Take up of Second Edition


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

651 to 700 of 1,069 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>

Squiggit wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


I also want to draw the distinction between things I think are rough spots in the design and things I just don't personally want in an RPG.

A lot of times those things go hand in hand, though. Like you feel that striking runes are a design mistake, but it's clear that apparently a lot of people actively wanted those things. That there are people who played PF1 and thought "I wish my weapon was more important."

Likewise, I think the game's proficiency system is terrible, but I've had people insist that limiting options arbitrarily is absolutely necessary to making a good RPG and that letting wizards run around with swords would fundamentally dilute the integrity of the whole system.

I freely admit I don't care for the magic item dependence, but there's more to it than that. The rules seem to want to get martials out of the shadow of casters...but then do other things which put them right back. It's like one part of the rules is fighting another. Likewise, complexity that serves no discernible purpose -- such as the change to movement on difficult terrain diagonals -- feels like bad design because it seems pointless.

Conversely, there are other things I don't like -- such as (what I perceive to be) the failure to realize the potential of the new action economy via a set of comprehensive, flexible core classes -- but still recognize were deliberate parts of the design.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
The one thing I know for certain is that the proficiency capping is intentional, though I wouldn't be the one to explain it.

That's fair. Still can't for the life of me understand it though.

Quote:
I think one of the main reasons they were so popular was because was because they automatically balanced themselves out by being baseline competent in everything but largely incapable of breaking the game (up or down).

That may be part of it, but I also think just in general the sword and sorcery style of character is a really iconic archetype that shows up in a lot of fiction and right now it just feels like fighter/wizards aren't magical enough to pull it off and wizard/fighters aren't martial enough.

Of course, a fighter with too many spells or a wizard who was too good at swinging a sword would both be problematic, which is why maybe I think there's room in the game for something that straddles that line a bit better.

I get where you're coming from when it comes to system mastery and introducing new concepts, but it still feels kinda bad if you're really in love with the idea thematically.

Quote:
Part of that is going to be system mastery related; PF2 system mastery is completely different than PF1. My classic comparison here is Pokemon vs. Street Fighter. In PF1 (Pokemon) it's all about the team you put together

I think that might be a little bit too extreme of an example. They're different games, but a lot of the fundamentals are still there.

Maybe Street Fighter vs Mortal Kombat would be more apt. There's still a lot of fundamentals that transfer over, but remembering you have a block button instead of holding back to block will get you killed a bunch at first (not to mention everything else).

Quote:
I believe that a lot of the overemphasis on "needing" an 18 compared to a 16 comes from not being as familiar with how to generate up your other circumstance bonuses, negative conditions, etc. during combat.

I half agree. Teamwork and managing buffs/debuffs is a big part of staying alive and killing enemies, especially strong enemies, in PF2 but unlike PF1 dropping from an 18 to a 16 only gives you one extra boost to play around with. An even trade, sure, but it means our 16 str/16 cha sorcerer is going to have pretty low hp, ac, saves and perception and will be all but required to be a 10 int character... and still probably have accuracy issues on top of that (a sorcerer specifically can address the AC issues by going Champion MC at 2 but a wizard or witch with a similar build will have trouble getting 14 Cha on top of everything else I suspect).

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
[...](a sorcerer specifically can address the AC issues by going Champion MC at 2 but a wizard or witch with a similar build will have trouble getting 14 Cha on top of everything else I suspect).

I don't have any strong objections or reactions to any of your other responses, all of which I find perfectly reasonable regardless of whether or not I agree with them personally, but I suspect the quoted bit will largely solve itself since the same book that the witch will be released in will also have all the new theme archetypes.

I do agree that gish characters are very tropey and the ones the game currently allows you to make don't necessarily meet the expectations/desires of a lot of people wanting to play a gish. I think they *do* allow players to explore the space without accidentally wandering into one of the traps that comprised 99% of multiclassing in PF1 (and I don't even consider that an exaggeration). For every viable (see earlier definition of viable) multiclass gish build, there were a score of multiclass builds that were either just plain bad or required you to play a mechanically subpar character for months before you could finally do the thing you set out to do. The current framework protects you from the downsides but also doesn't open the conceptual space up as far.

