| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just hoping for better editing, better organization, and better layout. I love PF, but I have always thought that the books were horribly organized. Far too often you'll be trying to find the answer to something only to be told 'go here' and then when you get there it also says 'actually, go here'. Similarly, I do not like that rules for a given thing can be spread out over multiple different locations.
For example, crafting: all the rules that pertain to crafting should just be together. Downtime, earn income, magical, alchemical, mundane, on-the-fly, etc. Just put them all together.
I could see this for casters who use a spellbook. For those who have unlimited access to all their list, like Clerics do, just no way.
The big change is giving prepared casters the ability to switch a small amount of prepared spells per day. A downtime action with a limit to once a day, that allows them to change a number of spells levels/ranks equal to their highest level spellslot/rank. So if you had 4th level/rank spells, you would be able to unprepare and re-prepare Four 1st level/rank spells, or Two 2nd level/rank spells, or One 3rd level/rank spell and One 1st level/rank spell. That might be a way to make prepared casters like the wizard feel a little less hard to play and be a general quality of life boost to vacian casters in general.
This is funny because in 1e, clerics and druids (and all prepared caster using "divine spellcasting" actually could swap spell with 10 minuttes of downtimes, only wizard (and other prepared "arcane caster") couldn't. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of giving this to all prepared caster tho, it would be an indirect "buff" to all noncombat utility spells, who for the moment are just never used unless you somehow know that they will be usefull during the day (or rather, more usefull than slotting in another combat spell). I want to use shape woods, I really do, but I can't justify preparing it with how restrictive it is, I just can't know if I could ever use it during the day.
It would also make prepared caster less "feel bad" when they slot in "the wrong spells" for the day. It would be quite the buff of prepared caster compared to spontaneous, but I feel like spontaneous casters are just better right now, and prepared casting could actually use the buff.
|
I could see this for casters who use a spellbook. For those who have unlimited access to all their list, like Clerics do, just no way.
The big change is giving prepared casters the ability to switch a small amount of prepared spells per day. A downtime action with a limit to once a day, that allows them to change a number of spells levels/ranks equal to their highest level spellslot/rank. So if you had 4th level/rank spells, you would be able to unprepare and re-prepare Four 1st level/rank spells, or Two 2nd level/rank spells, or One 3rd level/rank spell and One 1st level/rank spell. That might be a way to make prepared casters like the wizard feel a little less hard to play and be a general quality of life boost to vacian casters in general.This is funny because in 1e, clerics and druids (and all prepared caster using "divine spellcasting" actually could swap spell with 10 minuttes of downtimes, only wizard (and other prepared "arcane caster") couldn't. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of giving this to all prepared caster tho, it would be an indirect "buff" to all noncombat utility spells, who for the moment are just never used unless you somehow know that they will be usefull during the day (or rather, more usefull than slotting in another combat spell). I want to use shape woods, I really do, but I can't justify preparing it with how restrictive it is, I just can't know if I could ever use it during the day.
It would also make prepared caster less "feel bad" when they slot in "the wrong spells" for the day. It would be quite the buff of prepared caster compared to spontaneous, but I feel like spontaneous casters are just better right now, and prepared casting could actually use the buff.
Well, it would benefit prepared casters without a spellbook (like Clerics) far more than those that have one (like Wizard).
Not sure the Wizard's fans would love seeing the gap widen in favor of Cleric and Druid.
And for the "sometimes useful" utility spells, we already have a solution : scrolls.
This might have been covered already but I want another round of changes to crafting. Particularly in the area of regular mundane items like basic ammunition and common non-magical supplies.
If I want my character to craft 30 arrows, let that take maybe just a day per pack of 10, half that at expert.
If want to craft a backpack, or a chair, or table - more on this could be done faster or slower depending on craftmanship. In the real world you could string together a basic backpack in a day if you had cloth or leather on hand. It wouldn't be great though. It'd be pretty low end. In 4 days it would be... meh, OK. but if you spent a month on it you might make something worthwhile - and then you could go about figuring out ways to repeat that faster and open up a shop for yourself selling bags that after a bit only took a few days each but which were of quality.
