| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In counterpoint to this thread (which I think is also a great question and has a lot of good discussion), I want to ask a related but different question.
So, take all your existing characters and put them back on the shelf for a moment. Take your memory and expectations from PF1 classes and put them back in the box. Don't worry, you can pull them back out again later.
Now, with that mindset and building brand new characters, what types of characters are difficult to represent in PF2 rules?
------
One that I have heard and agree with is the idea of a character that has a paradigm shift as part of the campaign. Whether that be a redemption arc, a traumatic event, an epiphany, or whatever else - something that requires the character to completely abandon their initial build and go in a new direction.
The problem is that you can't retrain your class or background. If you start as a rogue thief, you will stay as a rogue thief (and only your fleas will mourn you). If you start as a ranger and make a demonic pact at level 4, you can take the Sorcerer archetype, but you can't fully commit to your new powers and have full sorcerer spellcasting.
Now, if the change happened before the story actually starts, then your previous off-screen character could be represented by your background. But changing your character that drastically mid-game doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This character (Twisted Fate from League of Legends), or any other character that uses magical cards to attack.
Edit: never mind, turns out there are feats for fighting with playing cards!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very true, but I feel like that is and maybe should be the area of having a discussion with your GM about when you can completely rebuild w/o just the retraining, but effectively a full narrative informed redesign.
I'm not sure we'd ever see any framework for that in an official book that would be in any way better than, talk to each other, and rebuild the character to fit their new conception better.
|
This character (Twisted Fate from League of Legends), or any other character that uses magical cards to attack.
This character (Twisted Fate from League of Legends), or any other character that uses magical cards to attack.You can make it work.
Oh that's amazing, thanks!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proper gishes don't exist yet, but Magus will solve that issue.
Someone who tinkers with gadgetry doesn't exist yet either, but Inventor will solve that issue.
Horde summoners don't work within the system, but that's mostly a balance and quality of life choice rather than an actual downside.
4E-style Warlords who primarily enable others to attack sort of work; between the Warrior Bards and the Marshall archetype, you've got quite a few commander options, but they take a long time to become usable.
Likewise, a Tracer-style light martial teleporter doesn't really exist within the system until very high levels, due to how highly valued teleportation is.
As for something that seems completely impossible within the system as it stands? A weapon summoner- someone who creates a flexible array of weapons from magical essence and uses them to attack with. It's not possible to play a character like Fate Zero's Gilgamesh or Thor Ragnarok's Hela.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise, a Tracer-style light martial teleporter doesn't really exist within the system until very high levels, due to how highly valued teleportation is.
As for something that seems completely impossible within the system as it stands? A weapon summoner- someone who creates a flexible array of weapons from magical essence and uses them to attack with. It's not possible to play a character like Fate Zero's Gilgamesh or Thor Ragnarok's Hela.
I'm hoping SoM addresses both of these, as both feel like they should be Magus options. Especially the latter, as the magus had 2 or 3 weapon summoning archetypes in PF1. And I'd like a short hopping cantrip.
Proper gishes don't exist yet, but Magus will solve that issue.
Someone who tinkers with gadgetry doesn't exist yet either, but Inventor will solve that issue.
Horde summoners don't work within the system, but that's mostly a balance and quality of life choice rather than an actual downside.
4E-style Warlords who primarily enable others to attack sort of work; between the Warrior Bards and the Marshall archetype, you've got quite a few commander options, but they take a long time to become usable.
Likewise, a Tracer-style light martial teleporter doesn't really exist within the system until very high levels, due to how highly valued teleportation is.
As for something that seems completely impossible within the system as it stands? A weapon summoner- someone who creates a flexible array of weapons from magical essence and uses them to attack with. It's not possible to play a character like Fate Zero's Gilgamesh or Thor Ragnarok's Hela.
I would love to have a way to emulate Tracer like gameplay of teleporting all over the place, but teleporting is so rare until higher levels. Even then, its still very restricted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Characters that are size large or have powerful build don't seem to be a thing. Given how popular the 3.5 Goliath was this strikes me as a bit odd.
One thing that isn't odd, but that I will always miss, is the ability to turn an appropriate monster into a level progression using official rules. I know that this was only ever a 3.0 book, but it was one my table used more than many other books and one I sorely miss. The same goes for having Level Adjustment and thus things like templates as options for PCs, I know PF1 didn't do it but you could just hack in the 3.x rules to 'fix' that if you wanted to.
We're also missing, AFAIK, the ability to play a construct or undead.
