Pathfinder Pathfinder 2 Blog: Critical Success and Failure [Archive]

Psyren

2018-03-31, 02:24 AM

Sheriff: I guess this is fine, but keep it civil.

Thanks!

Paizo just released another blog post (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkod?Critical-Hits-and-Critical-Failures) about rules changes for Pathfinder 2. In the blog post, they reveal a "new" idea that has been used in other non-D&D systems, and that has been proposed for 3.5 variants before. Each check, rather than being a success or failure, can be a critical success, success, failure, or critical failure. The blog post is sparse on details: they give a few examples of critical successes and failures for abilities that don't do damage, though without saying what the normal success condition would be. There is a bunch of grandiose language about how great the new system is going to be without getting bogged down by pesky things like how the new system actually works. On the flip side, in some cases Mark Seifter has given specifics in the thread in response to people's questions, making the thread slightly more informative than the actual blog.

I'm definitely an advocate for "degrees of success." The rest will depend on the details. For example, Pathfinder had very few true "save or die" effects - about the only one I think was in core was Phantasmal Killer, which required multiple failures + SR on top of being foiled by both fear immunity and True Seeing. So I doubt they'll be bringing true SoDs back since they clearly disliked them. But if they do make critical failures have a steep penalty like death, I hope that there'll be a hero point mechanic (like, well, hero points, or Starfinder's Resolve) that players can use to negate them.

Florian

2018-03-31, 03:53 AM

I'm using more systems that use margin of failures/success based on DC/TN than the raw binary result system that is used in d20 and I really enjoy that more (example: TN is 20, up to 5 under is "yes, but", below that is "failure", then "critical failure". Up to 5 above is "Yes", above that is "Yes, and".). That actually gives a real depth to how you allocate skill points and what "mastery" means.

Kurald Galain

2018-03-31, 04:16 AM

I like the degrees of success. As they point out, it was already part of the game in numerous places (e.g. crit-fail a climb check means you fall down) but in an inconsistent way, so it makes sense to codify it. It's also nice that crits will happen noticeably more often, instead of being a once-in-a-blue-moon occurence. And you'll crit more often against weaker enemies, which is also fun.

Are they suggesting that they've brought in automatic success and failures for skill checks, though? Because that is potentially kind of gross.
The comments section is very explicit on the fact that you REALLY cannot e.g. jump to the moon with an athletics check, or convince the king to give the kingdom to you with a bluff check, not even if you roll a natural 20. :smallbiggrin:

Knaight

2018-03-31, 04:28 AM

Morty

2018-03-31, 05:38 AM

This sounds like a promising enough development. It's nice to hear that Paizo is finally embracing cutting edge 1990's mechanics like this. It would be nice if them learning from the rest of the industry extended into this millennia, but it's still basically D&D and that's too much to ask for.

Yeah, the tradition of taking +10 years old ideas and introducing them as their fresh new developments is strong. But one takes what one can get here.

That said, considering how much resistance there was towards damage on a miss during the 5e playtest, I do wonder what the reaction will be here.

TheIronGolem

2018-03-31, 01:09 PM

Spells having partial results even on a successful save could make them more powerful than now, but the devil is in the details.

I'd like to see spells having a range of results depending on the degree by which the save was passed/failed. Something like:

Exceeded save DC by X or more: No effect
Exceeded save DC by 0 to [X-1]: Partial effect
Failed save DC by 1 to [X-1]: Normal effect
Failed save DC by X or more: Improved/maximum effect

Scowling Dragon

2018-03-31, 02:01 PM

Its nice AGAIN, but I dislike the execution AGAIN.

I think the degrees of success thing was done better in M&M 3e at least in the telling of information sort of way.

M&M was also allot better in its scaling in the way that Pathfinder Wants.

Ninjaxenomorph

2018-03-31, 03:25 PM

I'm definitely an advocate for "degrees of success." The rest will depend on the details. For example, Pathfinder had very few true "save or die" effects - about the only one I think was in core was Phantasmal Killer, which required multiple failures + SR on top of being foiled by both fear immunity and True Seeing. So I doubt they'll be bringing true SoDs back since they clearly disliked them. But if they do make critical failures have a steep penalty like death, I hope that there'll be a hero point mechanic (like, well, hero points, or Starfinder's Resolve) that players can use to negate them.

Yeah. That implied Feeblemind crit fail looks pretty nasty. Strike me up for another one that likes the change to the engine. On a personal note, this also screws over one of my player's build using a naked invulnerable rager, so on a petty note I very much enjoy it.

137beth

2018-03-31, 05:46 PM

Sheriff: I guess this is fine, but keep it civil.
Thanks.

Also good to see fighters get minimum damage anyway on a failure to hit. If only fighters get that it's a Nice Thing.

Is it? I mean, it's just damage. Everyone in PF1 gets damage, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case in Pathfinder 2. Dealing hit point damage is not a "Nice Thing" that makes fighters stand out.

This sounds like a promising enough development. It's nice to hear that Paizo is finally embracing cutting edge 1990's mechanics like this. It would be nice if them learning from the rest of the industry extended into this millennia, but it's still basically D&D and that's too much to ask for.

I agree. Different levels of success is a good feature, and it is nice to see Pathfinder getting what other systems have had for decades.

Knaight

2018-04-01, 02:12 PM

That said, considering how much resistance there was towards damage on a miss during the 5e playtest, I do wonder what the reaction will be here.

That it still misses on a critical failure potentially mitigates a lot of these, particularly given the fail by 10 clause - something with truly amazing AC can still dodge reliably.

johnbragg

2018-04-01, 02:20 PM

Much like everything else we know about Pathfinder 2E, it is an attractive concept, but everything depends on the execution.

It's caused me to pull out my notes for a rework of the Sleep spell, which is way out there on the well-known and poorly-balanced/poorly-scaling things in the game. It's an encounter-ender at 1st level, an AoE that might get a lucky roll and take down an enemy at 3rd-4th level, and it's a complete waste above about 5th level. On top of that, it's a save-or-die.

So great, critical fail-fail-save-critical save seems like a better setup. Fail by 10, target is down. Fail by 1, target is debuffed a lot. Pass by 1, target is debuffed a little. Pass by 10, no effect. But given the structure of the math, I suspect that at any given level, only 2 of those options are real possibilities. Is that what we're going for?

Morty

2018-04-01, 02:54 PM

That it still misses on a critical failure potentially mitigates a lot of these, particularly given the fail by 10 clause - something with truly amazing AC can still dodge reliably.

It's also apparently a "mid level" fighter trick, rather than something you can have early on. So I guess it might mollify those who'd find it grossly unrealistic. Giving non-spellcasting types new things but adding caveats and catches seems to be going strong.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-01, 04:35 PM

It's also apparently a "mid level" fighter trick, rather than something you can have early on. So I guess it might mollify those who'd find it grossly unrealistic. Giving non-spellcasting types new things but adding caveats and catches seems to be going strong.

An important difference is that 4E and 5E worded it as "damage whenever you miss", whereas P2 words it as "turning some misses into glancing blows instead". In terms of verisimilitude, the latter is better.

Pex

2018-04-01, 05:40 PM

I'd like to see spells having a range of results depending on the degree by which the save was passed/failed. Something like:

Exceeded save DC by X or more: No effect
Exceeded save DC by 0 to [X-1]: Partial effect
Failed save DC by 1 to [X-1]: Normal effect
Failed save DC by X or more: Improved/maximum effect

I would be annoyed if I made my save against a spell I still lose something, as in the example given of making the save against Domination still costs me an action. I know they mean from the three actions model they're using, but the act of saving against the spell means I can't use an ability that costs three actions or do a two action cost ability but cannot do a one action cost I also wanted to do. It's a new perspective, and at first glance it's a bother.

Being my own devil's advocate, it does sort of already exist. Damage spells that use reflex saves give half damage upon a successful save. Some high level spells do something even when making a fortitude or will save. This could be the same thing worded differently, so it looks worse on paper than it is in reality. I'm willing to not condemn it right now and wait until we get the whole picture when it's released. It might be ok for me depending on the details.

TheIronGolem

2018-04-01, 08:17 PM

I would be annoyed if I made my save against a spell I still lose something, as in the example given of making the save against Domination still costs me an action. I know they mean from the three actions model they're using, but the act of saving against the spell means I can't use an ability that costs three actions or do a two action cost ability but cannot do a one action cost I also wanted to do. It's a new perspective, and at first glance it's a bother.

Being my own devil's advocate, it does sort of already exist. Damage spells that use reflex saves give half damage upon a successful save. Some high level spells do something even when making a fortitude or will save. This could be the same thing worded differently, so it looks worse on paper than it is in reality. I'm willing to not condemn it right now and wait until we get the whole picture when it's released. It might be ok for me depending on the details.

Well, I would certainly want to see things like Mettle and Evasion brought over to PF2, for exactly those reasons. Either by following the current model of "no partial effect on a successful save", or by adjusting the thresholds of where the partial/improved effects hit.

upho

2018-04-01, 09:31 PM

Is it? I mean, it's just damage. Everyone in PF1 gets damage, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case in Pathfinder 2. Dealing hit point damage is not a "Nice Thing" that makes fighters stand out.This. So much.

Not that this necessarily means the system's off, but I'm worried we haven't seen anything that really makes the above seem a less likely issue in P2. Because from what I can tell so far, aside from a few comments on moving in the new action system, instead literally everything we've seen connected to the fighter or martial combat in general is about hp damage. Lots about how to deal it in general - weapon types, Power Attack, critical success and failure - plus quite a lot about how to deal it during your turn, along with a few things about how to deal it outside your turn and how to avoid it.

And again, I'm simply hoping future reveals on for example "Combat Maneuvers that Rock" will turn this impression on its head.

It's also apparently a "mid level" fighter trick, rather than something you can have early on. So I guess it might mollify those who'd find it grossly unrealistic. Giving non-spellcasting types new things but adding caveats and catches seems to be going strong.Yeah. And again, so far all those new things also boil down to basically the same thing. This seemingly unintended "design theme" is by far the most important reason why 3.5 and PF martials in general have very little tactical depth and versatility in combat. If the PDT actually is having issues with providing martial combat with meaningful mechanical differentiation (between classes, combat styles, builds, rounds, turns, actions, etc), I do wonder what those issues are. Considering how much PF actually has evolved on this front over the years, despite being chained to a near fossilized core system, I think we can be pretty certain at least a lack of capacity thankfully isn't one such issue.

An important difference is that 4E and 5E worded it as "damage whenever you miss", whereas P2 words it as "turning some misses into glancing blows instead". In terms of verisimilitude, the latter is better.Definitely.

Now if they've also combined this increased granularity of success/failure with some kind of smart and play-friendly hp system at the very least equally granular, they might've made the damage differences a little more meaningful and less one-dimensional. Or to put it in other words, I think you can typically tell something is missing if DPR is generally the most relevant measure of damage focused characters' combat prowess. This is of course especially true in a system which focuses primarily on damage in general.

Morty

2018-04-03, 05:42 AM

This. So much.

Not that this necessarily means the system's off, but I'm worried we haven't seen anything that really makes the above seem a less likely issue in P2. Because from what I can tell so far, aside from a few comments on moving in the new action system, instead literally everything we've seen connected to the fighter or martial combat in general is about hp damage. Lots about how to deal it in general - weapon types, Power Attack, critical success and failure - plus quite a lot about how to deal it during your turn, along with a few things about how to deal it outside your turn and how to avoid it.

And again, I'm simply hoping future reveals on for example "Combat Maneuvers that Rock" will turn this impression on its head.

Yeah. And again, so far all those new things also boil down to basically the same thing. This seemingly unintended "design theme" is by far the most important reason why 3.5 and PF martials in general have very little tactical depth and versatility in combat. If the PDT actually is having issues with providing martial combat with meaningful mechanical differentiation (between classes, combat styles, builds, rounds, turns, actions, etc), I do wonder what those issues are. Considering how much PF actually has evolved on this front over the years, despite being chained to a near fossilized core system, I think we can be pretty certain at least a lack of capacity thankfully isn't one such issue.

We did see one non-damaging action for fighters - a feat that lets them spend an extra action to frighten an enemy with their attack. Other than that, it's just been damage all day long.

Meanwhile, goblins get the drow treatment in a new blog post. I continue to find it hilarious. The description of their racial characteristics isn't that different from the old one, but it emphasizes being quirky and hilarious, rather than psychotic, pyromaniac vermin. Just like in the 3.5 Monster Manual, elves are graceful and goblins are cowardly despite using the same tactics.

I wonder what they'll do to other "monster" races - hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, ogres, gnolls and the like. I suspect they'll remain conveniently evil, because they're not as popular as goblins and thus not marketable.

As far as racial traits go... each race gets two ability boosts and one flaw, which are apparently not the same thing as the old +2 bonuses/penalties. And they get one "floating" boost, which can negate a flaw. It still seems like playing a class that requires an attribute your race has a flaw in will be suboptimal. Like a goblin cleric. I can't for the life of me figure out why goblins have a charisma boost, mind you.

I like the idea of racial feats, but those we see here... improvising weapons together from scrap really doesn't feel like it should be a goblin-specific thing. Never mind how often it's even going to come up. Likewise for Razor Teeth - not sure what the value is of a 1d6 bite. The other two look more useful at a glance.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-03, 06:08 AM

Meanwhile, goblins get the drow treatment in a new blog post. I continue to find it hilarious. The description of their racial characteristics isn't that different from the old one, but it emphasizes being quirky and hilarious, rather than psychotic, pyromaniac vermin.

To be fair, and regardless of edition, many non-goblin PCs are also psychotic, pyromaniac vermin :smallbiggrin:

khadgar567

2018-04-03, 06:14 AM

To be fair, and regardless of edition, many non-goblin PCs are also psychotic, pyromaniac vermin :smallbiggrin:
only one came to my mind and its junkrat from overwatch so its kinda rare to find

Knaight

2018-04-03, 01:39 PM

only one came to my mind and its junkrat from overwatch so its kinda rare to find

You're thinking a little too literally here - terrible people prone to sudden violence with proclivities to arson are what's being alluded to, and this fits a number of PCs.

137beth

2018-04-03, 04:41 PM

I don't get what the fuss is about the placement of goblins described in yesterday's blog post. (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkog?Goblins) In Pathfinder 1e, there are two core rulebooks: the Bestiary and the poorly named Core Rulebook, which, in spite of its name, is not a self-contained set of rules for any game. The "Core Rulebook" contains things like Planar Binding, and there is no way to make sense of it with just the rules in the CRB. You need the Bestiary or something with essentially the same content as the Bestiary (the PRD, the 3.5 Monster Manual, the 3.5 SRD) to understand a bunch of the rules in the Core Rulebook.

In Pathfinder 1, goblins are a "core" race in that they are printed in the core rules. More specifically, they are in the Bestiary. They are also reprinted in the Advanced Race Guide. In PF2, as far as I can tell, there are still going to be two core rule books, and goblins are being moved from one to the other. Reading through the thread on the Paizo blog, though, it sounds like some people are really angry about goblins being in the CRB. A lot of the complaints seem to revolve around goblins gaining the status of a "Core Race." I'm kind of confused about what they mean, though: at first I thought they just meant that a "Core Race" was one that is in the CRB. However, the way some people describe it, it sounds as if they think there is some special effect of a race being "Core" aside from which book it is in. Like, if an ancestry is moved from the Advanced Race Guide or Bestiary to the Core Rulebook, does that give it some in-game benefits that I've never heard about? What is so significant about making goblins "Core?"

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-03, 05:03 PM

Like, if an ancestry is moved from the Advanced Race Guide or Bestiary to the Core Rulebook, does that give it some in-game benefits that I've never heard about? What is so significant about making goblins "Core?"