Magus took a couple years to release for PF1 though, and I think the ability to graft magic onto a character (or "martialness" onto a magical character) is far greater now than it was in PF1. The issue seems to be depth rather than scope. It's easy for me to make a fighter who has cantrips and a handful of spells, or a wizard who has some martial facility that they can augment with true strike, telekinetic maneuver, grease, blindness, haste, paralyze, Hand of the Apprentice, Bespell Weapon, etc., but they fall into the general requirement of tactical play and don't have all the system hacks in place that PF1 had for magi and the like (Dervish Dance for stat consolidation, Spell Combat as a gish equivalent to things PF2 currently has like Double Slice or Twin Takedown, etc.) Because accuracy and damaging boosting spells, spells that allow you to self-buff or debuff enemies, etc. all can close the gap between a wizard and a ranger or a barbarian (not a fighter, because one of the fighter's special abilities is "hits and crits 10% more often than the closest competition), but I can see that for some players that's not as fun as just being able to two-weapon fight with swords and spells, especially since PF1 had way more tricks to "beat the system" and overcome balance points like 3/4 BAB with manipulation of other resources.

Part of the issue there is probably going to come down to differences in player expectations as established by the much more loosely designed PF1 and design parameters of the current game, while the rest is likely just "there's only so much you can fit in a book and it'll almost certainly be picked up in a subsequent book". PF1 wasn't really more than a 3.5 update until the original Advanced Player's Guide came out and added a healthy layer of flavorful new classes on top of the "core requirements" and to a certain extent I expect PF2 won't really be truly complete until its APG releases and opens up the rest of the conceptual space. But I think in a lot of these instances we're not talking about a deficiency of the system, we're just talking about a specific option not yet existing in the new game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Gishes are interesting in that they can be serviceable right now without delivering on the full fantasy of that experience, for instance a fighter who takes a wizard dedication can pick up the Shield cantrip, and a number of casts of the True Strike spell, and attack with a two handed weapon since both of those spells are exclusively verbal- they have a good chance to critically hit and the fighter chassis includes extra class feats (through using the flexing ones it gets to free up wizard feats elsewhere.) But nothing about this build screams swordmage, and its use of magic is relatively constrained

There's the possibility of the trying to accomplish it with an archetype, but that might be tricky, my guess is that the designers don't know how they want to answer the gish question as a whole, since so much of the Magus was basically patching the core system to allow it to function, whereas now it just does-

There's the possibility of having an entire suite of archetypes that fulfill the same conceptual space, there's the possibility of accomplishing it with class feats, and the possibility of a whole class devoted to it.

The designers have given themselves a lot of wonderful tools, its just a matter of figuring out which tool is the right tool for each job, and the magus is an especially tricky job in a system where base spell progression and base hit progression are so firmly regulated- after all, people are already writing off the warpriest as a melee combatant.

I'm of the opinion that the best route is going to be the class route, but I'm still not sure how much spell casting it would get, or what its base hit progression looks like.

Paizo Employee

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:


There's the possibility of having an entire suite of archetypes that fulfill the same conceptual space, there's the possibility of accomplishing it with class feats, and the possibility of a whole class devoted to it.

I think you could do it with one archetype, no more than two for all classes (one oriented towards martials and one oriented towards casters). If you were to make exactly one archetype for caster base class "spellblades", you could have a couple of feats specifically tailored towards each of the casting traditions and then some "everyone who takes this wants these" feats, like a version of Spellstrike. One of the best things about PF2, IMO, is that you don't need a separate e.g. grappling archetype for every single class, you just need one archetype that contains all the tools necessary for grappling. So at most you'd need two archetypes for full gish immersion, one tailored towards base classes that don't start with a spell list and one tailored towards classes that do. You could probably even do one "super archetype" that gives a different dedication benefit depending on your base class, but I expect that it's cleaner to tease them out so that the archetype(s) are more accessible and quicker for players to parse.


