| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo updating the rules is fantastic news. Here are some things my group and I agree desperately need to change. We have experimented with all of them and there have been zero balance issues whatsoever. I've ordered them in order of importance.
1) Item DCs. All items which have a DC need to be changed to scale based on the Standard DC table. It's ridiculous that items are only useful for 1-2 levels. This would make items useful for much longer. This would also lead to poisons being useful for everyone, not just Toxicologists, but of course a Toxicologist's poisons will have higher DCs. I still think the subclass would need more added in order to make it a worthwhile option, though.
2) Talismans. They should be changed to 1/day. As they are, they are *terrible* value.
3) Animal Companions. While we like how they work in general, the maximum 2 actions per round is severely limiting and leads to some really bizarre interactions. The extra feat to give 3 actions for 2 is not a sufficient solution due to it requiring a certain character level, so it should honestly just be removed entirely. Any companion rider should be able to give one action to their companion mount at a 1:1 ratio, regardless of how many actions that companion or mount has used that turn. The 1:2 ability should be a special ability only usable once per round. This solves the movement problem of spending an entire turn moving on a mount. As written currently, you waste an action every round you're mounted on a companion because they're only allowed to move twice.
4) Cackle. A witch's cackle should be a flourish cantrip, not a focus spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Item DCs. All items which have a DC need to be changed to scale based on the Standard DC table. It's ridiculous that items are only useful for 1-2 levels. This would make items useful for much longer.
This is a more difficult problem than your group has realized, since scaling DCs with no other changes would mean you can buy an infinite number of still-potent low level items at higher levels, breaking the game.
Resonance was an answer to this in the Playtest, but it was also an answer to, like, 8 other things and that overloaded it. The remaster is certainly not going to bring in something like that.
I could see a smaller rule like being able to charge up a consumable or item with a hero point, or by expending a high level spell slot, or something along those lines, but I wouldn't hold out hope.
2) Talismans. They should be changed to 1/day. As they are, they are *terrible* value.
Good news! Talismans are getting updated, though we don't know exactly how, because they were deemed to fall short of their potential.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Item DC, I would think the easiest and least changing way of fixing that would be to have an official cost and process for upgrading an item (and therefore its DC) smoothly to any higher level.
Currently we can houserule it by doing some math of our own on the Item Prices table in the Building Items section of the Gamemastery Guide. But that only works in home games - not PFS. And only works if the GM is aware of the possibility, and is good enough at math story problems to understand how to do it.
⠀1. Most items with DCs have higher-level versions and can be upgraded with GM permission, no? (You can also upgrade items in PFS — including uncommon/rare named items just not consumables following the standard rules.)
⠀2. They're revisiting talismans already right?
⠀3. Animal Companions are already very good. I do not want to ever see Minions overpowering a PC's power. Not sure I understand the issue. It's just one action to command and they get two actions because the mount in your example is a minion.
⠀4. Well, they're looking at witches too!
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) Talismans. They should be changed to 1/day. As they are, they are *terrible* value.
I like the idea of "talismans are like scrolls for martials", so I don't think they need to be 1x day. But I think they do need changes:
- Stay away from specific skill proficiency requirements. Too many loot drops where nobody can use the thing.
- Stay away from "expend, then hope you make the skill check, otherwise it's just wasted" designs. Those are really unattractive.
- Drop the price, maybe by a factor 10. Or make the effect far more reliable and powerful. Right now, it's hard to justify not always always selling low-effect high-price items. My vote would be to drop the price. The limit of one talisman affixed per weapon/armor, and needing 10m to affix a new one, is already a brake on overuse.
Talismans should be comparable to good, "save your bacon" kinda scrolls, like see invisibility or faerie fire or fly. Compared to scrolls, the 10m affix time is already pretty rigid. So you're not too casually going to outclass caster flexibility.
⠀1. Most items with DCs have higher-level versions and can be upgraded with GM permission, no?
Yes. Most - but not all. Chime of Opening doesn't.