That's more rules than we need for adventurers. But maybe note something on 'how crafting works for NPCs with time and dedication is different', and then for items adventurers WOULD make regularly - like those arrows I started with... rules for getting the time down after you've made them enough times. Even if it's just a note like "GMs should cut the time in half after the first half-dozen times it's been made, and down to 1 day if:
1. the crafter has made it more than a dozen times.
2. it's made from readily available materials.
3. it's being made in a fully built out workshop.
Maybe not these exact rules...
But I would like to see some rules for easy and faster crafting of common regular use mundane items like basic ammunition and similar.
Well, it would benefit prepared casters without a spellbook (like Clerics) far more than those that have one (like Wizard).Not sure the Wizard's fans would love seeing the gap widen in favor of Cleric and Druid....
Wizard need a buff compared to other prepared casters, but prepared casters need a buff compared to spontaneous ones. Giving this just to wizard wouldn't be enought to "fix them", they would still be pretty weak compared to druids and cleric (as one more spell per level and this swap ability isn't worth the "half martial" the other class get), so they need another, more significant, buff.
IMO, what they lack is a class ability that truly define them, I'm pretty sure they were supposed to be "the bestest caster" that put all of their chips in pure spellcasting (just like fighter are "the bestest martial"), but they just don't get enought stuff to fufill this role, as it stand they are just like the rest of the spellcasters, they just have a tiny bit more sustainability throught the day, while the other spellcasters (appart from witch) get additional significants abilities to "compensate" for not being the "top spellcasting class".
IMO, all prepared caster should the have the "spell substitution" feature, to bridge the gap with spontaneous casters. Then wizards should get an additional buff in the form of an important class ability that would help "define" them compared to the other casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I constantly fall in the cycle of forgetting and getting reminded of Daze having a duration entry. I'd love for that to be addressed, and hopefully clarified in general for other things.
It's probably just me, and oracle will probably be getting a revulsion that may change my mind, but I feel like oracle should gave the same spell progression as sorcerer. I just don't feel like I'm able to stay relevant through an adventuring day as an oracle.
One I just thought of. It'd be nice if there was a codified action for just dropping a monk stance. Like 1 action to exit x stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see this for casters who use a spellbook. For those who have unlimited access to all their list, like Clerics do, just no way.
The big change is giving prepared casters the ability to switch a small amount of prepared spells per day. A downtime action with a limit to once a day, that allows them to change a number of spells levels/ranks equal to their highest level spellslot/rank. So if you had 4th level/rank spells, you would be able to unprepare and re-prepare Four 1st level/rank spells, or Two 2nd level/rank spells, or One 3rd level/rank spell and One 1st level/rank spell. That might be a way to make prepared casters like the wizard feel a little less hard to play and be a general quality of life boost to vacian casters in general.This is funny because in 1e, clerics and druids (and all prepared caster using "divine spellcasting" actually could swap spell with 10 minuttes of downtimes, only wizard (and other prepared "arcane caster") couldn't. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of giving this to all prepared caster tho, it would be an indirect "buff" to all noncombat utility spells, who for the moment are just never used unless you somehow know that they will be usefull during the day (or rather, more usefull than slotting in another combat spell). I want to use shape woods, I really do, but I can't justify preparing it with how restrictive it is, I just can't know if I could ever use it during the day.
It would also make prepared caster less "feel bad" when they slot in "the wrong spells" for the day. It would be quite the buff of prepared caster compared to spontaneous, but I feel like spontaneous casters are just better right now, and prepared casting could actually use the buff.
That's incorrect about replacing spell slots in PF1, at least without feats or something. Any prepared caster could leave slots open and spend 15 minutes to fill them throughout the day, but they couldn't replace a prepared spell. This wouldn't work as well in PF2 because you get less spell slots, but I think it would be a great boon for the alchemist to be able to take 10 minutes to Advance Alchemy some items up.
|
Something I noticed that got me a small bit concerned: we know the classes that came in books like Secrets of Magic and Guns & Gears aren't getting the full Remaster "makeover" the core classes are getting. But given the "schools" of magic Pathfinder inherited from its predecessor are getting the axe, the Magus class is going to need eratta ASAP, since a bunch of their tricks rely on those same "schools!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My current guess/hope is that they'll have the first of the new twice yearly errata set up to push the particularly needed remaster changes to the other books
It's probably just me, and oracle will probably be getting a revulsion that may change my mind, but I feel like oracle should gave the same spell progression as sorcerer. I just don't feel like I'm able to stay relevant through an adventuring day as an oracle.