My opinion on gishes is that we currently don't know how to build and play them. I've got a Scoundrel Rogue gish (still low level) that really felt like a proper gish right from level 1.
One of the main strength gishes need to use is the 2-action spell + Strike. Even with cantrips it's extremely potent and able to challenge martial classes in terms of damage output. Then, you can add a few rare spells for when you need them. No need to get more than that to play a gish and to feel you play a gish.


we will get another magus eventually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
we will get another magus eventually.

. I hope it is feels more like a Magus than the current 'war priest' feels like a real war priest.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tremaine wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
we will get another magus eventually.
. I hope it is feels more like a Magus than the current 'war priest' feels like a real war priest.

The current Warpriest specialization is in no way shape or form the old class, it's not a replacement. If we do get the P1 Warpriest updated it will have a different name though obviously.

Plus we've already had Spellstrike show up in APs.


I'm willing to bet that APG will offer at least one option to allow a Full Caster who is willing to invest Class Feats + General Feats to remain Fairly Incentivized in their Martial Weapons compared to their Base Proficiencies.

Any takers?

Silver Crusade

rainzax wrote:

I'm willing to bet that APG will offer at least one option to allow a Full Caster who is willing to invest Class Feats + General Feats to remain Fairly Incentivized in their Martial Weapons compared to their Base Proficiencies.

Any takers?

Oracle has a Battle Mystery so...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm willing to bet that too. Since we already know there are several staples in APG (shadow dancer, assassin, cavalier) I'm pretty sure that CastFighty will be there as well. Hopefully, so will gunslinger...


Well, we know Eldritch Archer is a thing, and that the Archer archetype is a thing.

So I'd bet on yes, but that's also because I can almost guarantee the answer based on current information that's been given about those two.


rainzax wrote:

I'm willing to bet that APG will offer at least one option to allow a Full Caster who is willing to invest Class Feats + General Feats to remain Fairly Incentivized in their Martial Weapons compared to their Base Proficiencies.

Any takers?

. Would have the 'to much casting' problem... And the Dedication system being horrible (just my opinion, I know, but I prefer either totally classless, or full classes for a concept, the current Dedication system, tying you into a 3 feat commitment is worse of both worlds IMHO)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
I'm willing to bet that too. Since we already know there are several staples in APG (shadow dancer, assassin, cavalier) I'm pretty sure that CastFighty will be there as well. Hopefully, so will gunslinger...

I am so hyped and so worried about Shadow Dancer. There are quite a few mechanics that will be interesting to see how they're converted over.

I really hope the shadow magic and shadow companion made it over in more than just spirit.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Hopefully, so will gunslinger...

Unfortunately, from what I've watched of the streams so far, they're not gonna show up on account of them needing to dedicate a lot of space to make sure there's enough guns for Gunslinger to pick from.

We'll probably have to wait for another main book to come out before Gunslinger will be available, either as a main class or as an archetype.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ezekieru wrote:
We'll probably have to wait for another main book to come out before Gunslinger will be available, either as a main class or as an archetype.

Fairly on par with last time where Gunslingers didn't hit until Ultimate Combat


dirtypool wrote:
Ezekieru wrote:
We'll probably have to wait for another main book to come out before Gunslinger will be available, either as a main class or as an archetype.
Fairly on par with last time where Gunslingers didn't hit until Ultimate Combat

I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't hit until later than that this time around. They likely have a strong idea of what classes from PF1e people are clamoring for most, and gunslingers while in some demand are a pretty niche desire that has less crossover between them and other classes (less opportunity for labeling feats for multiple classes)


I think Gunslinger will come in a book where the theme makes sense. The fact that there is less overlap between them and other classes is in their favour though as the Gunslinger Archetype that will come with it will allow any and all classes to be gun wielding versions of themselves.

Liberty's Edge

Ultimate Encounter, releasing GenCon 2021.


Rysky wrote:
The current Warpriest specialization is in no way shape or form the old class, it's not a replacement. If we do get the P1 Warpriest updated it will have a different name though obviously.

