| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a lot of posts I disagree with about how goblins or resonance or whatever means rewriting canon stories about Golarion. I find a lot of these complaints pretty banal-- I think most PF1 stories works just fine with PF2 mechanics, at least when you look at the "canon" APs and such. Needing a critical failure to achieve the result of a PF1 failure doesn't require rewriting stories, because you can still achieve the same result even if the odds are shifted. It just means the target rolled worse in this case. Fly being a level higher doesn't matter for these purposes, AFAIK. Casters can still fly.
Nor do PC actions matter here. The fact that you can't CLW wand spam in the playtest does not contradict canon. That's a metagame consideration. The stories Paizo actually writes don't involve people spamming low level magic items, nor do I think they revolve around things like rings of protection despite NPCs having rings of protection you can take off their bodies.
But there's a small subset of things that don't translate right now. I'd like to add mine and see if other people have them. I'm hoping this thread won't become a lightning rod for the same people airing the same grievances over and over again. Hopefully my examples clarify the type of thing I want to look at.
1) Enchantment Duration. A few APs I've read involve the old Jafar trope. A enchantment focused caster who keeps high ranking NPCs charmed and dancing on their puppet strings for months on end. This was usually done by the days per level Charm Monster, but in some cases where subtlety isn't needed the days per level Dominate Person[/i] could be used.
The duration on [i]Charm and Suggestion now make the Jafar thing impossible as far as I can tell. Dominate lasts a day, which I think leaves those stories possible... Needing to reapply it every day isn't ideal for remote usage, and critical failures of course make it harder to stick... unless you can order someone to submit to the next casting of the spell.
Now, in PF1, Dominate Person had text indicating it was easy to tell that someone had been dominated by how single-minded their pursuit of your order was. PF2 DOES lack that. Which I guess means you can use it to do the Jafar thing? "Go about your normal business and don't act weird" seems to be an order you can give. If so, that's cool, item 1 might be solved.
The only other long duration enchantment I've found is Gaes, which is obviously too involved for most stories.
2) Teleportation Casting Time means no escape button. Teleport and Shadow Walk both have 10 minute casting times. Lots of reoccurring villains only become reoccurring because they teleport away before they get killed. Currently the only viable option I've seen for that is 5th level Dimension Door with it's one mile range. perhaps followed by an actual teleportation if the party can't track you down for 10 minutes, but that frankly is just a level of mechanical complexity I can't imagine being fun to figure out.
I'm not really sure why this change was made. Teleportation seems to have two big problems AFAIK. Bypassing travel and facilitating scry and fry tactics. I don't see how increasing the casting time solves either of these issues. What it does is make it harder for people to flee, and I don't recall anyone ever complaining it was too easy to avoid fleeing what would otherwise be a TPK. This also makes Dimensional Anchor worse if fewer people will be able to use teleportation effects in combat anyway.
Dimension Door being the only eject button (at least for several levels) CAN work if you assume those NPCs just used that, I suppose. But I have some flavor aversion to giving Dimension Door to creatures with the Nightmare template that Shadow Walked away from battles now are using this other spell. And it also doesn't let you bring any other creatures with you, which really limits the ability for a caster to bring a beloved minion or boss, or for parties to use it to flee.
I really hope this thread doesn't become a lightning rod for negativity. I'm kind of scared to post it, but oh well. I think all of these are pretty solvable issues and I might be overstating the problems in the first place.
If Teleport was a Common spell I'd
mostly agree with the 10 minute casting, but since it isn't I also find it prettt unnecessary. Howevee, it does hinder scry and fry a lot. 99% of buffs in PF2 last for either 1 or 10 minutes, so a 10 minute cast time Teleport almost removes the pre-buffing part of this strategy.
If Teleport was a Common spell I'd
mostly agree with the 10 minute casting, but since it isn't I also find it prettt unnecessary. Howevee, it does hinder scry and fry a lot. 99% of buffs in PF2 last for either 1 or 10 minutes, so a 10 minute cast time Teleport almost removes the pre-buffing part of this strategy.
Only if the teleporter is also the one who would lay down the buffs. There's nothing everyone else from using buffs just before the spell goes off. That can be especially effective with the onset times of mutagens and such.
|
Some good stuff. Jafar and whatnot
I see your point, but as far as Jafar goes, I'm PRETTY sure that his Scepter could easily considered a Bonded Staff of Enchantment since the magic he relied on to keep the Sultan dominated failed when the Scepter was broken.
He can make due as long as he is empowered by the staff to make is easy, but is not by himself powerless, just not as powerful without the staff.
Maybe have a 2 action (Or 3) casting option and a 10 minute casting option, with the former having less reliable targeting and/or more chance of mishap, a quick but risky group getaway, while the latter is more careful and precise.
