| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I like the idea of a super mystical sensei type monk with high Wis and Cha, I just feel like a non-charismatic monk should be able to be mystical on the basis of their high wis (even if they are low cha).
I mean, I like the idea of a super mystical sensei type monk with high Wis and Cha, I just feel like a non-charismatic monk should be able to be mystical on the basis of their high wis (even if they are low cha).
Well currently I believe there is an opt-out option for a number of classes. Monk can gain a spell point pool based off their wisdom; and even says that when two point pools are possible, take the greater of the two and add 1 point.
So if Paizo chooses an option for Charisma based pools, a Monk would hopefully just grab the ki pool feat and use wisdom over charisma.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My feeling is that not all stats should be equally relevant, but a class that dumps a particular stat should play different and have different options than a class that keeps that stat high, in the way that a high-Strength wizard has melee options that a Strength-dump wizard doesn't.
I would like to avoid the PF1e issue where there is sometimes no meaningful reason NOT to dump a stat. Dumping a stat should be a choice, not an assumption.
True, it should be a choice. But is requiring Charisma for Focus Spells really a choice? To me, if feels like it's more of a case where by not focusing on charisma, you're crippling yourself.
Thankfully the way stats are generated and increased in the Playtest (and presumably PF2) does make it much less painful to be MAD, so it's not going to be as big of a problem needing more stats. It likewise reduces dump-stats. It just doesn't feel right to me. Not as big a deal as other things, but still annoying.
I actually might be able to get behind Bardarok's idea for CHA plus a different stat for various classes. That both keeps CHA relevant, while allowing more choice. I'd probably add monks to WIS + CHA, but that does make it the single most common combination by a good margin. I could also see class feats that switch around which stats are used. Maybe an option to use 2xCHA for pure charisma based characters. It does seem like a good compromise.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure someone has floated that idea along but there are just too many places were Wands are just accepted as part/parcel for Magical Fantasy and the probably wouldn't want to just do away with them.
Personally, I'd like to see Wands become Tools which Spellcasters use to aim spells they need to roll to hit AC with. I say get RID of all spell descriptions that indicate they roll against Touch AC, and then give that function to Magic Wands which allow them to target their TAC since their aim is more precise via the instrument.
Maybe let casters apply some Runes to their Wand to let them add fun "rider" effects to the Spells cast through them or have them function X/day as the Metamagic Rods which really only BECAME a thing recently and has very little flavor attached to them.
First, thanks to those who transcribed this, reading text is much better than listening to long podcasts for me, so thanks again!
Re: Resonance, I personally felt it was good mechanic in general, but if it leads to reducing the assumed norm of spells in a can I will be happy, I am also in camp of disliking wands reduced to consumables rather than permanent items with more personality.
About Powers/Focus Spell organization, no longer merging them with "normal" spells (is there even a name for these?) is obviously good, but I'd honestly just prefer if they were listed in-line with other (non-spell) class feats (sorted by level), since they are compared to each other when deciding class feats. At most I could see value of Focus Spell list/table with school/class info, similar to such lists for normal spells.
So it sounds like Core Goblins confirmed? Did they discuss why or what process they used to determine that, or how they discarded alternatives? This is really one of main negatives for me, and one determining how I can respect (or not) the game and Paizo's approach to it.
Archetypes opening to include all Feat types was one of my proposals... I guess logically this would also open door to base-Class derived Skill/General/Ancestry Feats. Curious if they have done universal (or multi-class) Class Feats that don't invoke dedication mechanic.
I'm sure someone has floated that idea along but there are just too many places were Wands are just accepted as part/parcel for Magical Fantasy and the probably wouldn't want to just do away with them.
Personally, I'd like to see Wands become Tools which Spellcasters use to aim spells they need to roll to hit AC with. I say get RID of all spell descriptions that indicate they roll against Touch AC, and then give that function to Magic Wands which allow them to target their TAC since their aim is more precise via the instrument.
Maybe let casters apply some Runes to their Wand to let them add fun "rider" effects to the Spells cast through them or have them function X/day as the Metamagic Rods which really only BECAME a thing recently and has very little flavor attached to them.
That sounds doable. This would also give casters a way to get an item bonus to their touch-attack rolls like martials get from magic and higher quality weapons. So you could get a +2 wand to add 2 to your attack roll. Basically the Spell Duelist's wand from the playtest, which might have been a bit of a trial run for a similar idea. Players in my group have recently started using the Mage's Crossbow for this, and remark that it's kind of odd that the only item they know of that adds to the attack rolls of wizards is a crossbow. It's felt that a staff would be more appropriate. So making this the new role of the wand would fit that need nicely.