Its kinda a waste of space. Its one thing to have a page blurb about a race, but if it comes with feats, and backgrounds, and a bunch of other stuff wasting that space for a maskot race is just annoying when so many core design elements of the game have not been explained in the blogs yet.

Especially since its like its been toned down to fit as a player race. For the people that DID like the maskot, its like having the maskot having its edges filed down so it can apear in the title of the TV show.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-03, 05:14 PM

What is so significant about making goblins "Core?"

Some people are upset that goblins will "now become" a PC race. These people are apparently unaware that goblins have already been a PC race since the popular 2011 series "We Be Goblins", and have been part of PFS since 2012.

So it's a tempest in a teacup, really. Some people don't like goblins - and so what? Numerous people don't like gnomes or half-orcs, either. That's why there are also other races :smallamused:

exelsisxax

2018-04-03, 05:19 PM

Florian

2018-04-03, 05:40 PM

I don't get what the fuss is about the placement of goblins

Oh, I think that is rather simple: Critters in the Bestiaries are monsters, not people, it´s fine to kill monsters without a second thought and you don't even have to fire up your detect evil to be justified at that. Elf or Dwarf? Different matter, no automatic green light like with Duergar and Drow.

137beth

2018-04-04, 12:25 AM

Some people are upset that goblins will "now become" a PC race. These people are apparently unaware that goblins have already been a PC race since the popular 2011 series "We Be Goblins", and have been part of PFS since 2012.

So it's a tempest in a teacup, really. Some people don't like goblins - and so what? Numerous people don't like gnomes or half-orcs, either. That's why there are also other races :smallamused:

Oh, I think that is rather simple: Critters in the Bestiaries are monsters, not people, it´s fine to kill monsters without a second thought and you don't even have to fire up your detect evil to be justified at that. Elf or Dwarf? Different matter, no automatic green light like with Duergar and Drow.

Maybe I should clarify: I understand that some people feel that putting goblins in the Core Rule Book makes them a "player race"*, and that some people are unaware of goblins' presence as a "player race"* in the ARG, and that some people don't what that status given to goblins. However, reading the thread on the Paizo forum, there are also people who have specifically stated that they are okay with goblins being a "player race," but not a "core race."

I don't have the Advanced Race Guide, but from what I see of it on the PRD, it categorizes goblins as a "featured race." Is there some in-game thing that makes being a "Core Race" more significant than being a "non-core player race"? Or are people simply getting angry over which book something is printed in? In other words, aside from how early it is available, what is the difference between goblins being in the Core Rulebook as a "player ancestry" and goblins appearing as a player ancestry in the first supplement?

*Whatever that means to you. In a game like Pathfinder 1e or D&D 3.5, where NPCs and PCs use the exact same rules, I'll admit I don't really understand the obsession some people have with separating "player" content from "non-player" content. I understand that in other systems (including PF2, from what we've seen of it), NPCs use completely different rules from PCs, and so it makes sense to talk about some character-building rule as being "for players" and others as being for NPCs. But in PF1, they are supposedly the same.

Some people are mad because we don't care about goblins either way and want paizo to just give us the damn rules drafts already so we can figure out how badly they broke things.

The weird infatuation with what races and classes are in the core rulebook can die in a fire, we still don't know what basically any core rules actually are. It's a matter of priorities.
Now that's a sentiment I can get behind. Exactly which ancestries are in the core rulebook seems way less significant than, say, how tripping works. Or how flight in combat works. Or if hit-dice are still in the game. Or what non-casters can do that isn't hit-point damage. Or how the Downtime system will be changing from how it is in Ultimate Campaign. The question of which ancestries/classes are in core and which will show up again a year later in a splatbook doesn't seem nearly as important as getting the fundamentals of the system sorted out.

Florian

2018-04-04, 01:56 AM

I don't have the Advanced Race Guide, but from what I see of it on the PRD, it categorizes goblins as a "featured race." Is there some in-game thing that makes being a "Core Race" more significant than being a "non-core player race"? Or are people simply getting angry over which book something is printed in? In other words, aside from how early it is available, what is the difference between goblins being in the Core Rulebook as a "player ancestry" and goblins appearing as a player ancestry in the first supplement?

I think it´s the expectation how that will shape the Golarion setting. Contrast the earlier material with the later stuff, after they began to heavily integrate the newer player races. Golarion started out very "classic humanocentric", but quickly turned very "colorful" when they began to detail the different realms even more. It´s a massive shift in tone and I had players complaining about not wanting to play a "freak show" as a party.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-04, 02:50 AM

just give us the damn rules drafts already

It's called marketing :smallbiggrin: You might as well ask MGM why they put out trailers instead of just showing you the damn movie already.

Slithery D

2018-04-04, 07:19 AM

Core races are automatically available in PFS, and Kender-syndrome is a real possibility.

Psyren

2018-04-04, 09:19 AM

Core races are automatically available in PFS, and Kender-syndrome is a real possibility.

Yeah, I'm a big proponent of "just don't play with jerks" as a philosophy, but I can totally understand people having misgivings about a race that is known for embodying some of the worst stereotypes of Chaotic Neutral characters. "Kender syndrome" is an apt term.

Having said that, Goblins (even PF Goblins) are nowhere near as bad nor reviled as Kender were; in fact, the Paizo APs and modules that featured/encouraged playable goblins were very popular. That's what cemented goblins as part of their brand (right up there with the golem), and I have no doubt it also informed their decision to make Goblins "core."

exelsisxax

2018-04-04, 09:58 AM

It's called marketing :smallbiggrin: You might as well ask MGM why they put out trailers instead of just showing you the damn movie already.

They're going to give us the rules anyway, so that's a terrible marketing strategy. Additionally, they're giving it to us before release occurs. They say they want a thorough playtest, then I want the damn rules. I would like to avoid Edition War II, and that probably requires forcing paizo to throw out their sacred cows for PF2 - this will become virtually impossible if they start doing art design crap on the CRB like layouts.

When the devs reply to requests for actual rules with remarks on timetables for sidebar art for the playtest books, I am gravely concerned about PF2.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-04, 10:02 AM

When the devs reply to requests for actual rules with remarks on timetables for sidebar art for the playtest books, I am gravely concerned about PF2.

...why?

They've repeatedly stated that the playtest rules will be released in August, and the final release will be one year later. That gives them plenty of time to collect feedback.

khadgar567

2018-04-04, 10:16 AM

Starbuck_II

2018-04-04, 10:48 AM

considering the shifter fiasco we need good long playtest to make sure most of the problems to be ironed out.

Can we get a shifter as a core class? Core classes tend to be stronger than base classes (they eventually nerf non-core to make this true).

Kurald Galain

2018-04-04, 11:31 AM

considering the shifter fiasco we need good long playtest to make sure most of the problems to be ironed out.
I'm hoping that Paizo's best designers were working on PF2 whereas they had one of the interns make the shifter. And then fired him.

(they eventually nerf non-core to make this true).
Oh wow, it's hilarious what bogeyman stories people make up about Paizo. I hadn't heard this one before :smallbiggrin:

exelsisxax

2018-04-04, 11:40 AM

...why?

They've repeatedly stated that the playtest rules will be released in August, and the final release will be one year later. That gives them plenty of time to collect feedback.

But paizo's history with things like the kineticist and shifter demonstrate that their internal playtesting is insignificantly different from a total lack of playtesting, and that their process for examining content in light of feedback are primarily "ignore feedback".

If we start now, we just might be able to hammer things enough to get them fixed before release. Things like starfinder's ship combat simply not working might even get fixed before august, and if we're dedicated and loud enough wizard might not even be strictly superior to martials! It's always best to end on a joke.

Psyren

2018-04-04, 11:58 AM

They say they want a thorough playtest, then I want the damn rules.

The playtest hasn't started yet. You know that right?

But paizo's history with things like the kineticist and shifter demonstrate that their internal playtesting is insignificantly different from a total lack of playtesting, and that their process for examining content in light of feedback are primarily "ignore feedback".

So you're excoriating them over a whopping two bad base classes? How many did 3.5 have? Even towards the end we were getting crap like Soulborn, Truenamer, Savant, and Lurk. How many Paizo classes are T4+? (I'm assuming T4 is the baseline for popularity because everybody seems to like Warlock and Barbarian.)

stack

2018-04-04, 12:03 PM

I believe Jason Bulmahn (Paizo's director of game design) was the main author of the shifter, but I do not have a citation for that.

exelsisxax

2018-04-04, 12:24 PM

The playtest hasn't started yet. You know that right?

I'm mad that i'm not playtesting PF2 right this very moment. A publishing timetable is irrelevant, they aren't publishing a product so they lose nothing with a draft pdf dump.

So you're excoriating them over a whopping two bad base classes? How many did 3.5 have? Even towards the end we were getting crap like Soulborn, Truenamer, Savant, and Lurk. How many Paizo classes are T4+? (I'm assuming T4 is the baseline for popularity because everybody seems to like Warlock and Barbarian.)

Well, those are the "unmitigated and undeniably terrible, in that all design goals were failed and the execution was also as elegant as an appendectomy with a jackhammer" levels of fail. To list other classes that were screwed up on release:

barbarian, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, rogue, sorcerer, cavalier, gunslinger, oracle, summoner, vigilante, witch, medium, and psychic.

Some were so screwy they had re-releases, others so bad paizo pretends they don't exist. Fullcasters still just play a fundamentally different game than the rest of the party that can warp a campaign beyond usability, while many have one real capability: deal damage.

I have every expectation that paizo will make the same mistakes, and would like to provide detailed accounts to them as to how they've screwed up, in a likely vain attempt to prevent them from bungling this whole thing.

Starbuck_II

2018-04-04, 01:24 PM

The playtest hasn't started yet. You know that right?

So you're excoriating them over a whopping two bad base classes? How many did 3.5 have? Even towards the end we were getting crap like Soulborn, Truenamer, Savant, and Lurk. How many Paizo classes are T4+? (I'm assuming T4 is the baseline for popularity because everybody seems to like Warlock and Barbarian.)

Whoa, don't lump Soulborn and Lurk together. Lurk needed slight tweaks but was a good class.

Psyren

2018-04-04, 02:31 PM

To list other classes that were screwed up on release:

Half your list makes no sense (sorcerer, cleric, paladin, oracle, witch? Really?) and the other half, you appear to have a definition of "screwed up" that is unlikely to mesh with my own.

I have every expectation that paizo will make the same mistakes, and would like to provide detailed accounts to them as to how they've screwed up, in a likely vain attempt to prevent them from bungling this whole thing.

I mean, you do you, but given the contents of your list you might be better off just playing a different game entirely I think.

Whoa, don't lump Soulborn and Lurk together. Lurk needed slight tweaks but was a good class.

Divine Mind then :smallbiggrin:

Yeah in the Lurk's case I was more disappointed than truly down on it. A skillmonkey class without trapfinding, less than 6+Int skills, VERY anemic sneak attack progression (I think only the Savant is worse, and at least they had real sneak attack instead of the Lurk's watered-down version) - It was just disheartening. Some of the augments were nice though.

Knaight

2018-04-04, 03:07 PM

I'm mad that i'm not playtesting PF2 right this very moment. A publishing timetable is irrelevant, they aren't publishing a product so they lose nothing with a draft pdf dump.

There's a minimal state of readiness that you want before releasing something to the public, even as playtest documents. They may well not be there yet - if you've got entire sections full of text like "[Insert Chapter Here]" or "[Add this stuff]", it's just not ready yet. That's before getting into entire sections written in temporary short hand, the most polished material being thoroughly rough draft, and a near total lack of layout.

Then there's the matter of internal design notes for future releases they might want to be quiet, stuff to the effect of "[Design these mechanics to allow for Mass Combat]", where if the feature ends up not being delivered later they have problems with expectations.

exelsisxax

2018-04-04, 03:08 PM

Half your list makes no sense (sorcerer, cleric, paladin, oracle, witch? Really?) and the other half, you appear to have a definition of "screwed up" that is unlikely to mesh with my own.

The ability to cast wish or miracle automatically makes a class borked, as do high level spells in general.

Are you saying that a class with a class feature that includes extremely strict requirements with no context allowed that causes you to lose all your class features is OK? Because I don't. I think that's fractally stupid.

Medium and vigilante can't participate in any but very narrow campaigns. What's a vigilante supposed to do in an exploration campaign? or a planehopping one? or just a campiagn with lots of travel? How does Zorro delve dungeons? How does a Vigilante function at all in a party-based game, really?

I mean, you do you, but given the contents of your list you might be better off just playing a different game entirely I think.

I tried, but they were even worse.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-04, 04:02 PM

The ability to cast wish or miracle automatically makes a class borked,
Not in campaigns below level seventeen, which turns out to be pretty much all of them.

The impression I get is that (almost) all your objections are based on theorycraft, as opposed to actual gameplay. Only a tiny minority of Paizo's (or WOTC's) audience plays in the way forums like this one suggests.

Psyren

2018-04-04, 04:20 PM

Not in campaigns below level seventeen, which turns out to be pretty much all of them.

The impression I get is that (almost) all your objections are based on theorycraft, as opposed to actual gameplay. Only a tiny minority of Paizo's (or WOTC's) audience plays in the way forums like this one suggests.

Also, even from a theorycraft standpoint, PF Wish is very different than 3.5 Wish.

I tried, but they were even worse.

Uh... I'm sorry to hear that?

exelsisxax

2018-04-04, 05:24 PM

Not in campaigns below level seventeen, which turns out to be pretty much all of them.

The impression I get is that (almost) all your objections are based on theorycraft, as opposed to actual gameplay. Only a tiny minority of Paizo's (or WOTC's) audience plays in the way forums like this one suggests.

That's like saying that a manufacturing defect that causes a model of car to explode under certain circumstances isn't a problem because most people don't experience those circumstances, then glossing over the fact that those cars were marketed to be able to perform under those exact circumstances.

Psyren

2018-04-04, 05:45 PM

That's like saying that a manufacturing defect that causes a model of car to explode under certain circumstances isn't a problem because most people don't experience those circumstances, then glossing over the fact that those cars were marketed to be able to perform under those exact circumstances.

Your analogy doesn't work on several levels. For one, Wish was in 3.5, so PF bringing it over WAS advertised quite plainly. For two, again, PF Wish was nerfed considerably vs. 3.5. Which means that, for three, if your car exploded, it's because you were the one who filled the tank with hydrogen; at some point, you do have to take personal responsibility for your game not breaking.

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-04, 06:02 PM

Maybe this is just hearsay, but what SUPER seriously concerns me is the mention of "We have all the stuff in place already, so most of the playtest is already done"
Don't quote me on this, but that sounds very believable.
Paizo is not very receptive at all to criticism, and what ideas they have in their head quickly overrides the reality on play..And simple numbers and probability as well.

upho

2018-04-04, 09:19 PM

We did see one non-damaging action for fighters - a feat that lets them spend an extra action to frighten an enemy with their attack. Other than that, it's just been damage all day long.Oh, I totally missed this somehow. Thanks! And yeah, it's not much. But at least it's something.

Meanwhile, goblins get the drow treatment in a new blog post. I continue to find it hilarious. The description of their racial characteristics isn't that different from the old one, but it emphasizes being quirky and hilarious, rather than psychotic, pyromaniac vermin. Just like in the 3.5 Monster Manual, elves are graceful and goblins are cowardly despite using the same tactics.The "drow treatment" really is true in more ways than one. But gobbos actually got that a long time ago. The problem here for many players/GMs who primarily play APs and/or in Golarion largely as written is gobbos being core. A concern I can totally understand (more below), even though it won't affect my games. (I don't play in Golarion, and even though I do use a lot from APs, I still need to change a lot of details and tweak a large majority of creatures.)

I wonder what they'll do to other "monster" races - hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, ogres, gnolls and the like. I suspect they'll remain conveniently evil, because they're not as popular as goblins and thus not marketable.They'll likely remain pretty much as they are, with some of them probably getting PC rules for use on a "ask your GM" basis in the Bestiary or later releases.