I've spent some time trying to think about how to replicate the PF1 warpriest in PF2 and it's pretty hard. The identity of the class was less "you are a little bit fighty, and a little bit casty" and more "you have incredible action economy for self-buffs so you can be extremely aggressive." That seems like a tricky thing to try to port.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The current Warpriest specialization is in no way shape or form the old class, it's not a replacement. If we do get the P1 Warpriest updated it will have a different name though obviously.
I've spent some time trying to think about how to replicate the PF1 warpriest in PF2 and it's pretty hard. The identity of the class was less "you are a little bit fighty, and a little bit casty" and more "you have incredible action economy for self-buffs so you can be extremely aggressive." That seems like a tricky thing to try to port.

With that description and no flavor... maybe a fighter MC bard?


Garretmander wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The current Warpriest specialization is in no way shape or form the old class, it's not a replacement. If we do get the P1 Warpriest updated it will have a different name though obviously.
I've spent some time trying to think about how to replicate the PF1 warpriest in PF2 and it's pretty hard. The identity of the class was less "you are a little bit fighty, and a little bit casty" and more "you have incredible action economy for self-buffs so you can be extremely aggressive." That seems like a tricky thing to try to port.
With that description and no flavor... maybe a fighter MC bard?

Honestly, it would be nice if there was a way to get a level-3 MCD into Fighter as a War Priest Class Feat instead of having to spend a Class Feat directly on an MCD Dedication and restricted.

For instance a Class Feat that read:

Warrior of the Gods - Level 7
Prerequisites: Warpriest Doctrine
Benefit: Select a Fighter Class Feat as if you were a Fighter of your level - 3. You must still meet all other prerequisites associated with this feat.

That would honestly get the concept a lot closer to the old one.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The current Warpriest specialization is in no way shape or form the old class, it's not a replacement. If we do get the P1 Warpriest updated it will have a different name though obviously.
I've spent some time trying to think about how to replicate the PF1 warpriest in PF2 and it's pretty hard. The identity of the class was less "you are a little bit fighty, and a little bit casty" and more "you have incredible action economy for self-buffs so you can be extremely aggressive." That seems like a tricky thing to try to port.

An archetype that has a bunch of self-only buffs that cost 1 action to perform could do the trick. That or 2-action buffs combined with a 1-action stride & strike ability.


Fumarole wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The current Warpriest specialization is in no way shape or form the old class, it's not a replacement. If we do get the P1 Warpriest updated it will have a different name though obviously.
I've spent some time trying to think about how to replicate the PF1 warpriest in PF2 and it's pretty hard. The identity of the class was less "you are a little bit fighty, and a little bit casty" and more "you have incredible action economy for self-buffs so you can be extremely aggressive." That seems like a tricky thing to try to port.
An archetype that has a bunch of self-only buffs that cost 1 action to perform could do the trick. That or 2-action buffs combined with a 1-action stride & strike ability.

that still leaves Sacred Weapon to be covered (and dice size is more important than ever now), as well as the altered Domains, and limited casting.


I'm not sure if Sacred Weapon is necessary to bring back beyond things we already have like "deadly simplicity", since post-WMH the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain who picked up a good weapon was sort of *the* default warpriest.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

You will be disappointed if you demand mechanical equivalancies rather than thematics.


Tremaine wrote:
that still leaves Sacred Weapon to be covered (and dice size is more important than ever now), as well as the altered Domains, and limited casting.

Deadly simplicity, standard domains, and focus spells instead of casting, with a cleric MC giving the limited casting back if you want it.

Make some of those focus spells focus cantrips that self buff, and you've got the beginnings of a PF1 warpriest in the PF2 system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
that still leaves Sacred Weapon to be covered (and dice size is more important than ever now), as well as the altered Domains, and limited casting.

Deadly simplicity, standard domains, and focus spells instead of casting, with a cleric MC giving the limited casting back if you want it.

Make some of those focus spells focus cantrips that self buff, and you've got the beginnings of a PF1 warpriest in the PF2 system.

