Take up of Second Edition

[Tremaine]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

. I missed the part where you can switch out focus spells as the situation demands, given enough warning. They do replace LoH, or Domain or bloodline powers, they don't replace a prepared spell list, less spells per day, but spells you can, with preparation, tailor for the parties needs that day.

[Rysky]

If you have enough of them they certainly do since you don't have to prep them ahead of time.

[Tremaine]

Malk_Content wrote:

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?

. More completly: I have to buy a dedication to get access to what I actually want (which may be only one feat locked behind that wall) and then, if to round things out in this ersatz class build, I need something from another tree, or I want to prestige because it fits the story and I fulfil the prerequisites, I can't, not until I take 2 more feats off the dedication, which due to how self contained feats are now (another double edged issue) won't be something that generally improves the character, but an option I don't actually want, so that can be 4 feats total to get the one I needed.

[Tremaine]

Rysky wrote:

If you have enough of them they certainly do since you don't have to prep them ahead of time.

. (if this was replying to me) so you can have enough to go from buffing, to curing/healing, to investigation, to social engineering, all at the same time? (summoning and direct spell damage/debuff where never a WP/ Inquisitors strong suit, so get a pass). Less game experience with Magus, so not 100% sure how versatile they can be if needed to be adequate at an off spec role.

[Rysky]

Tremaine wrote:

Rysky wrote:

If you have enough of them they certainly do since you don't have to prep them ahead of time.

. (if this was replying to me) so you can have enough to go from buffing, to curing/healing, to investigation, to social engineering, all at the same time? (summoning and direct spell damage/debuff where never a WP/ Inquisitors strong suit, so get a pass). Less game experience with Magus, so not 100% sure how versatile they can be if needed to be adequate at an off spec role.

I don't remember a lot of Paladins doing all that.

But we're only going to get more as time goes on.

[Tremaine]

Rysky wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Rysky wrote:

If you have enough of them they certainly do since you don't have to prep them ahead of time.

. (if this was replying to me) so you can have enough to go from buffing, to curing/healing, to investigation, to social engineering, all at the same time? (summoning and direct spell damage/debuff where never a WP/ Inquisitors strong suit, so get a pass). Less game experience with Magus, so not 100% sure how versatile they can be if needed to be adequate at an off spec role.

I don't remember a lot of Paladins doing all that.

But we're only going to get more as time goes on.

again they would be fixed, you can't change them out as needed. . (oh for the record go to for being a face-a-din for the ball: Aspect of the Nightingale, Build Trust, Honeyed Words and Detect Charm, take as appropriate, and if you have the levels Carry Companion and They Know are great, as is Detect Anxieties and Discern Lies, I am probably forgetting some)

[Malk_Content]

Well this is now more the fact that they nerfed omni characters who could be good at everything and not need other players.

As for the needing a feat to get the feat you actually want, how is that any different than the prequisite trees of old?

[Tremaine]

Malk_Content wrote:

Well this is now more the fact that they nerfed omni characters who could be good at everything and not need other players.

As for the needing a feat to get the feat you actually want, how is that any different than the prequisite trees of old?

. Omni character? No, not really they can be OK at things with a run up, but an actual specialist will leave them in the dust, but 'ok' is better than nothing, and again part of the attraction, they are really 'broad' characters, but not 'deep' at least not for long, they can, for a while, fake it til they make it, be an OK healer, or an OK face or.. Etc, without stealing the thunder of the actual specialists, unlike full casters who can do the omni character gig.

As to 'how is that different from 1e feat taxes' they don't lock you in for further buys, if you want Improved Disarm, you have to get Combat Expertise... You don't then also have to get Swordplay Style and Improved Feint before you can get, say, Stealthy (if you wanted a WP of Kelinahat who's schtik was disarming and subduing like Pathfinder Batman for instance), again 1e was not perfect, it did have broken feats, and feat taxes, and getting rid of those taxes was promised in the run up to the playtest.... Except now the new taxes are worse.

