

Bestiary Monsters, on the other hand should probably have 3 HP numbers printed- Max, Min, and Avg. Something like "HP: 20-40, Avg 30" lets you adjust monsters on the fly, and some antagonists are just speed bumps anyway.

We already have that, in the PF1 bestiary, every monster is listed with its hit dice and CON bonus, plus average HP.

When was the last time a GM preparing an adventure actually rolled for the HP instead of going with the average for every monster? Outside of, maybe, upping the leader of the gnoll pack to max HP beacuse?

Rolling for monsters is a waste of time so you chose the average, but if the bestiary gave you a high, low, and medium number there were situations where I would choose each of the three.

[Hythlodeus]

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

[HWalsh]

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

[Hythlodeus]

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

[HWalsh]

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

It's an issue that the rules allow it. Yes a GM can say, "No, don't do this," but it's a good idea to remove rules exploits.

[Hythlodeus]

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

It's an issue that the rules allow it. Yes a GM can say, "No, don't do this," but it's a good idea to remove rules exploits.

but if there's a flaw in the 20th store of building, one seldom wrecks the whole building and builds a new one that's just 19 stores high.

[Cyouni]

Are we really pretending that rampant optimization is a PFS issue now?

Not to mention pretending that problems only occur at level 20?

And also that CLW wands aren't just a PFS issue. I've never touched PFS, yet tons of CLW wand usage happens in my games because it's so good that it puts dedicated healers to shame.

[HWalsh]

Hythlodeus wrote:

but if there's a flaw in the 20th store of building, one seldom wrecks the whole building and builds a new one that's just 19 stores high.

That dog doesn't hunt I'm afraid.

Take CLW spam - A party of 4 spends 187 GP and 5 SP each. In exchange they get an average of 275 HP worth of healing. - It is a trivial cost expenditure and greatly increases healer efficiency if it doesn't completely negate the need for a healer alrogether.

Optimization is a widespread problem in most regions. It isnt just a PFS issue, I simply pointed you to a wider group to play with.

PF2 has to address these issues.

[Voss]

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

And so... That is one true gameplay feature to emulate and carry over? Is that the argument and expectation?

Because if the design goal is just to make the math transparent enough so that everyone can always be on the Biggest Bonus train (and to the depths with everything else), I don't see much merit or virtue in this project.

Or is design team's expectation different from what you're suggesting by saying 'but PF1 did it?' I'd honestly hope so.

[Elleth]

Voss wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

And so... That is one true gameplay feature to emulate and carry over? Is that the argument and expectation?

Because if the design goal is just to make the math transparent enough so that everyone can always be on the Biggest Bonus train (and to the depths with everything else), I don't see much merit or virtue in this project.

Or is design team's expectation different from what you're suggesting by saying 'but PF1 did it?' I'd honestly hope so.

I got the impression that everything being calibrated for optimal was more of an expectations buffer than anything else?

[ErichAD]

Hythlodeus wrote:

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

That looks like it from my end as well. All the weird problems that show up when you're playing with people you don't know, and can't just stop inviting to games when they make a mess of things, seem to build up to quite the pile. It really does explain the condescending behavioral rules that pop up in the book.

It reminds me of the problems that show up in online matchmaking.

Optimizing may be a real issue, but I miss the option to create low resource management builds for new players, or to make support builds that can carry new players without over shadowing them.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

This all sounds very good (except the new dying rules, I'm less than enthused there, but some of the alternatives sound good).

In particular, the persistent math issue is by far my largest concern in regards to the new system, and hearing they'll address it is very nice. I honestly don't mind that it probably won't be playtested, since it's the part of the game most susceptible to just, well, looking at the math, and I can manage with things as they are in the meantime.

I am also looking forward to how they address the math issue, right now with the possible exception of intimidating if you access every possible bonus, my players feel kinda incompetent.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Bardarok wrote:

Was running a long and boring X-ray experiment this afternoon ...

Thank you for taking the time to type these for the forum ^^

[Sebastian Hirsch]

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

but if there's a flaw in the 20th store of building, one seldom wrecks the whole building and builds a new one that's just 19 stores high.

That dog doesn't hunt I'm afraid.

Take CLW spam - A party of 4 spends 187 GP and 5 SP each. In exchange they get an average of 275 HP worth of healing. - It is a trivial cost expenditure and greatly increases healer efficiency if it doesn't completely negate the need for a healer alrogether.