In terms of more classes and roles, we're missing a proper GISH; playing a full-on blaster seems suboptimal to the point of futility; any kind of PC-controlled horde is out and summons as utility as seems to be very limited. Calling a powerful outsider and enslaving it is also dead though I suspect that this was all more of a theory thing than a gameplay thing. Psionics isn't here at all and I don't think that it can really translate to PF2's system without losing a lot of class feel.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably the Arcanist because they were the 1e version of "we give up, here is an Arcane caster that can do everything any other Arcane Class does" via the shotgun approach of giving them access to Wizard, Sorcerer, Magus, Mesmerist, Bard, Witch, Bloodrager, Ninja, Monk, Summoner, and even Kinetecist abilities via Archetypes and Exploits.
Gods I hope they bury Arcanist in the same grave that Leadership is found, as much "cool" factor there is to that Class it represents the utter peak of power-creep in 1st edition and just let one class subsume the functions, flavor, and mechanics of everything else.
I think a weapon summoner is good archetype material. Opens it up to other classes.
I really want a Warp Spasm barbarian to play Cuchulainn. It could be an interesting totem, I think, and give a lot of strange body horror abilities.
Also, more bloodrager stuff in general. Maybe a totem that gives you a sorc dedication?
I'll hear no slander about Leadership. It was great for specific character concepts and lead to unique campaign styles that are otherwise difficult to replicate without GM fiat.
Has anyone seen a snare-based build work? I remember seeing a lot of excitement about it when 2E was first published, and then ... nothing. It sounds like a fun concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone seen a snare-based build work? I remember seeing a lot of excitement about it when 2E was first published, and then ... nothing. It sounds like a fun concept.
Secondhand, as in a commenter had mentioned they had one that worked into high levels. He gave examples from play, and it definitely seemed legit. He noted that it was situational, as one might already suspect, yet when they came into play, the snares worked dandy. I believe there were some hiccups due to gaps in snare levels, but snares don't interfere with a class's main shtick.
Grab a polearm and tell your allies their might be opportunities to push.Also, that was before snares could be moved w/ a Focus Spell.
Personally I'd be more worried about the highest levels when monsters fly & Dim Door and it's harder to draw them into an ambush. Then again, all them huge+ monsters might be unable to avoid stepping in snares. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they're fun conceptually but a little hard to make work in practice. The DM can hide a snare from you, but the reverse takes a bit more effort on their part.
I really do hope they figure out a way, because I want the concept expanded to cover Haunts and environmental hazards
Edit: Imagine a Druid focus spell that allowed you the ability to turn a square into a natural trap. It could even work at high levels; stick that square into a certain area of air, and that dragon is suddenly coughing and sputtering because it ran into a Bad Air hazard.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with snares I think is that almost all adventures are written with the PCs very much moving forward, following the AP/scenario. Snares work better when the enemy is coming to you.
Doesn't mean they're mechanically unsound, just that they don't match typical behavior, and changing that behavior is really hard.
---
On that subject, I'd say real scouting builds are tough. Our exploration activities don't really cover both searching for hazards AND avoiding notice at the same time, and monster Perception is competitive enough that going off alone to scout can be very risky. (The Trapfinder feat only works on traps, not hidden doors, concealed/disguised creatures, or non-trap hazards like haunts or quicksand...)
And yeah, that also makes trap-setting harder. If scouting was doable you could scout, set traps, then bait enemies.
|
|
On sidenote, don't actually know any RPGs with aggro mechanics that aren't just "role play".
(I do agree that "tank" in term of not needing outside healing or such isn't really a thing, you CAN ac/hp "tank" in 2e, but its not the main purpose of character. Idea of making build like in 1e where character has insane amount of ac for their level by min maxing isn't possible since ac and strike math scales better.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 had the Knight class which was built around having D12 HP, heavy armor proficiency, and using a sword and shield. Its class features were entirely built around forcing enemies to focus on you first even if you weren't otherwise the best choice to target. Add in the new feats in the PHB2 and you could do fun stuff like add your shield bonus to touch AC for even more immovability. You could be the rock that combats must be fought around and I had one player at my table who didn't want to play any other class after the Knight dropped.
My Inventor construct partly filled that role. Didn't have high AC, but the damage reduction was pretty nice. I never tried my tanking Phantom build with the summoner, but I can see ways to put it together.
Do you consider 4e to be roleplay? I know marked enemies wasn't always well received, but it did work mechanically.
The Fascinate condition has some possibilities as well, I think.
Edit: Right, good point Verdyn, I forgot about Cavalier and Inquisitor abilities that also punished targeting your allies.
Actually, I think a minor -1 debuff if you aren't targeted would work even better in PF2 than it did in 4e, given how tight the math is. We do a lot of work for +1 and -1, so added a status effect seems to fit well into the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Much like one can't build an offense that takes out a non-minion in one blow, one can't build a tank (or "wall" if lacking offense) that lasts indefinitely against viable enemies.
The existence of such builds would be a flaw in game design IMO.
But if one looks at the spectrum of tankiness, PF2 does reward players that invest in defensive builds. Shields are worthwhile. And a Champion can do wonders for a party's durability, as can shield Fighters and a few other builds. They may not be able to draw aggro as well as one might like, yet they also don't have to forego their offense much and can actively mitigate damage done to their nearby allies.