No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting, the versatility of a selected spell list out weighs the benefits of a really small number of spells that are spam-able, at least for me, the thematic of sacrificing top level spells and spell progression for more martial power is also core to the identity of the WP. Also having domains changed to reflect a different role in the faith is part of that identity. War Priests are not some Dedication riddled mess, they are a separate strain of the clergy.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I'm not sure if Sacred Weapon is necessary to bring back beyond things we already have like "deadly simplicity", since post-WMH the Molthune Arsenal Chaplain who picked up a good weapon was sort of *the* default warpriest.

Never played an Arsenal Chaplain, have played straight War Priest, Cult Leader, Divine Commander and a Champion of the Faith. ( really like war Priests, almost as much as I like Paladins/Tyrant Anti-Paladins. )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The classic 1e Warpriest is probably better duplicated by a Fighter or Champion with a lot of Cleric multiclass focusing on self buff spells then the Cleric Warpriest doctrine in 2e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Tremaine wrote:
No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting...

While I like Focus Spells quite a bit, I have to agree here. I frequently see people acting like Focus Spells can somehow fulfill wide swathes of design problems, despite them being really insufficient in many ways. They weren't even sufficient (in my opinion) to cover Witch Hexes, yet somehow they're going to replace 6th level casting?

It's almost like people are speculating with an idealized version of Focus Spells, where they don't have the various limitations that they have.


WatersLethe wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting...

While I like Focus Spells quite a bit, I have to agree here. I frequently see people acting like Focus Spells can somehow fulfill wide swathes of design problems, despite them being really insufficient in many ways. They weren't even sufficient (in my opinion) to cover Witch Hexes, yet somehow they're going to replace 6th level casting?

It's almost like people are speculating with an idealized version of Focus Spells, where they don't have the various limitations that they have.

They would work as a replacement for Fervor/Altered Domain slots, actually thinking about it, and on Champions could take up the Smite/LoH/Channel space, but using them in place of actual casting, especially prepared casting doesn't work, simply in terms of versatility, a Cult Leader WP (using that example as I am playing one right now) can with fair warning, go from self buff set up, to doing a decent investigation load out, or social engineering. Never going to be as good as a full blown specialist, and should not be, but that ability to cover a gap in party coverage, or provide back up to a specialist, is what makes the 1-6 casters in general so much fun, they aren't the greatest at anything, especially after they nova their big buffs, but they can be decent to good at the thing they pick that day.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tremaine wrote:
No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting...

I'll confess I get confused by this kind of complaint.

It seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that focus spells were never intended to replace Ranger or Paladin spell casting. The old-school Ranger and Paladin are Ranger/Druid and Paladin/Cleric multiclasses.

But by setting up the base class as spell-less, they now give players the option of effectively trading away Ranger/Paladin spell-casting for addition class feats. Even better, you can make these trades incrementally, allowing you to decide just how much of the spell-casting you want to trade away. (And with full investment, you get a lot *more* spell-casting than the old Ranger and Paladin had, so there are further options there too.)

This strikes me as a win-win: the previous options are all there, but now you have further options as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
No you really, really don't. Sorry. Focus spells are...not good as a concept, I do not like them at all, they don't work on Champions as a replacement for 1-4 casting and certainly would not work on WPs as a replacement of 1-6 casting...

I'll confess I get confused by this kind of complaint.

It seems pretty clear (to me, anyway) that focus spells were never intended to replace Ranger or Paladin spell casting. The old-school Ranger and Paladin are Ranger/Druid and Paladin/Cleric multiclasses.

But by setting up the base class as spell-less, they now give players the option of effectively trading away Ranger/Paladin spell-casting for addition class feats. Even better, you can make these trades incrementally, allowing you to decide just how much of the spell-casting you want to trade away. (And with full investment, you get a lot *more* spell-casting than the old Ranger and Paladin had, so there are further options there too.)

This strikes me as a win-win: the previous options are all there, but now you have further options as well.