And the ones that do have higher level versions often have them at a very wide spread. So there are still character levels where your existing item doesn't work very well, but you can't afford the next higher level version. Queasy Lantern for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I agree that Item DCs need tweaked. I'd probably handle that through a dedicated skill feat where a character can spend an extra action to 'heighten' the DC based on a skill roll and their overall rank in the skill. That way, anyone can get access to this kind of thing if they want it. Let's call it "Item Mastery" feat.
2) I have yet to use, or seen used, a talisman in any of my games. I am not kidding. We collect them and then sell them. We'd rather have the increased wealth than make use of their one time use effects, because that gold can be used for items that last longer. My first reaction to seeing talismans was disappointment. Apologies if that seems harsh towards the developers.
3) Tweaking the animal companions to make them more able to survive combat is something I would like to see. I cannot quite remember the number of times I've seen an animal companion dart in to take its actions and within one turn, it is already at a dying value. As for the extra actions... A haste spell is usually enough to handle that.
4) No real opinion on this one. It has not come up in play as of yet. So, I'll defer to others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talismans were explicitly shouted out in one of the streams as getting a shot in the arm.
I do wish folks would hunt those down before diving into PF2R talk - they’re full of info!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talismans were explicitly shouted out in one of the streams as getting a shot in the arm.
I do wish folks would hunt those down before diving into PF2R talk - they’re full of info!
Same, though I'll admit the stream doesn't feel like the easiest way to absorb this information. But Paizo has been using them since at least the original PF2 playtest so they must have a reason for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Drop the price, maybe by a factor 10. Or make the effect far more reliable and powerful. Right now, it's hard to justify not always always selling low-effect high-price items. My vote would be to drop the price. The limit of one talisman affixed per weapon/armor, and needing 10m to affix a new one, is already a brake on overuse.
My theory is that's a heritage from playtest when every item including the consumable wastes your "daily investiture points" (I forget the original name). In this situation permanent and consumable items competes for same resource so using a consumable like Potion of Resistance used the same resource of a Ring of Energy Resistance uses but you waste 1/4 of the value and will use your "investiture points" only when needed.
When they removed this the designers probably didn't take into much consideration that this made permanent itens not so much more expensive than consumables mading consumables too expensive in comparison.
This is a more difficult problem than your group has realized, since scaling DCs with no other changes would mean you can buy an infinite number of still-potent low level items at higher levels, breaking the game.
That's fine to say in theory, but can you actually give an example? Have you tested it? I have and it works wonderfully.
3. Animal Companions are already very good. I do not want to ever see Minions overpowering a PC's power. Not sure I understand the issue. It's just one action to command and they get two actions because the mount in your example is a minion.
I feel like you didn't understand what I wrote in the slightest. I said nothing about adjusting the power of companions, only how many times they can be given actions each turn. The issue is with mounted movement, which as currently written is completed f*cked.
... the stream doesn't feel like the easiest way to absorb this information. But Paizo has been using them since at least the original PF2 playtest so they must have a reason for it.
Exactly this. It's a horrible way to present information. A simple blog post summarising all of the important points would be really nice and very simple for them to do.
@Ascalaphus I disagree with you about Talisman function. They shouldn't be as powerful as scrolls because that's what scrolls are. I also don't mind the affix time, but one time use is just so bad. Even at 1/10 the price, they still wouldn't be worthwhile. 1/day or 1/rest with scaling DC makes them actually worthwhile, which my group has tested and it doesn't affect game balance in the slightest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo updating the rules is fantastic news. Here are some things my group and I agree desperately need to change. We have experimented with all of them and there have been zero balance issues whatsoever. I've ordered them in order of importance.
1) Item DCs.
2) Talismans.
3) Animal Companions.
4) Cackle.
1) I can't agree with this unless something like Resonance comes back (and isn't applied to potions). You suggesting this has no balance impact is just not true, it really opens up cheap power scaling by the time you hit mid levels and majorly so at higher levels. Balance is totally thrown off by this suggestion.
My solution is a scaled price/level/dc system, I use the charts in the GMG but the item still has fixed level/dc/bonus... but it can be upgraded or bought at different levels.
2) They would need to go up in cost in that case, honestly I think talismans just need two benefits to make them better.
