# Deadmanwalking's Problems With The Final Version Of PF2

### Rules Discussion

 451 to 480 of 480 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

No no no.

When you pay cash, your change is in "gold" bills and "silver" or "copper" coins.

If you put ten units of a lower denomination together, you get a single unit of a higher denominational value.

It's actually addition using base ten, something humans, with their fingers and toes, are hard-wired for.

Which, is actually why I love the new Silver Economy and Bulk Encumbrance systems!

Base ten IS multiplication and division...

If someone can figure out \$6.78 from \$10, they can figure out 6.78 pounds from 10 pounds just as easy. :P

But how many calories do I have to burn to lose the 6.78 pounds?..

Vidmaster7 wrote:
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

No no no.

When you pay cash, your change is in "gold" bills and "silver" or "copper" coins.

If you put ten units of a lower denomination together, you get a single unit of a higher denominational value.

It's actually addition using base ten, something humans, with their fingers and toes, are hard-wired for.

Which, is actually why I love the new Silver Economy and Bulk Encumbrance systems!

Base ten IS multiplication and division...

If someone can figure out \$6.78 from \$10, they can figure out 6.78 pounds from 10 pounds just as easy. :P

But how many calories do I have to burn to lose the 6.78 pounds?..

None: it's a free action to use the Release action these days. ;)

graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:

No no no.

When you pay cash, your change is in "gold" bills and "silver" or "copper" coins.

If you put ten units of a lower denomination together, you get a single unit of a higher denominational value.

It's actually addition using base ten, something humans, with their fingers and toes, are hard-wired for.

Which, is actually why I love the new Silver Economy and Bulk Encumbrance systems!

Base ten IS multiplication and division...

If someone can figure out \$6.78 from \$10, they can figure out 6.78 pounds from 10 pounds just as easy. :P

But how many calories do I have to burn to lose the 6.78 pounds?..
None: it's a free action to use the Release action these days. ;)

Well I need to learn that one then Because I could lose a few pounds.

As someone who's been using milestone leveling since the day they started GMing, calculating XP at all is too much math for me.

I'm curious if the mutagenist alchemist problem has found an errata yet. As it stands, it does literally nothing.

The alchemist also has a weird thing where they're stuck on expert in weapons, but also top up at master for class proficiency. That feels kind of weird, since casters get legendary proficiency in their class DC and expert in weapons, while martials get expert in both.

It's just rather odd for me.

As for the experience, couldn't the numbers be crunched to create a table, like the old style ones form all the previous editions, just with the new editions math worked in?

Perpdepog wrote:

Except, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, you don't need a higher grade of material to trigger a weakness. A low-grade silver longsword will deal the same amount of weakness damage as a high-grade silver longsword to a werecreature.

This is correct, and you might think you can get around the system by just keeping a low-grade version of your primary weapon for each special material to save on upgrading costs. But of course, then you are trading the triggering of the weakness for all of the enchantments you could have on a higher grade weapon. Which is usually not a good trade.

In other words, if you want to trigger weaknesses and be effective at the same time, you probably need to pay to upgrade the weapon so you can enchant it up to your level's expected runes. Otherwise you're probably better off just using your primary weapon and ignoring weaknesses, as the value added from triggering weakness will not stack up to the value lost in not enchanting the weapon. Put another way, a +1 striking cold iron longsword compared to a +2 greater striking longsword will probably do less damage to devils despite triggering the weakness.

I'm oversimplifying here, as there's a lot of variables that could make it worth it. For example, if your primary weapon has a fire rune on it, you may want a less-enchanted cold iron backup for fighting devils, because the fire rune would not add damage since they usually have fire resistance. In cases like that the cost-benefit analysis might swing toward a weaker backup with a special material. But in the general case, I think the extra attack and damage dice (plus other runes) will outweigh the extra damage from weakness. I haven't actually compared numbers though.

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
rainzax wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Personally I don't need any help with my elementary math. I do not consider rounding or fractions "nightmarish". I consider them "trivial".
I literally do not count silver pieces on my PFS 1E characters after a decimal error when accounting. I support not having stupid fractions.