I've mostly been leaning towards wands being something like usable 3 times a day with unlimited total charges, but that is a bit lacking in flavor. Your idea is much more flavorful. It would make wands pretty much standard caster gear, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many thanks for this thread! I'd miss this kind of juicy info if it wasn't for people making these types of threads, and I appreciate it greatly.
"Focus spells" is kind of a weird term for me; I feel like it might lead to confusion among players without classes that get actual spells ("wait, I thought I didn't have spells."). I actually liked powers better, but oh well.
I admit to similar feelings about this, except I worry that having the explicit name of "spells" will simply prevent martial classes from gaining focus spells as part of their class. Which would be a shame, since I quite like the idea and ease of use of some type of universal "class pool" rather than multiple fiddly pools with different names that basically act the same (*glares at channel energy*).
True, it should be a choice. But is requiring Charisma for Focus Spells really a choice? To me, if feels like it's more of a case where by not focusing on charisma, you're crippling yourself.My feeling is that not all stats should be equally relevant, but a class that dumps a particular stat should play different and have different options than a class that keeps that stat high, in the way that a high-Strength wizard has melee options that a Strength-dump wizard doesn't.
I would like to avoid the PF1e issue where there is sometimes no meaningful reason NOT to dump a stat. Dumping a stat should be a choice, not an assumption.
Unless Powers/Focus Spells gain a massive power boost from the playtest, you could easily play a character with low Charisma that never really uses Focus Spells and it would hardly be crippling. It might influence how you'd want to build/play, but I highly doubt that it will become mandatory.
In my opinion, solving PF1's issue with Charisma really necessitates that the stat is tied to some mechanic other than just a handful of skills and spontaneous casting. Every other stat had this (some more than others), and part of the reason Charisma was the go to dump stat for the majority of characters was partially because it had next to no impact on anything as long as someone else in the party could talk to NPCs. It wasn't just people making a choice to dump it, but the stat having very little value on its own.
Yeah I didn't think they were going to change too much from what they had shown us. Too bad for me guess. I like a lot of the core system stuff, but I really disliked character creation. Just found the whole process of making a new guy a real unfun slog, and had too many gates and restrictions built into it for my tastes.
Game itself ran fairly well for the most part, but I think I would only play it if I was given a pre-made character. Which sucks cause I love making characters
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makes me want to see some feats with mixed star requirement.
Like a wizard feat that requires 15 Str.
Or a feat that needs 13 in each stat.
Or possibly, a feat that requires you to gave less than 10 in a stat. Like....
Oblivious: prerequisite less than 10 Wis.
You often miss whatever everyone else is seeing, and often misunderstand what people are really trying to say. Which can be useful when fighting medusa. You gain +5 against gaze attacks, charm, and intimidation. Everyone also gets a +5 bonus to deceive you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, thanks to those who transcribed this, reading text is much better than listening to long podcasts for me, so thanks again!
So very much this.
Podcasts offload the work onto each listener. While yes, there are times and places were listening to something is more viable than reading it (say, while working in a factory), transcripts are always appreciated by those of us who can read 5-10x as fast as people talk.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Focus Spells"? Just ... why?
People, as least as far as I've noticed in the playtest, just do not want to call things spells unless they're actual spells being cast using the normal spell casting mechanics. It's just a confusing overuse of a particular term for no benefit that I can see.
Powers was a fine enough name, what threw people was calling the resource used to activate them "Spell Points" and them all being lumped in to the spells chapters. Now they have Focus Points, but are calling the abilities they activate "Focus Spells?"
What's with the desire to call everything slightly mystical a "Spell" in one way or another?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Focus Spells"? Just ... why?
People, as least as far as I've noticed in the playtest, just do not want to call things spells unless they're actual spells being cast using the normal spell casting mechanics. It's just a confusing overuse of a particular term for no benefit that I can see.
Powers was a fine enough name, what threw people was calling the resource used to activate them "Spell Points" and them all being lumped in to the spells chapters. Now they have Focus Points, but are calling the abilities they activate "Focus Spells?"
What's with the desire to call everything slightly mystical a "Spell" in one way or another?
Power was a better term, but kind of a generic one, lots of things could be considered powers but not Powers. Maybe call them Focus Powers, so it's clear that they're a particular type of ability.
My guess is they want to reinforce the idea that powers count as spells for all effects that involve spells. So calling them Focus Spells does that. I think it's a bad name, but it does let you know they're treated like spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Focus Spells"? Just ... why?
People, as least as far as I've noticed in the playtest, just do not want to call things spells unless they're actual spells being cast using the normal spell casting mechanics. It's just a confusing overuse of a particular term for no benefit that I can see.
Powers was a fine enough name, what threw people was calling the resource used to activate them "Spell Points" and them all being lumped in to the spells chapters. Now they have Focus Points, but are calling the abilities they activate "Focus Spells?"