- better scaling options (see above)
- PCs can wear more, maybe up to the potency rune value akin to property runes
3) I don't think this hurts balance too much, but it is the least of companion balance issues imo. Forced creature scaling and weird tier 3 stat progression are bigger impacts. I would avoid messing with their action economy too much though.
4) So effortless concentration but with a verbal component? I would rather it still be a focus spell, possibly name changed and work like lingering composition... I wouldn't mind them getting effortless concentration for free at some point too. The witch needs other fixes imo... one of which being the removal of most hex immunities.
1) Could be solved with:
"You may spend 10 minutes attuning to an item you own, this process unattunes you from all other items. Attuned items use your class DC instead of any other DC. You remain attuned to an item until you attune a new item."
You can still use many low-level utility items if you have time to attune them but anything that might need to be used on less than 10 minutes notice still benefit from being on level.
2) Consumables in general need a pass given how much action economy they take to use and how short durations tend to be.
3) I don't like the weird command a minion rules much and wish they'd think of another way to balance them. It just feels odd that your companion of many battles never gains any ability to act outside of you commanding them.
4) Witch needs a lot and I'm not sure any one minor fix does it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Consumables in general need a pass given how much action economy they take to use and how short durations tend to be.
I feel like this could be fixed with items.
Something like a Scroll Belt for Scrolls and a Talisman Wheel for Talismans.
Scroll Belt would be pretty simple. You can have a certain number attached to the scroll belt at any one time. If they are on the belt, drawing them becomes a free-action as part of casting the spell from the scroll. If you want to make it magical, maybe give it a once per day ability to use cast from a scroll but not consume it or something like that.
Talisman Wheel would work something like the Throwers Bandolier. You can pin a certain number to the wheel, all of count as being affixed to your currently held weapons in terms of being able to use them. Can only use one per turn. Add in the effects of a Talisman cord on top of that to make it a higher level item.
Higher levels of each allow you to attach / pin more of their respective item. You can then spend a few minutes of downtime to attach / pin new ones out of combat.
One, perhaps somewhat overkill, way to resolve the item DC situation is to use Proficiency without Level. It greatly increases the durability and efficiency of these DCs without automatically making cheap items extremely efficient as you level up.
It's already something that I usually recommend for those who need to adapt adventures from 5e, for those who have problems with summons, and now I see that it can also be useful for the issue of item CDs. But I know that a lot of people don't like it because it breaks the idea that monsters and characters at higher levels are much more challenging than those at lower levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because it breaks the idea that monsters and characters at higher levels are much more challenging than those at lower levels.
Also breaks the debuff/buff balance, a bunch of abilities that add level to a check, follow the expert (quiet allies especially), aid scaling, and the incapacitation rule.
Higher level spellcasters can also still destroy parties and don't work well with the adjusted challenge ranges.
God I wanted to like profficiency without level, but it really needs the system to be built around the different math expectations.
This all said, I would love to see resonance come back and purely be for magic item activations (no potions, poisons or scrolls). Be great to see charisma have a core mechanical impact as a stat too.
I am quite interested to see what they do with focus points.
Half-elf and half-orc being true versatile heritages, instead of a human- only option.
Frankly I can't believe this wasn't always the case, and after the release of versatile heritages has always been a house rule at my tables.
They already are it's lookslike a variant but there's already notes in CRB talking about use half-elf and half-orc as heritage with other ancestries. But I agree that put then as versatile heritage makes this more clear:
By default, half-elves and half-orcs descend from humans, but your GM might allow you to be the offspring of an elf, orc, or different ancestry. In these cases, the GM will let you select the half-elf or half-orc heritage as the heritage for this other ancestry. The most likely other parent of a half-elf are gnomes and halflings, and the most likely parents of a half-orc are goblins, halflings, and dwarves.
Also breaks the debuff/buff balance, a bunch of abilities that add level to a check, follow the expert (quiet allies especially), aid scaling, and the incapacitation rule.
No, these are already addressed by variant rule. Follow expert will ignore the level bonus, incapacitation don't change and aid scaling is already in many discussion that it's fixed DC is strange including in beginner box they rewrite aid DC scaling. I won't will surprised if PC1 make some change in AID DC.