IMO, pretty much every spellcaster could use a few more spell slot (especially at early levels). I really dislike how much spellcaster rely on buying consumable if they want to stay usefull throught the day.
There's a big change and a small change I'd like to see. The small change is shifting around what the alchemist gets and at what level. Giving them master proficiency at 13 and maybe allowing the quick alchemy upgrades to fall into later levels would be a nice of improving what is a barrier to entry for alchemy players, who don't quite know how to get the most out of the alchemists lagging proficiency to hit.
I'm not positive that Alchemists will get Master Proficiency in Strikes (of whatever type), but given the Warpriest announcement I'm hopeful they will. I'll go even further and hope that Greater Weapon Specialization is on the table.
As for the Quick Alchemy upgrades... I'm not sure what you mean. Perpetual Infusions? Double Brew? Alchemical Alacrity?
I'm personally hoping that they're considering moving Perpetual Infusions to level 3. Levels 1&2 would still be rough, but at least it would be something and it wouldn't require revamping everything.
Double Brew I think is fine. Alchemical Alacrity needs to be completely redone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably just me, and oracle will probably be getting a revulsion that may change my mind, but I feel like oracle should gave the same spell progression as sorcerer. I just don't feel like I'm able to stay relevant through an adventuring day as an oracle.IMO, pretty much every spellcaster could use a few more spell slot (especially at early levels). I really dislike how much spellcaster rely on buying consumable if they want to stay usefull throught the day.
Cantrips are a thing too. Not every encounter needs a barrage of slotted spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another small change I could see is more so a quality of life item. Doubling rings are cool but exist for two weapon fighting. I'd actually like a tweak to it so that double rings just let you copy your fundamental runes onto backup weapons as well. So if I'm a 18 str/18 dex level 5 ranger, and I need to switch from my Falchion to a Longbow because the enemy we're dealing with is flying, I can do that without needing to spend the money on 1 striking rune for both the falchion and the longbow separately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's funny. I'm the opposite. I like that consumables like scrolls and such matter more for casters in this edition; makes me feel like I have a clearer sink to pour my gold into.
On a slightly related note, I think that wands and staves regaining their abilities each day instead of being non-rechargeable/very slowly rechargeable is partly predicated on the idea that you won't have many base slots, and I like that mechanic a lot.
I understand that opinion, and I get that it actually create a clear "money sink" for casters, just like potency and striking runes are a clear money sink for martials, but it just doesn't "mesh" well with my spellcaster fantasy as I just don't envision my caster as cycling throught wands or scrolls, but they must if I want them to keep casting spells after a few fights.
It also have some annoying issue, like the fact that these being important item to buy for spellcaster isn't made clear (while potency and striking rune are rather obvious), or that the variant rule that does remove the money tax for martial (the automatic bonus progression) don't help casters at all, who are still forced to buy these item if they want to stay relevant (except they have now less money because the group need less money as martial need less money). Also, I hate using "forever gone" consumable, potion and scrolls just mess with my brain and I never want to use them ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cantrips are a thing too. Not every encounter needs a barrage of slotted spells.It's probably just me, and oracle will probably be getting a revulsion that may change my mind, but I feel like oracle should gave the same spell progression as sorcerer. I just don't feel like I'm able to stay relevant through an adventuring day as an oracle.IMO, pretty much every spellcaster could use a few more spell slot (especially at early levels). I really dislike how much spellcaster rely on buying consumable if they want to stay usefull throught the day.
