| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The advanced weapons without an ancestry trait: Aklys, Aldori Dueling Sword (pegged to martial with an archetype), Backpack Catapult (it takes 1 minute to reload), Bladed Diabolo, Bladed Hoop, Broadspear, Butterfly Blade (pegged to martial with an archetype), Chain Sword, Clockwork Macuahuitl, Daikyu, Donchak, Falcata, Feng Huo Lun, Fire Poi, Hongali Hornbow, Hook Sword, Kalis, Karambit, Nodachi, Repeating Crossbow, Repeating Hand Crossbow (pegged to martial with an archetype), Rhoka Sword, Sawtooth Sabre (pegged to martial with an Archetype), Shauth Lash, Sickle-Saber, Spiral Rapier, Tamchal Chakram, Three-Section Naginata, Zulfikar.
I'm not sure any of these are worth a level 6 feat, though some might be worth trying to justify using Unconventional Weaponry for (like the Hornbow and the Broadspear.)
As a very minor change, I'd like darkwood to be made a bit cheaper than mithril (or duskwood & dawnsilver respectively as they're now known), it doesn't have to be much--not even a full level's worth of different would be ok--but just something to account for the fact that mithril both gets the weight bonuses like darkwood and gets to count as silver for weaknesses, thus meaning as is darkwood is just kind of "slightly worse mithril that costs the same amount for wood".
I mean that's probably part of it, but even beyond that, the advanced weapon category is usually like +1 trait or die size (sometimes a little more, sometimes less) over martial counterparts.
I don't think getting rid of ancestry feats would make AWT that much more popular outside maybe a couple specific builds, because most advanced weapons don't really give you a 6th level feats worth of stuff anyways.
I can think of one or two exceptions, but that speaks more to the way those individual weapons interact with the norms of the system than the value of advanced weapons in general.
Yeah, I think the most likely reaction to these ancestry feats disappearing would be that even fewer people bother with advanced weapons at all. AWT will always remain a fringe choice, not least because it isn't available at level 1.
|
I'd like a general feat that gives you proficiency with the favored weapon of your deity.
And a higher level general feat that grants Expert proficiency to any weapon with which you are proficient outside of your class chassis, that raises when your class chassis proficiencies raise.
Perhaps the latter feat can be baked into the "crit spec" weapon feats, to grant a small benefit immediately, as well as a long term but modest enough benefit down the road.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of feel like even if Paizo can just find another vowel to slip into mithril, it may just not be worth it. Between 'mythryl' and a more unique or descriptive name that doesn't come directly from another fantasy work, I'm just a bit more inclined to lean toward 'new name'.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would LOVE to see the Striking Runes and Potency runes be reversed...
as they stand they always confuse me... because why would a STRIKING rune be used to add DAMAGE when STRIKE is an ACTION? Wouldn't it make more sense to call a weapon that HITS better to be given the tag STRIKING?
POTENCY Makes far more sense as a DAMAGE aspect rather than a HITTING aspect as in it is a POTENT weapon... POTENT does not mean you hit better with it... I know it is a small, small thing but it just doesn't make sense to my language understanding... I think that was a major oversight. :)
I would LOVE to see the Striking Runes and Potency runes be reversed...
as they stand they always confuse me... because why would a STRIKING rune be used to add DAMAGE when STRIKE is an ACTION? Wouldn't it make more sense to call a weapon that HITS better to be given the tag STRIKING?POTENCY Makes far more sense as a DAMAGE aspect rather than a HITTING aspect as in it is a POTENT weapon... POTENT does not mean you hit better with it... I know it is a small, small thing but it just doesn't make sense to my language understanding... I think that was a major oversight. :)
Actually yeah I'm all over this. I mean its too late for Player Core 1 now, but in my own schemes I wanted to describe them as 'force' runes before I realized how much confusion that would inevitably cause wrt force damage.
I'd love to see that ability to add additional traits to weapons, or even remove them.
For instance, I should be able to transform any crossbow into a repeating one... and I should be able to get rid of the Volley trait, which is just a penalty...
I'd love to see that ability to add additional traits to weapons, or even remove them.
For instance, I should be able to transform any crossbow into a repeating one... and I should be able to get rid of the Volley trait, which is just a penalty...
That's the Inventor class. Though your specific examples seem unlikely for balance reasons, but it isn't so much something I'd hope for in the remaster as something to boost the inventor options.
Ok, how about that option NOT locked for the Inventor class, like "Hey, Inventor PC, can you modify my own weapon with this trait please?" ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like Skill Feats in Archetypes to have the Skill trait marked in a different color, to make them stand out more - it's very hard to overlook that an archetype feat is a skill feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I unironically prefer if a future 3rd edition basically removed any rule for item destruction that isn't just 'this thing is fine, this thing is busted, this thing is broken' instead of having to calculate damage and stuff for an acid damage when hit for instance.