Higher level spellcasters can also still destroy parties and don't work well with the adjusted challenge ranges.
Why? The spell levels and effects and HP and keeps the same. What will make a spellcaster become stronger?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? The spell levels and effects and HP and keeps the same. What will make a spellcaster become stronger?
Spells themselves become stronger/more versatile in effect.
Effect wider ranges, last longer, do extra stuff in general.
The simplest examples would be your walls of force/stone and the like. But in general it takes away players ability to meaningfully dispell/counteract spell effects and that can be terrifying. It means their incapacitation spells also tend to be able to be effectively used over a larger range of levels too.
Just a big balance mess.
An 8 level range is a lot larger than a 4 level range, especially since 4 levels higher is rarely used by comparison in the default system, where in proficiency without level a +4 enemy does not fill the same roll difficulty wise, but a level 4 spellcaster will have two spell levels on a pc.
Heck even from a support perspective, true target is a really powerful level 7 spell in a group. Prof without level encourages this... say a villain is a +5 enemy (no where near +8. So they have allies) it is a pretty big damage multiplier against a level 8 party.
|
|
I don't think that's what he meant. I think like me he's wondering why they aren't their own ancestry as opposed to a heritage.Half-elf and half-orc being true versatile heritages, instead of a human- only option.
Frankly I can't believe this wasn't always the case, and after the release of versatile heritages has always been a house rule at my tables.
They already are it's lookslike a variant but there's already notes in CRB talking about use half-elf and half-orc as heritage with other ancestries. But I agree that put then as versatile heritage makes this more clear:
By default, half-elves and half-orcs descend from humans, but your GM might allow you to be the offspring of an elf, orc, or different ancestry. In these cases, the GM will let you select the half-elf or half-orc heritage as the heritage for this other ancestry. The most likely other parent of a half-elf are gnomes and halflings, and the most likely parents of a half-orc are goblins, halflings, and dwarves.
YuriP had the right of it, but IMO it shouldn't be a variant rule.
Also breaks the debuff/buff balance, a bunch of abilities that add level to a check, follow the expert (quiet allies especially), aid scaling, and the incapacitation rule.No, these are already addressed by variant rule. Follow expert will ignore the level bonus, incapacitation don't change and aid scaling is already in many discussion that it's fixed DC is strange including in beginner box they rewrite aid DC scaling. I won't will surprised if PC1 make some change in AID DC.
Sorry I missed your first bit somehow
It changes how follow the expert is balanced, yes I know it ignores the level bonus that is what changes the value of it mathematically.
Incapacitation changes because of the level ranges of enemies and because lower level enemies that it can normally efficiently effect, save a lot more frequently.
In the beginner box they don't rewrite aids scaling. Page 62 of the heros handbook
You can aid someone when they attempt a skill check or attack roll to potentially give them a bonus. This requires preparing to help them, usually by spending an action or more on your turn, then using a reaction when they attempt their skill check or attack roll. When you use your reaction, attempt a skill check or attack roll, usually the same type of roll as the one you’re trying to help. The DC is usually 20, but the GM might make it higher in tricky situations. You give your ally a +2 circumstance bonus on a critical success, a +1 circumstance bonus on a success, nothing on a failure, and a –1 circumstance penalty on a critical failure.
It is just one climbing section in the adventure that gives a different DC (actually maybe not even that).
The heroes might also try and help each other get up and down. A character helping someone else climb must attempt their own Athletics check to assist. If they succeed, the character climbing gets a +1 circumstance bonus to their check (+2 if the assisting character critically succeeds). A hero providing assistance must still roll their own Athletics check to climb up or down themself.
As for changing aid, it doesn't really need any rules changing as much as it needs a table with examples of dc adjustments (similar to simple DC charts on skill actions)
If aid gets made to scale with the challenge it will simply not be worth using as PCs have more action economy competition. Sure the +1 will still be worthwhile because it is a circumstance bonus... but mid and high level players (which is where the scaling kicks in, at 7th and then at 15th) have so many action options it really isn't sensible to gamble on a maybe +1, possible -1.