As far as racial traits go... each race gets two ability boosts and one flaw, which are apparently not the same thing as the old +2 bonuses/penalties. And they get one "floating" boost, which can negate a flaw. It still seems like playing a class that requires an attribute your race has a flaw in will be suboptimal. Like a goblin cleric.Like Psyren suspected in the closed thread, P2 will use the Starfinder model for level-up bonuses; +2 to a stat below 16 or +1 to a stat of at least 16. We don't know whether racial bonuses are also affected by this, but I'd suspect not. And regardless of the racial penalty, I still think this is a significant improvement in comparison to P1.

I can't for the life of me figure out why goblins have a charisma boost, mind you.That one is a bit weird, I agree. But so was the +2 Int. Either is about as (un)suitable IMO, and either is preferable to +2 Wis if a mental stat bonus is a must.

To be fair, and regardless of edition, many non-goblin PCs are also psychotic, pyromaniac vermin :smallbiggrin:Heh, indeed...

Core classes tend to be stronger than base classes (they eventually nerf non-core to make this true).Say what? :smallconfused: Where did you get this from?

Aside from a few examples of the opposite of what you're saying (like bloodrager > barb), it seems to me that if a core class is stronger than a comparable later base class, it's mostly just an indirect effect of the core class having existed longer and therefore having more options.

Maybe I should clarify: I understand that some people feel that putting goblins in the Core Rule Book makes them a "player race"*, and that some people are unaware of goblins' presence as a "player race"* in the ARG, and that some people don't what that status given to goblins. However, reading the thread on the Paizo forum, there are also people who have specifically stated that they are okay with goblins being a "player race," but not a "core race."

I don't have the Advanced Race Guide, but from what I see of it on the PRD, it categorizes goblins as a "featured race." Is there some in-game thing that makes being a "Core Race" more significant than being a "non-core player race"? Or are people simply getting angry over which book something is printed in? In other words, aside from how early it is available, what is the difference between goblins being in the Core Rulebook as a "player ancestry" and goblins appearing as a player ancestry in the first supplement?I suggest you read the Paizo thread again, the issue is thoroughly explained there. But in short, it changes the Golarion setting and NPCs in APs, making it a much greater task to preserve gobbos as being 99.999% crazy baby-eating homicidal pyromaniacs.

And perhaps equally important, having gobbos core removes a large part of their draw as PCs - you're not nearly as much of special snowflake by playing a heroic gobbo in Golarion.

So again, though I personally don't really care either way, I can certainly understand why people are against gobbos being core, and their concerns are most definitely legitimate.

Now that's a sentiment I can get behind. Exactly which ancestries are in the core rulebook seems way less significant than, say, how tripping works. Or how flight in combat works. Or if hit-dice are still in the game. Or what non-casters can do that isn't hit-point damage. Or how the Downtime system will be changing from how it is in Ultimate Campaign. The question of which ancestries/classes are in core and which will show up again a year later in a splatbook doesn't seem nearly as important as getting the fundamentals of the system sorted out.Agreed. But I also know that this isn't a perspective shared by all, and probably not even a majority.

Not in campaigns below level seventeen, which turns out to be pretty much all of them.I think you know fully well that this isn't an issue limited just to wish or higher levels, but something that arguably starts already at 7th level.

The impression I get is that (almost) all your objections are based on theorycraft, as opposed to actual gameplay. Only a tiny minority of Paizo's (or WOTC's) audience plays in the way forums like this one suggests.I somewhat share this impression. Although I'd also say when it comes to PF and this forum specifically, I'd say it's often actually a lot closer to most real games. Which I think your own magus guide is a pretty good example of, actually.

Regardless, it's also worth keeping in mind that the issue exels talks about is not limited to games with players hanging out on forums. My own regular group's history is an example of that (we first ran into 3.0's C/MD issues back in 2001).

Kurald Galain

2018-04-05, 12:45 AM

Oh, I totally missed this somehow. Thanks! And yeah, it's not much. But at least it's something.
We've got a second one: shield block.

Like Psyren suspected in the closed thread, P2 will use the Starfinder model for level-up bonuses;
It's been confirmed that it won't.

I think you know fully well that this isn't an issue limited just to wish or higher levels, but something that arguably starts already at 7th level.
Meh. It's been debated to death in this forum in particular how utterly broken and unplayable 3.5 and PF are, and yet tons of people still enjoy playing them. The obvious conclusion is that most people don't use the goals and methods that our forum users do. Overanalysis is a thing.

(edit) Upon reflection, forum discussions on balance generally assume that (1) all players find it vitally important that nobody ever gets overshadowed, AND (2) all players have the skill, knowledge, and selfishness to play their build to maximum effectiveness all the time, AND (3) all DMs are utterly clueless and incompetent to do anything that contributes to play balance. Think about those assumptions for a moment :smallamused:

upho

2018-04-05, 08:03 AM

We've got a second one: shield block.What exactly does shield block do that isn't related to hp damage?

It's been confirmed that it won't.It has? Seems someone over at the Paizo boards has been spreading disinformation... :smallannoyed:

Thanks for the heads-up.

Meh. It's been debated to death in this forum in particular how utterly broken and unplayable 3.5 and PF are, and yet tons of people still enjoy playing them. The obvious conclusion is that most people don't use the goals and methods that our forum users do. Overanalysis is a thing.What you're saying here and what exels said aren't mutually exclusive in any way. But yeah, hyperbole is a common plague on internet forums, including this one.

(edit) Upon reflection, forum discussions on balance generally assume that (1) all players find it vitally important that nobody ever gets overshadowed, AND (2) all players have the skill, knowledge, and selfishness to play their build to maximum effectiveness all the time, AND (3) all DMs are utterly clueless and incompetent to do anything that contributes to play balance. Think about those assumptions for a moment :smallamused:I'm not convinced. For example, I'm pretty certain not one single person in my regular group would've agreed with any of the above back when we had C/MD issues. And note that those issues did not mean the game was "utterly broken and unplayable" (well, in one specific case it was actually close to that, but...). In short, I believe the truth is, as usual, somewhere in between.

As an example of this, my personal experience has been that the pretty impressive system mastery most of my players have gained has improved the game significantly, primarily because it has enabled them to keep our "gentlemen's agreement" by balancing their PCs power to that of the rest of the party and the general power level initially agreed upon. Nevertheless, in our current game it's not merely because of setting and story reasons that PoW classes are recommended instead of most Paizo martials, that combat feat house rules similar to these (http://michaeliantorno.com/feat-taxes-in-pathfinder/) are used, and that spells above 6th are the only things generally not allowed. And yes, the game is not just better balanced because of those changes, but plain better and more fun for everyone involved. Which of course in small part is because those changes have made me a better GM, notably since less of my prep time has to be spent tweaking mechanics-heavy challenges to suit PCs at wildly different levels of power.

I don't think it's in any way unreasonable to expect the game to not require any of the above in order to provide similar great results. And it's also perfectly reasonable to critique the designers for not having been able to create a game which does so to a much greater extent than its predecessor.

But again, I'm also pretty darn certain that in most groups/games these issues aren't even remotely close to as devastating as all the nagging and vitriol on the forums would have you believe.

Pex

2018-04-05, 08:03 AM

We've got a second one: shield block.

It's been confirmed that it won't.

Meh. It's been debated to death in this forum in particular how utterly broken and unplayable 3.5 and PF are, and yet tons of people still enjoy playing them. The obvious conclusion is that most people don't use the goals and methods that our forum users do. Overanalysis is a thing.

(edit) Upon reflection, forum discussions on balance generally assume that (1) all players find it vitally important that nobody ever gets overshadowed, AND (2) all players have the skill, knowledge, and selfishness to play their build to maximum effectiveness all the time, AND (3) all DMs are utterly clueless and incompetent to do anything that contributes to play balance. Think about those assumptions for a moment :smallamused:

In my years of playing Pathfinder, I have heard others complain of only three things, only one which I empathize.

1) Too much fiddly bits. The player got annoyed trying to remember all the +1s and +2s that got piled on. He hated doing that math. That plus moving more than 5 ft stopped him from doing what he wanted to do. This is where I empathize. I don't mind fiddly bits, but I can see how it becomes nuisance. Agreement on the 5 ft step issue. This is one thing I like about 5E over Pathfinder.

2) Not enough realism. Even as DM he would go with the rules as they are but complained constantly about lack of facing and was anal about breaking doors and seeing things from a distance. He was playing the numbers, not the game.

3) Disappointed Fighter doesn't get cool things unlike the Paladin who is Superman. He hopes Pathfinder 2 will improve Fighter to be interesting but has decided he'll never play a Fighter again.

No one complained about spells. No one complained about a warrior and a spellcaster in the same party. No one complained about the druid. Players are happy when a spell helps win the battle. Warriors make their Will saves. Monsters make their saves preventing the spellcaster from winning everything. Spellcasters need the warriors and enjoy casting buffs on them. Healing in combat is a viable tactic.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-05, 08:41 AM

In my years of playing Pathfinder, I have heard others complain of only three things, only one which I empathize.
I completely agree that PF has way too many fiddly bits (as do 3E and 4E) and this clearly turns some players away. 5E either consciously averts this or moves it to the head of the DM, depending on who you ask. It'll be interesting to see what approach P2 takes (but note that 3E/4E have about ten different types of action, 5E still has six, and P2 seems to have only two).

Realism is a matter of playstyle; I know several DMs who tend to rule that even if combination-so-and-so makes zero sense, then unless the rules explicitly point out that it doesn't work, then it works normally. To be fair, some players find this very funny. Overall, 3E/PF does a fairly good job of modelling a world that is larger than the PCs, and many players care about that (although I'm well aware that many forum users have their own pet peeve where the worldbuilding breaks and causes it to be RUINED FOREVER in favor of any game that doesn't try to model anything at all).

Interestingly, in my area the fighter is the second most popular class in the game, only behind the druid and slightly ahead of the cleric and rogue (which includes u-rogue). The most popular arcane caster is the alchemist. Anecdotal, sure, but I have data of over a hundred players. I suppose ease of play counts for a lot, and the wide selection of archetypes make the PF fighter much more versatile than its 3.5 counterpart.

Psyren

2018-04-05, 09:38 AM

It's been confirmed that it won't.

It has? Seems someone over at the Paizo boards has been spreading disinformation... :smallannoyed:

Thanks for the heads-up.

Someone in the blog too apparently: (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lklr?Leveling-Up)

"The Best of Your Ability
You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels. The process might be familiar to those of you who've been playing Starfinder for the last several months!"

Got a link Kurald?

In my years of playing Pathfinder, I have heard others complain of only three things, only one which I empathize.

1) Too much fiddly bits. The player got annoyed trying to remember all the +1s and +2s that got piled on. He hated doing that math. That plus moving more than 5 ft stopped him from doing what he wanted to do. This is where I empathize. I don't mind fiddly bits, but I can see how it becomes nuisance. Agreement on the 5 ft step issue. This is one thing I like about 5E over Pathfinder.

Removing all of those would just be making 5e but with no chance of competing with 5e's market. PF needs to be the rules-heavy game, and that means multiple modifiers. I agree that there can be less of them, or fewer bonus types, but if PF isn't the game for those who like at least some math then it's likely going to fail. (I view the curse "Mathfinder" as a compliment.)

2) Not enough realism. Even as DM he would go with the rules as they are but complained constantly about lack of facing and was anal about breaking doors and seeing things from a distance. He was playing the numbers, not the game.

I find it amusing that a guy who complained about fiddly bits wanted to bring back facing of all things :smallwink:

3) Disappointed Fighter doesn't get cool things unlike the Paladin who is Superman. He hopes Pathfinder 2 will improve Fighter to be interesting but has decided he'll never play a Fighter again.

P1 has already given Fighter a bunch of neat stuff, it just took a while. I'm hoping P2 starts them off with that stuff right off the bat.

calam

2018-04-05, 12:09 PM

P1 has already given Fighter a bunch of neat stuff, it just took a while. I'm hoping P2 starts them off with that stuff right off the bat.

From what I can tell they seem to be moving the fighter to more of a tank role with suggestions like better attack of opportunity ability and being able to use your shield bonus on others (which seems to now include DR which may be up to your shield hardness which is a little worrying if they keep either the previous shield hardness or damage levels)

I'm personally more worried about the scaling of the class feats like a level 14 fighter feat allows you to use your shield bonus to reflex which sounds like lighting reflexes. They also seem like they are focusing on combat when it comes to class feats and are planning to use the skills system for non combat stuff which relies on the the mastery system and that might make non combat stuff independent of class unless your non combat is magic but there's some indication that mastery is partially dependent on class.

upho

2018-04-05, 12:48 PM

In my years of playing Pathfinder, I have heard others complain of only three things, only one which I empathize.

1) Too much fiddly bits. The player got annoyed trying to remember all the +1s and +2s that got piled on. He hated doing that math. That plus moving more than 5 ft stopped him from doing what he wanted to do. This is where I empathize. I don't mind fiddly bits, but I can see how it becomes nuisance. Agreement on the 5 ft step issue. This is one thing I like about 5E over Pathfinder.This I can certainly also empathize with.

I completely agree that PF has way too many fiddly bits (as do 3E and 4E) and this clearly turns some players away. 5E either consciously averts this or moves it to the head of the DM, depending on who you ask. It'll be interesting to see what approach P2 takes (but note that 3E/4E have about ten different types of action, 5E still has six, and P2 seems to have only two).Agreed. Speaking of turning players away, my current game is the first RPG experience ever for one of my five players, and she's the first total RPG noob we've actually ever had in this very old group of grognards. IIRC, it's also been more than 30 years since the last time I played with an absolute RPG rookie in any kind of RPG even remotely as rules-heavy as PF, so this latest addition to the group has also provided me as a GM with some great insights into the "noob perspective". Aside from seeing how her character has grown on her and how her RP has been quickly developing, it's been particularly interesting and refreshing to hear her opinions on the fiddly bits. So far, those are the only cause of any annoyance with the system aside from having "too damned many options" in combat. (She's playing a magus... I'm sorry Kurald, but I've come to see it as a definite sign of early onset Alzheimer's that I didn't react to hearing her decide on that class for her first RPG PC ever.)

But interestingly, she also really appreciates most of the system's complexity and says she wouldn't want it "dumb-ed down" in any way, and she's become increasingly interested in the finer details of combat teamwork tactics.

2) Not enough realism. Even as DM he would go with the rules as they are but complained constantly about lack of facing and was anal about breaking doors and seeing things from a distance. He was playing the numbers, not the game.
Realism is a matter of playstyle; I know several DMs who tend to rule that even if combination-so-and-so makes zero sense, then unless the rules explicitly point out that it doesn't work, then it works normally. To be fair, some players find this very funny. Overall, 3E/PF does a fairly good job of modelling a world that is larger than the PCs, and many players care about that (although I'm well aware that many forum users have their own pet peeve where the worldbuilding breaks and causes it to be RUINED FOREVER in favor of any game that doesn't try to model anything at all).IME, the wish for RPG mechanics able to simulate RL physics tend to exist for a brief but often intense period during peoples' time in the hobby. Typically, once they've started making up house rules for increased realism in an already complex fantasy game like PF, they quickly reach a point where a) realize the game is so far removed from RL in so many fundamental ways the game would basically need to be rewritten from scratch, b) find the "realistic" rules also make options unbalanced with a few total no-brainers and tons of absolute crap options, and c) their game becomes overloaded with minutia slowing play down to a crawl. And then they give up on the idea and start tweaking for better balance and ease of play instead.