That sounds like fulfilling the tank role to me.
Tangentially, I'll point out that 10 h.p. + non-heavy armor classes do not tank as well as they did in previous iterations. That can lead to edition shock when one's martial should be skirmishing when one's used to standing toe-to-toe w/ full attacks instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon summoner and teleport-heavy martial both sound like a delight. I’d also like more options for less combat-focused classes, especially something in the same space as the Envoy (but I’d gladly welcome an option to build them as a Warlord)!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You probably can't make a character that fights like Kratos or Dante very easily. I don't think PF2 can handle the concept of launching and then air juggling a foe, nor can it handle the sheer AoE damage and finishing moves that Kratos could dish out prior to his reimagining on the PS4.
You probably can't make a character that fights like Kratos or Dante very easily. I don't think PF2 can handle the concept of launching and then air juggling a foe, nor can it handle the sheer AoE damage and finishing moves that Kratos could dish out prior to his reimagining on the PS4.
You could surely resolve this with reflavoring, no? Do you really need the mechanics to tell you “you toss the bad guy 20 feet in the air, slash him a dozen times, and then slam him back to earth?”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could surely resolve this with reflavoring, no? Do you really need the mechanics to tell you “you toss the bad guy 20 feet in the air, slash him a dozen times, and then slam him back to earth?”
You do if you want to keep the juggle going for more than just one round or if you'd like the juggle to allow for a flying ally to interact with them in some way. Plus, I doubt many of your attacks are going to add in a bonus 20 ft. of fall damage to an attack combination.
|
Has anyone seen a snare-based build work? I remember seeing a lot of excitement about it when 2E was first published, and then ... nothing. It sounds like a fun concept.
Snares are great, the 14th level feat that makes them one action is quietly one of the best feats in the game. The damage output they’re capable of for that little of an investment action wise is absurd.
The problem is that until that point, you’re reliant on the GM to let you set some up before combat somehow (successful stealth?) because 3a to set one up is basically unusable in combat.
I like doing a monk with whirling throw and snarecrafter, using shadow stance to increase grapple chances. You can set up 3 snares one turn and throw a large creature into all 3 the next - doing a pretty insane amount of damage.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You probably can't make a character that fights like Kratos or Dante very easily. I don't think PF2 can handle the concept of launching and then air juggling a foe, nor can it handle the sheer AoE damage and finishing moves that Kratos could dish out prior to his reimagining on the PS4.
DMC-style juggling is pretty specific to real time games. You'd need an entire system specifically to emulate that for it to work in tabletop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could surely resolve this with reflavoring, no? Do you really need the mechanics to tell you “you toss the bad guy 20 feet in the air, slash him a dozen times, and then slam him back to earth?”You do if you want to keep the juggle going for more than just one round or if you'd like the juggle to allow for a flying ally to interact with them in some way. Plus, I doubt many of your attacks are going to add in a bonus 20 ft. of fall damage to an attack combination.
Falling damage is easy enough, that's just 10 damage after all. The condition continuing to the next round is problematic but not terribly. This seems like a high level barbarian or monk feat, combining grapple, forced movement, falling, and strike damages. So...1 to 3 action maneuver requiring an Athletics check if you succeed at your Strike, and then you keep striking to maintain the "grapple." When the creature is released, they take falling damage based on how many strikes you succeeded at.
Interacting with a flying ally is tougher, but that would be tough in any system. But not totally out of the question; you're essentially force moving the foe upwards, they can count as in that upper square for other creatures turns if you happen to have succeeded at the maneuver when your turn ended.
This is all tough but I don't think it is out of the realm of PF2 language and feats. It's not there now, no, but it could be eventually.
Proper gishes don't exist yet, but Magus will solve that issue.
it's not perfect and requires free archetype but I'm quite pleased with my gish
Note she should be using a bastard sword not a curve blade
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Falling damage is easy enough, that's just 10 damage after all. The condition continuing to the next round is problematic but not terribly. This seems like a high level barbarian or monk feat, combining grapple, forced movement, falling, and strike damages. So...1 to 3 action maneuver requiring an Athletics check if you succeed at your Strike, and then you keep striking to maintain the "grapple." When the creature is released, they take falling damage based on how many strikes you succeeded at.
That could work and would certainly make me consider playing one of those classes over my usual spellcaster-focused PCs.
Interacting with a flying ally is tougher, but that would be tough in any system. But not totally out of the question; you're essentially force moving the foe upwards, they can count as in that upper square for other creatures turns if you happen to have succeeded at the maneuver when your turn ended.
In 3.x you could force them into AoOs, in 4e and 5e you could have the enemy movement provoke reactions. In PF2 I guess you could juggle them up through a wall of fire or something but that isn't the same.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the super hero/ Lone Wolf/ Anime/Manga OP MC
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you consider 4e to be roleplay? I know marked enemies wasn't always well received, but it did work mechanically.