That's actually a really cool idea. I'd love to see that, it would let the escape mechanism still exist but not without a risk, and could lead to very interesting stories.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think spell duration and spell breadth are the most obvious issues here, as a lot of the world relies on ‘it’s magic’ to explain things or events, but now magic can’t do it.
The logical response would be ‘it’s a custom ritual’ if we wanted to keep continuity, but at that point we’d need a ‘build your ritual’ ruleset.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Needing a critical failure to achieve the result of a PF1 failure doesn't require rewriting stories, because you can still achieve the same result even if the odds are shifted. It just means the target rolled worse in this case.
It's definitely true that, in some cases, merely shifting the odds is enough. However, there's at least two things that spring to my mind that don't really meet that paradigm so easily.
Baleful Polymorph, for instance, needs both a critical failure and to be heightened to 8th level to have any permanent effect. It needing that level of effect to actually be plot-relevant changes when the spell can be reasonably thrown around. Sure, you could further handwave, but that's starting to be a pretty big handwave at the point you're letting, what in PF1 would be, a CR 8 or 9-ish enemy wizard slinging around 8th-level spell effects instead of CR appropriate ones. Heck, that same wizard operating under PF2 rules can't even cast Baleful Polymorph to begin with thanks to its spell level increase. And in addition to all that, the PF2 version even removes a possible outcome compared to PF1's. The PF2 version doesn't allow for a permanent effect while still keeping the target's mind in tact. It has no equivalent to the outcome of failing the Fort save, succeeding on the Will save in PF1.
Flesh to Stone is the other example that springs to mind, if only because actually getting the petrification effect seems like it can be a laborious process. Handwaveable, for sure. It's just a little ridiculous with how the PF2 version works with it needing multiple failed saves and its potential for yo-yo'ing through slowed 1 and 2.
Aside from that... spell durations are ultimately going to mess with both PCs and NPCs/monsters. Pre-buffing isn't a thing anymore for both sides, and some spells just don't last long enough to do what they did in PF1.
On the other hand, critical failures become much more common once the level difference increases, so a lv15 wizard casting 8th level spells will likely get critical failures from the lv5 npcs he humiliates.
Themetricsystem: I'm not enough of a Disney fan to argue over Jafar's exact mechanics. He was just the most popular example of the "mind controlling vizier" trope I could name. I hope my intent actually came across.
Edge93: Thanks! Wish I had caught my italics screw ups.
Baleful Polymorph, for instance, needs both a critical failure and to be heightened to 8th level to have any permanent effect. It needing that level of effect to actually be plot-relevant changes when the spell can be reasonably thrown around. Sure, you could further handwave, but that's starting to be a pretty big handwave at the point you're letting, what in PF1 would be, a CR 8 or 9-ish enemy wizard slinging around 8th-level spell effects instead of CR appropriate ones. Heck, that same wizard operating under PF2 rules can't even cast Baleful Polymorph to begin with thanks to its spell level increase. And in addition to all that, the PF2 version even removes a possible outcome compared to PF1's. The PF2 version doesn't allow for a permanent effect while still keeping the target's mind in tact. It has no equivalent to the outcome of failing the Fort save, succeeding on the Will save in PF1.
First off, is there an adventure where an NPC caster specifically below 15th level Baleful Polymorphs some other NPCs and the party is left to find them more than a day later? Because that's the actual bar set by this topic. I wouldn't be shocked if there was. Wicked witches turning people into newts is a time honored trope. But a spell changing it's specific execution or level does not, in itself, qualify.
Even then, unless it's a caster below 15th level who does it habitually, a lone incident could have involved a higher level scroll. That sort of story speaks to a very personal sort of spiteful revenge, after all.
Flesh to Stone is the other example that springs to mind, if only because actually getting the petrification effect seems like it can be a laborious process. Handwaveable, for sure. It's just a little ridiculous with how the PF2 version works with it needing multiple failed saves and its potential for yo-yo'ing through slowed 1 and 2.
I don't think this qualifies flat out. Yes, it takes longer for someone to turn to stone now. But we don't see NPC vs NPC combats (IE, canon fights) happen in real time or onscreen. So if it the spell took one round to do its job or it took one minute, the end result is the same. Your party finds someone turned into a lawn ornament. The adventures don't give us a play by play with that level of tactical information for this to matter.
Aside from that... spell durations are ultimately going to mess with both PCs and NPCs/monsters. Pre-buffing isn't a thing anymore for both sides, and some spells just don't last long enough to do what they did in PF1.
Again, I think you are confusing nitty-gritty tactical information with the broader story points. Tactics are always going to change when there's a mechanical overhaul. Things work different. But an NPC using a spell against PCs doesn't really qualify as a canon story, IMO, and PCs using spells can by definition never qualify.