Since I hate the feat tax Dedication system, it's a lose/lose, an awful system forced on you to get a hollow echo of what was. Feats used to be a way of customizing, something anyone who met the prerequisites could take (needed work, obvious fails and op options did exist, no question, but if you wanted to be slightly more fighty, or more skilled or w/e, you could) Now it's a wall, the 'niche protection' they talked about in the Playtest streams, acting as 'role enforcement' with a really high penalty for trying to go off predetermined, developer approved builds, the prestige dedications are slightly better, but then they are replacing prestige classes, not feats per se, (this is why we have multiple versions of TWF, or only fighters getting Power Attack, which is closer to vital strike anyway) So it's gone from open but messy, to one system trying to cover everything, while wrapping tonnes of chain round anyone daring to use it, is it class features? Or feats? Or Multi-classing? Because it's not working at being all 3, and frankly it is so terrible as a system, I will not interact with Dedications any more, tried it during the playtest, absolutely and totally hated it, would rather not play PF than interact with that system in any way shape or form.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Tremaine wrote:
Since I hate the feat tax Dedication system, it's a lose/lose, an awful system forced on you to get a hollow echo of what was. Feats used to be a way of customizing, something anyone who met the prerequisites could take (needed work, obvious fails and op options did exist, no question, but if you wanted to be slightly more fighty, or more skilled or w/e, you could) Now it's a wall, the 'niche protection' they talked about in the Playtest streams, acting as 'role enforcement' with a really high penalty for trying to go off predetermined, developer approved builds, the prestige dedications are slightly better, but then they are replacing prestige classes, not feats per se, (this is why we have multiple versions of TWF, or only fighters getting Power Attack, which is closer to vital strike anyway) So it's gone from open but messy, to one system trying to cover everything, while wrapping tonnes of chain round...

Well, not playing PF (or, at least, PF2) is a totally viable decision.

Though: You can only say something is poorly designed in the context of its design goals. Old feats weren't just messy. They were wildly inconsistent with one another. They "forced" you to take chains of feats you maybe didn't want to get to the thing you cared about. That isn't *bad* but it clearly wasn't what the designers wanted.

I think Dedications, as a system, are fine. Some are better than others. That is also fine and, honestly, inevitable.

Not liking something doesn't make it a bad design and we could all do without hyperbolic ranting like saying you are being "chained" in some way or ascribing ill intent to the designers.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait so the problem with dedications is that you can't do multiple dedications without investing a certain amount in each one, so you'll swear off the whole system and never touch it? Even when 1 dedication is what is needed to play your character concept and thus that restriction never matters?

Sovereign Court

Tremaine wrote:
Since I hate the feat tax Dedication system, it's a lose/lose, an awful system forced on you to get a hollow echo of what was. Feats used to be a way of customizing, something anyone who met the prerequisites could take (needed work, obvious fails and op options did exist, no question, but if you wanted to be slightly more fighty, or more skilled or w/e, you could) Now it's a wall, the 'niche protection' they talked about in the Playtest streams, acting as 'role enforcement' with a really high penalty for trying to go off predetermined, developer approved builds, the prestige dedications are slightly better, but then they are replacing prestige classes, not feats per se, (this is why we have multiple versions of TWF, or only fighters getting Power Attack, which is closer to vital strike anyway) So it's gone from open but messy, to one system trying to cover everything, while wrapping tonnes of chain round...

As someone who is currently playing a regular Warpriest (no special archetype) in our PF1 Giantslayer campaign (13th level right now), I know how you feel. The spells (including a slightly slowed Cleric spell list) come automatically as you level up, so I spent all my feats increasing my fighting abilities. I use a Dwarven Longhammer with reach and phalanx fighting w/combat reflexes to aid my allies from being hit too much. I get 3 AoO's to block incoming attacks each round (something impossible in 2e, though I could do 1/round with a Champion base class, though there is no Dwarven Longhammer anymore) The swift action WP self buffs and self heals are not the same in 2e either. I suppose if I had to I could try to recreate a pale shadow of my character with a Champion/Cleric, but losing most of my spell casting and my Fervor and Blessings abilities to do so.