The Fascinate condition has some possibilities as well, I think.
Edit: Right, good point Verdyn, I forgot about Cavalier and Inquisitor abilities that also punished targeting your allies.
Actually, I think a minor -1 debuff if you aren't targeted would work even better in PF2 than it did in 4e, given how tight the math is. We do a lot of work for +1 and -1, so added a status effect seems to fit well into the game.
Isn't that the Swashbuckler feat Antagonize
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone seen a snare-based build work? I remember seeing a lot of excitement about it when 2E was first published, and then ... nothing. It sounds like a fun concept.Secondhand, as in a commenter had mentioned they had one that worked into high levels. He gave examples from play, and it definitely seemed legit. He noted that it was situational, as one might already suspect, yet when they came into play, the snares worked dandy. I believe there were some hiccups due to gaps in snare levels, but snares don't interfere with a class's main shtick.
Grab a polearm and tell your allies their might be opportunities to push.
Also, that was before snares could be moved w/ a Focus Spell.Personally I'd be more worried about the highest levels when monsters fly & Dim Door and it's harder to draw them into an ambush. Then again, all them huge+ monsters might be unable to avoid stepping in snares. :)
I don't remember if I was that commenter or not, but that describes my own experience to a T. You have to be good at tactics and have a scout to implement snares, but boy howdy do they rip stuff up when you have that. And I think they've added some more snares to smooth out the level progression.
Isn't that the Swashbuckler feat AntagonizeDo you consider 4e to be roleplay? I know marked enemies wasn't always well received, but it did work mechanically.
The Fascinate condition has some possibilities as well, I think.
Edit: Right, good point Verdyn, I forgot about Cavalier and Inquisitor abilities that also punished targeting your allies.
Actually, I think a minor -1 debuff if you aren't targeted would work even better in PF2 than it did in 4e, given how tight the math is. We do a lot of work for +1 and -1, so added a status effect seems to fit well into the game.
I was talking specifically about the Marked mechanic in 4e, but yes that's pretty much the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the Swashbuckler feat AntagonizeI was talking specifically about the Marked mechanic in 4e, but yes that's pretty much the same.
Yeah. The Marked mechanic from 4e was my 'despised mechanic #3' from that edition. The idea of telling the opponents 'you have to attack me, even though it is obviously a terrible tactical blunder' just feels wrong for intelligent enemies. Even more so because only the PCs could do it as far as I could tell. The GM's characters didn't have anything of the sort.
I give Antagonize a pass on it because it is once per fight per enemy. As soon as the enemy attacks you once and removes the effect it is nearly impossible to put it back on again. Exemplary Finisher of Braggart style is the only way I know of to do that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Marking is probably the mechanic I’d love to see most. It’s a joy.
Personally I feel like the mechanics are there for a ton of stuff, but most of the time the mechanics don't line up with personal preference. For instance, I dislike dragons. They're overused and there are so many awesome monsters out there. There are so many awesome class mechanics for them though; dragon disciple is super cool, dragon barbarian is the coolest instinct, and dragon form is the best form by a huge margin (seriously, it's insane how much better dragon form is than other forms. And type of movement you want, 40 ft fly speed, all types of physical damage, good senses, good area damage, whatever elemental type you need for damage or resistance). I'm glad that it seems paizo is going in a direction that's more you pick what you want with things like eidolon and leahy and beastkin though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... in terms of specific character concepts:
1) Fire Emblem- or Final Fantasy-style dance battlers. Gishes who mainly focus on strengthening their allies or distracting/wooing their enemies with their performances, but can hold their own in a fight if necessary. Can be appoximated with Bard chassis and Monk or Battledancer Swashbuckler archetype (or dual-classing), or vice versa (and probably add Provocator if you're after FF XIV-style chakram dancers specifically, both for flashy style and to break the advanced weapon lockdown for your Tamchal Chakrams), leaning to one side of their support/martial duality. However, will likely fall short due to caster action economy (and the Bard's composition tax) making it hard to fit any offense in. And, y'know, PF2's ongoing gish difficulties (although this particular aspect is moot in the case of dual-class).
2) Anyone on the hero's journey, who starts as one thing, but grows into a different role as they grow from their experiences. This can sometimes (not always) be approximated by building them as their first class, archetyping into their second class, and eventually rebuilding as their second class (with their first as an archetype), but that tends to have a different feel to it, not giving enough control to fine-tune the transition; in particular, it can be jarring immediately after the rebuild, where they suddenly shed nearly their entire former skillset for something entirely different, rather than simply growing in a different direction and using their past as a base. [This works especially well for characters that want to leave their past behind them rather than standard multiclassing, but can feel really weird if you wanted a natural, dynamic growth from one to the other instead.]