To be fair, Silver-based economy is basically fractions in disguise!

Too, "Light" items using Bulk system! And rounding!

All sneakily re-dressed!

Yeah, I won't be tracking coppers either. I'll round up to a silver and take that loss.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
It's actually addition using base ten, something humans, with their fingers and toes, are hard-wired for.

[sub]Actually we're not, but that's ok[/sub]

The Yuki language of California and in the Pamean languages of Mexico count in base 8, because the Yuki and Pame keep count by using the four spaces between their fingers rather than the fingers themselves.

And if you really dig into things, you'll find that we're better at powers of than we are at linear addition.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are 29 Knuts in one Sickle, and 17 Sickles make up a Galleon.

Frogliacci wrote:
As someone who's been using milestone leveling since the day they started GMing, calculating XP at all is too much math for me.

The thing for me is that calculating XP is seen as "doing math for no actual benefit." As the GM the only real benefit to doing XP based leveling instead of milestone leveling is "it protects me from accusations that players are getting shorted". But usually players will point out something like "it's been a long time since we leveled" or something similar, before we get to the actual j'accuse stage.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
rainzax wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Personally I don't need any help with my elementary math. I do not consider rounding or fractions "nightmarish". I consider them "trivial".
I literally do not count silver pieces on my PFS 1E characters after a decimal error when accounting. I support not having stupid fractions.

To be fair, Silver-based economy is basically fractions in disguise!

Too, "Light" items using Bulk system! And rounding!

All sneakily re-dressed!

Yeah, I won't be tracking coppers either. I'll round up to a silver and take that loss.

Rounding up has the benefit of being in-character the guy that tells everyone to keep the change. I think many a tavern employee would think kindly of you.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zapp wrote:

(And if I do think the encounter needs to be amped up, note that by adding an Orc Warrior I end up with the exact same result: (480+120)/5=120. In short, leaving it up to the GM whether to keep the encounter as is (less xp) or amp it up (same xp).

Why...

Your example assume you are playing an published adventure. If that is the case, you will need to modify the encounters to get the adventure to work as intended.

Why?

Because if you give them more or less xp they will level at the wrong places which can have a severe implication on the outcome of boss battles.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Danbala wrote:
Zapp wrote:

(And if I do think the encounter needs to be amped up, note that by adding an Orc Warrior I end up with the exact same result: (480+120)/5=120. In short, leaving it up to the GM whether to keep the encounter as is (less xp) or amp it up (same xp).

Why...

Your example assume you are playing an published adventure. If that is the case, you will need to modify the encounters to get the adventure to work as intended.

Why?

Because if you give them more or less xp they will level at the wrong places which can have a severe implication on the outcome of boss battles.

Whoops, late to the party. Is the buffet still open?

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the thread isn't very busy and has drifted pretty far from my original post, but it does still seem to be ongoing, so the buffet remains open.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry bud. Same thing happened in mine. This forum is real bad at understanding the right place to discuss things.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

In hopes of getting the thread back on topic, how well do you think the archetype model in the LOWG solves the issue of proficiency scaling?

Since getting the red mantis assassin or aldori duelist dedication requires proficiency in the relevant weapon, but thereafter pegs your proficiency in it to any increase in weapon proficiency so that it matches your highest. Likewise I totally see the Grey Maiden archetype requiring proficiency in heavy armor, but pegging your proficiency in Grey Maiden Plate to your class's armor proficiency increases.

Does this effectively solve the problem assuming there are sufficiently general versions available?

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

In hopes of getting the thread back on topic, how well do you think the archetype model in the LOWG solves the issue of proficiency scaling?

Since getting the red mantis assassin or aldori duelist dedication requires proficiency in the relevant weapon, but thereafter pegs your proficiency in it to any increase in weapon proficiency so that it matches your highest. Likewise I totally see the Grey Maiden archetype requiring proficiency in heavy armor, but pegging your proficiency in Grey Maiden Plate to your class's armor proficiency increases.