[Cyouni]

Tremaine wrote:

As to 'how is that different from 1e feat taxes' they don't lock you in for further buys, if you want Improved Disarm, you have to get Combat Expertise... You don't then also have to get Swordplay Style and Improved Feint before you can get, say, Stealthy (if you wanted a WP of Kelinahat who's schtik was disarming and subduing like Pathfinder Batman for instance), again 1e was not perfect, it did have broken feats, and feat taxes, and getting rid of those taxes was promised in the run up to the playtest.... Except now the new taxes are worse.

Except none of that is actually required.

This is like complaining you have to have levels of Fighter to have one of the Advanced Weapon Training options.

Really, it's more complaining that you can't have things like dipping for Divine Grace + Sidestep Secret on a Sorcerer.

[Malk_Content]

Seeing how almost everything you describe is equivalent to a skill or general feat I font see them as relevant. You are getting things like semi casting or rage from mcd, not stealthy which you can get with 0 mcd.

[Davor Firetusk]

vaguely following along. Can we improve our discourse and permanently kill the term feat tax? Any , I mean any, wait for the hyperbole any game design that involves meaningful choices will involve tradeoffs. And inevitably a dedicated human is going to be able to interpret that limiting choice as a ______ tax. It is pointlessly pejorative. Why are my spells hidden behind a level tax!!!!! I demand to be able to cast wish at first level it is critical to my concept!!!

[Tremaine]

Cyouni wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

As to 'how is that different from 1e feat taxes' they don't lock you in for further buys, if you want Improved Disarm, you have to get Combat Expertise... You don't then also have to get Swordplay Style and Improved Feint before you can get, say, Stealthy (if you wanted a WP of Kelinahat who's schtik was disarming and subduing like Pathfinder Batman for instance), again 1e was not perfect, it did have broken feats, and feat taxes, and getting rid of those taxes was promised in the run up to the playtest.... Except now the new taxes are worse.

Except none of that is actually required.

This is like complaining you have to have levels of Fighter to have one of the Advanced Weapon Training options.

Really, it's more complaining that you can't have things like dipping for Divine Grace + Sidestep Secret on a Sorcerer.

Yes they are required, and no I am not complaining about a weirdly specific combo, but thank you for dismissing my issues with the system without offering any counter evidence. .

[Tremaine]

Davor Firetusk wrote:

vaguely following along. Can we improve our discourse and permanently kill the term feat tax? Any , I mean any, wait for the hyperbole any game design that involves meaningful choices will involve tradeoffs. And inevitably a dedicated human is going to be able to interpret that limiting choice as a ______ tax. It is pointlessly pejorative. Why are my spells hidden behind a level tax!!!!! I demand to be able to cast wish at first level it is critical to my concept!!!

Having to spend multiple feats on what used to be free choices...well what would you call it? A War Priest of Norgorber who wants to TWF with his patrons sacred weapon has to pick the class that has the least bad TWF (pays your money, take your choice), then spend one feat on a dedication to that class, for abilities he doesn't want, to get access to ones he does, then if he wants to later prestige into a prestige archetype, he has to buy 2 more dedication feats that he doesn't want, to break free of that initial dedication, that was bought just for twf...what else would you call those 3 feats he had to spend on abilities he doesn't actually want?

[Malk_Content]

Thing is I'm having trouble finding it an apt criticism against building specific concepts versus fishing for powerful mechanics. Either that or the concepts have been trying to achieve more than an equivalent level character.

[Ediwir]

Tremaine wrote:

Having to spend multiple feats on what used to be free choices...well what would you call it? A War Priest of Norgorber who wants to TWF with his patrons sacred weapon has to

...be a cleric, pick the warpriest option, and grab two weapons?

[Tremaine]

Ediwir wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Having to spend multiple feats on what used to be free choices...well what would you call it? A War Priest of Norgorber who wants to TWF with his patrons sacred weapon has to

...be a cleric, pick the warpriest option, and grab two weapons?

and get nothing for it, sure you HOLD two weapons, you may even swing both of them during a turn, but you don't WIELD two, their is no difference between holding a weapon in each hand and holding one, without class gated feats. Without the rules to make it meaningful, an action is utterly meaningless, and a waste of time.

[Tremaine]

Malk_Content wrote:

Thing is I'm having trouble finding it an apt criticism against building specific concepts versus fishing for powerful mechanics. Either that or the concepts have been trying to achieve more than an equivalent level character.