3) Analystic biologist. A scientist who studies monsters and the like to determine how best to attack them, both by examining their biology and determining their responses to specific stimuli, in hopes of locating and documenting weaknesses. Should logically be an Alchemist/Rogue or Investigator/Rogue with Analyse Weakness and similar feats, but the Rogue archetype's limited sneak attack makes it impossible to take Analyse Weakness unless Rogue is your main class. [Can be built with dual-classing, but will otherwise feel lacking.]
4) On that note, any non-Rogue with 2d6 sneak attack. Yes, this is pedantic, but it's still a character that's flat-out impossible to build in PF2 (without dual-classing). ^_^ [Is also representative of a wider character type that's impossible to build, a "split" multiclasser who tries to spread their efforts evenly instead of being one class that dabbles in another.]
5) Ninja and samurai. Will probably be released in the future, but can't easily be created at the moment. Ninja could use Rogue or Monk core, probably with the other as an archetype, but the exact feel is hard to replicate. Hey, we found something that's exactly the same in PF2 and 5e, ninja build awkwardness! Samurai would probably be Fighter core with Cavalier or similar archetypes, not sure.
Note that most of these are entirely buildable with dual-classing, because the primary limitation on most impossible PF2 builds is multiclass archetypes. Most of the difficult concepts want "primary class privileges" in two or more classes, so to speak, and thus go from impossible/super-difficult to build to "yeah, gimme a sec" trivial if dual-classing is allowed. Even gishing is perfectly doable right now with dual-class, though that one's primary limitation is really the action economy system.
-----
Out of the ones that come to mind for me, the only one that's truly unbuildable is #2.2 there: A character who grows from one class to another through dynamic character development, fluidly expanding and redirecting their skillset in a new direction without discarding their past entirely or letting their foundational skills atrophy. Like, say, Luke Skywalker: Grows from a farmer with piloting experience (and vehicular shooting expertise in particular) to a Jedi, relying on and expanding the technical expertise he picked up as a farmer even after he "changes class"; his early development serves as a foundational basis for everything afterwards, rather than him just forgetting most of what he knew about how to repair and pilot, and he continues to develop his tech skills in tandem with his Jedi skills if we add in the ol' Expanded Universe.
Is a bit of a stretch, but Luke would probably start as some sort of variant rogue with ranged vehicle attack training instead of sneak attack, likely Lv.4 or so for Improvised Repair, Quick Repair, Specialty Crafting (technology), Bargain Hunter, and Terrain Expertise, with Point Blank Shot and something loosely Cavalier-like for class feats, and expert Diplomacy, Crafting, a relevant tech skill, and probably Athletics. He would then go into some sort of psychic martial class and begin to train his dodging & his heirloom advanced weapon, while still progressing Athletics and his tech skill (and starting to focus on Acrobatics, too, and trying to fit in Crafting & Diplomacy when he can... probably more Diplomacy than Crafting), and using an archetype to expand on his piloting. His growth would actually be weirdly hard to model properly if his starting class was relegated to a multiclass archetype, since it would leave him significantly starved for the skill feats necessary to match his movie & EU portrayal.
==========
==========
==========
Apart from that, for hard-to-port characters I've personally made in other systems... [Trying to convert from origin system to PF2 as closely as possible, to preserve the character's original feel/playstyle/in-character thought process, and then take advantage of PF2 options on top of that.]
First, the PF1 girls:
1) Momoko. Succor/Haunted Oracle/Arrowsong Minstrel Bard Catfolk nekomata miko in a feudal-Japan-inspired setting.
Details:Currently unportable due to lack of Succor mystery and Haunted curse (and probably because they likely wouldn't be tied together, and the Oracle doesn't let you mix & match mysteries & curses, seemingly (but not necessarily actually) as a penalty for PF1 minmaxing).---
2) Miyu. Liberator Rogue Catfolk; another catgirl, from the same setting as Momoko.
Details:Imperfectly portable due to voluntary flaw mechanics and built-in demand that martials start with 18 in their damage stat; could be mostly ported over, but would require slightly increasing her Dex and slightly decreasing her Int or Cha.
And now, the 5e girls:
[Note: Most of the below really want a War Caster equivalent, it should go without saying. ;3 Seriously, probably the best feat in 5e. xD]
1) Jennifer. Eldritch Knight Fighter/War Mage Wizard, from a homebrew catgirl race (since Tabaxi wasn't out yet). Will probably be portable as Magus, might be portable in spirit as Fighter with a bunch of magic archetypes. Not portable in spirit due to lack of Weapon Bond feature equivalent (for such a weak filler ability, she relied on it a lot more than you'd think), and due to the difficulty of gaining Int spontaneous casting.