Does this effectively solve the problem assuming there are sufficiently general versions available?

While I do like that they've done made it possible to at least benefit from the General Feats, especially in the context of specialty weapons like the Sawtooth Sabre and Aldori Dueling sword, I don't love that it basically requires Paizo to release an archetype corresponding to a concept that aligns with my weapon choice.

If they had an archetype that's more generic and applies to a wider swath of choices, that'd be ideal.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Sorry bud. Same thing happened in mine. This forum is real bad at understanding the right place to discuss things.

Nah, it's cool. If I objected, I'd mention it. :)

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Does this effectively solve the problem assuming there are sufficiently general versions available?

It does assuming we actually get more generally applicable Archetypes that do this, yes. It gives those General Feats legitimate long term value.

The Alignment Traits issue hasn't been solved yet, but it has been noted as a problem, so I'm less concerned on that one, too.

The Alchemist Bulk issue, along with other Alchemist issues that have cropped up (Mutagenist now doing nothing, for example) remain my only real outstanding issues that aren't fixable with a single word change to clarify intent.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not huge on the LOWG archetypes personally. It feels like PF2 made a big deal about meaningful feats and doing away with punitive taxes and feat chains...

And then the very first book we get out of core has two archetypes that nudge you into being human so you can buy up the tax-y prerequisites to get to the feats you actually want in a timely fashion.
Very reminiscence of PF1 where you'd have stuff you could pull off at level 3 if you were a human fighter or level 9 or 11 if you were anyone else.

Initial gut reaction was less "wow this fixes the proficiency problem" and more "that design philosophy didn't last long."

Squiggit wrote:

I'm not huge on the LOWG archetypes personally. It feels like... PF2 make a big deal about meaningful feats and doing away with punitive taxes and feat chains.

And then the very first book we get out of core has two archetypes that nudge you into being human so you can buy up the tax-y prerequisites to get to the feats you actually want in a timely fashion.
Very reminiscence of PF1 where you'd have stuff you could pull off at level 3 if you were a human fighter or level 9 or 11 if you were anyone else.

Initial gut reaction was less "wow this fixes the proficiency problem" and more "that design philosophy didn't last long."

While in general, I do agree with you, I do think that if they alleviate the burden of the Archetype investment by not requiring Class Feats, that would be somewhat palatable (i.e. a General/Skill to grab things within the Archetype)

I am all for saying "hey if you want to use X weapon, you need to lock yourself out of Archetype options til it's complete" but not so much the tacked on "AND it costs Class Feats" that comes with it.

Then again I also don't like the "Feat that's good for a bit, but then has a time limit", but nothing is perfect.

slight rant:
Honestly, I'm pretty frustrated with the other feats that grant proficiency (Fighter/Champion/Ancestry) because they set a horrible precedent for Proficiency gated weapons/armor.

Not only is getting access to those things largely uninteresting (as they amount to numbers increases or build taxes), they also have lower value to those with the Proficiency already (which is completely counter intuitive) and lacks a fair amount of flavor.

Think about how illogical it sounds for a Fighter to MCD to Champion and get less than a General Feat would give you but a Rogue can take it and get more value. There's no real incentives for Fighters to take Champion MCD, which to me, thematically, is one of the things that would make the most sense.

And yes, you can take other Feats after the initial, but the initial is then a straight tax.

The Ancestry Feats I could get behind if they were contingent on Class Proficiency instead of stand alone progressions. The Fighter and Champion initial selections are just straight up bad IMO.

The disparity between the MCD and the Class should be a negative, not a positive in investing.

Now if Champion/Fighter MCD's granted their base Reaction, that'd be fantastic, not centralized strictly on proficiency, and thematically flavor any Class (and with good benefit too). Then leave the General Feats to their job, allowing people to step into Proficiency they otherwise wouldn't.

Now of course, that would require a lot more gutting, so unlikely to happen, but personally if the Ancestry/Fighter/Champion pieces were reworked there'd be no justification for leaving the General Feats to their job of providing General Benefits to anyone.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems very possible to me that we'll get alternate Dedication Feats at some point. They'd be easy to do and provide alternatives.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Initial gut reaction was less "wow this fixes the proficiency problem" and more "that design philosophy didn't last long."