Optimization is a widespread problem in most regions. It isnt just a PFS issue, I simply pointed you to a wider group to play with.

PF2 has to address these issues.

I very much agree this stuff happened in my Kingmaker game (I tried to run as written and it was really insane at some point how good some characters worked), and it often keeps happening in PFS.

The reason why this is often linked to organized play, is that those GMs and players actually have to run as written, so all the problems a good GM could just fix/ignore, become really apparent. Even the concept of designing a scenario for such a mix of players becomes really hard due to some features of the 3.0 ruleset.

So I am also a rather big fan of "level to everything", though I would not mind doubling proficiency modifiers.

I really hope that the designers have the time to show how they want to approach the problem because the playtest thus far felt a bit depressing for some of them.

[Voss]

Elleth wrote:

I got the impression that everything being calibrated for optimal was more of an expectations buffer than anything else?

I got the complete opposite impression, especially from recent comments. Players weren't optimizing enough (or 'not as much as expected') so now they're having to go back and tone things down.

[Vic Ferrari]

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

It's an issue that the rules allow it. Yes a GM can say, "No, don't do this," but it's a good idea to remove rules exploits.

but if there's a flaw in the 20th store of building, one seldom wrecks the whole building and builds a new one that's just 19 stores high.

Yes, cutting off the head to cure the headache, and all that, it's happened before. PF1 does not need drastic measures to whip it into shape. A new edition of a game should be an evolvement, not an entirely revolutionary new deal, otherwise, call it something else.

[Edge93]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

It's an issue that the rules allow it. Yes a GM can say, "No, don't do this," but it's a good idea to remove rules exploits.

but if there's a flaw in the 20th store of building, one seldom wrecks the whole building and builds a new one that's just 19 stores high.

Yes, cutting off the head to cure the headache, and all that, it's happened before. PF1 does not need drastic measures to whip it into shape. A new edition of a game should be an evolvement, not an entirely revolutionary new deal, otherwise, call it something else.

"PF1 does not need drastic measures to whip it into shape"

The litany of houserules and homebrew I have to utilize to provide even remotely engaging challenges in a lot of areas without overshooting and making s TPK machine (PF1 is so heavily skewed towards offense over defense that without homebrew and arbitrary defensive increases by the time you scale up to a challenge that can withstand even a fair amount of offense from the players its offense is so strong it can potentially shred them in moments. For example if you want a dragon fight, if you pick an on-level dragon it gets shredded but if you pick one that can survive a couple rounds its breath weapon will probably be strong enough to oneshot some players. Just an example) would BEG to differ. And there's far more I've found cause to fix beyond just enemy specs.

PF2 has given me a FAR better and more effective base to work with and any adjustments I might need to throw in to make certain concessions in my own future non-playtest games are a FAR cry from the overhauling I've had to do in PF1. I could speak of several places where this is so for me but I feel this isn't the thread for it as this whole comment chain feels a tad off-topic as-is without me diverging further.

[Vic Ferrari]

Edge93 wrote:

"PF1 does not need drastic measures..."

The litany of houserules and homebrew I have to utilize to provide even remotely engaging challenges in a lot of areas without overshooting and making s TPK machine would BEG to differ.

I am surprised, doesn't take that much for my games (some official variants, and a few other house-rules, takes care of it), why do you need such volume (what aspects pose the biggest problems for you in PF1)?

[HWalsh]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

"PF1 does not need drastic measures..."

The litany of houserules and homebrew I have to utilize to provide even remotely engaging challenges in a lot of areas without overshooting and making s TPK machine would BEG to differ.

I am surprised, doesn't take that much for my games (some official variants, and a few other house-rules, takes care of it), why do you need such volume (what aspects pose the biggest problems for you in PF1)?

Offense scales laughably in comparison to durability in PF1. With the various Force Multipliers damage ramps way up. A Full Attack from a melee fighter with haste at level 12 for example is easily capable of dealing out 32 damage per hit baseline. With things like rage and/or smite this can swell to 44 per hit easily. With the main attack and haste attack all but guaranteed to hit and the first iterative the same... You see 132 damage in one round... Easily.

From one attacker.

Look at the HP of CR 12s and remember, by the rules, that is supposed to be faced by 4 PCs of level 12.

-----

[Vic Ferrari]

HWalsh wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Edge93 wrote:

"PF1 does not need drastic measures..."