Then I am not making my point, or 2e characters are so terrible, they have to be pathetic at everything, because being forced to spend 4 feats for a single feat weapon style is a massive, crippling tax.

[Salamileg]

Tremaine wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Having to spend multiple feats on what used to be free choices...well what would you call it? A War Priest of Norgorber who wants to TWF with his patrons sacred weapon has to

...be a cleric, pick the warpriest option, and grab two weapons?

and get nothing for it, sure you HOLD two weapons, you may even swing both of them during a turn, but you don't WIELD two, their is no difference between holding a weapon in each hand and holding one, without class gated feats. Without the rules to make it meaningful, an action is utterly meaningless, and a waste of time.

Wield a stronger one handed weapon in your main hand and an agile weapon in the offhand is the main benefit of TWF without feats. Obviously this doesn't work if you want both of your weapons to be your deity's favored weapon, but if you're willing to swap a shortsword with a rapier you can effectively dual wield.

[Vlorax]

Salamileg wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Having to spend multiple feats on what used to be free choices...well what would you call it? A War Priest of Norgorber who wants to TWF with his patrons sacred weapon has to

...be a cleric, pick the warpriest option, and grab two weapons?

and get nothing for it, sure you HOLD two weapons, you may even swing both of them during a turn, but you don't WIELD two, their is no difference between holding a weapon in each hand and holding one, without class gated feats. Without the rules to make it meaningful, an action is utterly meaningless, and a waste of time.

Wield a stronger one handed weapon in your main hand and an agile weapon in the offhand is the main benefit of TWF without feats. Obviously this doesn't work if you want both of your weapons to be your deity's favored weapon, but if you're willing to swap a shortsword with a rapier you can effectively dual wield.

And the ability to have different damage types available at the same time. Bludgeoning in one piercing in the other, one flaming one frost etc.

Or using a whip in one hand and sword in the other so you can finesse trip with one hand while still making decent strikes with the other

[Gorbacz]

Tremaine wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Thing is I'm having trouble finding it an apt criticism against building specific concepts versus fishing for powerful mechanics. Either that or the concepts have been trying to achieve more than an equivalent level character.

Then I am not making my point, or 2e characters are so terrible, they have to be pathetic at everything, because being forced to spend 4 feats for a single feat weapon style is a massive, crippling tax.

But tell me, how do you *really* feel?

[Malk_Content]

Even if you dual wield the same weapon at higher levels this can have the advantage of increasing the amount and variety of runes you have available.

I think you are also conflating being able to use a combat style and being really good at it. Like a caster wants to mix in ranged strikes? Literally just need proficiency and its usuable. In pf1? Better get ready to spend feats or suck.

High level characters in pf2 are weaker than pf1 characters true, but I think that is a good think because in pf1 I could just hand my gm the spreadsheet and say "shall we skip the dice rolls?" On the flip side low level characters have a lot more going for them.

[Isthisnametaken?]

My issue is that the things that are being used to maintain game mechanics and balance make no sense and take away enjoyment and immersion. Obvious examples include:

1. Making a backpack effectively negative weight and a full waterskin L because bad weight balance caused starting char to be encumbered
2. Fighter dedication takes dex and str that a fighter would not have himself till higher level or at all.
3 Weapon proficiency feat that does not scale with char, so it’s a useless trap.
4. Re-grip weapon as an action. They overpowered 2-h and its a bush fix at best for some small balance.
5. Weapon damage scaling with weapon die. 4d12 anyone?
6. A stride action often wastes move. I stride 5’ and attack.
7. The feat tax on Aldori (made hard by other strange balancing” that limits it’s usefulness to a human only.
8. Halflings are very roguish in their abilities but can’t get darkvision through heritage. Humans can though....like they needed more buffs.
9. Deception, feint costs an action to give a single swing a flat foot bonus, if you criticize fail you’re flat footed, demoralize kills people...
10. Scare to death - Um....wow. Never seen anything quite like it.
11. The dreaded manipulate trait tossed on everything.
12. SO MANY abilities that overlap in parts and force retrain. Powerful leap, wall jump, cloud jump. I’m very sneaky and very very sneaky, oh wait I’m swift sneak legendary sneak.