What's with the desire to call everything slightly mystical a "Spell" in one way or another?
The focus terminology was first used in the Resonance Test. The spell points were renamed focus points and given some of the uses of resonance.
• Every character has a small pool of Focus Points based on
their Charisma. The pregenerated characters already have
their Focus Points calculated.
• Activating an Item doesn’t cost anything by default. Some
items have stronger effects, last longer, or can be activated
again by spending a Focus Point. Details are found in the
individual items.
• Characters don’t have Spell Points. If you have powers, you
can spend 1 Focus Point to cast a power. As in the Playtest
Rulebook, a power is a special spell granted (usually) by your
class and it doesn’t use a spell slot. You no longer gain extra
Focus Points based on the number of powers you have. New
versions of the powers the characters have are reproduced
below. Don’t use the versions in the Playtest Rulebook.
Jason Bulmahn mentioned that they had liked the name focus, so they permanently renamed "spell points" to "focus points."
I think that for connection, the new name for powers should have the word "focus" in it. I disliked the name "power" because I like to talk about the powers and abilities of a character and I don't mean just spell-like powers that cost focus points nor just ability scores. However, "focus power" suits me just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If focus is still based on Charisma that would leave the stat with a cool function sans Resonance.
Jason's statement indicated that "Powers" become "Focus Spells" and implied that "Spells Points" would become "Focus" (or "Focus Points"?). That isn't indicative of a change in the mechanic, just the terminology.
Irrespective of what was said, I don't think the concept of tying Focus to Charisma makes sense. Focus Spells are class-defined magical powers, it stands to reason they'd be tied to the key abilities of their respective classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Focus Spells"? Just ... why?
People, as least as far as I've noticed in the playtest, just do not want to call things spells unless they're actual spells being cast using the normal spell casting mechanics. It's just a confusing overuse of a particular term for no benefit that I can see.
Powers was a fine enough name, what threw people was calling the resource used to activate them "Spell Points" and them all being lumped in to the spells chapters. Now they have Focus Points, but are calling the abilities they activate "Focus Spells?"
What's with the desire to call everything slightly mystical a "Spell" in one way or another?
I mean the problem was that powers WERE spells. Like they literally were called specifically in the magic chapter as a different type of spell. Meaning anytime a "spell" was mentioned in rules it also included powers. So I don't mind them putting the word spell in their name because they are spells. The only difference is what you spend to cast them and how you get them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If focus is still based on Charisma that would leave the stat with a cool function sans Resonance.Jason's statement indicated that "Powers" become "Focus Spells" and implied that "Spells Points" would become "Focus" (or "Focus Points"?). That isn't indicative of a change in the mechanic, just the terminology.
Irrespective of what was said, I don't think the concept of tying Focus to Charisma makes sense. Focus Spells are class-defined magical powers, it stands to reason they'd be tied to the key abilities of their respective classes.
I'm going to actually disagree here, with the corollary that what I am saying assumes that all classes can be effective with or without Focus Spells (much like Monk in the playtest).
I like the idea that, like Monk, Focus Spells are a way to enhance your class, rather than a core defining feature of the class. From that point of view, tying them to Charisma instead of your main stat makes sense because it increases build variety. "I know I want my main stat high for my core class features, but do I also want to invest in Charisma for Focus Spells? Or do I want to invest in feats and abilities that don't cost Focus Points so that I can keep my Charisma low?" Sort of a parallel conversation to the archer trying to decide how much to focus on Strength.
I feel like in an ideal world that is how it could work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jason's statement indicated that "Powers" become "Focus Spells" and implied that "Spells Points" would become "Focus" (or "Focus Points"?). That isn't indicative of a change in the mechanic, just the terminology.
Irrespective of what was said, I don't think the concept of tying Focus to Charisma makes sense. Focus Spells are class-defined magical powers, it stands to reason they'd be tied to the key abilities of their respective classes.
I'm going to actually disagree here, with the corollary that what I am saying assumes that all classes can be effective with or without Focus Spells (much like Monk in the playtest).
I like the idea that, like Monk, Focus Spells are a way to enhance your class, rather than a core defining feature of the class. From that point of view, tying them to Charisma instead of your main stat makes sense because it increases build variety. "I know I want my main stat high for my core class features, but do I also want to invest in Charisma for Focus Spells? Or do I want to invest in feats and abilities that don't cost Focus Points so that I can keep my Charisma low?" Sort of a parallel conversation to the archer trying to decide how much to focus on Strength.
I feel like in an ideal world that is how it could work.
I agree and what you say would also be the ideal balance for me.
The one class where Focus Spells SHOULD define the identity, the Sorcerer with their Bloodline powers, is full on CHA dependent anyway.