5e Details:Archer, with a longbow & a rapier. Kept her core utility spells in EK "repertoire", used Wizard preparation for flexibility as needed. Main fighting style involved shooting foes down, hampering foes with spells, and defending anything she couldn't dodge with shield, while dropping her weapons whenever they were in the way and popping 'em into hand as needed with Weapon Bond.And PF2 Details:Her PF2 core would likely be Fighter with Wizard multiclass (or maybe Magus, depending on how it turns out), with Halcyon Speaker and/or Eldritch Archer for the spontaneous component (not sure exactly how Eldritch Archer's basic casting benefits interact with prepared casting, though; dedication is slightly unclear about whether it gives prepared casters a repertoire). Haven't figured out the rest yet, but she would mostly work if given a high enough level and/or free archetype (or dual-class, the miracle worker that makes almost any build work if your GM's crazy enough )... but would feel like an entirely different character entirely without her quick-swap Weapon Bond, and I don't think there's anything in PF2 that replicates it?---
2) Alanna. Barbarian (archetype undecided), from a campaign-specific kemonomimi race (reskinned elf); yes, another catgirl. Noblewoman with a bit of an anger management issue, left home and signed up as an adventurer because of it (to avoid embarrassing her family).
Details:Impossible to port without a complete redesign, due to a campaign houserule that let her use Dex for her Barb features instead of Str (and also let her treat any weapon as Finesse, which I did point out would probably be too strong in combination with the above). Was a highly experimental campaign, and petered out early on.---
3) Sola. Storm Sorcerer (would eventually dip Artificer for character reasons) with a custom "Floral Alchemist" background, from a homebrew alraune (plantgirl) race. Still in planning, for a game that has yet to start. Is mostly compatible with PF2, though there are a few sticking points.
---
4) Elena. Theurgy (UA) Wizard (Life domain) Tabaxi, as the party's shy, bookish support mage. Mostly portable to PF2, though there are a few sticking points with trying to make a hybrid Red Mage-style character work.
Details:Would be Wizard core with Cleric or Halcyon Speaker archetype, with the Halcyon version's primal spells limited to ones on both divine & primal lists (for flavour reasons) until Lv.10, and the Cleric version falling slightly behind because of lower Wis. (Would come online a bit late, but she was for a Lv.10 oneshot game, so that fits, too.Or could dual-class and come online instantly, but that's cheating. ;3)---
5) Nadia. Swords Bard (would eventually dip Swashbuckler Rogue to fill a gap in party composition) Tabaxi,
and also a bit of a playful perv, from a pervy campaign. ...Hey, remember my analysis on FFXIV-style support gish dance battlers? Yeah. Party's primary supporter, built to be functional as a mid-line secondary martial when support isn't needed.) Has proven surprisingly hard to convert to PF2 while preserving the same feel, and somewhat difficult (but not nearly as much so) to convert to PF1.5e Details:Was Lv.4 (with War Caster, to absolutely nobody's suprise), and aided by two small house rules (traded her scimitar proficiency for proficiency with her (in-universe) customised chakrams (reskinned handaxes, given Finesse and upgraded to martial), and could treat her claws as light weapons for TWF). Having support as her primary focus let me experiment with some of the weaker martial options (Str build, TWF) without her falling behind, which in turn led to my favourite character to date. 3-level Rogue dip would give Swashbuckler archetype for mobility, a small but flexible boon that lets her flit about the battlefield and aid her allies as needed, pulling her core package together into a single, cohesive dance; the fully realised build would've been able to twirl around her enemies unhindered with her Fancy Footwork and a sneakily distracting Blade Flourish, darting around from one ally to the next in between buffs and debuffs, and filling whatever gaps open up as needed.
Magical Secrets would likely have been [one of Bless/Mass Healing Word/Misty Step] & [one of Conjure Volley/Conjure Barrage] at Lv.10, and Steel Wind Strike & Heal at Lv.14, for a bit more insight.
PF1...:She would require use of Dawnflower Dervish for flavour & style (and thus Sarenrae... but would want access to at least one Shelyn trait, too, which is a bit tough to reconcile) and weapon customisation rules for more melee-oriented chakrams (and would take some fiddling or a proficiency swap house rule if the chakrams were Performance weapons, which is honestly really appealing for her), but would probably come online and capture her personality well eventually, after a bit of a stroll down the TWF feat chain, and after grabbing some support feats as well; being allowed to switch the archetype's Dervish Dance weapon from scimitars to her chakrams would be nice, but not essential. Passionate Inertia trait fits her perfectly, too, which is nice. Would want a shareable Inspire Courage-like feature to compensate for Dawnflower stinginess, though, and I'm not sure if there's anything that fits the bill. Performance combat feats would fit her for their flashiness and style, as would Diva style (I think it was that one, at least...), but are hard to fit in. Would probably dip either Swashbuckler 4 or Rogue 3/4 (archetype(s) undecided either way). Can't think of any major stumbling blocks, though, except maybe the 10-feat limit making it hard to fit in fun without sacrificing capability (a.k.a., the usual PF1 woe); she still has spells, so it's not as bad as if she was a pure martial, but yeah. (Biggest "unsolveable" issue I can think of is not being able to wear a Chain Shirt chainmail bikini under Dancer's Garb, though I believe the garb's creator said Celestial Armour fits under it, so... yeah. xD)...And PF2:PF2 build would want Maestro (Multifarious Warrior) Bard core with Battledancer Swashbuckler, Dual-Weapon Warrior, and Provocator archetypes, and maybe Sorcerer or Oracle or Halcyon Speaker (not sure). Would also want to work around the spontaneous heightening limits, though that would leave her insanely strained for feats and takes a long time to come online.