I want FIXES, not more stuff that at some point makes me forget how inconsistent the game is. It’s almost pay to win if new content outshines existing content from a power balance perspective (ancient elf) I’m going to stop here, this is more than enough to bring death down upon me.

[Ravingdork]

Death to the infidel!!! ;P

Isthisnametaken? wrote:

6. A stride action often wastes move. I stride 5’ and attack.

I dont understand what you're saying here. Isn't that just a Step?

Isthisnametaken? wrote:

7. The feat tax on Aldori (made hard by other strange balancing” that limits it’s usefulness to a human only.

I'm not certain that it was the intended result, but as humans do make up the majority of swordlords, it does make a sort of sense.

I'd not want future gatekeeping to follow though.

Isthisnametaken? wrote:

demoralize kills people...

Please elaborate. I'm not sure what you mean.

Isthisnametaken? wrote:

12. SO MANY abilities that overlap in parts and force retrain. Powerful leap, wall jump, cloud jump. I’m very sneaky and very very sneaky, oh wait I’m swift sneak legendary sneak.

I find that there often isn't as much overlap as people think, just a lot of people not reading the rules too closely and thinking there is overlap when there really isn't.

[Malk_Content]

1. Fair enough if this breaks immersion for you, but I see "gear specifically designed to carry things effectively makes you more effective at carrying things" to be a pretty decent match up of mechanics and fluff.

2. Fair enough, I believe that it should become an "or"

3. It does stuff for some levels allowing a player to enable a concept earlier or qualify for prerequisites. Not a trap.

4. 2h weapons arent overpowered.

5. Yup love it!

6. And the alternative is? 30 actions a round which are tiny effects or a tick based system vastly different to their dnd heritage?

7. Yeah Aldori is pretty tough if you absolutely must get it at lvl 2.

8. Ah man there are pros AND cons to the ancestries.

9. Demoralize is great but it does have its limitations and differences. Like suffering -4 against lots of things or many things being straight up immune.

10. Yeah epic level characters can achieve epic level things.

11. Not had any issues with it in play. Answers many rules questions before they come up.

12. It's cool that you dont have to wait for Cloud Jump to be good at jumping. I dont see how retraining semi redundant feats is a bad thing, it means you get to expand your capabilities in a new direction.

As for Ancient Elf, it's good but not must have. It's the strength of a lvl 2 class feat while some heritage have things that cant really be quantified on that scale.

[Ssalarn]

Tremaine wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

Tremaine wrote:

Having to spend multiple feats on what used to be free choices...well what would you call it? A War Priest of Norgorber who wants to TWF with his patrons sacred weapon has to

...be a cleric, pick the warpriest option, and grab two weapons?

and get nothing for it, sure you HOLD two weapons, you may even swing both of them during a turn, but you don't WIELD two, their is no difference between holding a weapon in each hand and holding one, without class gated feats. Without the rules to make it meaningful, an action is utterly meaningless, and a waste of time.

As others have noted, that's actually not true at all. Holding a higher damage die weapon in one hand and an agile weapon in the other hand means you can maximize your damage output using the higher die weapon for your 0 MAP attack(s) and your agile weapon with your follow-up attacks to minimize your penalties.

Trait balancing can be very relevant as well; for example, a dwarf fighter with a dwarven waraxe in one hand and a clan dagger in the other has three different damage types available, agile for follow-up attacks, two different critical specialization effects, and parry for when the best use of their third action is to boost their defenses. They'll do more damage and have greater versatility than characters only wielding one or the other.

You can also have more total property runes equipped, which is very relevant in this system where weaknesses are far more common. Slapping frost on one weapon and flaming on the other, for example, means you have more opportunities to trigger weaknesses on enemies you encounter and once again deal more damage overall than a single-weapon wielder; when weaknesses are involved this can even include two-handed weapons since proc'ing the cold weakness on e.g. a tetrotricus is worth 15 damage per hit (which means that having a clan dagger with a frost rune you couldn't fit on your waraxe becomes a massive damage increase).

Even if you're just using two of the same weapon you still have more options than otherwise. You have the option for a better array of runes to trigger more weaknesses and overcome more resistances. You can dual-Wield thrown weapons so you always have a ranged and melee option available (and this is further benefited through dual-wielding since you only need to buy one returning rune). You've got more options against enemies that use disarm tactics or other weapon-removal abilities and techniques. And you can have a fully enchanted main weapon and a bunch of special material secondary versions that you proc enchantments onto using doubling rings (whichever version is available at your level).