Many thanks for this thread! I'd miss this kind of juicy info if it wasn't for people making these types of threads, and I appreciate it greatly.
"Focus spells" is kind of a weird term for me; I feel like it might lead to confusion among players without classes that get actual spells ("wait, I thought I didn't have spells."). I actually liked powers better, but oh well.I admit to similar feelings about this, except I worry that having the explicit name of "spells" will simply prevent martial classes from gaining focus spells as part of their class. Which would be a shame, since I quite like the idea and ease of use of some type of universal "class pool" rather than multiple fiddly pools with different names that basically act the same (*glares at channel energy*).
True, it should be a choice. But is requiring Charisma for Focus Spells really a choice? To me, if feels like it's more of a case where by not focusing on charisma, you're crippling yourself.My feeling is that not all stats should be equally relevant, but a class that dumps a particular stat should play different and have different options than a class that keeps that stat high, in the way that a high-Strength wizard has melee options that a Strength-dump wizard doesn't.
I would like to avoid the PF1e issue where there is sometimes no meaningful reason NOT to dump a stat. Dumping a stat should be a choice, not an assumption.
Unless Powers/Focus Spells gain a massive power boost from the playtest, you could easily play a character with low Charisma that never really uses Focus Spells and it would hardly be crippling. It might influence how you'd want to build/play, but I highly doubt that it will become mandatory.
In my opinion, solving PF1's issue with Charisma really necessitates that the stat is tied to some mechanic other than just a handful of skills and spontaneous casting. Every other stat had this (some more than others), and part of...
I don't know we have any information to confirm that Focus will be based on Charisma, I think it is just renaming of the old Spell Points and class powers.
I like the naming, because it makes sense for the powers generally being talked about were being treated as non-slot spells anyway, so that makes sense. They however get paid for by Focus, or focus points so that works out well.
This terminology also leaves the potential for a Focus Ability that isn't a Focus spell. I don't know if it is called a Focus Ability, Focus Power, Focus Skill, Focus *. But it could be something that consumes a focus point, but is not casting a spell... but might allow a Martial Character to do something more spectacular than usual. I really see Ki abilities right along these aspects, although really mystic Ki abilities I could see being categorized some sort of monk spell/ritual, but Focus can easily be seen as something that could help power/activate such an ability, just like it could be seen activating a healing spell, etc.
I don't know we have enough information to know exactly what they are going to do with it (stat used, etc.) but I see lots of potential, and hope they go one of the many directions I'd be pretty happy with.
So I don't think learning there are Focus spells is bad news, I think it opens up a very real opportunity for martials to have abilities that work very much like the old powers, but might not technically be called spells, but would compete for Focus, if you multiclassed with a class that had Focus Spells.
|
|
I myself would VERY MUCH like to see them tackle this in a similar way to how Resolve is used in SF.
You have a cool class ability that is too powerful to be used too often? Tie it to Resolve, boom done. In SF, not all uses of Resolve are universally as powerful as one another, but the thing is all these effects were UNIQUE to that PC Build in the same way a given "Class Feat" is for PF2.
While I think Charisma needs buffs, I don't think that tying it to Focus, or whatever they'll call it, is a good idea, stick with the Primary Class Stat and find more ways to make Charisma important to the CORE gameplay such as having your Cha Mod affect the starting attitude of a given NPC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tying Charisma to starting attitude would just be giving even more reason for the low Charisma characters to never roleplay with NPCs. Pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "low cha" is going to be less of an issue automatically in PF2 if we stick with the stat generating system we have. Since the reason 7 (or 5) cha characters were so common in PF1 is less "I want to RP someone who's hard to like" and more "it gets me 4 extra points I can put towards other stuff."
If Starfinder is any indication having a 8-12 charisma is not the end of the world in terms of "this character is okay at talking (I mean, Shirren get a +2 on Culture and Diplomacy out of the gate, and they're the core ancestry with a cha penalty.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If focus is still based on Charisma that would leave the stat with a cool function sans Resonance.Jason's statement indicated that "Powers" become "Focus Spells" and implied that "Spells Points" would become "Focus" (or "Focus Points"?). That isn't indicative of a change in the mechanic, just the terminology.
Irrespective of what was said, I don't think the concept of tying Focus to Charisma makes sense. Focus Spells are class-defined magical powers, it stands to reason they'd be tied to the key abilities of their respective classes.
I'm going to actually disagree here, with the corollary that what I am saying assumes that all classes can be effective with or without Focus Spells (much like Monk in the playtest).