Tremaine, the need to cripple your base class in order to get a multiclass is a main reason I added the ability to buy one multiclass Dedication as a General skill in my house rules. From then on, you can buy further feats in that one multiclass as either General or Class feats. You are still giving up some feats in order to multiclass, but you can still take some of your normal class's feats even after heavily multiclassing. (Is there a bit of "power creep" because you are trading some General feats for some Class feats? Yes, but the other option would be "everyone gets a free multiclass and all it's feats", so at least this way you are still paying something for it.)


13 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't need to "cripple your base class" to multiclass in PF2. Classes are just innately competent and you forgo none of that competency to move to a dedication. Your To-Hit, AC, Skills, Spells, DCs ALL will be just as good.

But then you've not played the game so it might be hard to see.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Also, if you feel severely hamstrung by dedications leeching feats away from you... use the double class feats house rule. It works pretty dang well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think 'crippling base class' is a big exaggeration, but I do think feats can really feel like a bottleneck in the current system without a houserule like the one WatersLethe just mentioned. At least, if you have a particular sort of character in mind to build.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

None of the people who took multiclass feats in my games so far felt "crippled" and they have the advantage of having, uh, played the game.

And if somebody really feels that having to choose regular feat vs. dedication is overtly limiting, the GMG will have a "free dedication feat" variant.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, the thing about Focus spells is that they actually do effectively replace things like "4th level spellcasting" In PF1, a 12th level 4th level caster gets like 5 spells per day. A PF2 equivalent can easily have a focus pool of 2-3 and the "double refocus" feat at that level, so you can equal the number of spells with one or two ten minute rests.

On the full casters the focus spells are there to replace things like "3/day domain powers" and they are there to supplement 10th level spellcasting, not compete with it.

What we haven't seen yet is a class that's a turbo focus caster- someone for whom this is a primary part of their kit. Since right now all the people with focus spells either have considerable spellcasting (Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Druid, Sorc) or considerable martial prowess (Monk, Paladin), so focus spells are a secondary or tertiary class feature for all these classes. There's design space for a class where this is the primary focus of those classes; we just don't know what it will look like yet.

My guess for the first "primary focus caster" will be something like the Occultist which can use their implements to have a multiplicative effect on their spells. Say, you have 3 focus points, but if you invest one of them in your evocation implement you gain 2-5 points of evocation focus. If you refocus, all of the focus in your implements goes away, but you can reinvest it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, it sounds to me like they are expecting (desiring) 1st Edition balance standards.

Multiclassing via dedications in no way, shape, or form ruins a character in 2nd Edition. Everything has been internally balanced so well, that it is actually pretty difficult to create a character that could be considered terribly weak.

This leads me to believe that they have not played the game much, if at all, yet.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
My guess for the first "primary focus caster" will be something like the Occultist which can use their implements to have a multiplicative effect on their spells. Say, you have 3 focus points, but if you invest one of them in your evocation implement you gain 2-5 points of evocation focus. If you refocus, all of the focus in your implements goes away, but you can reinvest it.

I think something like that would be better served by a whole new mechanic. Is it really worth contorting the simplicity of Focus Spells and Focus Points into such a thing? Being able to switch or recharge implements with a short rest would work fine without focus points coming into it (a lot like a 5e warlock, I would assume).

I think Focus Points should never be a class's main thing, that way you don't have to worry as much about how they interact with multiclassing and things like that. My instincts say it's a balance headache that is best avoided.


WatersLethe wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
My guess for the first "primary focus caster" will be something like the Occultist which can use their implements to have a multiplicative effect on their spells. Say, you have 3 focus points, but if you invest one of them in your evocation implement you gain 2-5 points of evocation focus. If you refocus, all of the focus in your implements goes away, but you can reinvest it.

I think something like that would be better served by a whole new mechanic. Is it really worth contorting the simplicity of Focus Spells and Focus Points into such a thing? Being able to switch or recharge implements with a short rest would work fine without focus points coming into it (a lot like a 5e warlock, I would assume).

I think Focus Points should never be a class's main thing, that way you don't have to worry as much about how they interact with multiclassing and things like that. My instincts say it's a balance headache that is best avoided.