3) Disappointed Fighter doesn't get cool things unlike the Paladin who is Superman. He hopes Pathfinder 2 will improve Fighter to be interesting but has decided he'll never play a Fighter again.Not surprising, I think. It takes quite a bit of combat rules-fu to bring a fighter up to and above PF pally baseline. And while the PF fighter has surely become far superior to its 3.5 counterpart, it's still one of the most complicated classes to build, and arguably even more difficult to actually optimize than in 3.5 due to its more numerous decent to great options and vastly increased number of viable build focuses.

Interestingly, in my area the fighter is the second most popular class in the game, only behind the druid and slightly ahead of the cleric and rogue (which includes u-rogue). The most popular arcane caster is the alchemist. Anecdotal, sure, but I have data of over a hundred players. I suppose ease of play counts for a lot, and the wide selection of archetypes make the PF fighter much more versatile than its 3.5 counterpart.Interesting. Especially about the alchemist, I think, as I'd guess it to be less popular due to it's unique rules and that it's much less of a fantasy staple than most of the other arcane casters. And anecdotal or not, this is still a heck of a lot less so than the protected little bubble of veterans gamer friends I usually play with.

No one complained about spells. No one complained about a warrior and a spellcaster in the same party. No one complained about the druid. Players are happy when a spell helps win the battle. Warriors make their Will saves. Monsters make their saves preventing the spellcaster from winning everything. Spellcasters need the warriors and enjoy casting buffs on them. Healing in combat is a viable tactic.Actually, I would've been a bit surprised if people had complained about C/MD related things the most. Seems to me that in most groups, those complaints usually start popping up hundreds of gaming hours after "monks are TOTALLY broken!"-types of comments, and well after the group has been through the "Fighter sucks while Pally's friggin' Superman!"-phase. That is of course unless someone happens to stumble upon some unusually strong spells and milk them for all their worth, or the group includes someone with a true power gamer mindset who manages to put together a summon-specialized demigod for the third game in their lives (yeah, I've seen that happen).

I seem to recall you used to play 3.5 as well. If that's correct, are your experiences from that game similar in this regard?

upho

2018-04-05, 02:06 PM

Someone in the blog too apparently: (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lklr?Leveling-Up)

"The Best of Your Ability
You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels. The process might be familiar to those of you who've been playing Starfinder for the last several months!"Yeah, that's the one! That's the guy I'm talkin' 'bout! You found 'im Psyren!

Now what the heck does he think he knows that ol' Kurald doesn't? And why is he bein' mean like that, spreadin' lies an' havin' people believe in that crazy Starfinder stuff? :smallfrown:

I think he's one o' them, them really bad peoples... You know, one o' them, watchacallem now, Demon Cult Leaders?

No, that's not it, I mean o' them truly EVILTM peoples...

Red Fel? No... Close, but not exactly...

Paizo Game Designers! That's what I meant; he's one o' them lyin', cheatin' an' stealin' good-fer-nuthin' Paizo Game Designers! :smalleek:

Removing all of those would just be making 5e but with no chance of competing with 5e's market. PF needs to be the rules-heavy game, and that means multiple modifiers. I agree that there can be less of them, or fewer bonus types, but if PF isn't the game for those who like at least some math then it's likely going to fail. (I view the curse "Mathfinder" as a compliment.)I find it a bit funny how my group's RPG noob fully agrees with you. As do I, btw.

I find it amusing that a guy who complained about fiddly bits wanted to bring back facing of all things :smallwink:I think Pex was talking about two different guys, actually. But if not, that is indeed amusing!

P1 has already given Fighter a bunch of neat stuff, it just took a while. I'm hoping P2 starts them off with that stuff right off the bat.It just took a while? Seriously? It took them more than six long cold, lonely and bitter years before they even started moving! And now when they're giving up, they've still not made it nearly far enough, IMO.

But yeah, I'm hoping for the very same thing. I'm just worried we haven't seen much at all in that direction, IMO. But there's still hope...

Pex

2018-04-05, 02:55 PM

I find it amusing that a guy who complained about fiddly bits wanted to bring back facing of all things :smallwink:

Misunderstanding with perhaps my miscommunication. They're three different players.

Edit: As for 3E, never once a complaint. If anything a fighter player got slightly jealous I was doing all sorts of things playing a crusader/master of nine, but the player lacked system mastery. With DM permission and instigation I remade his fighter character entirely and he was quite happy with it then. I utilized the Focus feats from one of the splat books.

Psyren

2018-04-06, 12:03 AM

Misunderstanding with perhaps my miscommunication. They're three different players.

Gotcha, my bad.

It just took a while? Seriously? It took them more than six long cold, lonely and bitter years before they even started moving!

Nah, they definitely started moving much earlier - they were giving Fighter nice stuff well before Unchained+WMH, it was just primarily found in archetype land. Mobile Fighter was in their very first splat (the APG), Lore Warden dropped in PFS Field Guide, Mutation Warrior was in ACG, and Eldritch Guardian came out in Familiar Folio, to name a few examples.

Morty

2018-04-06, 01:24 PM

Healing in combat is a viable tactic.

PF 2e designers seem to disagree on this score, since apparently clerics will have a separate healing pool that doesn't compete with other spells.

Pex

2018-04-06, 02:12 PM

PF 2e designers seem to disagree on this score, since apparently clerics will have a separate healing pool that doesn't compete with other spells.

They have that now with Channel Energy which does well in combat, though you really need Selective Channeling feat. Add in Quick Channel feat to do it as a move action and you can still cast whatever standard action spell you want. Having healing ability that does not compete with spells is a good thing.

If anyone is better than the cleric at healing in combat it's the Life Oracle. I played one. I know. A player did the math. I effectively doubled the party's hit points, tripled on a good day. The rest of the party could concentrate more on offense because I had their backs fully on hit points and defense. The DM needed to increase the difficulty and sometimes outright target me specifically for the bad guys to be any threat. In one round instance of combat I did standard action Channel Energy 6d6, move action Channel Energy 6d6, swift action Mass Cure Light Wounds for 1d8 + 11. I healed everyone in the party essentially nullifying everything the bad guys did.

Morty

2018-04-06, 06:59 PM

I should hope bringing a cleric along won't be mandatory if you want healing, but I won't hold my breath. 4e had a good way to make sure everyone didn't run on the leader's schedule, with healing surges. But we won't be getting that in PF 2e.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-07, 04:27 AM

Interestingly, in my area the fighter is the second most popular class in the game, only behind the druid and slightly ahead of the cleric and rogue (which includes u-rogue). The most popular arcane caster is the alchemist. Anecdotal, sure, but I have data of over a hundred players. I suppose ease of play counts for a lot, and the wide selection of archetypes make the PF fighter much more versatile than its 3.5 counterpart.

Of course, other people have statistics on this, too (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B_cI3Ieu_m14bhefFGB5GVY0cgTp89Rb/view).

Turns out the two most popular character classes are, by a wide margin, fighter and rogue. The second most played group of classes is cleric/wizard/sorc. The third group is pally/monk/bard. And the fourth is ranger/barb/alch/oracle/magus.

Also, about 44% of all characters use an archetype; and for each class, the three most popular archetypes account for about half of archetype choices. This suggests that players love archetypes, and there are way too many of them printed that go largely unused.

This says a lot about what Paizo's priorities should be for P2.

137beth

2018-04-07, 04:57 PM

Morty

2018-04-07, 05:29 PM

I'm in favour of unique racial abilities, be they feats of something else. They should replace attribute bonuses and penalties entirely, because those do nothing except discourage character concepts. The traits and feats we've seen so far look to be a mix of actually useful and flavourful stuff and things that are going to be niche at best and probably forgotten.

Remuko

2018-04-07, 07:58 PM

New PF2 blog: Big Beards and Pointy Ears. (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkoy?Big-Beards-and-Pointy-Ears) Paizo lays out some vague descriptions about how dwarves and elves will work in the new game.

I don't see anything particularly impressive in here. They confirm that elves and dwarves will use the new ancestry ability score bonuses, and they give a bunch of really vague statements about ancestry feats.

I found this bit interesting

Elves can see in dim light, and have the highest speed of all the ancestries at 30 feet. (Going to three actions per round brought the other ancestries that were as fast as elves in Pathfinder First Edition down to 25 feet from 30.)

Wasnt expecting that.

137beth

2018-04-07, 11:32 PM

I found this bit interesting

Wasnt expecting that.

Which part weren't you expecting? That the standard speed is getting reduced, or that elves will be the fastest?

upho

2018-04-08, 03:04 AM

Of course, other people have statistics on this, too (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B_cI3Ieu_m14bhefFGB5GVY0cgTp89Rb/view).Now those statistics are actually coming darn close to being fully representative of real PCs and games, the survey's most noteworthy bias simply being an effect of the sample selection method AFAICT. Even the sample size should be several times greater than the acceptable minimum.

Nothing really surprising in the findings IMO, and IIRC most of them confirm the findings of previous surveys and what people in general seem to have suspected for a long time. But I think a few things stand out as particularly interesting, especially in the light of the recent P2 blogs.

Turns out the two most popular character classes are, by a wide margin, fighter and rogue.Yeah, the margin is really wide, with more than 31.5% of the sample consisting of the five most popular classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard and sorcerer). As a telling comparison, the fighters and rogues alone outnumber all the bloodragers, druids, gunslingers, inquisitors, swashbucklers and witches put together.

Speaking of, I think the greatest shortcoming of this survey, aside from the selection method, is the lack of complementary statistics on the range of options allowed in the related games. I believe this shortcoming limits the conclusions about player preference one can draw from especially the race and class/archetype statistics. Considering CRB options have a greater share than all the vastly more numerous competing options from other sources put together, I believe there's a large probability the choices made for a significant proportion of the PCs in the sample were heavily influenced by specific game limitations. For example, in reality the Primalist may very well be the most preferred bloodrager archetype by a far wider margin than the numbers suggest, as those don't account for the fact that the archetype is banned from at the very least 8.8% of the games in the sample (those games being PFS).

The second most played group of classes is cleric/wizard/sorc. The third group is pally/monk/bard. And the fourth is ranger/barb/alch/oracle/magus.Hmm... Any thoughts on why PCs in your area differ so significantly from these findings, with the alchemist (3.8%) being more popular than the wizard (5.9%)?

Personally, I find it a bit surprising that the PF games I've been involved in have all had parties which must be very extreme statistical outliers. I mean, I knew our preferences aren't mainstream, but I never would've guessed they're actually that far off from those of most PF groups.

Also, about 44% of all characters use an archetype; and for each class, the three most popular archetypes account for about half of archetype choices. This suggests that players love archetypes, and there are way too many of them printed that go largely unused.I think this is especially unsurprising from an optimization POV; very few archetypes offer meaningful mechanical advantages, and a rather large majority are replacing standard features with significantly less powerful and/or widely applicable ones. And judging by the related statistics, they may very well also be an indication of players generally being far less willing to sacrifice mechanical power than the designers have seemingly assumed.

This says a lot about what Paizo's priorities should be for P2.In certain respects, such as not bloating archetype lists with crap options, I agree this seems wise. But in many other respects, I think this would be a major mistake, as we know little of the reasons for why the statistics are what they are. And without knowing those reasons, making design decisions based on them has a significant risk of throwing away potentially great ideas, and/or keeping bad ones, all for the wrong reasons. As an (unlikely) example to illustrate this, it may be that most players actually prefer the occultist to the wizard, but as it was a relatively recently released class at the time when the survey was made, few players had played in a game in which the class was allowed. Or, say, that a lot more people would actually prefer to play a goblin and love the flavor, but find the P1 version has too significant mechanical drawbacks.

As an aside, according to this reasoning, the race that belongs in the P2 CRB is not the goblin, but the nearly four times as popular tiefling. In this particular case I would certainly not be disappointed if Paizo happened to change their minds in accordance...

Kurald Galain

2018-04-08, 05:03 AM

Considering CRB options have a greater share than all the vastly more numerous competing options from other sources put together, I believe there's a large probability the choices made for a significant proportion of the PCs in the sample were heavily influenced by specific game limitations.
As far as I can tell, the default for PF is that all Paizo options are allowed, and this is made possible by the d20pfsrd website listing everything.
This survey indicates that PFS is actually smaller than I thought, meaning the PFS banlist is less influential as well; there's not a lot of options that are popular in the survey and disallowed in PFS.

Hmm... Any thoughts on why PCs in your area differ so significantly from these findings, with the alchemist (3.8%) being more popular than the wizard (5.9%)?
I'd say it's either that this class is more-or-less unique to Pathfinder, or that it's the only non-core class with a name that's meaningful even to non-roleplayers (considering that "witch" is generally synonym to "wizard" per Harry Potter). Of course, P2 is known to include all core classes plus the alchemist, so Paizo appears well aware of what the most popular classes are.

very few archetypes offer meaningful mechanical advantages, and a rather large majority are replacing standard features with significantly less powerful and/or widely applicable ones.
Looking over the archetypes listed does suggest that players know what the strongest archetypes are, yes. I don't think the selection is as bad as you seem to think; there are a lot of archetypes that replace standard features by something of equivalent power (e.g. about one-quarter of the Magus archetypes). Of course these are going to be less popular than straight upgrades (of which the Magus has only four, three of which form the top 3 in the survey).

we know little of the reasons for why the statistics are what they are.
Sure, but absent more detailed data, it seems wise to include the most-played races and classes in the first books, and to check the most popular archetypes for flavor and mechanics to copy. It's certainly better than going blind. Bear in mind that 4E had substantial backlash for not including the gnome and the bard in their first book (WOTC thought that nobody likes gnomes, turns out they were wrong).

khadgar567

2018-04-08, 05:17 AM

d20pfsrd has lot of 3rd party content in it if you want true legal paizo content use archive of netys as its much cleaner.

Starbuck_II

2018-04-08, 07:19 AM

Sure, but absent more detailed data, it seems wise to include the most-played races and classes in the first books, and to check the most popular archetypes for flavor and mechanics to copy. It's certainly better than going blind. Bear in mind that 4E had substantial backlash for not including the gnome and the bard in their first book (WOTC thought that nobody likes gnomes, turns out they were wrong).

It is interesting that both 4E and Pathfinder turned gnomes Fey though.

Florian

2018-04-08, 10:44 AM

It is interesting that both 4E and Pathfinder turned gnomes Fey though.

Sure and why not? If you run a simulation, it´s actually quite hard to even justify Gnomes as a separate race. When using something as the "First World" as a self-justified source, it works out.

upho

2018-04-08, 10:46 AM

As far as I can tell, the default for PF is that all Paizo options are allowed, and this is made possible by the d20pfsrd website listing everything.Well, if there is a default in this regard, my impression is also that it's "all Paizo options allowed". If going by my own faulty memory of posts I've read here and on the Paizo boards, I'd estimate roughly 20% of home games have a range of options at least as limited as PFS, often banning options purely on the basis of publication, as was/is common in many 3.5 games.

Btw, I find it a very good thing that this seems to have become the most common practice, as it really helps players realize their character ideas. Aside from OGL sites like d20pfsrd, it's probably largely thanks to Paizo supporting only one setting, making it much less of a risk unsuitable elements pop up in a game already compatible with Golarion specific stuff.

This survey indicates that PFS is actually smaller than I thought, meaning the PFS banlist is less influential as well; there's not a lot of options that are popular in the survey and disallowed in PFS.I also would've expected the PFS ratio to be greater than a mere 8.8%, considering the amount of attention it gets in both discussions on the internet and in Paizo errata decisions/FAQ replies. But it may very well be that PFS players primarily use other sites which include Golarion stuff and PFS notes, like Archives of Nethys. Or simply that most PFS players mostly use their own books/PDFs, as they had to buy those in order to use any options found in them anyways.

I'd say it's either that this class is more-or-less unique to Pathfinder, or that it's the only non-core class with a name that's meaningful even to non-roleplayers (considering that "witch" is generally synonym to "wizard" per Harry Potter). Of course, P2 is known to include all core classes plus the alchemist, so Paizo appears well aware of what the most popular classes are.Heh, now that you mention it, yeah, I can definitely see how the name may be a part of the reason for the alchemist's popularity. Especially among newer players of the Harry Potter generations.