The litany of houserules and homebrew I have to utilize to provide even remotely engaging challenges in a lot of areas without overshooting and making s TPK machine would BEG to differ.

I am surprised, doesn't take that much for my games (some official variants, and a few other house-rules, takes care of it), why do you need such volume (what aspects pose the biggest problems for you in PF1)?

Offense scales laughably in comparison to durability in PF1.

Absolutely, so I cut down BAB, use the Defence Bonus and Armour as Damage Reduction variant from the 3rd Ed UA, and the Unchained RAE.

[MaxAstro]

132 per round isn't even close to topping, either.

12th level bloodrager, strength 30 when raging. Enlarge Person on yourself while wielding a vicious impact earthbreaker (expensive, but not impossible at that level) to get 4d6 base damage + 2d6 from vicious. Greater magic weapon on top of that because why not?

Counting Power Attack, that's 6d6+29 for an average of ~50 damage per hit. Easy 150 damage full attack while hasted. Better yet, you are in a party with a Vigilante who has Leave an Opening and Paired Opportunists, which means he moves up to flank with you, gets a hidden strike, and at the start of the monster's turn it provokes from you for another 50 damage, thus giving you a 200 damage full attack routine... and that's assuming you missed once. A typical CR 12 creature has ~150 hit points.

And even if you need to move to set it up, Improved Vital Strike means you hit for 14d6+29, average of ~80 damage - and you still get the hit from Paired Opportunists. So ~130 damage against any creature you can move to flank with Large size reach.

This isn't theorycrafting - this is what my Hell's Rebels players have been doing to my encounters. That's not even counting that the skald in the party also gets in on the Paired Opportunists action, or that the fourth player is a trip specialist who can give the bloodrager another free 50 damage.

And that's not even fully optimal, just what my players came up with organically over the course of the campaign.

PF1e is not even a little bit hard to break, and it doesn't always take a wizard.

[Slyme]

Super easy way to work around that...just increase the HP of your monsters. If they die in 1 round but you want them to live 3...triple their HP...doesn't make them hit any harder, but makes them able to take more hits...problem solved.

[Deadmanwalking]

Slyme wrote:

Super easy way to work around that...just increase the HP of your monsters. If they die in 1 round but you want them to live 3...triple their HP...doesn't make them hit any harder, but makes them able to take more hits...problem solved.

The issue with this is that monsters often hit hard enough to take PCs out in a round, too.

You could just triple everyone's HP, but that does nothing for Save or Die effects...which are quite common at high levels and also take out people in a round. So upping HP just makes martial characters weaker and casters stronger. Something PF1 very much does not need.

[magnuskn]

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

Go ahead, play PFS online. Go to the PFS discord. Right now. I urge you to.

Why? Because I have played a LOT of online PFS and I have never witnessed that level of power gaming and optimizing in my life.

Now, I am not saying that it doesn't happen elsewhere, and I have met some players IRL who run out and get optimization guides to play characters. If you think this *doesn't* happen though, oh yeah, it does.

As someone who *wrote* an optimization guide for Starfinder I can tell you it has been viewed by over 2000 players. Not 2000 times, 2000 individual downloads. Those guides aren't popular if people aren't using them.

So, who cares? I thought PFS goes only to level 12, which is right the point where the little bonus things can start stacking up in unpleasant ways. After that, the characters are retired, anyway.

If you think people won't be writing optimization guides for PF2E, I think you underestimate how RPG players are. The solution should not be to try to compress the system in a melange of samey-ness to suppress that natural tendency.

[Tridus]

ErichAD wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

That looks like it from my end as well. All the weird problems that show up when you're playing with people you don't know, and can't just stop inviting to games when they make a mess of things, seem to build up to quite the pile. It really does explain the condescending behavioral rules that pop up in the book.

It reminds me of the problems that show up in online matchmaking.

Optimizing may be a real issue, but I miss the option to create low resource management builds for new players, or to make support builds that can carry new players without over shadowing them.

Me too. That kind of build really doesn't work in the playtest.

Or, not NEEDING to optimize. PF1 largely wasn't tuned for everyone to be super optimized, but bringing a poorly built character to the playtest is just setting yourself up for a bad time thanks to the tight math and inability of someone else to buff you back up to effectiveness.

I guess it's easier to build something close to optimal than it used to be, but if you screw it up now and don't cap your AC, for example, you're getting crit back into the stone age.