For walls and environmental items? Sure but generally speaking I prefer just 'any items you wear is basically inviolate'
+1. Bring back dents from the playtest. Maybe give magical equipment a hardness up to its level you need to overcome to damage it. But don't make me compare hardness to HP to break thresholds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, how about that option NOT locked for the Inventor class, like "Hey, Inventor PC, can you modify my own weapon with this trait please?" ?
I think this would be really cool, but given how utterly tepid the Inventor's own modification mechanics are, it doesn't seem likely.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would LOVE to see the Striking Runes and Potency runes be reversed...
as they stand they always confuse me... because why would a STRIKING rune be used to add DAMAGE when STRIKE is an ACTION? Wouldn't it make more sense to call a weapon that HITS better to be given the tag STRIKING?POTENCY Makes far more sense as a DAMAGE aspect rather than a HITTING aspect as in it is a POTENT weapon... POTENT does not mean you hit better with it... I know it is a small, small thing but it just doesn't make sense to my language understanding... I think that was a major oversight. :)
Personally, I wish striking runes didn't exist at all. It would be much better to just have the extra damage come from the wielding character's level. It would even make more sense for the "realism" people: A better fighter hits for more damage. But that would go way past the "small" qualifier, so...
Failing that, I would endorse your suggestion but for the fact that it would be too confusing when dealing with older material (especially if one isn't sure if it is pre or post remaster).
Ok, how about that option NOT locked for the Inventor class, like "Hey, Inventor PC, can you modify my own weapon with this trait please?" ?I think this would be really cool, but given how utterly tepid the Inventor's own modification mechanics are, it doesn't seem likely.
The Inventor would need feats that allows it to add more than 1 or 2 innovations on their stuff. I swear, a weapon, armor or companion can only have 1 modification per tier, with an extra initial one with a feat with Manifold Modifications, and it's the ONLY feat. There's no follow-up for Breakthrough and Revolutionary modifications.
Adding the ability for an Inventor to add traits and switch traits around for an existing weapon would be great, even if it's the ONLY class to be able to do so and that it costs 50,000 gp per trait.
Like I said, adding the Capacity or Repeating trait to a crossbow or firearm would be welcomed, as well as removing the Volley trait from a bow... and not every bow has this trait.
On the baseless assumption that we aren't going to get a ton of monsters who take more piercing than slashing damage, I think it would be good to just admit that versatile P on slashing weapons is effectively cosmetic (how often does anyone fight underwater?), give it to basically *all* weapons it would logically apply to (like the bastard sword) and give weapons that currently have slashing/piercing some other extra trait.
It's very annoying that the bastard sword can do the exact same thing as a greatsword while being 1 bulk lighter *and* being optionally useable in one hand, with the only "drawback" being that for some arbitrary reason it cannot stab. It's very, very unlikely you will ever need to stab with it, but the idea of that rare possibility coming up and telling a player "no, you can't stab them with your sword, it lacks the versatile P trait" seems silly.
I do like that it is d12 when two handed and d8 when one-handed, I think for it to do its job well in its niche as a weapon that grants you the option of swapping handedness it can't be sacrificing damage, but it should be missing out on some other trait or benefit in exchange for that powerful flexibility. Greataxes at least have sweep to differentiate them from bastard swords, but like the sweep trait probably isn't worth the extra bulk most of the time.
...that's exactly what ABP is there for?
Yes, it is. But that's really not the same thing as being the default way the game works.
I can tell you they aren't removing or renaming striking runes for sure because they appear in Rage of the Elements. In general, I think we'd need an edition change to make something that big. And I say that as someone who use like 60% sure he'd prefer less item bonuses. I think my ideal solution would be striking runes become inherent and item bonuses come from improved weapon quality rather than magic.
But it is just too baked into APs and such for now to get rid of for anything but a variant rule.
|
Altho it's not true that goblins can't read, it's that we are just too busy to have time to. It would be nice if there was just one word at the start of each chapter and the rest was pictures.
Just in case it wasn't obvious why humans and goblins get along so well, it's because if rats like to live around humans, why wouldn't goblins! So if you're going to take time to list a city's stats in a book PLEASE list the number of rats in the city. It's important to know when traveling if I should bring my own rats to eat.
As a goblin merchant, who makes a living finding and mending trash, I'd like to see a random table for trash that I can find. As the humans say, "one person's treasure is another person's trash." Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against elves, they have REALLY nice trash, but they just don't leave it lying around like humans do.