Admittedly, Teleportating away from PCs blurs this line a little, as it does involve a specific onscreen combat usage. But I feel like there's a world of difference between "This character uses False Life before combat to gain an extra 20 hit points" and "This character flees with teleportation if reduced below 20 hit points and comes back for vengeance later."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, is there an adventure where an NPC caster specifically below 15th level Baleful Polymorphs some other NPCs and the party is left to find them more than a day later? Because that's the actual bar set by this topic. I wouldn't be shocked if there was. Wicked witches turning people into newts is a time honored trope. But a spell changing it's specific execution or level does not, in itself, qualify.Even then, unless it's a caster below 15th level who does it habitually, a lone incident could have involved a higher level scroll. That sort of story speaks to a very personal sort of spiteful revenge, after all.
As an example, though I forget all the details, there's the BBEG of Realm of the Fellnight Queen. She does it to most of her prisoners and during the PCs final battle with her. And this is a Paizo published module for 7th level PCs.
As an example, though I forget all the details, there's the BBEG of Realm of the Fellnight Queen. She does it to most of her prisoners and during the PCs final battle with her. And this is a Paizo published module for 7th level PCs.
First off, is there an adventure where an NPC caster specifically below 15th level Baleful Polymorphs some other NPCs and the party is left to find them more than a day later? Because that's the actual bar set by this topic. I wouldn't be shocked if there was. Wicked witches turning people into newts is a time honored trope. But a spell changing it's specific execution or level does not, in itself, qualify.Even then, unless it's a caster below 15th level who does it habitually, a lone incident could have involved a higher level scroll. That sort of story speaks to a very personal sort of spiteful revenge, after all.
Yup, that's a legit example then! I'm not shocked it exists, given the aforementioned tropes.
It's also an interesting example, because it was clearly done to benefit PCs. The difference between being turned into a bunny for a minute, a day, or forever might as well not exist against enemies the party can then just squash anyway. But the difference between those 3 is astounding for an actual PC. Leaving 7th level parties permanently Baleful'ed is something that also seems to work much better for a one off module than an AP. Getting that counteracted would be quite difficult.
Not sure what the optimal balance point is there.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the devs really wanted to nerf scry-and-fry, teleport should simply end all active effects on the subjects. Then there's really no pre-buffing.
Some other issues with PF2e as it stands for replicating things from PF1e:
Hunter-gatherer villages are basically impossible. Most people can only support themselves as a full time job in these societies, leaving no time for crafting tools, mending equipment, or doing anything else. It's a downtime action to maybe find food just for yourself, requiring a critical success to find food for two or a feat, which barely helps.
Rise of the Runelords is likely to have a very different feel if there is a goblin PC, but I think a decent GM could handle it.
In Shattered Star part 4,
There are a lot of NPC descriptions and tactics that refer to them not being able to fail certain skill checks.
Any scenario where a 17th-19th level caster is casting what is now a 10th level spell needs adjustment in some way, and just bumping them to 20 may not work if they are meant to, say, be a boss encounter for level 13 PCs.
Everyone's great at Perception now by requirement, so you can't have oblivious guards or anyone else who is unaware of their surroundings. In PF1e if I wanted to do a stealth scenario, I made guards with a +1 Perception who take 10. Actual stealthy PCs autosucceed, and even Crag the Clunky needs about a 15 - and magical resources can be used to help the less able. In PF2e, every single PC has only about a 50/50 chance of sneaking, no matter the buffs, so for a 5 PC group it's 1 in 32 or so.
Magic nerfs prevent a lot of potential solutions to high-level narratives - can I even run an adventure on the Negative Energy Plane without handing out magic items? Can I run an adventure where teleport is required to get to the adventure sites or even to move around it? Good high level adventures in PF1e make the PCs use their high level toys in creative ways - I'm unsure the same can be done here.
Hunter-gatherer villages are basically impossible. Most people can only support themselves as a full time job in these societies, leaving no time for crafting tools, mending equipment, or doing anything else. It's a downtime action to maybe find food just for yourself, requiring a critical success to find food for two or a feat, which barely helps.
The subsistence rules could use some work, I agree. I don't think it's super hard to patch.
In Shattered Star part 4, ** spoiler omitted **.
Fatigue is an interesting case. The penalties for not sleeping were oddly undefined, an issue I'm glad the playtest fixed. There does need to be some sort of magical way to deal with not sleeping for those stories to work, though it doesn't to be restorations specifically
There are a lot of NPC descriptions and tactics that refer to them not being able to fail certain skill checks.
Could you cite an example or explain more? I'm not sure I understand you.