I know my players had a laundry list of actions and reactions (especially considering consumables and withdrawing items/activating permanent magical item effects), if a +3/+4 wasn't guaranteed or near guaranteed levels 15+ aiding would never have happened, rather than infrequently happened.
I won't will surprised if PC1 make some change in AID DC.
I always wanted to try DC 15 + level of the creature targeted, but haven't got the chance to test that yet, haven't GMd in a while. It would make it better early on and way harder at the last level stretch (more like auto-success instead of auto-crit later on).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you want to do that though?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you want to do that though?
Because it feels like it is too good at later levels as a combat tool to the point that using other reactions starts feeling like a waste.
It is good that Aid is a good thing to do, it encourages cooperation between players, but DC 20 is just too low past level 10 when you can give up to a +4 to an attack roll or a check (it is also too high early on).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Aid is changing at all, it is by pointing out that you shouldn't use the standard DC 20 when the DC of the actual task is lower.
If you are setting the DC yourself, you should pretty much always use the DC 20. It is fully intended that it is really easy to succeed or even crit succeed later on.
Because it feels like it is too good at later levels as a combat tool to the point that using other reactions starts feeling like a waste.
You need to pay an action plus your reaction to do it. And if you want to Aid with attack rolls, you usually have to stand next to them. With that kind of investment, it better be bloody good. There are plenty of reactions that can compete with that. AoO (and similar reactions), Nimble Dodge, whatever the rogue's backstab feat is called and the Champion's Reaction, just to name what I can think of atm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Aid is changing at all, it is by pointing out that you shouldn't use the standard DC 20 when the DC of the actual task is lower.
If you are setting the DC yourself, you should pretty much always use the DC 20. It is fully intended that it is really easy to succeed or even crit succeed later on.
With what I wanted to try at level 15 a CHA caster using One for All would need to beat a DC 30 with a CHA check. If they are Legendary in that skill, their mod is a +30. That's still quite easy I'd say, just not an auto-crit that gives a +4 to hit or an skill.
If you are a level 15 character, just trained on a skill, with a 0 modifier on the relevant stat and no item bonus, you have a +17. Needing a +13 to be able to help on a level-relevant task seems way more fair than getting a crit with the same result.
Probably it should be based on the level on the task and not who you are helping, and probably the numbers I was going for are off, but Aid definitely needs a slight level scaling IMO.
You need to pay an action plus your reaction to do it.
I know, it is still too good. a +3/+4 is too great of a swing for something that cost no resources and works almost automatically. Specially when you have classes like Thaumaturge, Magus or Barbarian that hit like a truck or have things like the pre-errata Scare to Death skill feat.
It also says nowhere that you need to be adjacent to an ally (on top of not specifying what can aid what skill-wise), so it is also very GM dependent.
Why? The spell levels and effects and HP and keeps the same. What will make a spellcaster become stronger?Spells themselves become stronger/more versatile in effect.
Effect wider ranges, last longer, do extra stuff in general.
The simplest examples would be your walls of force/stone and the like. But in general it takes away players ability to meaningfully dispell/counteract spell effects and that can be terrifying. It means their incapacitation spells also tend to be able to be effectively used over a larger range of levels too.
Just a big balance mess.
An 8 level range is a lot larger than a 4 level range, especially since 4 levels higher is rarely used by comparison in the default system, where in proficiency without level a +4 enemy does not fill the same roll difficulty wise, but a level 4 spellcaster will have two spell levels on a pc.
Heck even from a support perspective, true target is a really powerful level 7 spell in a group. Prof without level encourages this... say a villain is a +5 enemy (no where near +8. So they have allies) it is a pretty big damage multiplier against a level 8 party.
OK I got it. I didn't have such problems because I always tries to stay closer to players level when I play Proficiency without Level. (usually I just ajust the number of enemies than try to make they have many levels higher or bellow. Using opponentes too much levels stronger or weaken that players usually goes wrong even when use Proficiency with Level).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Aid is changing at all, it is by pointing out that you shouldn't use the standard DC 20 when the DC of the actual task is lower.