I personally really like the alchemist and regard it and the magus as the best classes wholly designed by Paizo, both of them combining distinct flavor with well-balanced and unique mechanics which allow for a wide variety of different viable builds. So if Paizo considers these classes' greater popularity as a major reason for including either one rather than the witch in the P2 CRB, I guess I may have to thank J.K. Rowling... :smalltongue:

Looking over the archetypes listed does suggest that players know what the strongest archetypes are, yes. I don't think the selection is as bad as you seem to think; there are a lot of archetypes that replace standard features by something of equivalent power (e.g. about one-quarter of the Magus archetypes). Of course these are going to be less popular than straight upgrades (of which the Magus has only four, three of which form the top 3 in the survey).Maybe I should clarify: I believe the average quality of archetypes varies significantly between classes, and that far too many classes have a far too low such average quality.

I also believe the magus is an example of a class with an unusually large proportion of exceptionally strong archetypes, whereas most of the other classes have far smaller proportions of options granting a mechanical power at least equal to that of the vanilla versions. I believe this is also pretty well reflected in the statistics, with most other classes having far larger percentages of the vanilla versions, despite many of those classes having a greater number of archetypes than the magus to choose from. (For example, on average 59% of the CRB classes are vanilla versions, which is 40% greater than the corresponding 42% of magi.)

I also think the magus really stands out in terms of archetypes which are straight upgrades, as these represent nearly 14% of the Paizo options. Compare this to, for example, the 7.4% of the tons of Paizo fighter archetypes which I believe could possibly be regarded as actual upgrades. Not to mention that I'd consider at least 80% of the fighter options as plain downgrades, and several among those as far more considerable than any of the upgrades.

Sure, but absent more detailed data, it seems wise to include the most-played races and classes in the first books, and to check the most popular archetypes for flavor and mechanics to copy. It's certainly better than going blind. Bear in mind that 4E had substantial backlash for not including the gnome and the bard in their first book (WOTC thought that nobody likes gnomes, turns out they were wrong).As long as we're talking about stuff such as copying both flavor and mechanics of popular archetypes and races wholesale (as far as that is possible), then I agree. And I certainly don't think disregarding the statistics and going blind is a good idea. My concern is primarily with stuff like having a P2 archetype mostly mimicking only the flavor elements of a popular P1 archetype, without also including the key mechanical benefits of that P1 archetype. Similar mistakes born from poorly grounded interpretations of statistics and/or attempts to gloss over poorly designed options have been made numerous times in the TTRPG history, and they're just as bad as completely disregarding the statistics IMO.

d20pfsrd has lot of 3rd party content in it if you want true legal paizo content use archive of netys as its much cleaner.Yes, which I'd guess PFS players do to a much larger extent than other players.

Florian

2018-04-08, 10:53 AM

@upho:

You might actually want to consider how "you", as gm, trained your players in you personal closed loop.

Remuko

2018-04-08, 11:14 AM

Which part weren't you expecting? That the standard speed is getting reduced, or that elves will be the fastest?

Them lowering non-elf speed. Its not a lot but people don't normally like having things taken so I'd have expected Elves to go up to 35 rather than non-elves to go down to 25.

upho

2018-04-08, 11:52 AM

@upho:

You might actually want to consider how "you", as gm, trained your players in you personal closed loop.Could you perhaps clarify what you mean by "personal closed loop"? Maybe also include a few examples?

Regardless, it appears your assumptions about me and my group are a bit off. For example, relatively speaking, I'm still a new GM in my group, the previous one kindly serving us expertly for more than 20 years before taking a break as a player. Also, four out of my five players are very experienced, as roleplayers in general and as D&D players in particular. And while I may have the most system mastery when it comes to PF, probably all four the veterans have a greater mastery of other systems (including 3.5) than I do, and two of them work full-time in the game industry and own the pen and paper RPG development and publishing company Järnringen (http://www.jarnringen.com/). Also note that we play other RPGs as well, most often one of the Järnringen games designed by people in the group, like Coreolis (https://youtu.be/SlVddvaMn5c) and now Symbaroum (https://youtu.be/Nh1TL7kXJ-E) (both highly recommended if you'd like complement your PF sessions with less mechanically complex, very well-designed top-rated games emphasizing story, RP and a unique feel).

If anything, I'd say the other people have "trained" me more than vice versa. But I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts, as it may very well be that I at least should consider the impressions regarding these things which my posts might inadvertently give people. And maybe there's far more truth in what you're saying than I realize.

lesser_minion

2018-04-08, 01:56 PM

Them lowering non-elf speed. Its not a lot but people don't normally like having things taken so I'd have expected Elves to go up to 35 rather than non-elves to go down to 25.

The 3 actions thing gives everyone the equivalent of a +50% bonus to their overall movement speeds (in metres per second, at least), since you can take 3 move actions per round instead of just two. That means that your old 30' base land speed is actually the equivalent of a base land speed of 20' in PF2e terms, and 25' is actually a buff.

At 30' base land speed in PF2, assuming that running works essentially the same as in D&D (i.e., run speed = twice your combat speed), you'd be capable of a running speed of 9m/s, which would put you in real-world top athlete territory right out of the gate with no training required -- the men's 400m world record is 9.3m/s, and the women's 100m world record is 9.5m/s.

The four-minute mile is incredibly difficult in D&D/PF (to keep running for four minutes requires a ridiculous number of constitution checks against ever-increasing DCs), but you'd also be able to easily beat the 800m world record if you decent Con or good dice.

And while we are discussing a fantasy game where it's possible to become a larger-than-life hero capable of physical feats that no human alive could ever replicate, all of this would be doable at level 1. That's maybe pushing it a bit.

zergling.exe

2018-04-08, 02:52 PM

The 3 actions thing gives everyone the equivalent of a +50% bonus to their overall movement speeds (in metres per second, at least), since you can take 3 move actions per round instead of just two. That means that your old 30' base land speed is actually the equivalent of a base land speed of 20' in PF2e terms, and 25' is actually a buff.

At 30' base land speed in PF2, assuming that running works essentially the same as in D&D (i.e., run speed = twice your combat speed), you'd be capable of a running speed of 9m/s, which would put you in real-world top athlete territory right out of the gate with no training required -- the men's 400m world record is 9.3m/s, and the women's 100m world record is 9.5m/s.

The four-minute mile is incredibly difficult in D&D/PF (to keep running for four minutes requires a ridiculous number of constitution checks against ever-increasing DCs), but you'd also be able to easily beat the 800m world record if you decent Con or good dice.

And while we are discussing a fantasy game where it's possible to become a larger-than-life hero capable of physical feats that no human alive could ever replicate, all of this would be doable at level 1. That's maybe pushing it a bit.

I don't know how the rules work in PF, but in 3.5 there is two different ways of using your full turn to only move: double move, and run. Double move is using both your movement and standard action to move your speed. This doesn't cost you your Dexterity bonus to AC. The run is a full round action that allows you to move 4x (3x in heavy armor) your move speed, but you lose your Dex bonus to AC. So depending on how using all three actions to run works, you would be faster in 3.5/PF than in PF2, albeit at the cost of Dex AC.

upho

2018-04-08, 02:56 PM

At 30' base land speed in PF2, assuming that running works essentially the same as in D&D (i.e., run speed = twice your combat speed), you'd be capable of a running speed of 9m/s, which would put you in real-world top athlete territory right out of the gate with no training required -- the men's 400m world record is 9.3m/s, and the women's 100m world record is 9.5m/s.

The four-minute mile is incredibly difficult in D&D/PF (to keep running for four minutes requires a ridiculous number of constitution checks against ever-increasing DCs), but you'd also be able to easily beat the 800m world record if you decent Con or good dice.

And while we are discussing a fantasy game where it's possible to become a larger-than-life hero capable of physical feats that no human alive could ever replicate, all of this would be doable at level 1. That's maybe pushing it a bit.Is it? Do you mean in comparison to, say, the same level 1 dude being able to throw bog standard darts through masterwork full plate? :smallamused:

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-08, 03:03 PM

I see what they are trying to do, but again I feel annoyed that thee previews are marketing.
Because currently what they are marketing isn't even a game yet-its a playtest.
In practice, the previews should be priming people for what kind of playtest feedback they want/ expect to get.
Going over design decisions, and explaining them.
They are raising needless speculation and not organized the discussion.

Like we shouldn't have to be learning about the friggin speed changes as part of guesswork of Race Speeds.

upho

2018-04-08, 03:13 PM

I don't know how the rules work in PF, but in 3.5 there is two different ways of using your full turn to only move: double move, and run. Double move is using both your movement and standard action to move your speed. This doesn't cost you your Dexterity bonus to AC. The run is a full round action that allows you to move 4x (3x in heavy armor) your move speed, but you lose your Dex bonus to AC. So depending on how using all three actions to run works, you would be faster in 3.5/PF than in PF2, albeit at the cost of Dex AC.The rules for the run action are the same in PF1. And I believe this is exactly what lesser_minion wrote, if perhaps in a slightly convoluted way, as it's true the run action effectively means that you double your combat speed for the two move actions you can take during your turn, though they're taken together in the full-round action. This means: run = double speed x (2 move actions x 30' speed), or 4 x 30', for a 120'/round standard full running speed in 3.5/PF1. In PF2, this would end up being: run = double speed x (3 move actions x 25') for a 150'/round standard full running speed in PF2, 25% faster than in 3.5/PF1.

Remuko

2018-04-08, 03:35 PM

The 3 actions thing gives everyone the equivalent of a +50% bonus to their overall movement speeds (in metres per second, at least), since you can take 3 move actions per round instead of just two. That means that your old 30' base land speed is actually the equivalent of a base land speed of 20' in PF2e terms, and 25' is actually a buff.

At 30' base land speed in PF2, assuming that running works essentially the same as in D&D (i.e., run speed = twice your combat speed), you'd be capable of a running speed of 9m/s, which would put you in real-world top athlete territory right out of the gate with no training required -- the men's 400m world record is 9.3m/s, and the women's 100m world record is 9.5m/s.

The four-minute mile is incredibly difficult in D&D/PF (to keep running for four minutes requires a ridiculous number of constitution checks against ever-increasing DCs), but you'd also be able to easily beat the 800m world record if you decent Con or good dice.

And while we are discussing a fantasy game where it's possible to become a larger-than-life hero capable of physical feats that no human alive could ever replicate, all of this would be doable at level 1. That's maybe pushing it a bit.

Yeah I get that, but how things are presented is sometimes more important than the facts. Most people will read the number see 25 instead of 30 and be upset or disappointed. They wont bother finding out that mathematically because of the differences 25 is actually on average more move per turn than before.

137beth

2018-04-10, 12:05 AM

New blog (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkp5?Alchemist-Class-Preview), this one previewing the alchemist.

khadgar567

2018-04-10, 02:40 AM

New blog (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkp5?Alchemist-Class-Preview), this one previewing the alchemist.
Also the first non resonance way to heal via elixirs. also if what i read is correct all classes can get formula book and use alchemy as books give 4 formulas( alchemist gets 8 formulas).

Kurald Galain

2018-04-10, 02:43 AM

New blog (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkp5?Alchemist-Class-Preview), this one previewing the alchemist.

The first big takeaway from that is that alchemist bombs are now explicitly the same as alchemist fire, not the same concept with two different names (of course, alchemists can still make them deal more damage); this also means that other PCs can actually use your concoctions. Poisons also count as alchemical items now.

The other is that potions are no longer spells-in-a-can (which they weren't in 2E, but 3E made almost every item the equivalent of a spell).

upho

2018-04-10, 09:12 AM

The first big takeaway from that is that alchemist bombs are now explicitly the same as alchemist fire, not the same concept with two different names (of course, alchemists can still make them deal more damage); this also means that other PCs can actually use your concoctions.At least as far as I can tell from the reveals, I like this. There's a distinct conceptual simplicity and consistency to it, and potentially also when it comes to the actual related mechanics.

When it comes to the reveals about the P2 alchemist class itself, IMO the thing that stands out the most is the hang-up on bombs being the alchemist thing, at the expense of virtually all of the P1 version's other signature class abilities and equally viable build focuses.

While the boosted free Alchemical Crafter feat and related class feats may potentially allow for a splash of versatility from 1st level, it seems highly unlikely alchemical items will grant anything even remotely close to the same broad flexible power as that of the P1 version's pseudo-spell extracts. At least if judging by this tidbit from the blog: "...the 18th-level Improbable Elixirs feat enables him to craft elixirs with the effects of magical potions." Similarly, it appears "Jekyll and Hyde" builds won't be nearly as viable for the P2 alchemist as they are for the P1 version: "...at 5th level the alchemist learns the secrets of mutagens..." "...the 8th-level Feral Mutagen feat..." "The 10th-level Stalker Mutagen feat grants the alchemist Stealth as a signature skill and allows him to move up to his Speed when he sneaks." "...the Perfect Mutagen feat at 18th level allows the alchemist to ignore the drawbacks when under the effect of a mutagen..."

So unless there will be archetypes allowing for switching out the bomb focus for a mutagen focus from start, it appears at least mutagen-based melee is reduced to being a minor higher level complement to bombs. And while I guess there's a still a small chance the new alchemical items will actually be able to grant a level of utility and buffing power similar to that of the P1 version's extracts, I suspect the P2 class won't even have half of the P1 version's versatility.

The lessened versatility may turn out to be well motivated by the general PC power expectations in P2 and thus a good thing, but I really dislike the apparently enforced bomb focus. It removes a major part of the class' attractiveness IMO.

EDIT: So, TL/DR:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3f/ed/5a/3fed5a554e37f138ef4efd3d2e92dc3f.gif
"Why no play with Hulk anymore?"
/EDIT

Psyren

2018-04-10, 09:42 AM

Eh, if I wanted a melee-focused alchemist I was going straight for an archetype anyway, and that's the perfect design space for that concept to live. I'm not seeing much drastic change here.

I'm more interested in details on the "concoctions" they can make. If they're all true alchemical items now (i.e. no need for Infusion for other folks to use them) will they cost money to make? Can they be sold? Will the Alchemist have to spend resonance to both make and use the short-term ones? (I doubt that, but the blog wasn't clear.) Can you juice them up and then hand them off, or will they only have stronger effects when used by you? Etc. Lots more interesting questions to ask here.

Starbuck_II

2018-04-10, 11:58 AM

Eh, if I wanted a melee-focused alchemist I was going straight for an archetype anyway, and that's the perfect design space for that concept to live. I'm not seeing much drastic change here.

I'm more interested in details on the "concoctions" they can make. If they're all true alchemical items now (i.e. no need for Infusion for other folks to use them) will they cost money to make? Can they be sold? Will the Alchemist have to spend resonance to both make and use the short-term ones? (I doubt that, but the blog wasn't clear.) Can you juice them up and then hand them off, or will they only have stronger effects when used by you? Etc. Lots more interesting questions to ask here.

The free ones go away so same ability to sell as extracts.

Morty

2018-04-10, 12:26 PM

stack

2018-04-10, 12:44 PM

The heavy use of level gating abilities is probably my greatest concern with what I have seen. The fighter preview being an excellent example of noting level requirements on things they really don't need them (or at least not that heavily). I understand the design concept of making dips less prominent; I am on board with that goal. I would rather see menu options with less prereqs though.

Obviously we haven't seen full classes, but the impression given is that a lot of character concepts won't be firing on all cylinders at low levels. The fighter using a shield to defend an ally being a prime example. Sure, you could have a 'defender' archetype that gets the ability at 1st level, but why not just make it a select-able option without the level requirment instead of having to write archetypes for all the variations?