Any scenario where a 17th-19th level caster is casting what is now a 10th level spell needs adjustment in some way, and just bumping them to 20 may not work if they are meant to, say, be a boss encounter for level 13 PCs.
True, but that's just a few spells and a pretty narrow range of potential problems.
Everyone's great at Perception now by requirement, so you can't have oblivious guards or anyone else who is unaware of their surroundings. In PF1e if I wanted to do a stealth scenario, I made guards with a +1 Perception who take 10. Actual stealthy PCs autosucceed, and even Crag the Clunky needs about a 15 - and magical resources can be used to help the less able. In PF2e, every single PC has only about a 50/50 chance of sneaking, no matter the buffs, so for a 5 PC group it's 1 in 32 or so.
While I agree perception in the bestiary seems way too high, this isn't really a good example. This just shifts odds. And there are all sorts of ways to adjust perception scores. Just because all PCs are trained in it doesn't mean all NPCs have to be, for example.
Magic nerfs prevent a lot of potential solutions to high-level narratives - can I even run an adventure on the Negative Energy Plane without handing out magic items?
Well, there IS a Planar Survival feat. It's exact mechanics and limitations leave a lot of room for GM interpretation, but I'd say if your goal is to get them into the Negative Energy plane you can probably work something out with that.
Can I run an adventure where teleport is required to get to the adventure sites or even to move around it?
Not really seeing what stops this to be honest.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
There are a lot of NPC descriptions and tactics that refer to them not being able to fail certain skill checks.Could you cite an example or explain more? I'm not sure I understand you.
There are somewhat common instances in APs where an NPC or monster has, in its tactics or description, something to the effect of "this creature/person does {something involving a skill}, which it can't fail at because its bonus is higher than the DC." Usually involving Climb, Fly or Swim, but sometimes Spellcraft or UMD. I think I've also seen it for Disable Device and Escape Artist.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keeping in mind that I don't like this answer:
Doesn't the NPCs-aren't-built-like-PCs feature of the playtest negate any assertion that a nth-level x can't do something anymore? Since, presumably, if they want an NPC to do it they'll just give them the ability to do it?
Seems like the only limitations the new ruleset technically puts are on the PC side of the narrative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Teleportation Casting Time means no escape button. Teleport and Shadow Walk both have 10 minute casting times. Lots of reoccurring villains only become reoccurring because they teleport away before they get killed. Currently the only viable option I've seen for that is 5th level Dimension Door with it's one mile range. perhaps followed by an actual teleportation if the party can't track you down for 10 minutes, but that frankly is just a level of mechanical complexity I can't imagine being fun to figure out.
I'm not really sure why this change was made. Teleportation seems to have two big problems AFAIK. Bypassing travel and facilitating scry and fry tactics. I don't see how increasing the casting time solves either of these issues. What it does is make it harder for people to flee, and I don't recall anyone ever complaining it was too easy to avoid fleeing what would otherwise be a TPK. This also makes Dimensional Anchor worse if fewer people will be able to use teleportation effects in combat anyway.
Dimension Door being the only eject button (at least for several levels) CAN work if you assume those NPCs just used that, I suppose. But I have some flavor aversion to giving Dimension Door to creatures with the Nightmare template that Shadow Walked away from battles now are using this other spell. And it also doesn't let you bring any other creatures with you, which really limits the ability for a caster to bring a beloved minion or boss, or for parties to use it to flee.
Personally, I'm fine with 5th level Dimension Door being the new "escape button." While it may not allow an entire party to escape, this also gives the players a sense of accomplishment where even if the BBG uses it to escape, they can still take out his "beloved minion" who couldn't be brought along. After all, it is incredibly annoying for a recurring villain to keep just escaping because of a single spell. As for party fleeing, it really removes any tension when you know you always have a "get out of jail free" card resting in your back pocket, so I don't mind that gone either.
With a mile range on the 5th level Dimension Door, it's still a really effective escape as anything without 55ft+ move speed and a straight line isn't going to have a chance to catch up to you, even if you follow up with a 10min casting spell like teleport. And speaking of teleport... I'd honestly be okay if it went all the way and turned into a ritual. Maybe not as long as current rituals requiring downtime, but still a bigger time cost than a normal spell for being able to do things like move between planets at higher levels.
Aside from that... spell durations are ultimately going to mess with both PCs and NPCs/monsters. Pre-buffing isn't a thing anymore for both sides, and some spells just don't last long enough to do what they did in PF1.