I like the idea that, like Monk, Focus Spells are a way to enhance your class, rather than a core defining feature of the class. From that point of view, tying them to Charisma instead of your main stat makes sense because it increases build variety. "I know I want my main stat high for my core class features, but do I also want to invest in Charisma for Focus Spells? Or do I want to invest in feats and abilities that don't cost Focus Points so that I can keep my Charisma low?" Sort of a parallel conversation to the archer trying to decide how much to focus on Strength.
I feel like in an ideal world that is how it could work.
It would make sense for it to work that way, if Focus Spells were an optional feature for all the classes that have it. But that is not the case. It's a baseline feature for clerics and non-universalist wizards. So, it this was tied to Cha, it would be an undue burden on these classes (less so on clerics since they already have Channel Energy tied to Cha).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If focus is still based on Charisma that would leave the stat with a cool function sans Resonance.I sure hope not. Classes with Focus Spells should use the stat that actually makes sense for the class. Shoehorning it all into charisma feels way too artificial to me. It's just trying to force Charisma to be relevant to everyone. But not all stats should be important for every character. Most casters don't use strength for anything, so should we add some strength based magical class features to force it to be relevant? No, it doesn't fit. The druid has that for Wild Shape, it's nonsensical and I hope will be changed back to Wisdom (but it probably won't be).
I think I'm in the minority here. But I feel that all stats shouldn't be equally relevant. The existence of dump stats isn't really a bug, but a feature. If they get out of control it can be a problem, but I don't think every character should be well rounded either. This gets into requiring the bookish introverted wizard to have social graces to not fall behind in power. The reserved, inward-focused monk also gets tossed aside in favor of strong personalities, not very zen at all. It's really a conflict between game balance and story. Sure making all stats equal is good for game balance, but it's bad for verisimilitude (at least for me). It was one of the many flaws of resonance.
While charisma doesn't make sense for some abilities, I do think strength based features should still exist for magical classes that call for it, like gish based class feats for wizards and sorcerers, and yes wild shape too (since you're still physically mauling faces off).
That being said, just like how you mentioned that not all stats should be important for every character, I think wisdom and dexterity should be less mandatory as stats so to speak. Right now (and in pathfinder 1) it feels like you need to have a positive modifier, at least in the former, to be viable for any character, not just the ones that really need them like rogues and clerics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as it stands there's a huge emphasis on Dex/Wis/Con since those are the three stats that influence saving throws.
It's sorta symmetrical if Str gives carrying limit, Cha gives some kind of focus pool, Int gives skill ranks, Dex gives AC, Wis gives Perception, and Con gives HP. But those last three are super important *and* those stats also correlate to saves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would make sense for it to work that way, if Focus Spells were an optional feature for all the classes that have it. But that is not the case. It's a baseline feature for clerics and non-universalist wizards. So, it this was tied to Cha, it would be an undue burden on these classes (less so on clerics since they already have Channel Energy tied to Cha).If focus is still based on Charisma that would leave the stat with a cool function sans Resonance.Jason's statement indicated that "Powers" become "Focus Spells" and implied that "Spells Points" would become "Focus" (or "Focus Points"?). That isn't indicative of a change in the mechanic, just the terminology.
Irrespective of what was said, I don't think the concept of tying Focus to Charisma makes sense. Focus Spells are class-defined magical powers, it stands to reason they'd be tied to the key abilities of their respective classes.
I'm going to actually disagree here, with the corollary that what I am saying assumes that all classes can be effective with or without Focus Spells (much like Monk in the playtest).
I like the idea that, like Monk, Focus Spells are a way to enhance your class, rather than a core defining feature of the class. From that point of view, tying them to Charisma instead of your main stat makes sense because it increases build variety. "I know I want my main stat high for my core class features, but do I also want to invest in Charisma for Focus Spells? Or do I want to invest in feats and abilities that don't cost Focus Points so that I can keep my Charisma low?" Sort of a parallel conversation to the archer trying to decide how much to focus on Strength.
I feel like in an ideal world that is how it could work.
Well, as written clerics already have that burden. What if all characters had it? Like, what if focus spells were all as potent as channel?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you to the transcribers and to Know Direction for conducting the interview! Sounds like things are heading in a positive direction, and I look forward to the final product.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like "low cha" is going to be less of an issue automatically in PF2 if we stick with the stat generating system we have. Since the reason 7 (or 5) cha characters were so common in PF1 is less "I want to RP someone who's hard to like" and more "it gets me 4 extra points I can put towards other stuff."
If Starfinder is any indication having a 8-12 charisma is not the end of the world in terms of "this character is okay at talking (I mean, Shirren get a +2 on Culture and Diplomacy out of the gate, and they're the core ancestry with a cha penalty.)
While I agree that low stat characters are likely to be less of an issue, I still have a problem with Charisma remaining as the one stat which has no mechanical value for the majority of characters. Especially if its one use of "okay at talking" isn't a big penalty for not boosting it like you say.