There are a few more since SoM, and remaster will help divine lance, but the divine cantrips are not the most... engaging.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another small change I could see is more so a quality of life item. Doubling rings are cool but exist for two weapon fighting. I'd actually like a tweak to it so that double rings just let you copy your fundamental runes onto backup weapons as well. So if I'm a 18 str/18 dex level 5 ranger, and I need to switch from my Falchion to a Longbow because the enemy we're dealing with is flying, I can do that without needing to spend the money on 1 striking rune for both the falchion and the longbow separately.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think this is likely. Paizo values switch hitting quite highly, or generally being able to wield multiple weapons. You can look at combination weapons as evidence. They are notably weaker than non-conimbination weapons because you get to share runes between them. Compare a jezail with a reinforced stock and bayonet to a piercing wind, for example.
|
|
There are a few more since SoM, and remaster will help divine lance, but the divine cantrips are not the most... engaging.Cantrips are a thing too. Not every encounter needs a barrage of slotted spells.It's probably just me, and oracle will probably be getting a revulsion that may change my mind, but I feel like oracle should gave the same spell progression as sorcerer. I just don't feel like I'm able to stay relevant through an adventuring day as an oracle.IMO, pretty much every spellcaster could use a few more spell slot (especially at early levels). I really dislike how much spellcaster rely on buying consumable if they want to stay usefull throught the day.
I get that (I tend to use the usual Ancestry Electric Arc workaround). It's even worse for Occult cantrips (Hi, Daze).
But I was talking in a general way.
I think part of the caster is knowing how to manage resources.
They tried to do it for Martials with Talismans. Let's just say I greatly look forward to the Remastered version of those.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a small thing but with the Remaster I thought it might be worth looking at the God/Deity categories. Terms such as God, Deity, Demigod, Quasideity, and Godling have been used to classify the various deific categories/power levels. For me, I feel like this needs a bit more fleshing out. Also, I would like to see terms that use “god” or “deity” for each level of categorization. For example:
God / Deity = No Stat Block
Demigod / Demideity = CR 26-30
Semigod / Semideity = CR 21-25
Godling / Quasideity = CR 20 or less
This way when discussing gods and deities there is a corresponding term for each power level and there isn’t a requirement to mix and match the terms “god” and “deity” when discussing these beings in text.
I would also like to see these categories added as a Trait to the Deity write ups. For example in Angradd’s write up it starts with “The Forge-Fire”, on this same line could be an appropriate “God” Trait or “Deity” Trait, “Demigod” Trait or “Demideity” Trait, etc. Any appropriate additional Traits could also be included such as “Demon” if the write up is for a Demon Lord.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a small thing but with the Remaster I thought it might be worth looking at the God/Deity categories. Terms such as God, Deity, Demigod, Quasideity, and Godling have been used to classify the various deific categories/power levels. For me, I feel like this needs a bit more fleshing out. Also, I would like to see terms that use “god” or “deity” for each level of categorization. For example:
God / Deity = No Stat Block
Demigod / Demideity = CR 26-30
Semigod / Semideity = CR 21-25
Godling / Quasideity = CR 20 or lessThis way when discussing gods and deities there is a corresponding term for each power level and there isn’t a requirement to mix and match the terms “god” and “deity” when discussing these beings in text.
I would also like to see these categories added as a Trait to the Deity write ups. For example in Angradd’s write up it starts with “The Forge-Fire”, on this same line could be an appropriate “God” Trait or “Deity” Trait, “Demigod” Trait or “Demideity” Trait, etc. Any appropriate additional Traits could also be included such as “Demon” if the write up is for a Demon Lord.
They specifically nixed that style of ranking for the deities when they moved into P2.
To a worshipper the “stats” are the same regardless of the power of the deity.
Combat wise Demigods are what might get stats, there’s no minutia to delve into.
They specifically nixed that style of ranking for the deities when they moved into P2.
To a worshipper the “stats” are the same regardless of the power of the deity.
Combat wise Demigods are what might get stats, there’s no minutia to delve into.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The goal isn't for stat based divine ranking. In setting there continues to be gods, demigods, and possibly other categories of deific beings. The idea is to have a way that clarifies those categories and identify the beings that occupy those categories.
If it is a simple as gods and demigods, that's cool with me. I am just hoping for greater clarity.
|
|
They specifically nixed that style of ranking for the deities when they moved into P2.