I keep seeing these types of comments, but I have a hard time believing them. How many buffs do you need for it to count as "pre-buffing?" Because I just finished running one of the Doomsday Dawn sections, and the written opportunity for pre-buffing had one of the enemies with a total of 5 separate buffs prior to the start of battle (with all the others having 2-3 buffs). Those buffs certainly had a large impact on the fight, and I even forgot to run one of them properly because I had a hard time tracking them all with everything else going on. So I really don't see how pre-buffing "isn't a thing anymore" just because you can't stack them as easily or have them with long durations.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's really nothing preventing this in PF2.
Considering that pretty much any Climb, Swim, or Fly check DOESN'T SCALE WITH YOUR LEVEL, an NPC can easily outpace the DC.
Same with Disable Device and Escape Artist, and probably Spellcraft and UMD (Which I believe is mostly covered now in the Trick Magic Item skill feat).
So yeah, not seeing the problem here. These skills almost always go up against static DCs, if not always, so outpacing them is perfectly doable.
Considering every example of a DC in the entire playtest scales with level, I think the people that have concerns about it have a valid point. I don't see any static DCs - for example, what's the DC to scale a brick wall with some small vines growing up it? Please point me at the level-independent DC that every GM will agree on, without checking with other GMs. History (4e) has shown us that tables like 10-2 get severely misunderstood and misused by both GMs and adventure writers.
Also, the "nat 1 fails skills" rule means you can never actually fully outpace a DC. The DC could be 0 and you have a +70 and you still have a 5% chance to make a fool of yourself.
On another point, PF1e NPCs did occasionally have oddball abilities, but these were always called out as exceptions and had justifications for their existence. Theoretically a PC could do the same demon pact/orphan murder/soul eating or whatever and get the same ability. I hope PF2e keeps the level of such "rule breaking" rare like its predecessor - if common NPC goblins have abilities that PC goblins can't learn, that's super immersion breaking. If every "caster boss" has a "quick escape" power that PCs can never learn, that's just lazy writing and game design.
Joana: I don't think there's a lot of examples of that right now. There's no PC ancestry or class based folks who have powers or spells a PC can't have. There are plenty of unique monster abilities, but I can't think of many that have "spell like" abilities. Monsters largely just get the same spells PCs do.
There are somewhat common instances in APs where an NPC or monster has, in its tactics or description, something to the effect of "this creature/person does {something involving a skill}, which it can't fail at because its bonus is higher than the DC." Usually involving Climb, Fly or Swim, but sometimes Spellcraft or UMD. I think I've also seen it for Disable Device and Escape Artist.
There are a lot of NPC descriptions and tactics that refer to them not being able to fail certain skill checks.Could you cite an example or explain more? I'm not sure I understand you.
So the issue then is nat 1s automatically failing? I think there's two easy fixes there. One is assurance. The other is the suggestion that once a task becomes trivial you so rolling for it. That seems to work just as well for NPCs.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the issue then is nat 1s automatically failing? I think there's two easy fixes there. One is assurance. The other is the suggestion that once a task becomes trivial you so rolling for it. That seems to work just as well for NPCs.
The problem I have with this outlook, is in that case, why even have the nat 1 rule? If you never roll in circumstances where nat 1 would only fail due to the autofail, why even have the autofail rule?
Technically nat1 isn’t a failure, it’s a decrease in success rank (so from crit success to success, from success to failure, or from failure to critical failure).
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering Paizo has said multiple times that that is ONLY to test level appropriate DCs, I think the people who have concerns about it should have a LITTLE more faith. And I don't even mean don't have any concerns, but arguments like the one you make state such an iron clad assumption that things will be used in a way contrary to how the rulebook says to use it and contrary to how Paizo has said it will be used.Saying "This thing is bad because people will use it in a way that contradicts how it says it should be used" seems like a weak argument. You can apply that argument to a whole lot of things, since any GM can use anything outside of its intended method of use.
Every GM I ever played 4e with used the 4e equivalent table of 10-2 incorrectly. Every. Single. One. It was misunderstood years into the life of the game. When a rule is so easily and often misunderstood, I do think it's fair game to call it a poor rule.
Joana: I don't think there's a lot of examples of that right now. There's no PC ancestry or class based folks who have powers or spells a PC can't have. There are plenty of unique monster abilities, but I can't think of many that have "spell like" abilities. Monsters largely just get the same spells PCs do.
I just mean that, for instance, you can't say "Realm of the Fellnight Queen doesn't work in P2e because they changed baleful polymorph" because if they wanted to tell that story in P2e, they'd just give the BBEG a custom polymorph ability to use instead of the spell.
They've done similar things in P1e except that they've generally been singular spells or magic items, the trouble* with which being that, once they're listed as a nth-level spell or item in the databases, there's nothing stopping any PC from picking up Karzoug's once-exclusive toy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Joana: I don't think there's a lot of examples of that right now. There's no PC ancestry or class based folks who have powers or spells a PC can't have. There are plenty of unique monster abilities, but I can't think of many that have "spell like" abilities. Monsters largely just get the same spells PCs do.I just mean that, for instance, you can't say "Realm of the Fellnight Queen doesn't work in P2e because they changed baleful polymorph" because if they wanted to tell that story in P2e, they'd just give the BBEG a custom polymorph ability to use instead of the spell.