I can tell you they aren't removing or renaming striking runes for sure because they appear in Rage of the Elements. In general, I think we'd need an edition change to make something that big. And I say that as someone who use like 60% sure he'd prefer less item bonuses. I think my ideal solution would be striking runes become inherent and item bonuses come from improved weapon quality rather than magic.
But it is just too baked into APs and such for now to get rid of for anything but a variant rule.
100% agree. But I can dream. ;-)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fervently wish the Oracle MC Dedication will stop hampering the character so much that many people do not want it (or regret taking it = my case with a Bard MC Battle Oracle).
Being able to gain the higher levels of the curse's benefits and drawbacks would be great IMO.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making Int more broadly relevant would be nice.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking for the words but I don't think I'm going to find them tonight. It would be nice to see a more robust system spring up around rituals. The concept is basically perfect. Students of arcane/divine/primal/occult lore are capable of scrapping together a long-form spell regardless whether they actually have any spellcasting ability themselves? A+.
Unfortunately, since rituals come with such a high cost with a difficult DC, in practice there's just no tension to a ritual. Obviously, there's got to be some limit to the spammability of rituals, but I don't think just making the chance of success so low that you'll fail more than half the time and cost a chunk of loot regardless whether you succeed or fail was the right answer.
I'm sure we could make rituals much cooler and more cinematic, so that if the GM has a reason to pull a ritual out of their toolkit to use as a plot point, they're not forced to sit there when the players roll poorly and waste time (in and out of game) and resources trying to get it to succeed.
My preliminary suggestions (as seen in the most recent 'fix wizards' thread, though that conversation moved elsewhere) are to add a bunch of circumstantial elements that tack on modifiers to help lower the DC (or raise the check, same thing) of the ritual until the odds of success are more practical. Things like using the right phase of the moon, or requiring access to the correct manner of sanctified ground. Special resources you had to procure specially for the ritual seem cool, though if they're consumed on a failure, it's just adding another gold cost with extra steps.
In this way, for example the number of secondary casters could instead become another resource. If you attempt the ritual solo you get a very hard difficulty, but if you can actually muster up a bunch of people willing to chant in a circle for 1-3 days on end, you're rewarded with a better chance of success.
Granted, one obvious downside of this is that rituals naturally lend themselves to being highly personalized beasts, and it becomes impractical to list the correct time/weather/location conditions that would give each ritual the greatest boost to its success rate, but at the least a healthy set of guidelines and perhaps a couple general use categories of ritual modifier feels like it shouldn't be too onerous to assemble.
Looking for the words but I don't think I'm going to find them tonight. It would be nice to see a more robust system spring up around rituals. The concept is basically perfect. Students of arcane/divine/primal/occult lore are capable of scrapping together a long-form spell regardless whether they actually have any spellcasting ability themselves? A+.
Unfortunately, since rituals come with such a high cost with a difficult DC, in practice there's just no tension to a ritual. Obviously, there's got to be some limit to the spammability of rituals, but I don't think just making the chance of success so low that you'll fail more than half the time and cost a chunk of loot regardless whether you succeed or fail was the right answer.
I'm sure we could make rituals much cooler and more cinematic, so that if the GM has a reason to pull a ritual out of their toolkit to use as a plot point, they're not forced to sit there when the players roll poorly and waste time (in and out of game) and resources trying to get it to succeed.
My preliminary suggestions (as seen in the most recent 'fix wizards' thread, though that conversation moved elsewhere) are to add a bunch of circumstantial elements that tack on modifiers to help lower the DC (or raise the check, same thing) of the ritual until the odds of success are more practical. Things like using the right phase of the moon, or requiring access to the correct manner of sanctified ground. Special resources you had to procure specially for the ritual seem cool, though if they're consumed on a failure, it's just adding another gold cost with extra steps.
In this way, for example the number of secondary casters could instead become another resource. If you attempt the ritual solo you get a very hard difficulty, but if you can actually muster up a bunch of people willing to chant in a circle for 1-3 days on end, you're rewarded with a better chance of success.
Granted, one obvious downside of this is that rituals naturally lend themselves to being highly...
I think that rituals just need a passover of its mechanics not even a real rework like for a basic change to make rituals better it can just be changing the secondary caster success/fail by a tier (crit fail becomes just -4, regular fail becomes nothing, success is +2 and crit success +4)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah,
I think a lot of players get upset about rituals in PF2 because of the amount of GM fiat attached to them. They are, by design, very difficult things to do without help, because there is supposed to be a narrative/story hook to casting them, not just a character/power hook to being the ritualist. I think there could definitely be a lot more done with rituals in PF2, but it feels like the right place for it is in adventure writing. Maybe an AP where character get a Free Archetype for ritualist and access to a whole lot rituals, along side missions to find resources to cast them more effectively would be the best place to accomplish this. It is nice that rituals only really require a skill commitment and not anything more substantiative.