If you are setting the DC yourself, you should pretty much always use the DC 20. It is fully intended that it is really easy to succeed or even crit succeed later on.
With what I wanted to try at level 15 a CHA caster using One for All would need to beat a DC 30 with a CHA check. If they are Legendary in that skill, their mod is a +30. That's still quite easy I'd say, just not an auto-crit that gives a +4 to hit or an skill.
If you are a level 15 character, just trained on a skill, with a 0 modifier on the relevant stat and no item bonus, you have a +17. Needing a +13 to be able to help on a level-relevant task seems way more fair than getting a crit with the same result.
Probably it should be based on the level on the task and not who you are helping, and probably the numbers I was going for are off, but Aid definitely needs a slight level scaling IMO.
You are only Aiding someone else, not doing everything yourself. The intent is both that people can reasonably help out via skills that they haven't specialised it - allowing for more teamplay opportunities - and that specialised characters become substantially better at it. Hence why you only ever get a better result with a crit success, while the success bonus doesn't scale.
For non-crit Aid, the "only trained with a low modifier" character is the target audience most of the time. Realistically, only one party member will specialise in a certain skill, so the rest will be the previous guy. With your change, that dude would have only have a 40% chance of even remotely helping, with a 10% chance of making everything worse. And that is at level 15. Lower levels would be disastrous.
You need to pay an action plus your reaction to do it.
I know, it is still too good. a +3/+4 is too great of a swing for something that cost no resources and works almost automatically. Specially when you have classes like Thaumaturge, Magus or Barbarian that hit like a truck or have things like the pre-errata Scare to Death skill feat.
It also says nowhere that you need to be adjacent to an ally (on top of not specifying what can aid what skill-wise), so it is also very GM dependent.
GMG p. 13: "Similarly, a character usually needs to be next to their ally or a foe to Aid the ally in attacking the foe."
I'd say that an action and a reaction are a pretty damn heavy cost, no matter if it is repeatable. Everything else just costs a reaction. It also has two points of failure - your own roll and that of your teammate - instead of one or none. And that +3/+4 is only when you are master/legendary with the skill/attack roll you are aiding with and you critically succeed. To top it off, it also doesn't stack with other circumstance bonuses, which non-spell attack bonuses usually are.
It really depends on what reaction you compare it to, but I don't share your concerns when it comes to any of the mainstay reactions. And the rest kinda don't matter when we are talking this level of effectiveness.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aid being good at higher levels is also just a feature not a bug.
It's a way to manage scaling DCs and allow characters with imperfect proficiency to still contribute to solving a task they've put some investment into.
Changes that encourage people to simply stay in their lane (which I've noticed a couple of roquepo's suggestions have been geared toward) don't seem really helpful, imo. It's a common enough complaint about the game being hostile to non-specialists as is, so why make it more significant? I'm not seeing who this helps.
After reading your points of view I changed slighly my opinion on the matter. I realised my problem with the ability is not how easy it is to get, just the master and legendary increases in combination with how easy it becomes when you have those. I still mantain my point, though, Aid needs to be touched upon.
You are only Aiding someone else, not doing everything yourself. The intent is both that people can reasonably help out via skills that they haven't specialised it - allowing for more teamplay opportunities - and that specialised characters become substantially better at it. Hence why you only ever get a better result with a crit success, while the success bonus doesn't scale.
As I said earlier, I like Aid being a strong option, what I don't like is autosuccess on rolls (or auto-crits in this case) being a thing, as it makes rolling those checks feel like a chore, and in this pecific case, I don't like the tuning of the ability at high levels either, as I think a consistent and resourceless +3 or +4 to hit or to skills is just too much. I'm not a game designer, so it is expected that my proposed solutions are not ideal, but I firmly believe that from a game feel perspective it would be more fun if people actually cared about what they roll when they Aid and that from a game balance perspective bossfights would be more engaging as a player if aiding wasn't as big as a consistent precision swing.
GMG p. 13: "Similarly, a character usually needs to be next to their ally or a foe to Aid the ally in attacking the foe."