I mean, when you hit levels that give you ability boosts, what motivation is there to select Charisma if it isn't your casting stat? With Resonance going away, there really isn't any unless something like Focus replaces it. Even the other two "weaker" stats have some use for people. Intelligence boosts several skills and total number of trained skills, while Strength boosts damage, carrying capacity, adventuring skills, and defence against combat maneuvers targeting Athletics DC. Charisma on the other hand boosts talking skills... until you just have someone else in the party do all the talking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Paizo Blog: The Resonance Test said, "Unlike Spell Points, all characters have Focus Points, and your number per day is equal to your Charisma modifier plus 1 or 2, depending on your ancestry." Checking the pregenerated characters, human hunter barbarian Amiri, CHA 12, had focus 2; goblin pathfinder-hopeful alchemist Fumbus, CHA 12, had focus 2; human acolyte cleric Kyra, CHA 16, had focus 4; elf street-urchin rogue Merisiel, CHA 14, had focus 3; human nomand sorcerer Seoni, CHA 18, had focus 5; and human farmhand fighter Valeros, CHA 14, had focus 3. So on elves, gobins, and humans, the number of focus points is CHA+1.
For a sample of a power under this system, Kyra had Fire Ray as a domain power. It is clearly a kind of spell.
Fire Ray (1 Focus Point, [[A]] Somatic, [[A]] Verbal): You attempt a ranged
touch Strike against one creature within 60 feet. If you hit, you deal 5d6+4
fire damage to the target plus 3d6 persistent fire damage. Full rules for this
power are in the Resonance Test rules.
If focus is still based on Charisma that would leave the stat with a cool function sans Resonance.I sure hope not. Classes with Focus Spells should use the stat that actually makes sense for the class. Shoehorning it all into charisma feels way too artificial to me. It's just trying to force Charisma to be relevant to everyone. But not all stats should be important for every character. Most casters don't use strength for anything, so should we add some strength based magical class features to force it to be relevant? No, it doesn't fit. The druid has that for Wild Shape, it's nonsensical and I hope will be changed back to Wisdom (but it probably won't be).
Irrespective of what was said, I don't think the concept of tying Focus to Charisma makes sense. Focus Spells are class-defined magical powers, it stands to reason they'd be tied to the key abilities of their respective classes.
I don't know for sure whether the final version of focus will be tied to Charisma as in the Resonance Test, but let's see consider that case.
The Pathfinder Playtest classes that had spell points are:
Bard: Spell Points equal to Charisma bonus (minimum 0).
Cleric: Spell Points equal to Wisdom bonus (minimum 0).
Druid: Spell Points equal to Wisdom bonus.
Monk: With Ki Strike feat, Spell Points equal to Wisdom bonus.
Paladin: Spell Points equal to Charisma bonus (minimum 0).
Sorcerer: Spell Points equal to Charisma modifier.
Wizard: Spell Points equal to Intelligence modifier (minimum 0).
Sigh, most of the text said, "Your maximum number of Spell Points is equal to your key ability modifier," as if key ability modifier was something variable, rather than fixed by the same class that gave the spell points. Some text said "minimum 0" and other didn't, but I guess there is not difference between 0 spell points and negative spell points. It would be different for focus poinsts, since a Charisma modifier -1 would result in CHA+1 = 0.
Three classes already based their spell points on Charisma, so focus points would not change their ability-score source. Another three use Wisdom and one uses Intelligence.
As Pumpkinhead11 suggested above, those non-Charisma classes could use their key ability for focus instead, like how the Alchmeist used Intelligence for Resonance at first, but that conflicts with the magic-item uses of focus. Besides, 4 out of 12 classes getting a special exemption is too many.
The Shaolin monk character Kwai Chang Caine in the 1970's TV series Kung Fu was portrayed as wise, but most militant monks grew out of a tradition of retired soldiers joining monasteries, so wisdom is not necessarily a trait for martial artists. The ki-using monks of anime series such as Naruto are more charismatic than wise. Thus, I see no problem for monks relying on Charisma for ki abilities. Pathfinder can provide feats based on the Sense Motive aspect of Perception for a line for high-Wisdom monks.
That leaves only three prepared casters that rely on non-Charisma spell points. Maybe they should not have to use Charisma-based focus points for their domain powers, order powers, and school powers. Maybe those powers should be prepared in slots like their spells.
The Playtest Rulebook said,
Arcane School
If you want to be a specialist wizard, choose one school of magic in which to specialize. You gain one additional spell slot for each spell level you can cast, but you may use these spell slots to prepare only spells from your arcane school. You can also prepare one additional cantrip each day, which must be from your specialized school. You gain Spell Points and a special power based on your school (see Arcane Schools on page 137) and add another spell from your chosen school to your spellbook.