Starbuck_II

2018-04-10, 12:54 PM

Morty

2018-04-10, 12:57 PM

khadgar567

2018-04-10, 01:14 PM

I think they are pulling a 4E and instead of level 1-20, we are getting 1-12 (then they stretching that 1-12 with 20 levels).

Because for the first couple of levels 4E played as if you were a lower level than 3.5 in my opinion (overall).

That is why they stretching low level abilities to later levels.

Because 1-12 is the sweet spot in D&D usually, after than DM (sometimes PCs) have issue with balance and playing the game.
thats what 5e is actualy with bunch of mandatory class power cuts wizards made sure 12 level stuff know is 20th level thus making it sure every one played full game to finish their build as far as actually 5e managed is making it sure nearly all streamers play for 1 or 2 levels unless they are supported ( enslaved) by wizards with no build properly do what it needs until epic 20.

stack

2018-04-10, 01:24 PM

Do we even know if buffet-style multiclassing is going to be a thing? I can't remember any confirmation one way or the other.

I'm not sure. I don't recall seeing a definitive statement either way, but I haven't been checking every bit of data (mostly looking at the blogs).

Psyren

2018-04-10, 05:02 PM

The free ones go away so same ability to sell as extracts.

Do you mean P1 extracts? Because that blog didn't mention extracts at all, and in P1, extracts lose potency once no longer held by you (or for Infusions, once you reprepare.)

Because for the first couple of levels 4E played as if you were a lower level than 3.5 in my opinion (overall).

That is why they stretching low level abilities to later levels.

You're evaluating P2 abilities with a P1 lens though. For example, using your shield to get a reflex bonus would be a weak ability for a 14th level Fighter in P1, but if there aren't that many ways to get bonuses to your reflex save in P2 it could actually be pretty powerful. We won't know until we get to see the whole picture.

Using Starfinder as an example, bonuses to attack rolls and saves are actually pretty rare source-wise.

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-10, 05:05 PM

We won't know until we get to see the whole picture..

And that's why unclear marketing FOR A PLAYTEST sucks.

This whole thing stinks of something off.

stack

2018-04-10, 05:07 PM

Fsir point on the math, Psyren. Shield verses breath weapon is a very iconic image, so I would rather see the ability scaled to suite the math at a lower level than simply gated to 14.

Psyren

2018-04-10, 06:04 PM

And that's why unclear marketing FOR A PLAYTEST sucks.

This whole thing stinks of something off.

The PLAYTEST is in August. These are just previews.

Fsir point on the math, Psyren. Shield verses breath weapon is a very iconic image, so I would rather see the ability scaled to suite the math at a lower level than simply gated to 14.

It's indeed iconic - but keep in mind that in 3.5, your shield doesn't do jack squat against a breath weapon unless it's a tower shield anyway.

stack

2018-04-10, 07:19 PM

Yes, having it at all is an improvement, though for the vast majority of the games I've played in level 14 is the same as not having it. Hopefully things like that can be adjusted.

upho

2018-04-11, 03:59 PM

Eh, if I wanted a melee-focused alchemist I was going straight for an archetype anyway, and that's the perfect design space for that concept to live. I'm not seeing much drastic change here.Sure you're going to archetype, because why not? But it's not vital in any way, as the vanilla P1 alchemist gives you everything you need to do just fine with a melee focus starting from 1st level. The vanilla P2 alchemist obviously does not, and won't until 5th at the very earliest. That is a drastic change IMO, as it kills a whole subset of alchemist builds, and pretty darn iconic ones at that.

Anyhow, it may very well be that these builds gain their own archetype in the CRB. But it worries me the devs haven't yet even hinted at this being a possibility.

Otherwise, I think the class seems promising enough from the few details the blog reveals.

I'm more interested in details on the "concoctions" they can make. If they're all true alchemical items now (i.e. no need for Infusion for other folks to use them) will they cost money to make? Can they be sold? Will the Alchemist have to spend resonance to both make and use the short-term ones? (I doubt that, but the blog wasn't clear.) Can you juice them up and then hand them off, or will they only have stronger effects when used by you? Etc. Lots more interesting questions to ask here.AFAICT, the "juiced-up" stuff remains so only for a short time, costs resonance but no extra gp, and cannot be sold. I'm having a hard time seeing most "normal" crafted alchemical items not working on anyone. At least if the effect is simple and generic enough.

The phrase "In an attempt to avoid bottom-loading classes" caught my attention. And disappointed me, since "bottom-loading" classes was something 4e did right. I feel like if you're playing a class-based game, you should get your class's defining features right off the bat. It avoids things like... well, waiting until level 14 before you can use your shield to get a reflex bonus.Yes, but admittedly 4e also allowed MC into a max of two other classes (hybrid and MC feats), and this never gave you all the defining "base" features of those classes, and/or demanded you traded away your "starting" class' features (in the case of hybrid). And as Psyren points out, it's still too early to tell whether the shield Reflex bonus is too little too late or not.

I hope alchemists have more options to contribute in combat than just throwing bombs a lot.This.

The heavy use of level gating abilities is probably my greatest concern with what I have seen. The fighter preview being an excellent example of noting level requirements on things they really don't need them (or at least not that heavily). I understand the design concept of making dips less prominent; I am on board with that goal. I would rather see menu options with less prereqs though.And this. I agree 100%. Also, MC is not the bad evil thing it appears to painted as too often IMO, it's a great thing that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. But of course, this demands a system capable of dealing with the mechanical consequences.

stack

2018-04-11, 04:20 PM

To be fair, we don't know what melee boosting options will be available via alchemy prior to mutagen.

Psyren

2018-04-11, 04:34 PM

Sure you're going to archetype, because why not? But it's not vital in any way, as the vanilla P1 alchemist gives you everything you need to do just fine with a melee focus starting from 1st level. The vanilla P2 alchemist obviously does not, and won't until 5th at the very earliest. That is a drastic change IMO, as it kills a whole subset of alchemist builds, and pretty darn iconic ones at that.

Well to be precise, it delays them - for exactly 4 levels, at that - so I think "kills" is a little melodramatic.

Besides, archetypes are core now (and 5e has gotten everyone used to that idea) so your chances of getting to use one, if you really have your heart set on that meleechemist, just went up I'd say. For myself, I'm hoping all the base classes can be more focused like this and shunt the secondary stuff more to archetypes, rather than have a bunch of them be eclectic grab-bags like we got in P1. (For example, Inquisitor dithering between being the monster identifying guy/the solo teamwork guy/the self-buffing martial guy/the divine bard guy, or Medium being the 5th-man guy/the seance guy/the location investigator guy, etc.)

Also, what stack said - your meleechemist might have level 1-4 options even without the mutagen.

And this. I agree 100%. Also, MC is not the bad evil thing it appears to painted as too often IMO, it's a great thing that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. But of course, this demands a system capable of dealing with the mechanical consequences.

True multiclassing indeed isn't evil. But I'm not upset that they are doing things to discourage dipping, which is not the same thing. The GMs who are okay with dipping can also just feel free to grant some of those dip-friendly features earlier than normal anyway.

Morty

2018-04-11, 05:19 PM

Yes, but admittedly 4e also allowed MC into a max of two other classes (hybrid and MC feats), and this never gave you all the defining "base" features of those classes, and/or demanded you traded away your "starting" class' features (in the case of hybrid). And as Psyren points out, it's still too early to tell whether the shield Reflex bonus is too little too late or not.

Yes, but I don't think it's a bad thing, ultimately. I don't have practical experience with 4e multiclassing, but I'm fairly confident in saying 3e/5e buffet-style multiclassing doesn't work as it should.

As for the reflex bonus... at the risk of dragging the thread into a fighter discussion again, I'm sceptical about the math being different enough to make adding your shield bonus to a save such a big deal on level 14. Besides... it's still just a number and plays into the problem with non-magical abilities being number-shuffling. And really doesn't feel impressive enough for something you get in the second half of the levelling curve - unless they were to flatten it, which they said they don't want to.

And this. I agree 100%. Also, MC is not the bad evil thing it appears to painted as too often IMO, it's a great thing that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. But of course, this demands a system capable of dealing with the mechanical consequences.

Multiclassing, as an idea, is all but a requirement in a game with such uniquely rigid classes as D&D. But the implementation 3e and 5e go with is lacking. It's an optimizer's tool - a casual player who tries to dabble in it is likely to make a poorly-planned character, but an optimizer can dip their way into power.

P.F.

2018-04-12, 10:47 PM

True multiclassing indeed isn't evil. But I'm not upset that they are doing things to discourage dipping, which is not the same thing. The GMs who are okay with dipping can also just feel free to grant some of those dip-friendly features earlier than normal anyway.

TBH I think dipping is less of a problem than it gets made out to be. I'm not personally offended by someone with one or two levels of paladin or monk or barbarian, and the number of Pathfinder builds which actually come out stronger from dipping are quite limited. Among the folks I play with, dipping is rare, and usually confined to special circumstances, like in gestalt games where you don't lose progression on your "other side."

Even the advice on these boards for anything but the most specialized builds tends to regard dipping as a lukewarm alternative to a more focused deliberate multiclass/archetype construction.

But players do it anyway sometimes, because it is fun: adding a new set of toys, upgrading an existing capability, or shoring up a weakness. It's worth it to be slightly less powerful overall if they can introduce these new elements without making a new character from scratch (or "retraining" their old character into a completely different one).

I would be disappointed if P2 made lower-level characters less potent, versatile, and interesting for fear that the classes would be combined in this manner.

Pex

2018-04-13, 11:50 AM

TBH I think dipping is less of a problem than it gets made out to be. I'm not personally offended by someone with one or two levels of paladin or monk or barbarian, and the number of Pathfinder builds which actually come out stronger from dipping are quite limited. Among the folks I play with, dipping is rare, and usually confined to special circumstances, like in gestalt games where you don't lose progression on your "other side."

Even the advice on these boards for anything but the most specialized builds tends to regard dipping as a lukewarm alternative to a more focused deliberate multiclass/archetype construction.

But players do it anyway sometimes, because it is fun: adding a new set of toys, upgrading an existing capability, or shoring up a weakness. It's worth it to be slightly less powerful overall if they can introduce these new elements without making a new character from scratch (or "retraining" their old character into a completely different one).

I would be disappointed if P2 made lower-level characters less potent, versatile, and interesting for fear that the classes would be combined in this manner.

Many of the P1 archetypes lowered the need of dipping or multiclassing altogether because they gave a class a taste of something from another class. A fighter can get some rage stuff. A cleric can get some feat stuff. They're more noticeable in the splat books where a core class could gain use of Exploits for example.

Psyren

2018-04-13, 12:31 PM

TBH I think dipping is less of a problem than it gets made out to be. I'm not personally offended by someone with one or two levels of paladin or monk or barbarian, and the number of Pathfinder builds which actually come out stronger from dipping are quite limited. Among the folks I play with, dipping is rare, and usually confined to special circumstances, like in gestalt games where you don't lose progression on your "other side."

To be clear, I'm not "offended" by it either - I just find it to be inelegant and thus worthy of systemic discouragement.

I would be disappointed if P2 made lower-level characters less potent, versatile, and interesting for fear that the classes would be combined in this manner.

Archetypes for the thing you want to do would solve that. If you want to be a meleechemist from level 1 for instance, I'm sure there will be an archetype for that - Hyde is just too iconic for them to miss.

Many of the P1 archetypes lowered the need of dipping or multiclassing altogether because they gave a class a taste of something from another class. A fighter can get some rage stuff. A cleric can get some feat stuff. They're more noticeable in the splat books where a core class could gain use of Exploits for example.

To say nothing of variant multiclassing, or feats like Animal Ally, Familiar Bond, Adept Channel, Eldritch Heritage etc. I vastly prefer that kind of dabbling.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-14, 09:39 AM

Now this is just a minor pet peeve, but it's always bothered me how the sling is such a crappy weapon in D&D games. Apparently this is because one of the 1E designers didn't know the difference between a military sling and a toy slingshot, and statted it according to the latter; and every edition since then has simply copy/pasted the weapon damage table. PF2 finally fixes this.

Oh yeah, and there's a new blog post on gnomes and halflings (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkpm?Fuzzy-Feet-and-Voles-to-Meet), which don't seem very different from P1 so far.

Ninjaxenomorph

2018-04-14, 10:03 AM

Now this is just a minor pet peeve, but it's always bothered me how the sling is such a crappy weapon in D&D games. Apparently this is because one of the 1E designers didn't know the difference between a military sling and a toy slingshot, and statted it according to the latter; and every edition since then has simply copy/pasted the weapon damage table. PF2 finally fixes this.

That's good to hear. I wonder if they'll fix other weapon inaccuracies, like falchions. Longswords being replaced with broadswords might be too much to ask, though.

Morty

2018-04-14, 10:23 AM

D&D's weapon rules have always mostly been a mix of poorly-understood sense of realism, equally poorly-understood idea of balance and copying old ones to make it look familiar. I don't expect that to change in PF2e, apart from some localized tweaks.

The blog about gnomes and halflings doesn't tell us a lot that's new. The ancestral feats look quirky and nice... but some of them are very questionably worth a feat slot.

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-14, 02:45 PM

Uh folks? They went into some detail about Stat creation. From what it looks like Ability point creation is no longer an assumed part of character creation.

That's kinda a shame.

exelsisxax

2018-04-16, 08:48 AM

Uh folks? They went into some detail about Stat creation. From what it looks like Ability point creation is no longer an assumed part of character creation.

That's kinda a shame.

The opposite. Point-buy is now the default rule, but instead of a chart and points they've got some sort of decision tree or ancestry/background thing that does the same thing. We just have no idea what that system actually looks like.

Psyren

2018-04-16, 08:55 AM

The opposite. Point-buy is now the default rule, but instead of a chart and points they've got some sort of decision tree or ancestry/background thing that does the same thing. We just have no idea what that system actually looks like.

Yeah, I'm going to just ask Scowling Dragon for receipts on everything he posts here until the actual playtest is released in 4 months. No offense to the guy.

Cosi

2018-04-16, 09:01 AM

The phrase "In an attempt to avoid bottom-loading classes" caught my attention. And disappointed me, since "bottom-loading" classes was something 4e did right. I feel like if you're playing a class-based game, you should get your class's defining features right off the bat. It avoids things like... well, waiting until level 14 before you can use your shield to get a reflex bonus.

I agree. And I think this implies that you need PrCs. If you're going to call yourself a Paladin, you should get all the abilities a Paladin has in fairly short order. But that obviously makes progressing as a Paladin kind of loose. So you need to PrC out into Angel Knight or Witch King or Mind Lord to get a new set of abilities (and from there into Hero of Ragnarok or Godslayer).

I do not think Paizo will deliver on this, and I anticipate that the game will continue to expect that you wait until 14th level to get abilities that are essentially "a statistically meaningless bonus to a low level action".

Do we even know if buffet-style multiclassing is going to be a thing? I can't remember any confirmation one way or the other.

Honestly, I hope it isn't. It's a bad design decision, and if PF removes it that would (in a vacuum) be good. That said, you obviously need some kind of multiclassing.

exelsisxax

2018-04-16, 09:18 AM

I agree. And I think this implies that you need PrCs. If you're going to call yourself a Paladin, you should get all the abilities a Paladin has in fairly short order. But that obviously makes progressing as a Paladin kind of loose. So you need to PrC out into Angel Knight or Witch King or Mind Lord to get a new set of abilities (and from there into Hero of Ragnarok or Godslayer).

I do not think Paizo will deliver on this, and I anticipate that the game will continue to expect that you wait until 14th level to get abilities that are essentially "a statistically meaningless bonus to a low level action"

Honestly, I hope it isn't. It's a bad design decision, and if PF removes it that would (in a vacuum) be good. That said, you obviously need some kind of multiclassing.

