| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
only a quarter imaginary?PF 2E can be rewritten as the complex number:
DND 3.75 + .25i
It gets less imaginary with every day until August 1st. :)
Well, we can't have a version number that changes on a daily basis.
My answer was going to be that the players add reality to the game by existing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we can't have a version number that changes on a daily basis.
Why not? Call it Pathfinder Nightly Builds and everything is fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going with: the PC's are imaginary people in an imaginary world, so .25i seemed low to me
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we can't have a version number that changes on a daily basis.
That sounds like quitter talk.
D&D [Current Stardate] (D&D 72965.6)
I'd say it'd be closer to 5.5e
I don't buy that. 5e is the DnD game with no feats (I know there are feats but they are usually a very suboptimal choice and they come rarely) and PF2E is the game where everything is a feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like everything being a feat!
If we consider the class feats to be analogous to powers, we could call it 4.75
Essentials (4.5) tried to move towards 3.5 with an ugly Frankenstein edition. PF2e simply continues that journey. Hence 4.75
Clearly this means we won’t get Pathfinder 3rd edition until D&D releases 6th edition. I’m already calling that PF 3rd edition will remove the +level bonus because they’ll decide number porn is bad :P
I thought you weren't migrating to 2nd because of paladin/champion or am I thinking of someone else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought you weren't migrating to 2nd because of paladin/champion or am I thinking of someone else?That was HWalsh who seemingly did actually leave once Champions were confirmed as the chassis with Paladins being the specific.
Ah ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I guess even if it made no sense to me he stood by what he said he was going to do.
I'd say it'd be closer to 5.5eI don't buy that. 5e is the DnD game with no feats (I know there are feats but they are usually a very suboptimal choice and they come rarely) and PF2E is the game where everything is a feat.
I agree with most of that, but disagree that 5e feats are bad choices. Some examples:
Sentinel
Whenever you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, its speed drops to 0 for the rest of the turn. This stops any movement they may have been taking.
Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks even if they took the Disengage action.
When a creature within your reach makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.Sharpshooter
Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapons ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make a ranged attack with a ranged weapon with which you are proficient, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If you do so and the attack hits, it deals +10 damage.Shield Master
You gain the following benefits while wielding a shield:
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to Shove a creature within 5 feet of you using your shield.
If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity save made against a spell or other effect that affects only you.
If you are subjected to an effect which allows you to make a Dexterity save for half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage, interposing you shield between you and the effect.
Any of these things would be at least three feats in a Pathfinder game, if they were allowed at all.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The opportunity cost of taking them is greater, though, as they replace a +2 to a stat, something a 5E character usually only gets five of, ever.
Fighters get several more, allowing them to get more Feats, and Humans can get one Feat to start with, but it remains a serious decision.
So they're impressive, but the majority of characters have two or three of them at most.
I don't know why we would consider them analogous to powers. Powers were all specific actions usable only during encounters.
1. It was a joke.
2. Not even remotely true.
Add to this that they made the choice to tie feats/stats to class level and not character level you get even less if you dare to multiclass.The opportunity cost of taking them is greater, though, as they replace a +2 to a stat, something a 5E character usually only gets five of, ever.
Fighters get several more, allowing them to get more Feats, and Humans can get one Feat to start with, but it remains a serious decision.
So they're impressive, but the majority of characters have two or three of them at most.
The only class that is remotely true for is fighter unless your just trying to dip into classes.
It's fine if you keep the exact right ratios. But if I wanted to (as I tried a few months ago) make a rogue/Monk it ended up not getting a stat upgrade for seven levels.
Well yes. If you look at the class advancement tables and make the knowing and deliberate decision to take six levels in 2 classes so as to avoid an ability score increase, you won’t get one until 7th level.
Good news for you, P,aizo have worked hard to make sure players can’t make dumb decisions.
Monk actually seems to be a very common multiclass around these parts (for mechanical reasons, not thematic ones), so I find your situation highly unusual. But I’ve never bothered to find out what mechanical benefit there is (I just don’t care enough).
All this is of course completely off topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Essentials (4.5) tried to move towards 3.5 with an ugly Frankenstein edition.
See, I think if, at 4E's release, the PHB had been Essentials+ (more than 4 classes + 4 races, but using the Essential design framework), it'd have done a lot better.
In 5e depending on the class feats are not suboptimal. So not to sure where that statement comes from. Also the main thrust of comparison would be on how proficiencies work as base mechanic not feats. Also remember that in 5e stats have cap. 20 I believe for PCs. So the plus 2 to stats is not always the best choice. Especially when you consider many feats give a stat bonus also.
That email I wrote above sounded snarky. I did not mean it to. I think the response was to a post about feats and I took it as an overall comparison to 5e. I do think feats in 5e definetly are not suboptimal. Based on the stat bonus they give and the feat effect.