I don't own a GMG copy and it does not appear on the AoN Aid entry. Didn't know that was a thing, my apologies.
I'd say that an action and a reaction are a pretty damn heavy cost, no matter if it is repeatable.
What would you think of a 2 action cantrip that gave +3 to hit? Would you take it? Because I for sure would, and that's worse than current Aid at mid to high levels.
As for the circumstance bonus argument, it is way easier to get a status bonus to hit than a relevant circumstance bonus to hit (excluding Aid, these usually come in the form of special activities that locks you out of doing any other stuff, unlike status bonus effects).
And finally, yes, past a certain level, I would Aid instead of using most reactions that are not AoO and Champion reactions, that's how good I think it is.
Changes that encourage people to simply stay in their lane (which I've noticed a couple of roquepo's suggestions have been geared toward)
If you said this due to what I said about Alchemist in the other thread, that was what I believe Paizo will do if they are going to give the class martial proficiency. I don't actually want them to turn them into specialists, I like how Alchemist is right now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with aid is it isn't a single action, or a single reaction.
It is contingent on:
- the specific character you are aiding taking the action you specify.
- requires you to justify how your aid could work (and to have a relevant skill to aid with)
- requires you to be in threat range (usually)
- requires the enemy not to move or do something that disrupts the aid
- requires one action
- requires one reaction
- you investing in that skill to master/legendary
It is competing with:
- withdraw item
- activate magical item
- using the action as a part of a 2/3 action option
- focus spells
- reactions
- movement (as a damage mitigation option)
- shield actions and reactions
- skill actions
- expanded class abilities
- sustaining spells
- commanding minions/companions
(And ofc good old attacks. Which is important )
It is limited to:
- applying to a single roll
It is a highly limited ability.
This is not inspire courage with its 60ft range that buffs everyone for a whole round here. A +3 or +4 being near guaranteed is necessary because of the huge opportunity cost, and it is huge.
If it had 50% chance to have a crit and 5% chance of a crit failure, that would still be terrible.
It is a powerful ability to have in your toolbelt but it is far from reliable or overpowered as it is. In my experience players trying to work together because there is a notable reward is also fare more engaging.
The thing with aid is it isn't a single action, or a single reaction.
It is contingent on:
- the specific character you are aiding taking the action you specify.
- requires you to justify how your aid could work (and to have a relevant skill to aid with)
- requires you to be in threat range (usually)
- requires the enemy not to move or do something that disrupts the aid
- requires one action
- requires one reaction
- you investing in that skill to master/legendary
It's not so complicated.
Specific character you are aiding taking the action you specify is more easily than many people can get. For weapons proficiency you just need to explain that you are preparing an attack to distract your opponent or doing the same with a skill (usually no MAP involved) you can say that you are using you best skill to aid (acrobatics, athletics, deception, intimidation or performance to create some kind of distraction, arcana, religion, occultism, society, lore, medicine or maybe even survival to point a weak spot or a terrain advantage/disadvantage or even thievery to use some dirty trick to disturb (throw sand)) and range is very relative specially for skills including opponent movement and many players don't have a default reaction to use nor even a guaranteed situation to use an reaction like AoO.
That's what makes AID so useful. Because it isn't difficult to have a 3rd action that you don't have anything better to do and even need to use a reaction you don't really have to use it if something trigger another reaction but now you have almost granted reaction usage.
But this encounter usage isn't what make AID really OP, it's it exploration mode that makes it so good. In this mode the action/reaction usage usually don't cares and if you GM uses DC 20 for everything this means that in mid and high levels you can assist any player that uses a skill that you already trained giving it big circumstance bonus easily (this is very useful vs hazards).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aid should definitely have its usefulness flattened a bit across the level range.
It doesn't feel good to use at low levels and at high levels it feels too good not to use.
Something I agree with. As often as I play lower level PF2 characters, I always wonder why we are even bothering attempting to 'aid another' at DC 20 just for that +1 to a roll that will likely be even less that what we rolled to aid.
Many players don't have a default reaction to use nor even a guaranteed situation to use an reaction like AoO.