To a worshipper the “stats” are the same regardless of the power of the deity.
Combat wise Demigods are what might get stats, there’s no minutia to delve into.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The goal isn't for stat based divine ranking. In setting there continues to be gods, demigods, and possibly other categories of deific beings. The idea is to have a way that clarifies those categories and identify the beings that occupy those categories.
If it is a simple as gods and demigods, that's cool with me. I am just hoping for greater clarity.
Yeah to my knowldge it’s the latter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what categorizing gods gives you, since like Pharasma is significantly more powerful than Cayden but Cayden is still a genuine full deity.
I'm not even sure if Demigods are always weaker than Gods since it wouldn't surprise me in the least if one of the Eldest were more powerful than "Nivi Rhombodazzle" (particularly given the origin of the gnomes in the First World.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd like to see better options for gaining armor and weapon proficiency. One Feat should get you Trained proficiency, and depending on your class, get you Expert proficiency later on. It's very difficult in the current system to gain proficiency with armor and weapons that you don't start out proficient with. Just my .02.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how to word it, but I would love a change to drawing weapons and items. One draw action should allow a character to draw as many weapons or items as they have hands. Probably the most common houserule I've seen is for two weapon PCs to be able to draw both weapons for one action; it would also help alchemists. It's also a more realistic.
Clarify Golem Antimagic for what constitutes a magical ability.
Also, throw a bone to casters and give them a universal weakness to physical damage (that is, the physical damage component of a spell affects them normally, because it really doesn't make sense that they're somehow immune to having a rock thrown at them if and only if a wizard did it)
I think we are more likly to lose golems as we know them because Antimagic is a very OGL thing.
I think Antimagic is a thing you would want to keep for specific golems if you can, and if you lose it from like "random golems" that would be fine.
Like Nex can build a golem that most magic bounces off of, but random Wizard less talented than Nex probably couldn't. Nex even has a reason to, since he's at war with another archmage in his weight class.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
golem antimagic is an awful and weird mechanic, would not be unhappy to see it gone, both for OGL safety and because it's just not a great mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah to my knowldge it’s the latter.They specifically nixed that style of ranking for the deities when they moved into P2.
To a worshipper the “stats” are the same regardless of the power of the deity.
Combat wise Demigods are what might get stats, there’s no minutia to delve into.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The goal isn't for stat based divine ranking. In setting there continues to be gods, demigods, and possibly other categories of deific beings. The idea is to have a way that clarifies those categories and identify the beings that occupy those categories.
If it is a simple as gods and demigods, that's cool with me. I am just hoping for greater clarity.
This has been relevant in my campaigns. In my PF1 Iron Gods campaign, the party fought the artificial intelligences Hellion and Unity, who had become physical Iron Gods able to grant spells to worshippers. Hellion was CR 8/MR 4, and Unity was CR 20/MR 8. The artificial intelligence Casandalee could have become a full god at the end of the campaign. In PF2 canon, she did so: Casandalee, The Iron Goddess. In my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign, the party rescued the goddess Gendowyn, Lady of Fangwood, from imprisonment. She was statted out in the NPC Gallery as Unique glaistig (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 5 124), CN Medium fey (earth, mythic), CR 15/MR 7. The dryad high priestess who had imprisoned Gendowyn via power granted from fungus god Cyth-V’sug was CR 18.
The leshy Twining Gold-Flame Honeysuckle Vine in my party expressed interest in godhood herself. In her backstory she had gone through several stages of life: an ordinary honeysuckle vine, an awakened leshy familiar to a Leaf-Order druid, and a fey-blooded independent leshy sorcerer. I decided to grant the request. I examined the Lich archetype from Book of the Dead and modeled a Godhood archetype after it.
Godhood Dedication Feat 8
Rare, Archetype, Dedication
Archetype Godhood
Prerequisite Your areas of concern from your personality or reputation align strongly with two domains. You are trained in Religion and expert in a skill associated with one of your domains.
Access You accessed a source of divine power, such as passing the test of the Starstone, becoming the herald of a god, or claiming the remains of a dead god.