I do agree with your concerns, but I would still like to see a Focus Point class out of sheer interest in the execution. P1E's class with an exotic approach to daily resources and core mechanics that had scant synergy with multiclassing is the Kineticist, and that's a baffling class to grasp but also a fascinating one once you have. I would love to see something like a P2E Kineticist that has a Focus Pool equal to their ability mod in place of daily Burn, as well as similar charge mechanics in the 3 action system.


WatersLethe wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
My guess for the first "primary focus caster" will be something like the Occultist which can use their implements to have a multiplicative effect on their spells. Say, you have 3 focus points, but if you invest one of them in your evocation implement you gain 2-5 points of evocation focus. If you refocus, all of the focus in your implements goes away, but you can reinvest it.
I think something like that would be better served by a whole new mechanic. Is it really worth contorting the simplicity of Focus Spells and Focus Points into such a thing? Being able to switch or recharge implements with a short rest would work fine without focus points coming into it (a lot like a 5e warlock, I would assume).

I'm not sure. The Occultist was literally the inspiration for both the Resonance and the Focus mechanic and the Occultist already had the "versatility or power" choice with generic mental focus being able to be used on any focus power but less efficiently than invested metal focus.

The Occultist also had a very small number of spells known, fewer than other 6 level casters, so this seems easy enough to do with focus spells in lieu of spell slots.

Also, though this was accidental rather than intentional, the Occultist had an impressive amount of adventuring stamina for a metacurrency based class, so the "refocus" mechanic replicates this perfectly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So how’s PF2 doing in sales?


Ediwir wrote:
So how’s PF2 doing in sales?

The only people who really know are Paizo, and Lisa posted this in this very thread ten days ago. I doubt anything significant has changed since then.

ICv2 has Pathfinder second behind D&D in the quarter ending August 2019, which includes 1e and the first 2e releases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
Tremaine wrote:
Since I hate the feat tax Dedication system, it's a lose/lose, an awful system forced on you to get a hollow echo of what was. Feats used to be a way of customizing, something anyone who met the prerequisites could take (needed work, obvious fails and op options did exist, no question, but if you wanted to be slightly more fighty, or more skilled or w/e, you could) Now it's a wall, the 'niche protection' they talked about in the Playtest streams, acting as 'role enforcement' with a really high penalty for trying to go off predetermined, developer approved builds, the prestige dedications are slightly better, but then they are replacing prestige classes, not feats per se, (this is why we have multiple versions of TWF, or only fighters getting Power Attack, which is closer to vital strike anyway) So it's gone from open but messy, to one system trying to cover everything, while wrapping tonnes of chain round...

Well, not playing PF (or, at least, PF2) is a totally viable decision.

Though: You can only say something is poorly designed in the context of its design goals. Old feats weren't just messy. They were wildly inconsistent with one another. They "forced" you to take chains of feats you maybe didn't want to get to the thing you cared about. That isn't *bad* but it clearly wasn't what the designers wanted.

I think Dedications, as a system, are fine. Some are better than others. That is also fine and, honestly, inevitable.

Not liking something doesn't make it a bad design and we could all do without hyperbolic ranting like saying you are being "chained" in some way or ascribing ill intent to the designers.

it's not ill intent, they had specific goals in mind (niche protection, and stop people taking Mc for the front loading or edge case interactions, to name 2) and AFAIK they achieved that, but to do it requires restrictions, and the other side of niche protection is role enforcement, so we get a very talent tree like system, that has a very clear idea of what it means to be a class, and how to make it punitive to try to leave that vision. It's a crpg type vision, and I don't like it because of that (when I want a crpg/mmo experience, I can have that, on my pc, solo or with friends) I want TT to be freer than that, it's what I didn't like about 4e, and it's entered the DNA of this edition, that is the problem, PF started because of a rejection of what they now embrace. Sorry for formatting, posting from phone.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's less punitive to "leave" the class in P2 than it was in P1.

651 to 700 of 1,069 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Take up of Second Edition All Messageboards