[PossibleCabbage]

The best thing about TWF in PF2 is that you're no longer obligated to use two of the same weapons- you can use a rapier and a main-gauche, or a longsword and a hatchet. In the previous edition you would invest a thousand feats into a specific weapon (weapon focus, improved critical, etc.) so if you wanted to do something like "have a sword and also bash people with the spike on your targe" it either needed a specific archetype to enable it, or it was weaker than "wielding two longswords."

I'm also pretty happy that for once TWF is not "the easiest gateway to making a whole lot of attacks" since historic two weapon styles were not about "waving your arms as fast as possible in order to have more opportunities to hurt people."

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'm also confused about why you need four feats, even if the base competence isn't enough for you, wouldn't you just take a fighter dedication for Double Slice and call it a day?

Like, I'd probably take attack of opportunity as well, but it's not something I would view as a tax, just part of a melee heavy cleric build that might as well since it wanted double slice anyway.

[Steve Geddes]

It seems to me the biggest objections come from those trying to play PF2 as they played PF1. There’s a lot of analysis about “feat taxes” and “nerfs” that only really makes sense if you treat PF1 as an obvious baseline.

It makes sense that one would do that, but it may well be unhelpful. It’s a new game - goblins used to be murderous level one opponents, now they’re player character options. You can keep letting that be a stumbling block, you can houserule it away or you can unlearn how Golarion was and learn how it is.

I think the same is useful mechanically, as well. Power levels are different fundamentally - the proficiency system is different, the tactic of trying to amass enormous number of stacking bonuses is no longer a key strategic goal, melee characters no longer stand still and make lots and lots of attacks....

You may well not like PF2 but analysing it based on how well it replicates PF1 is a losing proposition. What’s gained? It’s not going to be changed at such a fundamental level and it’s not going to help you play a game you want. There are things you can do in PF2 that you couldn’t in PF1 - build those characters and if you want a PF1 character concept save it for when you play PF1.

I think it’ll make you happier to play to a games strengths than fixate on what you can’t do.

[Gorbacz]

Yeah, accusing a game of not doing TWF the way PF1 did, when both SF and PF2 clearly went away from the "one hand = one attack" paradigm and tackled TWF entirely differently is kind of like looking at 5E D&D and wondering where did the encounter/daily/at-will powers of 4E days went.

[Tremaine]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm also confused about why you need four feats, even if the base competence isn't enough for you, wouldn't you just take a fighter dedication for Double Slice and call it a day?

Like, I'd probably take attack of opportunity as well, but it's not something I would view as a tax, just part of a melee heavy cleric build that might as well since it wanted double slice anyway.

Because a Dedication requires you to spend feats to 'complete it' before you can leave that Dedication, for, for example a faction dedication, later on. (Big example would be a Caster going for Hellknight.)

[Ediwir]

Tremaine wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

I'm also confused about why you need four feats, even if the base competence isn't enough for you, wouldn't you just take a fighter dedication for Double Slice and call it a day?

Like, I'd probably take attack of opportunity as well, but it's not something I would view as a tax, just part of a melee heavy cleric build that might as well since it wanted double slice anyway.

Because a Dedication requires you to spend feats to 'complete it' before you can leave that Dedication, for, for example a faction dedication, later on. (Big example would be a Caster going for Hellknight.)

...so you want a dedication that builds off another one, but without the benefits of the other one?

I can’t shake the feeling there’s some gymnastic here. That plus the fact that you have multiple ways to satisfy requirements, not just dedications...

[Samurai]

Ediwir wrote:

...so you want a dedication that builds off another one, but without the benefits of the other one?
I can’t shake the feeling there’s some gymnastic here. That plus the fact that you have multiple ways to satisfy requirements, not just dedications...

No, I think he is complaining about the requirement to take at least 2 more feats from the Dedication before you can choose a different one that is NOT a direct branch off the first one. Because if it is, the 2 feat requirement is waived. But if you just get Fighter Dedication in order to get better weapons options, you can't then immediately shift to a Red Mantis Assassin Dedication until you take 2 more Fighter feats.