You gain the initial domain spell of both domains as innate divine focus spells. You start with a focus pool of 2 Focus Points. You refill your focus pool during your daily preparations, and you can regain 1 Focus Point by spending 10 minutes using the Refocus activity devoted to your areas of concern related to your domains. If you already have a focus pool with at least 1 focus point, then the size of your pool grows to 3 focus points. If you already have a initial domain spell of any of your domains, you gain the advanced domain spell instead.
Special You can select other dedication feats. Godhood is a slow path.
Note: Honey chose the Family and Toil domains. She intends to become the god of familiars. The party defeated an Immortal Ichor, an intelligent ooze congealed from a dead evil deity. Grandmother Spider, the Weaver, showed up in anadi form to tell Honey how to absorb the divine power through her roots.
The Godhood Dedication is feat 8 because qualifying for the 20th-level Immortal Godhood archetype feat requires several other feats from the archetype, including a feat to be able to grant divine spells to others. Thus, my games from now on will have the potential for mortal characters who are not full gods yet can grant spells to clerics who follow them. The PF2 rules are such a good foundation for character design that they can handle this.
Furthermore, my players have had a problem with the hobgoblin followers of the barghest hero-god Hadregash. I explain the situation in How can I remove slavery from Ironfang Invasion? Hadregash has not been ported to PF2. I decided that soon in my campaign Hadregash will show up in avatar form to battle Honey to prevent her godhood. I have statted out the Avatar of Hadregash as creature 23, modeled after Hellion and Unity. A creature 23 is a 92xp Moderate-Threat challenge to the 7-member 19th-level party, but he will probably manifest where hobgobhin clerics can aid the fray. Thus, full gods showing up as an avatar for battle will also happen in my games. Defeat won't kill Hadregash, but it will temporarily cut off divine power to his clerics, reduce his ranking inside the Lamashtu-related pantheon, and diminish his theological influence among hobgoblins.
To me, gods, demigods, and ascending gods are not purely about world building. They are campaign elements.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another relatively minor change - right now you have to increase a score from 18 to 19 and then 19 to 20, which is five levels where you effectively only have 3 instead of 4 boosts for no benefit. Which runs counter to 2e overall being very insistent on not giving you the option to suck or have less nice things now in exchange for power later, and RAW I don't believe you can retrain attribute scores.
It would be nice to have somw way to smooth that over, to delay the ability to get a +5 or +6 and have it cost more without having that awkward period. I currently work around this by simply letting people respec on level up for free, but it seems too inelegant to be RAW.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be a more significant change but I feel like, especially since we're switching just to modifiers and not points, that just making 1 boost always +1, but you can't reach +5 until 10 or +6 until 20 would be fine.
It would change the math in that Inventors and Thaumaturges (etc) can catch up to other martials at level 5, and effectively give characters two extra boosts over the course of the campaign that would have to go into secondary/tertiary stats.
But I don't think those would necessarily be bad things, and tracking 'half boosts' in the new math would be kind of awkward and not necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be a pretty nice change.
It would be a more significant change but I feel like, especially since we're switching just to modifiers and not points, that just making 1 boost always +1, but you can't reach +5 until 10 or +6 until 20 would be fine.
It would change the math in that Inventors and Thaumaturges (etc) can catch up to other martials at level 5, and effectively give characters two extra boosts over the course of the campaign that would have to go into secondary/tertiary stats.
But I don't think those would necessarily be bad things, and tracking 'half boosts' in the new math would be kind of awkward and not necessary.
I still think it should cost more to get a +5 than a +4, spending two boosts per upgrade past +4 makes sense in terms of balance. It's just the need to reserve one boost uselessly for five levels, betting that the campaign will still be going in several months and that the payoff will be worth not having a boost to a vulnerable save, that seems to go against the rest of the system's design.
A way to do it is to permit one attribute to be boosted to +5 at level 10, two at level 15, and one to +6 and two to +5 at level 20, matching exactly what is normally possible currently. Each of these increases costs two boosts.