• Can work with less archetypes (DWW is easiest to remove), but would feel entirely different (Swashbuckler is perfect flavour and helps with mobility, Provocator is flat-out an easier-to-use version of PF1's performance combat and (slowly) brings Tamchal Chakrams online (with both crit spec & expert, which usually cost 2-3 feats each), and Dual-Weapon Warrior isn't strictly necessary, but fits so well it's hard to say no to)... but would be hyper-starved for feats and unable to fit the bard support tools I'd want.
• Would likely need Free Archetype variant to truly have the same feel, simply because making a two-weapon dancing bard gish with an advanced weapon takes a ton of feats, both to compensate for losing the 2/3-caster gishiness she'd have had in PF1, and to compensate for weapon proficiencies (and especially advanced weapons) being heavily locked down to prevent Rhogueka abuse. This would leave some room for bard specialty feats, letting her be a full Hostess fruit pie with her 5e shell and PF2 filling. ;3
• Would want dual-classing for gishiness and style, but I don't believe this would be strictly necessary to preserve the same feel while still adding PF2's shiny new toys.Biggest hurdle is spontaneous caster flexibility... but honestly, trying to port her over made me realise that PF2's design ethic makes it feel like you have a ton of freedom as long as you're content to sit inside the strictly defined box for your class, class feat chain pseudo-archetype(s), and role, but feels more like a rules straitjacket when you try to go against the grain and make someone that doesn't line up exactly with Paizo's vision for your class... and, surprisingly, it's not the kind of straitjacket she'd like.
(Look, I said she's a bit of a perv. ;3)Seriously, though, it really feels like this exact character idea (support gish dancer bard with a flashy mobile style, dual-wielding advanced weapons when she doesn't need a hand or two free for her bells, castanets, or tambourines) stumbled onto an edge case where PF2 has more choices, but 5e gives more freedom, which honestly just feels weird. xD[Note that a large part of this is due to Tamchal Chakrams coming out while I was porting her, and having no easy way to access them and have them keep up with class proficiencies. Otherwise, when I get a chance to use her in an actual game, I would likely have asked to use reskinned, renamed hatchets (paralleling her 5e reskinned, slightly modified handaxes), ideally as a house-ruled proficiency swap for one of the built-in Bard martial weapons (because Multifarious warrior muse gives Martial Performance, but it falls slightly behind due to not unlocking crit specialisations). Provocator would've been a fun add-on after picking up necessary support compositions & feats, but not near-essential to empower her weapon choice with the lowest number of "unfun" feats, so there would've been more design space to work with.]
...That said, the build mechanics would eventually work out in the end, albeit probably with a lot of fiddling. Only thing that explicitly can't be resolved with enough lateral thinking is the Bard action economy, since they effectively run on a two-action system where everyone else is three-action. Lingering Composition and the like will help, but she might be one cat that ends up on a leash.
---
6) Cinnamon. Swashbuckler Rogue with a gambler background, easy enough to port... except she was from a homebrew Merfolk race, and I don't think we have that yet for PF2. ;P
==========
====================
...And as a counterpoint, one character that's proven surprisingly easy to make, that works better in PF2 than her home system in all but one aspect (and that aspect's a weird one that's essentially a slight anti-optimisation, so... yeah), and that honestly felt really good to port. ^_^
Hope. 5e Life Cleric doctor (would've eventually dipped Bard 3 for mechanical representation of better bedside manner, and to pick up some of her staples as known spells so she doesn't need to prepare them all the time), from a campaign-specific human-like race loosely based on Variant Human (and perhaps surprisingly at this point, not a catgirl ;P). Used a custom background and the Medic UA feat. Stats were 8/8/16/12/17/13 (low Dex save, but heavy armour for AC and sacred flame for offense, and I actually wanted low base Initiative that could be buffed as needed for initiative queue flexibility), and would've had War Caster if the game hadn't collapsed before I could join in. ...Suffice it to say that PF2 is significantly better than 5e at making doctors that actually feel like doctors. ;P
Would likely be Cloistered Cleric, picking up Battle Medic at Lv.2 instead of starting with it because she's not supposed to have much field experience from the start. Possibly Warpriest with mage build instead to unlock staff specialisation, but that's not necessary. Only sticking points are that she doesn't get her symbol shield until Lv.2, and that tying Initiative to Perception means all doctors are ninjas by definition... so I don't know how to get the "low Initiative, but easily buffable for finer control over position in turn order" idea to port over. xD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with snares I think is that almost all adventures are written with the PCs very much moving forward, following the AP/scenario. Snares work better when the enemy is coming to you.