Frontloading is certainly the better thing to do if classes are proscriptive rather than mere toolkits. From what the devs have said, multiclassing is going to radically change, and dipping will stop being a thing. If you are unable to make your character through dipping, your fighter damn well better be an actual fighter at level 1, rather than "some chump with swords". Unfortunately, it seems that you aren't allowed to multiclass and you have to wait forever to do your actual thing. It's like having your cake and eating it too, if the cake was a highly radioactive poison.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-16, 09:23 AM

The opposite. Point-buy is now the default rule, but instead of a chart and points they've got some sort of decision tree or ancestry/background thing that does the same thing. We just have no idea what that system actually looks like.

I foresee a lot of whining that "you can't play (e.g.) a fighter without a race heritage that boosts Str AND a background that boosts Str"...

Because god forbid that characters are 5% worse at attacking. And to be fair, the game itself (so far) stimulates this behavior, because the developers insist that getting +2 instead of +1 to a skill is a Really Big Deal.

Cosi

2018-04-16, 09:30 AM

Because god forbid that characters are 5% worse at attacking. And to be fair, the game itself (so far) stimulates this behavior, because the developers insist that getting +2 instead of +1 to a skill is a Really Big Deal.

If you can gain a 5% improvement in exchange for something that isn't useful to you, it genuinely is stupid to not to get that bonus. To fix this, you either need to let people push themselves off the RNG (at which point they will no longer try for +1 bonuses since they can't miss), or diversify their stat requirements to the point that they also value WIS or DEX (though you have to be careful to avoid MAD).

Kurald Galain

2018-04-16, 09:43 AM

If you can gain a 5% improvement in exchange for something that isn't useful to you, it genuinely is stupid to not to get that bonus.

The point is, of course, that having a race or background is generally useful to you for reasons other than the statistical bonuses.

But players tend to overvalue tiny numerical bonuses compared to actual options (witness e.g. the popular opinion in 5E that a feat is NEVER worth more than an ability increase).

exelsisxax

2018-04-16, 10:03 AM

I foresee a lot of whining that "you can't play (e.g.) a fighter without a race heritage that boosts Str AND a background that boosts Str"...

Because god forbid that characters are 5% worse at attacking. And to be fair, the game itself (so far) stimulates this behavior, because the developers insist that getting +2 instead of +1 to a skill is a Really Big Deal.

The whining could certainly be justified if it's like 5e where the difference between the fighter and wizard is 0/+1 in many instances - especially because the fighter cannot ever even be -1 at spells compared to the wizard.

+1 could theoretically be a big deal, but merely having a bonus cannot be a big deal unless everyone is supposed to have the same odds at everything. That fighter better have a far greater advantage to start off with before considering the idea that a +1 is nice.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-16, 10:07 AM

The whining could certainly be justified if it's like 5e where the difference between the fighter and wizard is 0/+1 in many instances - especially because the fighter cannot ever even be -1 at spells compared to the wizard.

Wait, so you're saying that since the fighter cannot get tactical options in the form of spells, he shouldn't get tactical options in the form of feats either, but instead focus entirely on marginal bonuses...?

...that does not strike me as sound advice.

exelsisxax

2018-04-16, 10:22 AM

Wait, so you're saying that since the fighter cannot get tactical options in the form of spells, he shouldn't get tactical options in the form of feats either, but instead focus entirely on marginal bonuses...?

...that does not strike me as sound advice.

No, in addition to the class and character feats that every class gets, a fighter should be WAY better at fighting than a wizard by default. If you can't get anything better than a 14 str, that's impossible(i'm not crazy enough to think they're giving fighters nice things this time around either). Wizards have spells, fighters should get "better at weapons, unarmed, armor, shields, moving through combat, defending allies, hindering enemies, and preparing for combat than wizards at all times by such a degree that a wizard can never be quite that good all at once and makes them dramatically superior to wizards in any such attempts"

Spells are powerful, if the devs think that the fighter having a +1 over the wizard is equally powerful, they are incompetent fools.

Morty

2018-04-16, 10:35 AM

Kurald Galain

2018-04-16, 01:05 PM

The "floating bonus" will mean they discourage them less, ending up with a situation similar to 4e - at worst, you lack a bonus to the attributes your class uses, and get bonuses to two largely inconsequential ones.

And there was a lot of whining about this situation back when WOTC had 4E forums :smallbiggrin:

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-16, 01:24 PM

I meant that point buy is no longer the default. Or their "New thing" is gonna be a lot like the old thing but just named differently.

I liked point buy. Gave me the space to make characters I liked.

Remuko

2018-04-16, 02:28 PM

I agree. And I think this implies that you need PrCs. If you're going to call yourself a Paladin, you should get all the abilities a Paladin has in fairly short order. But that obviously makes progressing as a Paladin kind of loose. So you need to PrC out into Angel Knight or Witch King or Mind Lord to get a new set of abilities (and from there into Hero of Ragnarok or Godslayer).

I do not think Paizo will deliver on this, and I anticipate that the game will continue to expect that you wait until 14th level to get abilities that are essentially "a statistically meaningless bonus to a low level action".

Honestly, I hope it isn't. It's a bad design decision, and if PF removes it that would (in a vacuum) be good. That said, you obviously need some kind of multiclassing.

I feel like what youre suggesting, to me at least, sounds like we need some sort of Promotion System ala Shining Force or Fire Emblem. Play as a Paladin for ~5 levels maybe, then promote to any one of a few branching options (like Angel Knight or Witch King or Mind Lord as you suggested) and play as those for a few levels and then maybe do it again. If the first Promotion has enough branches and if the second one also does, and this is done for every base class, there would be lots of variation and possibilities before you even factor stuff like feats in. I could see that being really cool.

MeeposFire

2018-04-16, 04:37 PM

I feel like what youre suggesting, to me at least, sounds like we need some sort of Promotion System ala Shining Force or Fire Emblem. Play as a Paladin for ~5 levels maybe, then promote to any one of a few branching options (like Angel Knight or Witch King or Mind Lord as you suggested) and play as those for a few levels and then maybe do it again. If the first Promotion has enough branches and if the second one also does, and this is done for every base class, there would be lots of variation and possibilities before you even factor stuff like feats in. I could see that being really cool.

Ah so you want to go more 4e then? That is not all that different than the paragon path an epic destinies that they used relative to how the games work.

Pex

2018-04-16, 06:44 PM

D&D attribute scores have been steadily turning superfluous for a while now, since optimal selections are largely determined by your class, with some minor variations here and there. It doesn't look like that's going to change much.

Racial ability bonuses/penalties do very little except discourage certain combinations. The "floating bonus" will mean they discourage them less, ending up with a situation similar to 4e - at worst, you lack a bonus to the attributes your class uses, and get bonuses to two largely inconsequential ones. It'd be better to just drop them, let people pick whatever attributes they need and focus on racial features and feats that actually make them different and unique. No one says racial penalties can't come in other forms than attributes, either.

It has been suggested before for ability score bonuses to come from the class instead of race. All wizards get +2 IN. All rogues get +2 DX. If Paizo does that you'll get racial diversity. Not every halfling will be a rogue. Not every dwarf will be a fighter. Not every gnome will be wizard, etc.

Baroncognito

2018-04-16, 06:49 PM

From what they've posted already, I kind of expect that race, background, and profession will all have bonuses associated with them.

Knaight

2018-04-16, 06:50 PM

If you can gain a 5% improvement in exchange for something that isn't useful to you, it genuinely is stupid to not to get that bonus. To fix this, you either need to let people push themselves off the RNG (at which point they will no longer try for +1 bonuses since they can't miss), or diversify their stat requirements to the point that they also value WIS or DEX (though you have to be careful to avoid MAD).

The only issue with MAD is that it makes classes weaker compared to SAD classes. Every stat being broadly useful to everyone is a design paradigm proven to work outside of D&D*, and while classes should generally benefit from some stats more than others there are all sorts of ways around that (e.g. variable costs of stat improvement, where low stats are cheaper to boost than high stats).

*Early GURPS did this, which means that it's old enough to finally be eligible for import, accompanied by a page or two of talking about the innovative new mechanics Pathfinder 2 developed.

137beth

2018-04-16, 08:50 PM

Frontloading is certainly the better thing to do if classes are proscriptive rather than mere toolkits. From what the devs have said, multiclassing is going to radically change, and dipping will stop being a thing. If you are unable to make your character through dipping, your fighter damn well better be an actual fighter at level 1, rather than "some chump with swords". Unfortunately, it seems that you aren't allowed to multiclass and you have to wait forever to do your actual thing. It's like having your cake and eating it too, if the cake was a highly radioactive poison.
I personally prefer 3.5-style multiclassing, but I do acknowledge that it becomes more difficult to write front-loaded classes without making multiclassing straight-up better than single-classing. On the other hand, if Paizo is getting rid of freestyle multiclassing and still making you wait until 16th level for your core class features, that does seem like a worst of both worlds approach.

The only issue with MAD is that it makes classes weaker compared to SAD classes. Every stat being broadly useful to everyone is a design paradigm proven to work outside of D&D*, and while classes should generally benefit from some stats more than others there are all sorts of ways around that (e.g. variable costs of stat improvement, where low stats are cheaper to boost than high stats).

*Early GURPS did this, which means that it's old enough to finally be eligible for import, accompanied by a page or two of talking about the innovative new mechanics Pathfinder 2 developed.

I also hope that if they make some ability scores more valuable than others, then the more valuable ability scores should cost more to increase instead of all costing the same the way they do in PF1. GURPS 4th edition does this, though I don't know if any earlier iterations of GURPS do.

Knaight

2018-04-16, 09:04 PM

Pex

2018-04-16, 09:32 PM

I also hope that if they make some ability scores more valuable than others, then the more valuable ability scores should cost more to increase instead of all costing the same the way they do in PF1. GURPS 4th edition does this, though I don't know if any earlier iterations of GURPS do.

Often the easiest way to do this is just make it harder to improve higher scores. 1 points of strength will basically always be worth more than 1 point of wisdom for a fighter (edge cases around odd scores notwithstanding, though there's still time to just drop the whole score/modifier thing entirely). With this though, eventually the tradeoff starts looking more like 1 point of strength for 2 points of wisdom, then 1:3, then 1:4. This is how GURPS does it, as do many other games.

If you want to lower the numbers a bit without calling it Bounded Accuracy, ok. Devil in the details. However, I still maintain there's nothing wrong with a 1st level character having an 18 and should not have to pay through the nose to get it if the player wants. Of course accepting it's not so easy might as well be free but be a reasonable cost. I like how it is in Point Buy now. It is very expensive to buy the 18 straight away. You can get it if you want, but you pay for it elsewhere. The bargain is to buy the high cost but easy to pay 16 and let your racial modifier make it 18, and you don't even have to take an 8 to get it.

Knaight

2018-04-16, 09:41 PM

If you want to lower the numbers a bit without calling it Bounded Accuracy, ok. Devil in the details. However, I still maintain there's nothing wrong with a 1st level character having an 18 and should not have to pay through the nose to get it if the player wants. Of course accepting it's not so easy might as well be free but be a reasonable cost. I like how it is in Point Buy now. It is very expensive to buy the 18 straight away. You can get it if you want, but you pay for it elsewhere. The bargain is to buy the high cost but easy to pay 16 and let your racial modifier make it 18, and you don't even have to take an 8 to get it.

This has nothing to do with bounded accuracy, and point buy as it exists in Pathfinder does some of this (as you point out). Going from 17 to 18 is 4 point buy points, going from 10 to 11 only 1. However, this doesn't apply to increasing the scores later (it's just +1 every 4th level), which is why you tend to actually see those sorts of tradeoffs in character creation, but not in character advancement, where it instead becomes the most important stat always getting a boost.

Raven777

2018-04-16, 09:59 PM

D&D attribute scores have been steadily turning superfluous for a while now, since optimal selections are largely determined by your class, with some minor variations here and there. It doesn't look like that's going to change much.

Racial ability bonuses/penalties do very little except discourage certain combinations. The "floating bonus" will mean they discourage them less, ending up with a situation similar to 4e - at worst, you lack a bonus to the attributes your class uses, and get bonuses to two largely inconsequential ones. It'd be better to just drop them, let people pick whatever attributes they need and focus on racial features and feats that actually make them different and unique. No one says racial penalties can't come in other forms than attributes, either.
The racial bonuses to certain attributes depending on race used to be there to model and enforce certain races or subraces gravitating more towards certain classes, with the Human's floating bonus in line with them being the jack-of-all-trades race. I think removing these kinks players need to work around diminishes the game, in the same way removing technical curves diminishes a race track.

Cosi

2018-04-17, 12:46 AM

The point is, of course, that having a race or background is generally useful to you for reasons other than the statistical bonuses.

But players tend to overvalue tiny numerical bonuses compared to actual options (witness e.g. the popular opinion in 5E that a feat is NEVER worth more than an ability increase).

I'm not sure how designers are supposed to solve a problem with player evaluation of abilities.

I feel like what youre suggesting, to me at least, sounds like we need some sort of Promotion System ala Shining Force or Fire Emblem. Play as a Paladin for ~5 levels maybe, then promote to any one of a few branching options (like Angel Knight or Witch King or Mind Lord as you suggested) and play as those for a few levels and then maybe do it again. If the first Promotion has enough branches and if the second one also does, and this is done for every base class, there would be lots of variation and possibilities before you even factor stuff like feats in. I could see that being really cool.

Yes and no.

You've got the basic structure right. You have X levels of a base class (where X is probably either 5 or 10 depending on if you want three or four tiers), than 5 levels of a Prestige Class/Paragon Path, then 5 levels of an Epic Destiny.

But those absolutely can't be base class specific branches. There are twelve base classes in PF 2e (I think -- 3e's core 11 + Alchemist, right?). Even if we accept that you get half the choices at Paragon that you got at 1st and half again the choices at Epic, you still need to write 72 paragon paths and 216 Epic Destinies. That's absurd. It's not even just that it's absurd from a volume perspective (although, yes, that). It's that it's absurd from a concept perspective. Can you think of six different paragon-tier Alchemist-based concepts? Can you think of, for each of those, three different Epic Destinies? Because I certainly can't.

On the other hand, if you just let people take whatever Paragon Path they want, you can double people's options at each tier and still only have to write 66 advanced classes total (you don't actually want to do that, but you could). Now, yeah, not all of those classes are going to get equal pay from every base class. Rogues are going to want to be Shadow Stalkers more than they want to be Firelords. Druids are going to pick up Verdant Master more often than Warsteel Conduit. More people are going to come into Nexus Mage from Wizard than Fighter. But trying to tie PrCs to specific base classes results in a content hole that cannot be filled, and leads to stupid crap like the Spinemeld Warrior.

Ah so you want to go more 4e then? That is not all that different than the paragon path an epic destinies that they used relative to how the games work.

In this respect, yes. 4e's idea that you would simply stop being a Fighter at 10th level was a good idea that, if implemented well, would have improved the game. Now, as it happens, the implementation was pretty bad in a lot of ways. Aside from the universal problems with 4e (it sucks and none of the abilities characters get are things you care about), Paragon Paths shouldn't be crap like "Pit Fighter" or "Polearm Master" (yes, those are real paragon paths (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Paragon_path)). The Epic Destinies are mostly all right, though there are some I think should probably be shifted down (but nothing as stupid as having "fights in a pit" as a Paragon Path).

Kurald Galain

2018-04-17, 01:22 AM

Magic gets interesting.

Most spells have vocal and somatic components, but bards can use an instrument for their vocals even if mute. Some spells also have material components, but clerics and sorcerers use their symbol and blood instead, respectively. Each component is an individual action, so two- and three-action spells map nicely to these components. From an earlier blog, the somatic and material action provoke but the vocal one does not.