[PossibleCabbage]

So the GMG isn't out until next month, I think. But even without guidance, it seems pretty simple to solve the "not enough feats" problem just by "giving people more feats." Since feats are fundamentally "new options" rather than math bonuses, this is going to require less rebalancing than something like "double feats" would have in PF1.

[The-Magic-Sword]

I mean, I guess, but that that's ultra specific and niche, vs a relatively simple warpriest + fighter

[Squiggit]

Ediwir wrote:

...so you want a dedication that builds off another one, but without the benefits of the other one?

Not sure about the general complaint but just to elaborate on the specific feat they mentioned, Hellknight Signifer is a caster-centric archetype that requires Hellknight Armiger which requires Heavy Armor proficiency.

The most timely way to get heavy armor proficiency as something like a wizard or sorcerer is by taking Champion dedication, but then you need to take two extra Champion feats to exit the PrC, effectively meaning you're taking the second level Hellknight Arimger feat using a level 10 slot and you can't become a Signifer until level 12.

Obviously this is less of an issue if you pick a class like Druid as your entry point, but the organization has some strong connections to Wizards.

[Gorbacz]

Isthisnametaken? wrote:

My issue is that the things that are being used to maintain game mechanics and balance make no sense and take away enjoyment and immersion. Obvious examples include:

1. Making a backpack effectively negative weight and a full waterskin L because bad weight balance caused starting char to be encumbered
2. Fighter dedication takes dex and str that a fighter would not have himself till higher level or at all.
3 Weapon proficiency feat that does not scale with char, so it’s a useless trap.
4. Re-grip weapon as an action. They overpowered 2-h and its a bush fix at best for some small balance.
5. Weapon damage scaling with weapon die. 4d12 anyone?
6. A stride action often wastes move. I stride 5’ and attack.
7. The feat tax on Aldori (made hard by other strange balancing” that limits it’s usefulness to a human only.
8. Halflings are very roguish in their abilities but can’t get darkvision through heritage. Humans can though....like they needed more buffs.
9. Deception, feint costs an action to give a single swing a flat foot bonus, if you criticize fail you’re flat footed, demoralize kills people...
10. Scare to death - Um....wow. Never seen anything quite like it.
11. The dreaded manipulate trait tossed on everything.
12. SO MANY abilities that overlap in parts and force retrain. Powerful leap, wall jump, cloud jump. I’m very sneaky and very very sneaky, oh wait I’m swift sneak legendary sneak.

I want FIXES, not more stuff that at some point makes me forget how inconsistent the game is. It’s almost pay to win if new content outshines existing content from a power balance perspective (ancient elf) I’m going to stop here, this is more than enough to bring death down upon me.

You still want FIXES, NOW for 2h weapons after it was shown that your point about them being OP is invalid?

[TOZ]

Because you won't admit you're wrong.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Isthisnametaken? wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Isthisnametaken? wrote:

My issue is that the things that are being used to maintain game mechanics and balance make no sense and take away enjoyment and immersion. Obvious examples include:

1. Making a backpack effectively negative weight and a full waterskin L because bad weight balance caused starting char to be encumbered
2. Fighter dedication takes dex and str that a fighter would not have himself till higher level or at all.
3 Weapon proficiency feat that does not scale with char, so it’s a useless trap.
4. Re-grip weapon as an action. They overpowered 2-h and its a bush fix at best for some small balance.
5. Weapon damage scaling with weapon die. 4d12 anyone?
6. A stride action often wastes move. I stride 5’ and attack.
7. The feat tax on Aldori (made hard by other strange balancing” that limits it’s usefulness to a human only.
8. Halflings are very roguish in their abilities but can’t get darkvision through heritage. Humans can though....like they needed more buffs.
9. Deception, feint costs an action to give a single swing a flat foot bonus, if you criticize fail you’re flat footed, demoralize kills people...
10. Scare to death - Um....wow. Never seen anything quite like it.
11. The dreaded manipulate trait tossed on everything.
12. SO MANY abilities that overlap in parts and force retrain. Powerful leap, wall jump, cloud jump. I’m very sneaky and very very sneaky, oh wait I’m swift sneak legendary sneak.

