EDIT: And anecdotally I don't put much stock in the worrying about a third attack. In my playtest game the only time people took 3 strike actions was on the last boss.
It's not a worry, but the higher your to hit gets, the better it looks. If you change that 14 to an 18 and it's on a fighter, it's changes to a +9, making it a 6/11/16 or with an agile weapon 6/10/14: now that last attack has a slightly worse [or better with agile] hit than the second from the 14 st non-fighter. For this character, a third attack because viable here because of the 18.
EDIT: on the other last actions, of course they can go for a different action than attack. I just doesn't have to be a write-off for the 3rd attack action.
From what we've seen of PF2 monsters (from the bestiary previews) starting with 14 in str, for example, is viable. Prehaps not *optimal* but your character will function fineAre they viable for second attacks? Third? I haven't seen any PF2 monsters so I curious what the numbers look like.
So this is all based off the GCP section (and mostly copypasted from another thing I did).
The first fight has 26 AC. Quick math tells me that an level 7 expert with 18 in the relevant hittingstat with a +1 weapon would have +16. Hitting that is an 10 on the first attack and a 15 on the second - and I believe it might be the advanced thing that was effectively level+2. Without any buffs or conditions, that's pretty reasonable. With a +1 status bonus from, say, inspire courage, and a -2 to its AC from flanking, that first hit is on a 7. For a trained person with the same numbers, that's a 12/17 and a 9 with buffs. I also hear a flanking third attack hitting on what sounds like an 18.
I'm also hearing the math on its hits, and it has a +20. I heard one of them has 28 AC, and I'm hearing that's the liberator. I'll take a dangerous assumption that it's running off the same numbers as the playtest, and look at an expert in +1 full plate for this. 10 base + 11 proficiency + 7 armour + 1 Dex = 29 AC suggests that's too high, so the Dex is probably 10 or something like that. So the creature of +2 level is hitting on an 8 in return, 6 on most people. Again, no buffs and no conditions, which I see are going to be a lot more important in 2E with the tighter math.
I don't think having a 16 in these cases would be too bad (and you'd even be starting with a 14). The equivalent in AC doesn't sound too bad either, given the one in the GCP sounds like he has no Dex mod, or -1 from where the playtest would be.
I don't think having a 16 in these cases would be too bad (and you'd even be starting with a 14). The equivalent in AC doesn't sound too bad either, given the one in the GCP sounds like he has no Dex mod, or -1 from where the playtest would be.
First, thanks for the breakdown. ;)
As to a 16 or 14, it seems ok but you're drifting further from crits and you're more reliant on other actions for your third [and maybe 2nd] actions. That's not bad per se as there is some quite good actions you can take, but if you can push the to hit number high enough that it gives you an option to attack or that other action I see that as a plus.
I don't think having a 16 in these cases would be too bad (and you'd even be starting with a 14). The equivalent in AC doesn't sound too bad either, given the one in the GCP sounds like he has no Dex mod, or -1 from where the playtest would be.First, thanks for the breakdown. ;)
As to a 16 or 14, it seems ok but you're drifting further from crits and you're more reliant on other actions for your third [and maybe 2nd] actions. That's not bad per se as there is some quite good actions you can take, but if you can push the to hit number high enough that it gives you an option to attack or that other action I see that as a plus.
If you're primarily swinging a weapon twice or more, you want an 18.
If you swing once, or twice, and do something else most rounds, a 16 to start is more than sufficient (and even equal, depending on your level)
I would consider a 14 to be 'secondary'. If that's your to hit stat, you've probably built a character that also does other things, like cast spells, intimidate, something else besides 'swing again'.
I don't think having a 16 in these cases would be too bad (and you'd even be starting with a 14). The equivalent in AC doesn't sound too bad either, given the one in the GCP sounds like he has no Dex mod, or -1 from where the playtest would be.First, thanks for the breakdown. ;)
As to a 16 or 14, it seems ok but you're drifting further from crits and you're more reliant on other actions for your third [and maybe 2nd] actions. That's not bad per se as there is some quite good actions you can take, but if you can push the to hit number high enough that it gives you an option to attack or that other action I see that as a plus.