For the variant attribute boost progression rule, additionally no attribute can be boosted to 18 until level 5 except as part of chargen, to curtail the effect of getting a +1 to an attack mod much earlier than normal.
How much does the math break if you just let an attribute boost give a +1 modifier every time?
In theory this would be the worst for classes whose KAS is not an attack stat (like the Inventor or Thaumaturge) as they'd be -1 behind for their whole career not half.
But how much of a difference would it make if classes topped out at +8 instead of +6? You'd be +1 ahead from level 5 on and +2 ahead from level 15 on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How much does the math break if you just let an attribute boost give a +1 modifier every time?
In theory this would be the worst for classes whose KAS is not an attack stat (like the Inventor or Thaumaturge) as they'd be -1 behind for their whole career not half.
But how much of a difference would it make if classes topped out at +8 instead of +6? You'd be +1 ahead from level 5 on and +2 ahead from level 15 on.
The math of high-level creatures could be modified to deal with a higher key ability bonus than the current PF2 system allows, but that would require rewriting all bestiaries.
Without changing the monsters, let us look at the effect of an unanticipated +1 to key ability score. Suppose we apply that +1 to an attack roll that without it would succeed 60% of the rolls. The +1 pushes it up to 65%. But 10% of the 60% is critical hits, and 15% of the 65% is critical hits, so that makes a difference. Let D be the average damage dealt by a non-critical hit. The average damage of an attack with 60% success rate is (50%)(D) + (10%)(2D) = (0.7)D. The average damage of an attack with 65% success rate is (50%)(D) + (15%)(2D) = (0.8)D. (0.8)D/((0.7)D) = 1.14, so the +1 makes the damage 14% better.
Suppose we instead follow Squiggit's suggestion:
It would be a more significant change but I feel like, especially since we're switching just to modifiers and not points, that just making 1 boost always +1, but you can't reach +5 until 10 or +6 until 20 would be fine.
It would change the math in that Inventors and Thaumaturges (etc) can catch up to other martials at level 5, and effectively give characters two extra boosts over the course of the campaign that would have to go into secondary/tertiary stats.
But I don't think those would necessarily be bad things, and tracking 'half boosts' in the new math would be kind of awkward and not necessary.
A +5 ability bonus in the key ability is currently routine at 10th level. The opponent's numbers are built to withstand it. However, with Squiggit's suggestion, no player has to waste an ability score boost at 5th level to raise an 18 ability score to 19. Thus, the character will have an extra +1 to some ability bonus at 5th level.
Significantly, that bonus won't be to the key ability bonus, because that is probably already at +4 and is temporarily capped at +4. Thus, it will be a secondary ability bonus that gains the increase. The 14% improvement to using that ability bonus won't happen as often. A wizard casting spells with Int +4 will benefit a little from also have Dex +4, but the wizard won't benefit as much as he would if we allowed Int +5. Except for some classes that rely on two ability scores, such as Inventor, Magus, and Thaumaturge, a boost to a secondary ability bonus would be about half the benefit of a boost to the key ability bonus.
A 14% improvement to an ability bonus used every turn will have an effect big enough to feel, but it won't turn a Moderate-Threat encounter into a Low-Threat encounter or anything as drastic as that. That would require an unanticipated 30% improvement. A 14% improvement on an ability bonus used only once per combat would be harder to notice.
More clear retraining times.
Currently we have that retraining a feat takes about 1-4 weeks while retraining a "subclass" (class feature) takes 1-4 months.
We need a more strict retraining times to help the math, allows the retraining of free-choice stats without breaking their source limits would be fine too.
We need a clear retraining time for spells (currently currently I arbitrarily set it to 1 downtime day, as the maximum time to Learn a Spell is no longer than 10 hours but it's basically my homebrew).
Allow retraining an entire class may take very long but can be interesting too. But I'm against retraining Backgrounds and Ancestries once this is you basically creating a new char.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
retraining ancestry is basically get a rebirth potion
I feel like rather than making a new character retraining background could be described as like heightening the importance of a different aspect of your character's backstory but also might be better just being a talk to the gm type deal (but I don't play in organised so proper retraining rules for that might be more useful for that situation?)