I hope the remaster gives tables on gold prices for upgrading item dcs. Cool loot only being effective for a small band of levels before they become paperweights is a real bummer. I'm fine with item scaling requiring my entire portion of treasure gold, just let me know what that looks like. I don't want my Ring of Ram that my character received from besting the Crypt King to become a small contribution to a later purchase in the story....I'd rather it be a constant bit of visual and mechanical storytelling on my PCs past deeds. I understand if that can't be free, but the knowledge of how to accomplish that should be codified. Viva la revolucion! Make non consumables permanent!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just gonna leave this here.
At the ritual’s culmination, you must attempt the skill check listed in the Primary Check entry to determine the ritual’s outcome. Primary checks usually have a very hard DC for a level that’s twice the ritual’s spell level. As with other downtime activities, fortune and misfortune effects can’t modify your checks for the ritual, nor can bonuses or penalties that aren’t active throughout the process. The GM can adjust the DCs of rituals, add or change primary or secondary checks, or even waive requirements to fit specific circumstances. For example, performing a ritual in a location where ley lines converge on the night of a new moon might make a normally difficult ritual drastically easier.
As it happens, this was the inspiration for my request. That section? Infinitesimal and packed with few examples. This is why my post asked for rituals to be more robust. This is a start, but saying the GM can fix the rules for rituals whenever they want is not the same thing as saying the rules don't have any flaws as written. I've adjusted rituals for ploy reasons because I wanted to do a cool thing for a player but it would be nice if there were more and better examples of what tools you could use to adjudicate ritual adjustments rather than reinventing them yourself everytime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the remaster gives tables on gold prices for upgrading item dcs. Cool loot only being effective for a small band of levels before they become paperweights is a real bummer. I'm fine with item scaling requiring my entire portion of treasure gold, just let me know what that looks like. I don't want my Ring of Ram that my character received from besting the Crypt King to become a small contribution to a later purchase in the story....I'd rather it be a constant bit of visual and mechanical storytelling on my PCs past deeds. I understand if that can't be free, but the knowledge of how to accomplish that should be codified. Viva la revolucion! Make non consumables permanent!Thaumaturge actually has a feat that lets them use their class DC for activated items iirc.
Yup, one of the most eye popping late game class feats I've seen in while. I just want everybody to get similar longevity out of their treasured treasures (from the start of the game forward for appropriate sums of gold).
All items should default to your class dc if theirs is lower if you ask me.
Darn tootin'!
I don't think that itens should use exactly your class DC but I agree with them using some progressive DC related to them. For example, a Talisman could use a Weapon or Armor proficiency (depending where it was fixed).
Currently this is one big difference between 5e itens and PF2 itens due how DC progress in both games and also unfortunately PF2 is in a point beyond the balance to some itens once the item DC progress with item value so depending of the item DC auto-progression may risk to unbalance at last the prices of some items.
This is a thing that probably will only fixed in a PF3 for now what we get are things like Treasure Vaults where many itens have many different level versions (yet this is far from the ideal).
Alternatively a GM could use Proficiency without Level in order to diminish the item impact a little (this also helps summons and companions too) but the GM will have to pay attention to fix all DCs and rebalance all encounters (this also don't work well in some VTTs like Foundry).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improve the organization of the rules.
Currently they are not well laid out, making the game harder to learn then it needs to be. Monster creation is especially bad in this regard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah,
I think a lot of players get upset about rituals in PF2 because of the amount of GM fiat attached to them.
I think it's this + the way they're presented.
Rituals are almost described (and definitely were before PF2 came out) as an extension of the magic system, a way to cast slotless magic and a way to extend magic beyond traditional casting and to even non-casting classes.
In practice, they're purely a GM subsystem that isn't even really useful outside enabling certain fiat.
No one really cares that things like Influence and Research are GM-facing subsystems players can't access directly, but rituals are presented in such a way that they feel like they're supposed to be a lot more, even though they aren't.
|
|
Yeah,
I think a lot of players get upset about rituals in PF2 because of the amount of GM fiat attached to them.
I think it's this + the way they're presented.
Rituals are almost described (and definitely were before PF2 came out) as an extension of the magic system, a way to cast slotless magic and a way to extend magic beyond traditional casting and to even non-casting classes.
In practice, they're purely a GM subsystem that isn't even really useful outside enabling certain fiat.
No one really cares that things like Influence and Research are GM-facing subsystems players can't access directly, but rituals are presented in such a way that they feel like they're supposed to be a lot more, even though they aren't.
Full agreement. Rituals as they are should be in the GM section.
Now, another system allowing PCs, whatever their Class (including non-casters), to do some magic (I will call that Hedge Magic) through skills would be great. But I doubt we will have this in Remastered.