Doesn't mean they're mechanically unsound, just that they don't match typical behavior, and changing that behavior is really hard.
That is a large part of the issue, and they try to rectify that with Snare Specialist and Lightning Snares, making them less time consuming to set. But Snares are barely functional mechanically imo. We don't know so many things about snares that should be fairly common sense. Like how much bulk they are when carried around in your pocket.
Especially once you get to the higher level ones like Hail of Arrows or Flying Blade, they sort of feel like a Hammerspace cartoon character ability more than "setting a little trap". We also don't know whether or not a character should be permitted to place multiple snares in the same space (unless there was some ruling somewhere that I'm unaware of). Some snares it wouldn't make much sense, but others make total sense to double up on, like a Marking and Signaling snare for setting ambushes.
I still maintain that Snares are my biggest gripe with PF2. They feel undercooked, like an afterthought mechanic thrown in to balance out taking spellcasting away from Rangers, and in my opinion anyway, the Ranger plays better without them.
------------
As to the OP's question, my hardest character concept to recreate would be a bomb centric Alchemist. This has been discussed to death on the forums, but it was my favorite flavor of alchemist, and it's a shame that it is a playstyle that feels more like a trap than an option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing you straight-up cannot build in PF2? A magic-primary character who isn't defined by daily powers. If "throw around magic" is the thing you do, then the majority of your power comes from daily spell slots (or daily alchemist reagents). The Magus... basically just splits the difference. Half of what they do is spellcasting and half of what they do is swording, so they still have a significant chunk of their power bound up in daily slots, but not as much. The summoner gets closer, but it's still the case that if you're a summoner and "where and how do I spend my spell slots each day" isn't a significant part of your strategy, you're doing it wrong. Everyone else just dabbles at the "focus spells" level... or takes feats that give them more magic in the form of permanent spell slots. I'd love to see a class built around, effectively, cantrips and cantrip augmentation, balanced like a martial but doing it by throwing around magical effects. They'd get a nice block of cantrips to choose from, possibly of multiple types, some interesting focus powers, and feats that would mostly augment the cantrips they have. possibly give them some interesting side resources to balance (as with the oracle and their curse) but have pretty much all of it refresh after a refocus, and a fair bit of their ability not even require that.
Bonus points if there's at least one viable build for that class that lets you focus primarily on buffing your allies. The Bard exists and is a thing, but, again, those daily spells.
I suppose you could manage it by presenting archetypes for, say, the witch and the bard that cash in their daily spell slots for something appropriately awesome, but I feel like it might be easier to balance starting from scratch than from that point.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
the super hero/ Lone Wolf/ Anime/Manga OP MC
Inhales sharply
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
Exhales
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it’s like seeing an old friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm struggling to work out if that was irony or something else.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an old, iconic copypasta.
There's an inverse version as well talking about how garbage katanas are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Much like one can't build an offense that takes out a non-minion in one blow, one can't build a tank (or "wall" if lacking offense) that lasts indefinitely against viable enemies.
The existence of such builds would be a flaw in game design IMO.It's curious why so many gamers just take it for granted that D&D can't support the WoW trinity.
Of course it can.
It would absolutely be possible to create classes that can withstand the brunt of the monster attacks for several rounds, have abilities that force monsters away from squishier party members, but cannot actually defeat the monsters nearly fast enough.
It would absolutely be possible to create classes that can provide a sustained very high rate of healing, and make that healing actually necessary to prolong the time before the monsters can kill the tank, giving the damage dealers enough time to first kill the monsters.
And it would absolutely be possible to create classes with strong offensive power, but with absolute crap staying power. Even a potent healer would have trouble saving such a character, so the best tactic would be for the tank to aggro the monsters off of the damage dealer. This would then allow the healer to switch to healing the tank, which in turn frees the damage dealer from having to fear for her life, instead being able to focus on what she does best: killing monsters.
The real curiosity is: why has no iteration of D&D ever tried this?
Not even the two Warcraft d20 modules changed the old D&D approach...
You’re describing 4e.
I’m quite a fan!
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the medium is fundamentally different. MMOs are built for 5-10 minute fights in which everyone is constantly acting. Tabletops - only one of however many are at the table are acting at a time. You cannot build fights to take many rounds in which one person is simply soaking tons of damage, another heals all that damage and the other players wail on the HP sponge of an enemy. It would take forever per fight, and unless you do one fight days people would get very bored very quickly.