I want FIXES, not more stuff that at some point makes me forget how inconsistent the game is. It’s almost pay to win if new content outshines existing content from a power balance perspective (ancient elf) I’m going to stop here, this is more than enough to bring death down upon me.

You still want FIXES, NOW for 2h weapons after it was shown that your point about them being OP is invalid?

Yes I want fixes. The weapon debate continues on.

The matter has been settled as people have absolutely demonstrated it isn't a thing.

[Coulibaly]

This is skipping a lot of the back and forth going on the specific topics in the last dozen posts or so, but back to the more broad topic of uptake. I'm in two groups right now; one of them started playing with PF2 and I'm the GM. We're going through Plaguestone and will start Extinction Curse soon. Play experience in this group varies wildly for RPGs, but I'd say everyone is a "gamer". I have another group that has played through multiple campaigns on Roll20 with 5e. The second group has also played FAE, the GM in the second group rotates. We been playing RPGs together for years, but I'd say one member isn't a "gamer".

Everyone that plays in my home game is loving PF2. It seems to meet our needs and we all enjoy the combat and have not had issues realizing character concepts. We also play pretty fast and loose, and rules knowledge among the group in general is far below what I'd see on the forums. The thing that impresses us most is how good/fun combat feels. Personally I think combat in 5e/PF1 isn't very fun compares to wargames I play/gloomhaven. PF2 gets closer. I also think PF2 goes well with mini/terrain gameplay.

The group I'm on I'm Roll20 is pretty invested in 5e. Like I mentioned before, I think 5e combat isn't very fun. I've thought about trying to bring up changing but haven't because it took some people in the group a while to get a basic mastery of 5e and it seems like there's a sunken cost there. The benefits of changing might not be worth the headaches. Also idk how fun the combat would be on a vtt. Plus everyone has all the 5e books and no one has PF2 materials besides me. This is a lot less of an issues with PF2 because of the awesome open source policies, but it's still an issue.

Everyone I've played PF2 with has been impressed (home games and conventions), but people tend to get really invested in RPGs in a lot of different ways so I'm not surprised if not everyone is dropping everything to switch over.

[Malk_Content]

Coulibaly wrote:

. Also idk how fun the combat would be on a vtt.

As someone who has to run fully on Roll20, PF2 works really well there. The in built sheet is really nice and lets you set up most everything to be doable with a single click. Takes a bit of pre-game effort to get a smooth in game experience but it flows nice and fast.

[Ageron]

Squiggit wrote:

Ediwir wrote:

...so you want a dedication that builds off another one, but without the benefits of the other one?

Not sure about the general complaint but just to elaborate on the specific feat they mentioned, Hellknight Signifer is a caster-centric archetype that requires Hellknight Armiger which requires Heavy Armor proficiency.

The fastest path would be Warpriest -> Armor Proficiency -> Armiger -> Signifier, but of course that still leaves out arcane types.

[PossibleCabbage]

You could also just have an arcane thesis that smooths the transition to Armiger for Chellish Wizards. Hellknights Bards, Hellknight Druids, and Hellknight Sorcerers should be comparatively rare IMO.

[MaxAstro]

Malk_Content wrote:

Coulibaly wrote:

. Also idk how fun the combat would be on a vtt.

As someone who has to run fully on Roll20, PF2 works really well there. The in built sheet is really nice and lets you set up most everything to be doable with a single click. Takes a bit of pre-game effort to get a smooth in game experience but it flows nice and fast.

I'm running Age of Ages on Fantasy Grounds right now - first time using Fantasy Grounds - and it's the smoothest play experience I've ever had.

2e feels like a very natural fit for VTTs, IMO.

[Quandary]

Ageron wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Not sure about the general complaint but just to elaborate on the specific feat they mentioned, Hellknight Signifer is a caster-centric archetype that requires Hellknight Armiger which requires Heavy Armor proficiency.

The fastest path would be Warpriest -> Armor Proficiency -> Armiger -> Signifier, but of course that still leaves out arcane types.

It's not really tougher to do that as a Wizard with Versatile Human + General Training, and what do you know? Hellknights are rather Human centric organization. With that you could do Signifier as early as Level 4 except for the fact it's a Level 6 Feat, so those who can get armor proficiency even faster aren't better off in that regard.