It isn't the reaction that makes it difficult the justify, it is the action, which I already covered. And you make aid sound like the GM has to approve any and all uses of aid, which they don't.
"You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally."
And
"but the GM might adjust this DC for particularly hard or easy tasks."
It has to be in the realms of reasonability, it isn't just "use whatever your highest skill is, the GM allows it by default"
But again, the opportunity cost is more than just the reaction, that is one element but far from the only one, and as you pointed out one that isn't important for many characters.
But this encounter usage isn't what make AID really OP, it's it exploration mode that makes it so good. In this mode the action/reaction usage usually don't cares and if you GM uses DC 20 for everything this means that in mid and high levels you can assist any player that uses a skill that you already trained giving it big circumstance bonus easily (this is very useful vs hazards).
Again, you have to be able to justify how you are helping. I find exploration aiding to either be sensible for the challenge, or irrelvant in practice.
In addition to this it helps make complex hazards more interactive and cooperative. If a character can aid a high level hazard they are usually able to take it on themselves, or are engaging in creative roleplay.But no I would not just let a random wizard help disable a level 16 acid dart hazard that they can't even see (lack perception proficiency) without also asking for a very hard recall knowledge (crafting) on the effect of the triggered trap, followed by a very hard crafting check to aid the person trying to disable it if they succeed on the recall knowledge check before. And performance, diplomacy and religion would not be on the table for use :p
IMO you are over valuing the justify part.
Using a trap as example:
GM: You notice a trap.
Player 1: I will try to disable using my Thievery.
Player 2: I will help with AID using Thievery too.
GM: Justify how do you will help?
Player 2: Helping!? I will observe, hold a light, give tips, helping providing the right tools... There are many different ways I can help my skillmate by using my own skill and knowledge in the same skill.
The justification is more to explain non-obvious ways to help. But there are basically unlimited ways to AID.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO you are over valuing the justify part.
Using a trap as example:
The justification is more to explain non-obvious ways to help. But there are basically unlimited ways to AID.
GM: You notice a trap.
Player 1: I will try to disable using my Thievery.
Player 2: I will help with AID using Thievery too.
GM: Justify how do you will help?
Player 2: Helping!? I will observe, hold a light, give tips, helping providing the right tools... There are many different ways I can help my skillmate by using my own skill and knowledge in the same skill.
I would say limited only by the GM's goodwill. Which is the root of the problem actually.
Yes you are right Aid give the final decision up to GM but I expect that most GM have a goodwill or they risk to make Aid useless in most situations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aid should definitely have its usefulness flattened a bit across the level range.
It doesn't feel good to use at low levels and at high levels it feels too good not to use.
Personally, I'd much rather we simply make Aid scaling much clearer. Make it a standard DC, or make the DC 5-10 points below the actual action's DC. Then, with that guidance, let the GM modify the DC as they please. But I could be failing to understand the math! I've never made it to high levels in PF2.
Also, I think the "justify" stuff is fine. It's one of those rare rules that lets the GM and players ad lib a little, and it's a good place to tuck such a rule, since Aiding can be so wildly creative. My favorite part is that by the rules, Aid doesn't always require an action be spent before hand--it just "usually" requires one. Sometimes it may call for two, and sometimes a GM can let a player use an Aid reaction without preparing it at all! My rule of thumb is to give the players just one or two "freebies" like that per AP chapter, though, to avoid letting it get out of control, and only for moments where I really do want the target PC to have a chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have fairly little play experience with 2e and just thought of this two minutes ago, but would this work for a house rule RE:Item DCs?
*ahem* During your daily preparations, designate X number of items (maybe 1+CHA mod?). These items use your class DC if it is higher than their own.
Again, I have given this basically zero thought, but I don't think I've seen Class DC come up once in my relatively short time playing the game, so this might give it some mileage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Half-elf and half-orc being true versatile heritages, instead of a human- only option.
Frankly I can't believe this wasn't always the case, and after the release of versatile heritages has always been a house rule at my tables.
Having a half-elf or half-orc that cannot be a tiefling, dhampir, etc. is definitely odd.