Remember that the books were developed and intended to be released at the same time, so much as this may be your gut reaction, it's factually false. The LOWG stuff is very much part of the core design philosophy.

It seems very possible to me that we'll get alternate Dedication Feats at some point. They'd be easy to do and provide alternatives.

Fair point, I hadn’t considered that. If they did go that route, that’s a layer of dimension that was before impossible with multiclassing, and also provides a lot more complexity in terms of MCD classes.

What are your thoughts on the Archetypes in LOWG?

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
It seems very possible to me that we'll get alternate Dedication Feats at some point. They'd be easy to do and provide alternatives.

I definitely would like to see alternate dedication feats. If we could have a fighter dedication feat with "training in all martial weapons" as a prerequisite, that would give champions, rangers, and barbarians a benefit from the dedication feat more than "training in a single skill".

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
In other words, if you want to trigger weaknesses and be effective at the same time, you probably need to pay to upgrade the weapon so you can enchant it up to your level's expected runes.

This right here kind of sums up my beef, actually. Paying to keep a weapon relevant, when all you are doing is enabling yourself to keep progressing it as any other character would, feels a bit un-fun, at least to me. I'll admit though, it does make more sense with weapons. Since weaknesses scale up in their value as you level it does, in a way, make it so you are paying for your weapon to dish out that extra damage, even though you can technically do it with a lower-grade weapon.

It's a bit more frustrating with armor, where you are paying more money, for the same benefit (Outside increased hardness, I'll grant) and armor progression as everybody else.
Again, this is really my only rough spot with the system, so I'm being grumpy about it. Not sure if this derails the thread or not but if it does, I'm sorry.

Perpdepog wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
In other words, if you want to trigger weaknesses and be effective at the same time, you probably need to pay to upgrade the weapon so you can enchant it up to your level's expected runes.
It's a bit more frustrating with armor, where you are paying more money, for the same benefit (Outside increased hardness, I'll grant) and armor progression as everybody else.

That's a good point, I was only considering weapons. Armor costs scaling without additional benefit does seem rather punitive.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
It seems very possible to me that we'll get alternate Dedication Feats at some point. They'd be easy to do and provide alternatives.

I hope it comes soon... The homogenization of the caster dedications is pretty frustrating for a lot of concepts. A dragon-blood Monk doesn't much care about getting Vancian casting so it's annoying to have to wait all the way until 4th level before it's possible to get the claws the entire build is based around. Same deal with Bards and having to wait forever before you can get Inspire Courage through the multiclass.

Captain Morgan wrote:
Sorry bud. Same thing happened in mine. This forum is real bad at understanding the right place to discuss things.

really they need a "reply into a new thread button" or else the cost and effort of trying to fenagle a new thread into existence is so much higher. besides some people are shy and don't want to have a thread made about their topic showing up on the forum page.

not only that but it usually fractures the conversation over multiple threads when people do make a new thread.

besides topics don't necessarily have a place.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Fair point, I hadn’t considered that. If they did go that route, that’s a layer of dimension that was before impossible with multiclassing, and also provides a lot more complexity in terms of MCD classes.

Yeah, I think it's a really neat idea and I definitely hope they implement it.

Midnightoker wrote:
What are your thoughts on the Archetypes in LOWG?

Magic Warrior is mechanically terrible in just about every way.

Hellknight Armiger and Red Mantis Assassin feel kinda incomplete, though the full Hellknight stuff will fix that for Armiger. I hope we get a handful more Red Mantis Assassin Feats to round them out as well.

The second Feat of Living Monolith being Rare is deeply weird and I hope that strangeness won't be repeated, though it's easy enough to work around in home games.

Other than that, I think they look fine. The other seven (including Living Monolith) are all mechanically sound for the right characters without being overpowered, and the design principles seem pretty consistent. Overall, I'm fairly pleased.