What if we change it to the following?
Arcane School
If you want to be a specialist wizard, choose one school of magic in which to specialize. At each level you add one additional spell from your arcane school to your spellbook. You gain one additional spell slot for each spell level you can cast, but you may use these spell slots to prepare only spells from your arcane school. You can also prepare one additional cantrip each day, which must be from your specialized school. Your school provides focus powers that you may cast by sacrificing a prepared spell of your arcane school.
A higher-level power might require sacrificing a prepared spell in a higher-level spell slot. But players might routinely sacrifice 1st-level prepared spells for a focus power heightened to 2nd or 3rd level. Of course, this would give the player fewer spells, since some would be sacrificed for focus powers, but I believe that spellcasters should receive 4 spells per spell level rather than 3 per spell level, which would compensate for that.
They would also receive focus points just like a martial class for use with magic items.
My playtest sessions for Affair at Sombrefell Hall was the first time any of my playtest players played a cleric. One of them had to foresight to select a minor staff of healing as a magic item. Unfortunately, when he had to cast his first Heal spell, he had too many choices and we lost a half hour of gameplay as I explained and re-explained the choices to him: cast Heal from the 1st-level slot he prepared, cast Heal via channeling, or cast Heal from the staff using charges and resonance (combined with the three different ways to cast Heal). Focus points and channeling are additional methods of paying for spells, and they complicate the class. Sacrificing a prepared spell is more similar to regular spellcasting and ought to be easier to learn.
Sigh, most of the text said, "Your maximum number of Spell Points is equal to your key ability modifier," as if key ability modifier was something variable, rather than fixed by the same class that gave the spell pointsThis is a bit of a snark against what is essentially nice future proofing language that lets them do things like change a classes key attribute (either through an errata that adds a choice like Ranger got or something like a class archetype) easily without also having to specifically declare all the various places that it changes within a class.
Seriously, would Paizo change the bard's or sorcerer's key ability to something besides Charisma, the cleric's or druid's key ability to something besides Wisdom, or the wizard's key ability to something besides Intelligence? The Playtest Rulebook needed only 5 months of future-proofing, and some changes, such as swapping a spellcasting key ability, would not happen in that time period.
I pointed out that the monk's ki could be thematically changed from Wisdom to Charisma, but the Ki Strike feat does not have the future-proofing language. It specifically calls out Wisdom, because the monk's key ability is Dexterity or Strength. Paladin also had their spell points directly linked to Charisma rather than key ability, because their key ability is Strength. Thus, this future-proofing is not universal. It applies only when the key ability was the spellcasting stat.
My snark was against an editing oddity that was not justified by future proofing.
Sigh, most of the text said, "Your maximum number of Spell Points is equal to your key ability modifier," as if key ability modifier was something variable, rather than fixed by the same class that gave the spell pointsThis is a bit of a snark against what is essentially nice future proofing language that lets them do things like change a classes key attribute (either through an errata that adds a choice like Ranger got or something like a class archetype) easily without also having to specifically declare all the various places that it changes within a class.Seriously, would Paizo change the bard's or sorcerer's key ability to something besides Charisma, the cleric's or druid's key ability to something besides Wisdom, or the wizard's key ability to something besides Intelligence? The Playtest Rulebook needed only 5 months of future-proofing, and some changes, such as swapping a spellcasting key ability, would not happen in that time period.
I pointed out that the monk's ki could be thematically changed from Wisdom to Charisma, but the Ki Strike feat does not have the future-proofing language. It specifically calls out Wisdom, because the monk's key ability is Dexterity or Strength. Paladin also had their spell points directly linked to Charisma rather than key ability, because their key ability is Strength. Thus, this future-proofing is not universal. It applies only when the key ability was the spellcasting stat.
My snark was against an editing oddity that was not justified by future proofing.
They're not likely to change that wording for the final version, or really write intentionally temporary language at all. Why would you? In the final version, they very well may change key abilities. Sorcerers in PF1 famously let you switch to Int or Wis for certain bloodlines.
Sigh, most of the text said, "Your maximum number of Spell Points is equal to your key ability modifier," as if key ability modifier was something variable, rather than fixed by the same class that gave the spell pointsThis is a bit of a snark against what is essentially nice future proofing language that lets them do things like change a classes key attribute (either through an errata that adds a choice like Ranger got or something like a class archetype) easily without also having to specifically declare all the various places that it changes within a class.Seriously, would Paizo change the bard's or sorcerer's key ability to something besides Charisma, the cleric's or druid's key ability to something besides Wisdom, or the wizard's key ability to something besides Intelligence? The Playtest Rulebook needed only 5 months of future-proofing, and some changes, such as swapping a spellcasting key ability, would not happen in that time period.