If you want to get Armor Proficiency via Multiclassing you still can at Level 2 with Champion. I see no reason to disallow unpublished Alignment Cause/Tenets, because we can just assume YOU ALWAYS VIOLATE the Anathema, with no impact since there is no Cause/Tenet Feats to "lose" for unpublished Causes/Tenets: You're just in it for the generic stuff.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Quandary wrote:

Ageron wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Not sure about the general complaint but just to elaborate on the specific feat they mentioned, Hellknight Signifer is a caster-centric archetype that requires Hellknight Armiger which requires Heavy Armor proficiency.

The fastest path would be Warpriest -> Armor Proficiency -> Armiger -> Signifier, but of course that still leaves out arcane types.

It's not really tougher to do that as a Wizard with Versatile Human + General Training, and what do you know? Hellknights are rather Human centric organization. With that you could do Signifier as early as Level 4 except for the fact it's a Level 6 Feat, so those who can get armor proficiency even faster aren't better off in that regard.

If you want to get Armor Proficiency via Multiclassing you still can at Level 2 with Champion. I see no reason to disallow unpublished Alignment Cause/Tenets, because we can just assume YOU ALWAYS VIOLATE the Anathema, with no impact since there is no Cause/Tenet Feats to "lose" for unpublished Causes/Tenets: You're just in it for the generic stuff.

Well that, and options like fighter + sorcerer or wizard dedication.

Given that it requires 1v1 combat with an equal level devil, I wouldn't be chomping at the bit to do it low levels as a pure caster anyway.

But yeah, humans get to heavy armour relatively quickly if they want.

However for a wizard/sorcerer to be locked out until 11 it is a bit punishing atm (bards, clerics and druids get it easily). It certainly fits the idea that there are few signifiers in the hellknight ranks atm ;)

I wouldn't be surprised if some class archetypes replacing core class features/proficiency help with this going forwards though. I mean, a war wizard that grants similar benefits to the war priest wouldn't surprise me in the slightest and still serve a role in a post magus world.

[Schmoe]

Jester David wrote:

It's not remotely *that* bad with PF2. But there's still a lot of talk about the success of the edition. The small Reddit communities. The lack of games on Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. But the fact it's even in question and there's any debate rather answers the question.

I'd like to point out that for the first year+ after 5e was released, there was a lot of debate on both sides about whether 5e was successful. The fact that people are discussing PF2's success just 5 months after release has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is actually successful.

I get the sense that Paizo is playing the long-game with PF2, and as long as they are still able to keep the business running they're comfortable with the way things are headed. I haven't seen any signs that they can't keep the business running.

[Malk_Content]

The fact that they are hiring indicates they are doing better than just keeping the business running.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Schmoe wrote:

Jester David wrote:

It's not remotely *that* bad with PF2. But there's still a lot of talk about the success of the edition. The small Reddit communities. The lack of games on Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. But the fact it's even in question and there's any debate rather answers the question.

I'd like to point out that for the first year+ after 5e was released, there was a lot of debate on both sides about whether 5e was successful. The fact that people are discussing PF2's success just 5 months after release has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is actually successful.

I get the sense that Paizo is playing the long-game with PF2, and as long as they are still able to keep the business running they're comfortable with the way things are headed. I haven't seen any signs that they can't keep the business running.

For that matter, you still find people posting threads "autopsying" 5e, and people who want to work off the premise of "why it failed"

When its obviously a huge success.

[Schmoe]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Jester David wrote:

It's not remotely *that* bad with PF2. But there's still a lot of talk about the success of the edition. The small Reddit communities. The lack of games on Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds. But the fact it's even in question and there's any debate rather answers the question.

I'd like to point out that for the first year+ after 5e was released, there was a lot of debate on both sides about whether 5e was successful. The fact that people are discussing PF2's success just 5 months after release has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is actually successful.

I get the sense that Paizo is playing the long-game with PF2, and as long as they are still able to keep the business running they're comfortable with the way things are headed. I haven't seen any signs that they can't keep the business running.

For that matter, you still find people posting threads "autopsying" 5e, and people who want to work off the premise of "why it failed"

When its obviously a huge success.

Lol, that's a good point. The internet is a, ahem, wondrous place.