And then you're introducing, what in PF2 is, an 8th level spell effect into a module for 7th level PCs.
Or alternatively, you're making an argument that really isn't an argument. Of course, we can play the "everything doesn't fit right can be a custom ability" game, but that's not really productive, is it? And it certainly doesn't help any aspect that involves PC abilities.
Even we could just handwave everything, that's not a productive argument.
For the Teleport issue, maybe it’s time for a bit of WarCraft III(*) inspiration: Scroll of Town Portal. Classic style fast(*) Teleport would be way up your class tech tree if you have it at all, but it would be possible to use a lower level (slow) Teleport spell during down time to produce a magic item (Scroll fits best conceptually) that lets you Teleport quickly to a limited set of locations (that you would have had to prepare beforehand, in a way that is hard to conceal after the fact, using some ritual, or maybe even as part of casting the same spell in the process of making the magic item). So you wouldn’t be able to use it to Scry-And-Fry unless you had done someting devious to trick a villain into being in one of the special places, but it would be thoroughly usable (at moderately high but not outrageous expense) to escape. Some other types of Teleport (maybe even variations upon the same spell) would let you Teleport fast to something requiring less burdensome and obvious preparation, but not let you take anyone with you (WarCraft III equivalent: Staff of Teleportation), and as mentioned above, getting way up the tech tree would let you get past some of these limitations (WarCraft III equivalent: Level 6 Archmage with Mass Teleport — but even this requires getting a friendly unit into the place where you want to go, so no Scry-And-Fry without some trickey or sending in a really beefy advance scout).
(*)No idea whether World of WarCraft continued with the same mechanic.
(**)Standard Action and potentially Quickenable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every GM I ever played 4e with used the 4e equivalent table of 10-2 incorrectly. Every. Single. One. It was misunderstood years into the life of the game. When a rule is so easily and often misunderstood, I do think it's fair game to call it a poor rule.
Considering Paizo has said multiple times that that is ONLY to test level appropriate DCs, I think the people who have concerns about it should have a LITTLE more faith. And I don't even mean don't have any concerns, but arguments like the one you make state such an iron clad assumption that things will be used in a way contrary to how the rulebook says to use it and contrary to how Paizo has said it will be used.Saying "This thing is bad because people will use it in a way that contradicts how it says it should be used" seems like a weak argument. You can apply that argument to a whole lot of things, since any GM can use anything outside of its intended method of use.
I've never played 4e so I can only speak so much but I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
When something in the Rulebook says DON'T DO THIS and almost everyone does it anyway I can in no way call that a bad rule. It is clear and explicit and you can't ask a lot more from a rule. I call it almost everyone being kinda dumb about that particular thing (or alternatively a little lazy about not trying to figure out a proper DC for obstacles). Sorry if that's rude but that's all I can draw out of something clearly stated to be one way but almost everyone does it another way.
And the alternative is to remove what I believe to be a very valuable tool for figuring out the numbers to attach to the obstacles you are creating to challenge a party to varying degrees (Obstacles which should be thematically appropriate for their difficulty). I'm kinda sick of guessing or BSing DCs all the time. XP It's a pain.
While I have never played 4E, many people are saying that such a rule was largely misinterpreted, so I believe that something should be done in this regard.
Instead of scrapping an otherwise good tool, I would add a nice, comprehensive list of static DCs for most skills. Even if it only covers the lower levels (so that every group is free to decide what higher levels characters can really accomplish), it would be helpful in many ways.First, it's a clear example that shows how the 10-2 should be used, and how it should not: even if I misunderstand the intent of the table, reading the specific DCs page would probably make me reconsider my interpretation of the rule.
Second, it gives GMs a pattern to design their own challenges for a given level of difficulty: what should that wall look like, if I want my level 8 group have some trouble climbing it?
Third, it can set a consistent standard for adventure design: if a moss-covered rock is level 1 hard in one adventure, it shouldn't be level 7 in another unless the moss is exceptionally slippery (and knowing that, I can think of a reason why it is, and keep the consistency).
It would be not even strictly necessary to have it in the core rulebook, but I think it would be a very useful read for everyone.
Having a character abandon a starting class, and transition into a different life.
As with the iconic paladin, you can take a background to represent a Past (pre-class) interest you may have abandoned.
You also have the capability to build a high level character who has a multiclass archetype in an alternate class that could represent a history relating to that past class.