Yeah, I think that's a good description of it. If you know you're going to be spending your third action on other things constantly (moving, other abilities) you can drop down to 16 for more versatility without a worry. If you know you want to stand there and swing consistently, you want that 18.
I also just realized that all of the abilities that come with a -2 penalty to hit are now pretty much just dropping you one proficiency tier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One consequence of the ability boost system is that a 14 or 16 starting stat can catch up. Over the course of 20 levels:
18/16/14 Lvl 01-04
19/18/16 Lvl 05-09
20/19/18 Lvl 10-14
21/20/19 Lvl 15-19
22/20/20 Lvl 20
So a 16-start will have the same mod as an 18-start for 10 levels, and for 10 levels be 1 behind (lvl 1-4, 10-14, 20)
A 14-start will be 2 behind an 18-start for 4 levels (1-4) and be 1 behind for the other 16 (while it will be equal to a 16-start for 5 levels [10-14, 20] and 1 behind for the other 15)
Make of that what you will.
|
Always the optimist, Voss.
I definitely agree that disruptive players are going to disrupt no matter what. The most disruptive player in my Hell's Rebels game has a character with 18 Charisma and 12 Wisdom. He just chooses to roleplay his character as if he had low wisdom.
I can attest from personal experience that saying "with their WIS / CHA / INT at xx, your character would not say / do this. They know better." works with many players. And there are those who will purposefully take a low mental ability score just so you can't tell them this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can attest from personal experience that saying "with their WIS / CHA / INT at xx, your character would not say / do this. They know better." works with many players. And there are those who will purposefully take a low mental ability score just so you can't tell them this.Always the optimist, Voss.
I definitely agree that disruptive players are going to disrupt no matter what. The most disruptive player in my Hell's Rebels game has a character with 18 Charisma and 12 Wisdom. He just chooses to roleplay his character as if he had low wisdom.
This issue falls to the rules outside of the game, called the rules for being a nice person.
And rule #1 is don't be a dick. Being purposefully disruptive is an example of violating it, regardless of whether or not your mental scores support taking such an action or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can attest from personal experience that saying "with their WIS / CHA / INT at xx, your character would not say / do this. They know better." works with many players. And there are those who will purposefully take a low mental ability score just so you can't tell them this.Always the optimist, Voss.
I definitely agree that disruptive players are going to disrupt no matter what. The most disruptive player in my Hell's Rebels game has a character with 18 Charisma and 12 Wisdom. He just chooses to roleplay his character as if he had low wisdom.
So I have a player who will never match up to the Wis/Cha of his character's stated stats. I personally won't live up to my character's 22 Int, and would (charitably) place myself at a 16 at best.
Are other people supposed to pilot those characters for us? Who even could pilot mine for me?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I often find myself in the reverse situation. I have lost track of how many times I have had to tell fellow players, "My character has lower mental stats than yours, but there is no way I can play my character as dumber/less wise/less charismatic than you are playing yours."
And I often find myself in the reverse situation. I have lost track of how many times I have had to tell fellow players, "My character has lower mental stats than yours, but there is no way I can play my character as dumber/less wise/less charismatic than you are playing yours."
Ha! It is interesting how many times the highest charisma in the party seems to coincide with the most disruptive player. I've actually learned that if I want to play a particularly heroic character, a high charisma is useful for actually being able to do the talking rather than leave it to someone that will go out of their way to alienate NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And rule #1 is don't be a dick. Being purposefully disruptive is an example of violating it, regardless of whether or not your mental scores support taking such an action or not.
While I agree 99%, there ARE rules that promote disruptive behavior. For instance, in dragon lance if you aren't playing a kender as disruptive, you just aren't playing them as described. Hopefully goblins in PF2 go out of their way to downplay their pyromania and other craziness so the default isn't seen as disruptive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
K-K-Kender? Why in all that's holy would you invoke such a name?
*flips table on its side, taking cover behind it as character sheets and notes flutter to the ground in the chaos*
I'll take a goblin pyro over those every day of the week.
*beings preemptively drafting manifesto outlining goblin bans at the table*
No mental ability score is low enough to justify acting like a kender. I'd rather argue over alignment for an hour.
In my current campaign, my PC got his hands on a horsechopper and is now using it as his primary weapon. He has gotten into the habit of saying about any foe he is about to fight, "That guy sure looks like a horse!"