I pointed out that the monk's ki could be thematically changed from Wisdom to Charisma, but the Ki Strike feat does not have the future-proofing language. It specifically calls out Wisdom, because the monk's key ability is Dexterity or Strength. Paladin also had their spell points directly linked to Charisma rather than key ability, because their key ability is Strength. Thus, this future-proofing is not universal. It applies only when the key ability was the spellcasting stat.
My snark was against an editing oddity that was not justified by future proofing.
Even druids, of all things, have the ability to have Charisma as their casting stat with a certain archetype in PF1.
Seriously, would Paizo change the bard's or sorcerer's key ability to something besides Charisma, the cleric's or druid's key ability to something besides Wisdom, or the wizard's key ability to something besides Intelligence? The Playtest Rulebook needed only 5 months of future-proofing, and some changes, such as swapping a spellcasting key ability, would not happen in that time period.Sigh, most of the text said, "Your maximum number of Spell Points is equal to your key ability modifier," as if key ability modifier was something variable, rather than fixed by the same class that gave the spell pointsThis is a bit of a snark against what is essentially nice future proofing language that lets them do things like change a classes key attribute (either through an errata that adds a choice like Ranger got or something like a class archetype) easily without also having to specifically declare all the various places that it changes within a class.
I'll point out that there's already precedent for key ability swapping in the rogue. There is no reason to leave broken language in there that they'll be forced to rewrite later.
just a question, with no Resonance moving forward, can I now dump charisma like I always did in PF1?
just a question, with no Resonance moving forward, can I now dump charisma like I always did in PF1?
I wouldn’t count on it.
just a question, with no Resonance moving forward, can I now dump charisma like I always did in PF1?
Sure, if you want a unidimensional, socially incompotent “character.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
just a question, with no Resonance moving forward, can I now dump charisma like I always did in PF1?
The stat generation system does mean that a "dump stat" is going to be a bit different. Unless you're playing an ancestry with a CHA penalty, then ignoring it leaves you with a 10, human average. So with core ancestries, it's just dwarves who can start with an 8 if you dump it, unless you just arbitrarily lower your charisma with no benefit.
just a question, with no Resonance moving forward, can I now dump charisma like I always did in PF1?The stat generation system does mean that a "dump stat" is going to be a bit different. Unless you're playing an ancestry with a CHA penalty, then ignoring it leaves you with a 10, human average. So with core ancestries, it's just dwarves who can start with an 8 if you dump it, unless you just arbitrarily lower your charisma with no benefit.
One of the few things I like about what may, or may not, turn out to be PF2e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as we don't bring back "you can voluntarily lower your stats in order to increase other ones" I'm not concerned about "dumping stats in PF2".
I know people are going to say "but I want to play flawed characters" but there isn't a "take a flaw to gain an advantage" system in roleplaying games which hasn't been run roughshod on by minmaxers. Plus, there's no reason you can't be a "phenomenally foolish person" with a 10 wis, or a "catastrophically clumsy person" with a 10 dex, etc.
I would much rather have Charisma be useful in this game than a dump stat. Useful like it is in 5E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does it do in 5e over PF besides the almost-never-used Charisma saves?
There's a 5e variant that changes spell save requirements in order to make Str/Int/Cha saves more useful (roughly as much as the main three). Otherwise, not much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the kind of news I like to hear. I adore the playtest, but seeing so much negativity made me anxious for the prospects of the game. Seeing that the surveys were more positive than feedback here was a huge relief! Looking forward to those skeletons ;)
It's very hard to get people who do not like the game to participate in a playtest - so the surveys would be skewed to the positive and not giving the true picture.
This is the kind of news I like to hear. I adore the playtest, but seeing so much negativity made me anxious for the prospects of the game. Seeing that the surveys were more positive than feedback here was a huge relief! Looking forward to those skeletons ;)It's very hard to get people who do not like the game to participate in a playtest - so the surveys would be skewed to the positive and not giving the true picture.I mean judging by the forums filled with people who hate the game, they are perfectly happy to participate.
But on a more serious note, player attrition would show very heavily in the surveys. If people tried it and didn't like it you would see a marked decline in responses overall to surveys.
There were plenty of surveys that weren't doomsday dawn related though. The class survey for instance. Or that one really long one that went over basically everything.
I feel like the doomsday dawn surveys weren't really there primarily to get subjective opinions. They were more for objective stuff like: "Which classes died the most", "which classes were least popular", "is there too many TPKs", "is there too little TPKs". So really it doesn't matter who is answering it as long as they are answering honestly.
Those other general surveys would get a better picture on community opinion on changes.