Technically, however, if you started one class, you always advance as it from then on.
If you allow retraining your core class by swapping with a Multi-classed archtype, it might facilitate playing a character through such a change. It would probably take a rather long time to try to make it seem like a natural progression, only allowing such a story to apply to someone with an extremely high level.
So I see it as a loss of some stories by raw. But there are some ways to try to represent some of them, but they have some distinct limitations.
Other aspects of the new multiclass system does actually provide more flexibility, although I think it would be enhanced by reducing the minimum level down to 1 so you could start out as a multiclassed character. [something that wasn't initially available in PF1, although some would gestalt both classes and apply a negative modifier, or reduced abilities from both]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite my deep hatred of Table 10-2, I will not further derail this thread by discussing it.
My continuity problem is different. Paladins. PF1 paladins work. Playtest paladins work. But they do NOT work the same. A lance-charging PF1 paladin and a reach-weapon-point-defence PF2 paladin simply cannot be reconciled. They do not exemplify the same concept or the same design aesthetic. What was a paladin in PF1 does not best translate to a paladin in PF2; more likely a PF1 paladin would convert to some cleric/fighter mulitclass.
This is not just the loss of a concept, it also makes the arsenal of martial combat choices more limited. The paladin and cavalier shared a very similar mechanic, that was distinctly different from the barbarian, fighter, and ranger. Like a barbarian, they could use any weapon but had a time limit, but the implementation was very different and interesting in its own way. There is no playtest equivalent.
I guess the designers could not figure an interesting implementation of smite/challenge in PF2, which makes me a sad puppy.
I think the playtest paladin is an interesting class mechanically. But it is not a paladin. Rename it champion or bodyguard or somesuch and give us a true-to-role paladin reboot in a later book. Or publish a cavalier reboot, and make Paladin an archetype you can apply to fighter, bodyguard, or cavalier. Anything that allows us to re-create a PF1 paladin.
Despite my deep hatred of Table 10-2, I will not further derail this thread by discussing it.
My continuity problem is different. Paladins. PF1 paladins work. Playtest paladins work. But they do NOT work the same. A lance-charging PF1 paladin and a reach-weapon-point-defence PF2 paladin simply cannot be reconciled. They do not exemplify the same concept or the same design aesthetic. What was a paladin in PF1 does not best translate to a paladin in PF2; more likely a PF1 paladin would convert to some cleric/fighter mulitclass.
This is not just the loss of a concept, it also makes the arsenal of martial combat choices more limited. The paladin and cavalier shared a very similar mechanic, that was distinctly different from the barbarian, fighter, and ranger. Like a barbarian, they could use any weapon but had a time limit, but the implementation was very different and interesting in its own way. There is no playtest equivalent.
I guess the designers could not figure an interesting implementation of smite/challenge in PF2, which makes me a sad puppy.
I think the playtest paladin is an interesting class mechanically. But it is not a paladin. Rename it champion or bodyguard or somesuch and give us a true-to-role paladin reboot in a later book. Or publish a cavalier reboot, and make Paladin an archetype you can apply to fighter, bodyguard, or cavalier. Anything that allows us to re-create a PF1 paladin.
None of this qualifies for the parameters of the topic. Aside from the fact that this opinion is quite subjective because not everyone agrees what the paladin represents, Canon stories are not dependent on the exact ratio of offense to defense of a martial class. This changes game play, not story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of this qualifies for the parameters of the topic. Aside from the fact that this opinion is quite subjective because not everyone agrees what the paladin represents, Canon stories are not dependent on the exact ratio of offense to defense of a martial class. This changes game play, not story.Despite my deep hatred of Table 10-2, I will not further derail this thread by discussing it.
My continuity problem is different. Paladins. PF1 paladins work. Playtest paladins work. But they do NOT work the same. A lance-charging PF1 paladin and a reach-weapon-point-defence PF2 paladin simply cannot be reconciled. They do not exemplify the same concept or the same design aesthetic. What was a paladin in PF1 does not best translate to a paladin in PF2; more likely a PF1 paladin would convert to some cleric/fighter mulitclass.
This is not just the loss of a concept, it also makes the arsenal of martial combat choices more limited. The paladin and cavalier shared a very similar mechanic, that was distinctly different from the barbarian, fighter, and ranger. Like a barbarian, they could use any weapon but had a time limit, but the implementation was very different and interesting in its own way. There is no playtest equivalent.
I guess the designers could not figure an interesting implementation of smite/challenge in PF2, which makes me a sad puppy.
I think the playtest paladin is an interesting class mechanically. But it is not a paladin. Rename it champion or bodyguard or somesuch and give us a true-to-role paladin reboot in a later book. Or publish a cavalier reboot, and make Paladin an archetype you can apply to fighter, bodyguard, or cavalier. Anything that allows us to re-create a PF1 paladin.
I don't completely agree his post is out of topic. He is indicating that he feels many ideas of what was a paladin before cannot be created using the new Paladin. It does fall in a degree in a grey zone, because it admits you _might_ be able to construct a concept similar to the original utilizing a multiclass fighter instead potentially. But the concern is that you can't do it with the same core class you could before. It at least makes those concepts much harder to build.
I'm ok with changes. I honestly was disappointed in what they thought was core to Paladins, as to me, it was never the heavy armor, it was the heavy heart. My favorite paladin wore studded leather, and would have preferred to have been wielding a rapier, but got stuck with a flaming two handed sword due to practicalities of life and needing to take the bad guy down with the resources available.
So am I happy with the paladin as it is. It is certainly not something I'd point out as an improvement. However, I'll hope they open up archetypes to allow the focus to go back to the righteous smiting, sacrifice and high standards. At present saying it seems hard to build what used to be any number of past Paladin's is probably a reasonable statement. But to the strict standard of impossible, might be questionable, but I think can't quite, doesn't have to equate to impossible.
You can't quite tell a story of someone building a shop and inn and business and the stories around it with the rules as is... as more than a bunch of pretty basic and potentially boring income rolls. But that was true in the original core, so would be pretty understandable. And honestly, I think I like some of the new ways they handle income and crafting in the new rules better than P1, so even though it would be kind a boring in P2 right at the moment, I think it would probably be more meaningful than out of P1 core rules! So it is a potential item, but one that isn't really a bad thing about the new rules in my opinion, and look forward to seeing how they might be able to build a more detailed subsystem on such businesses atop the new core.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Character concepts are not Canon paizo stories. Canon paizo stories are fiction published in paizo books, including adventure paths. Goblins attacking Sandpoint is Canon. The Paladin you used to fight them off is not.
PC builds aren't relevant to this thread, frankly. There's a bajillion paladin threads already, or build threads or what have you. This is looking for contradictions in source material.
|
|
Character concepts are not Canon paizo stories. Canon paizo stories are fiction published in paizo books, including adventure paths. Goblins attacking Sandpoint is Canon. The Paladin you used to fight them off is not.
PC builds aren't relevant to this thread, frankly. There's a bajillion paladin threads already, or build threads or what have you. This is looking for contradictions in source material.
Although, now you've made me wonder about whether you'd run into any issues along the lines being discussed in Hell's Vengeance. (I haven't read or played it, though, I'm just asking.)
Although, now you've made me wonder about whether you'd run into any issues along the lines being discussed in Hell's Vengeance. (I haven't read or played it, though, I'm just asking.)Character concepts are not Canon paizo stories. Canon paizo stories are fiction published in paizo books, including adventure paths. Goblins attacking Sandpoint is Canon. The Paladin you used to fight them off is not.
PC builds aren't relevant to this thread, frankly. There's a bajillion paladin threads already, or build threads or what have you. This is looking for contradictions in source material.
Neither did I, but I imagine if there were it would have nothing to do with Smite Evil. I'd bet money it would come from Detect Evil, or perhaps the host of paladin immunities which are no longer built in. Maybe even their spellcasting.
Stuff that's used purely for combat is very unlikely to make the cut for purposes of this thread.
Instead of scrapping an otherwise good tool, I would add a nice, comprehensive list of static DCs for most skills. Even if it only covers the lower levels (so that every group is free to decide what higher levels characters can really accomplish), it would be helpful in many ways.
First, it's a clear example that shows how the 10-2 should be used, and how it should not: even if I misunderstand the intent of the table, reading the specific DCs page would probably make me reconsider my interpretation of the rule.I think this highlights one of the problems with the playtest book: it's not organized well.
The very thing you ask for is in the playtest book. It's on the page right after table 10-2, in the form of tables 10-3 to 10-6 and the surrounding discussion on setting DCs. But because the table and what the difficulty categories mean are discussed first, nobody seems to pay any attention to them.
Someone with more time and interest than me might be able to go through and see if the playtest rules actually provide the same or close to the same DCs as the PF1e core book does.
That list may be nice but it isn't comprehensive. It's way smaller than the several lists PF1 had. It's also a little weird in that it lists the level of a challenge but not the DC itself, and I'm not sure if it is still relevant after the 10-2 updates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Sorry, I responded before after having read your original post some time before, I had not remembered your focus on Cannon pathfinder literature, and my post reflected more on the Thread title, not your first post]
As to purely PF1 Cannon stories, with alchemist being split from wizard spell mechanics, we sort of lose the ability for the alchemist in the party being able to steal access to the party's wizard, in order to learn how to make a fly potion.