This can get confusing though. The example healing spell can be cast in about a dozen different ways (heal adjacent ally, touch undead to harm, ranged heal, ranged harm with a saving throw, burst healing at the same time but for a lesser amount, and heightened versions of all of these which boosts some of them more than it does others). On the other hand, there's now a single heal spell instead of half a dozen different ones plus channel, so there's that. Oh yeah, and healing spells are necromancy now.

In the spirit of standardizing, spells now have one level, not a potentially-different level for each class that could cast it; and all "energy pools" (ki pool, luck pool, arcane pool, etc) are now treated the same way. Also, they've finally realized the rule that a higher level illusion automatically beats a lower level divination (spell level, not caster level); which was already the case with light and darkness spells anyway.

I'd say this is one of the better blog posts so far.

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-17, 01:35 AM

The class ability energy pool sounds very good. The scaling spells is OK but its not a real solution to most of these sorts of things.

A problem at higher levels is that low-level spell slots get near useless. This only serves to make the problems worse. Wheras Before At leats burning hands could be useful for something at level 5 or so now its only gonna be a waste for you.

Having played 5e the general scaling thing didn't work as great as advertised. The end result was that you still ended up wanting to take Fireball after burning hands.

And the way its designed here seems to follow that pattern.

137beth

2018-04-17, 01:45 AM

Nice to see that they have copied rituals from 4e. Less excited to see more spells of the same caliber as Wish and Miracle.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-17, 01:50 AM

A problem at higher levels is that low-level spell slots get near useless. This only serves to make the problems worse. Wheras Before At leats burning hands could be useful for something at level 5 or so now its only gonna be a waste for you.
One thing 3E/PF has that 4E and 5E largely don't, is utility spells. You can use your low-level slot on such things as Unseen Servant, Fastidousness, Alarm, and so forth. This is rather stylish for most casters.

Eldariel

2018-04-17, 02:41 AM

One thing 3E/PF has that 4E and 5E largely don't, is utility spells. You can use your low-level slot on such things as Unseen Servant, Fastidousness, Alarm, and so forth. This is rather stylish for most casters.

There are also combat spells that remain useful throughout like Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enlarge Person and Silent Image (well, until True Seeing takes over at least). And particularly Grease is both, useful in and out of combat (though 3.5 made fewer spells "general"; Enlarge/Shrink in earlier editions was one of the better utility spells while also being combat much like Grease).

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-17, 03:21 AM

Eldariel

2018-04-17, 03:35 AM

They exist and have existed before, but my point is that this doesn't fix the issue.

And unless they finagle a bunch with the magic system (Since there is mention of magic missle I doubt they really are), its still going to end up being redundant in many ways.

Though you can "Upcast" burning hands, your still going to want to have a "fireball" in the end.

However, something like Grease can't be replicated by higher level spells. Same with Ray of Enfeeblement; unique, different effects remain useful and generally that level of effect suffices for many uses, where it's optimal to use the low level slot. Of course, if those spells are made to scale too, it remains to be seen what's left as a use for the low level slots. But as it stands, a single casting of Grease can annihilate a level 7 Crusader in a 1v1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525145-Help-me-save-my-party).

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-17, 03:49 AM

However, something like Grease can't be replicated by higher level spells. Same with Ray of Enfeeblement; unique, different effects remain useful and generally that level of effect suffices for many uses, where it's optimal to use the low level slot.

Overall im not a fan of the Vanician system and this isn't really doing much to get it in a better spot. Its nice for a few effects but the end result is more a novelty then a real adress of the systems failings.
Why go through this big deal of taking away so much stuff that regular martial characters can do by default to still have massive lists of spells any one of which invalidates a skill tree (Even the new pathfinder ones from the sound of it).

Its still "Complexity". The new spell components system is possibly the most complex way they could impliment what they have.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-17, 04:13 AM

Though you can "Upcast" burning hands, your still going to want to have a "fireball" in the end.

I'm not sure why this is a problem. Also, it appears to apply to only a few spells, whereas most spells are clearly distinct.

massive lists of spells any one of which invalidates a skill tree
The aim of P2 is to counter this by making skills actually have very powerful effects if you're good at them. So no, the intent is not that spells invalidate skill trees.

Morty

2018-04-17, 06:07 AM

It has been suggested before for ability score bonuses to come from the class instead of race. All wizards get +2 IN. All rogues get +2 DX. If Paizo does that you'll get racial diversity. Not every halfling will be a rogue. Not every dwarf will be a fighter. Not every gnome will be wizard, etc.

It will also reinforce attributes as an illusion of choice, where they can theoretically be anything, but in practice you'll just take what's relevant to your class.

The racial bonuses to certain attributes depending on race used to be there to model and enforce certain races or subraces gravitating more towards certain classes, with the Human's floating bonus in line with them being the jack-of-all-trades race. I think removing these kinks players need to work around diminishes the game, in the same way removing technical curves diminishes a race track.

And what do we get from pushing races towards a certain classes? Other than discouraging non-standard combinations, which D&D should really have grown out of a while ago?

There are also combat spells that remain useful throughout like Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enlarge Person and Silent Image (well, until True Seeing takes over at least). And particularly Grease is both, useful in and out of combat (though 3.5 made fewer spells "general"; Enlarge/Shrink in earlier editions was one of the better utility spells while also being combat much like Grease).

Though of course this raises the question of what the balance point is meant to be here. How useful should an unheightened 1st level slot be on level 10? In 3e/PF as it is, it varies wildly. A 1st level magic missile is useless, but grease can lay low a high-level character. Of course, the latter is probably not an intended consequence, but a result of the borked math.

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-17, 10:02 AM

I'm not sure why this is a problem.

I'm saying its nice, but it's not really all that clever in my mind.

The aim of P2 is to counter this by making skills actually have very powerful effects if you're good at them. So no, the intent is not that spells invalidate skill trees.

Unless fly suddenly becomes a 7th level spell, Skill trees will still massively drag behind spells.

ComaVision

2018-04-17, 10:41 AM

I'm really hoping that, now we have context for spells in PF2, Friday will be the big reveal on the skill system. I think it's more likely we'll get a caster class preview though.

The skill system is going to make or break PF2 for me. If it doesn't do anything to narrow the martial-caster disparity, or happens way too late game, then I can't see my group switching.

khadgar567

2018-04-17, 11:22 AM

Psyren

2018-04-17, 11:44 AM

Unless fly suddenly becomes a 7th level spell, Skill trees will still massively drag behind spells.

Fly is 3rd in 5e and people seem to enjoy that game; perfect balance between skills and spells is unnecessary.

Pex

2018-04-17, 12:21 PM

The racial bonuses to certain attributes depending on race used to be there to model and enforce certain races or subraces gravitating more towards certain classes, with the Human's floating bonus in line with them being the jack-of-all-trades race. I think removing these kinks players need to work around diminishes the game, in the same way removing technical curves diminishes a race track.

In the beginning, 2E for me but otherwise after being a race was your class, depending on race you could only be certain classes. It was forbidden to be a dwarf wizard. It was forbidden to be an elf paladin. 3E got rid of that. Technically you could be a dwarf wizard or elf paladin but the racial modifiers discouraged it. Modifiers encourage particular race/class combos. That's why whenever anyone plays a halfling, you can be 99.9999% sure he's a rogue. If a player's character is a dwarf, bet your house he's not a sorcerer. I know I'm ready to do away with the racial/class stereotypes. Divorcing ability score bonuses from the races will encourage that.

Psyren

2018-04-17, 01:29 PM

I know I'm ready to do away with the racial/class stereotypes. Divorcing ability score bonuses from the races will encourage that.

If you want to do that in your games, it's as easy as making every single race have the floating +2. Why does the system need to do it for you? The default is meant as an aid for worldbuilding - a flawed world full of inequities, much like our own.

Cosi

2018-04-17, 01:49 PM

Fly is 3rd in 5e and people seem to enjoy that game; perfect balance between skills and spells is unnecessary.

There's a lot wrong with this post.

First, just because it is unnecessary to achieve perfect balance, that doesn't mean we should ignore balance entirely. It's impossible to make a game everyone will like, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore people's preferences when we design games.

Second, "people enjoy it" isn't really a good guide to game design. People enjoy almost every game ever made to some degree or another. People enjoyed 3e, 4e, and 5e (sure, at different rates, but all of those games have fans). Does that mean we should simultaneously have a game that goes 20 levels and 30 levels, does and doesn't have bounded accuracy, and both includes and excludes the Warlock and Warlord in the PHB?

Third, "fly is 3rd level in 5e" isn't enough to hang an argument on. It's like saying "mountain hammer is a 2nd level maneuver, therefore it's okay if tripping is bad". You don't have enough data to make your argument good, bad, or anything.

If you want to do that in your games, it's as easy as making every single race have the floating +2. Why does the system need to do it for you? The default is meant as an aid for worldbuilding - a flawed world full of inequities, much like our own.

Why does the system need to coddle your apparent inability to create a setting without basing it on racial sterotypes?

ComaVision

2018-04-17, 01:56 PM

Why does the system need to coddle your apparent inability to create a setting without basing it on racial sterotypes?

One of the stated design goals of PF2 is "Golarion infused". It's deliberately reflecting the default setting's lore.

MeeposFire

2018-04-17, 02:05 PM

Fly is 3rd in 5e and people seem to enjoy that game; perfect balance between skills and spells is unnecessary.

True but one has to consider that 5e has some key changes that make a difference between a 3rd level spell in PF or 3e and a 3rd level spell in 5e. For instance using fly means you cannot use a different spell that uses concentration and that can be a very big deal. Also a 3rd level slot is more valuable because generally you have less slots in 5e and less items and abilities that essentially give you more (for instance you could buy a wand of fly in 3e for a not so big price but it does not usually work like that in 5e).

So yes a 5e wizard can still cast fly at level 5 with a 3rd level slot but it is going to cost that wizard more than the PF wizard.

upho

2018-04-17, 03:34 PM

And there was a lot of whining about this situation back when WOTC had 4E forums :smallbiggrin:I actually think you're wrong here, because it's a false equivalence. The reason for any 4e whining was because in that system an extra 5% permanent accuracy actually was a pretty rare thing and had a value much greater than it has in 3.5/PF. And I cannot recall much whining about this either, especially since at least more optimized builds could usually still get their permanent "average" accuracy up to above 85% or so, which in a real game usually translated into hitting on a 2+ roll also against very high CR opponents when needed (due to tons of possible temporary bonuses).

In this respect, yes. 4e's idea that you would simply stop being a Fighter at 10th level was a good idea that, if implemented well, would have improved the game. Now, as it happens, the implementation was pretty bad in a lot of ways. Aside from the universal problems with 4e (it sucks and none of the abilities characters get are things you care about), Paragon Paths shouldn't be crap like "Pit Fighter" or "Polearm Master" (yes, those are real paragon paths (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Paragon_path)). The Epic Destinies are mostly all right, though there are some I think should probably be shifted down (but nothing as stupid as having "fights in a pit" as a Paragon Path).Eh...? Just FYI, the abilities of the 4e "Pit Fighter" and especially "Polearm Master" were not weak stuff you don't care about, and they could definitely shift a build from "decent" into "very powerful". And no, I don't mean this in the "everybody was the same in 4e"-myth context, I mean it's a very real and even mathematically proven fact. Frankly, if you don't see that for example the Polearm Master paragon path had highly unique features which not only would remain build-defining all the way up to 30th level, but also allow for builds at a power level which most 3.5 or PF martials can only dream about, it's simply because you don't have enough 4e-fu. (And yes, also in 4e your average build of X class were typically not even remotely close to playing in the same league as that of a highly optimized version of the same class, even if the differences were of course incomparable to those of PF casters.)

That said, there were of course a lot of crappy paragon paths and "epic destiny" options as well, as is the standard for pretty much all categories of options in all games by WoTC (or Paizo) so far. But the Pit Fighter and the Polearm Master are decidedly poor examples of such crappy options, regardless of what you may think of their names.

Otherwise, I agree. Although personally, if P2 intends to do anything similar, I really hope the PrCs/Paragon Paths/later-level-class-thingys are going to be vastly less starting class dependent than I've ever seen them being in basically any game with a similar class related progression structure. Meaning they would have to actually allow for the same kind of flexibility and a comparable number of possible viable combinations as P1 multiclassing does. Otherwise, judging by the fear of front loading we've seen so far, we're just gonna end up with boring pre-defined "class prisons" à la 2E again, where every PC starting as fighter ends up having mechanics very similar to every other PC starting as fighter.

This has nothing to do with bounded accuracy, and point buy as it exists in Pathfinder does some of this (as you point out). Going from 17 to 18 is 4 point buy points, going from 10 to 11 only 1. However, this doesn't apply to increasing the scores later (it's just +1 every 4th level), which is why you tend to actually see those sorts of tradeoffs in character creation, but not in character advancement, where it instead becomes the most important stat always getting a boost.Well, again, we already know level-up stat increases will work as in Starfinder: +1 to scores at 16+ or +2 to scores below 16.

Nice to see that they have copied rituals from 4e. Less excited to see more spells of the same caliber as Wish and Miracle.Absolutely agree. Also, if they're going to keep ridiculous spells such as Wish and Miracle, why didn't they simply make them rituals instead of 10th level spellls? If rituals are actually viable options for non-casters, making the most powerful spells rituals seems like a good idea.

Fly is 3rd in 5e and people seem to enjoy that game; perfect balance between skills and spells is unnecessary.Course not. But IMO there's a whole continent of difference between "perfectly balanced" and say "dramatically more balanced than in PF1". And so far, nothing indicates P2 will actually achieve the latter. And I don't mean that just when it comes to spells vs skills, but also when it comes to spells vs pretty much anything else. Meaning we still haven't seen anything which indicates P2 won't struggle with largely the same C/MD issues as P1 does, but plenty which indicates that it will. So I hope the details we haven't seen are very different from the ones revealed so far.

Psyren

2018-04-17, 03:53 PM

True but one has to consider that 5e has some key changes that make a difference between a 3rd level spell in PF or 3e and a 3rd level spell in 5e. For instance using fly means you cannot use a different spell that uses concentration and that can be a very big deal. Also a 3rd level slot is more valuable because generally you have less slots in 5e and less items and abilities that essentially give you more (for instance you could buy a wand of fly in 3e for a not so big price but it does not usually work like that in 5e).

So yes a 5e wizard can still cast fly at level 5 with a 3rd level slot but it is going to cost that wizard more than the PF wizard.

Right, and compared to Pathfinder 1.0 those differences matter. We don't yet know how concentration will work in P2, and as for a wand of fly, burning your resonance on that vs. climbing a rope may indeed make climbing the rope an attractive alternative.

Course not. But IMO there's a whole continent of difference between "perfectly balanced" and say "dramatically more balanced than in PF1". And so far, nothing indicates P2 will actually achieve the latter.

I see several indications that the gap will be smaller already - things like Resonance, action-based component casting, and slot-based heightening. In other words, casting - both natively and from items - looks to be more difficult/costly than in P1 based on what we've been shown so far.

upho

2018-04-17, 04:14 PM

I see several indications that the gap will be smaller already - things like Resonance, action-based component casting, and slot-based heightening. In other words, casting - both natively and from items - looks to be more difficult/costly than in P1 based on what we've been shown so far.How so? Seems to me Resonance nerfs the more item-dependent martials a lot more than casters. Not to mention that we can be pretty certain no martial classes will have Cha as their main stat, but that at least two caster classes will. And slot-based heightening may very well ultimately simply result in more casting flexibility; as advertised, it allows for getting more use out of lower level spells known. (And it should be noted that plenty of spells likely won't have any need for heightening since they'll remain useful anyways, as mentioned by previous posters).

Psyren

2018-04-17, 04:21 PM

How so? Seems to me Resonance nerfs the more item-dependent martials a lot more than casters.

I think it has a bigger impact on consumables, which casters were more reliant on for extending past their slot limitations. Combine that with fewer slots/bonus slots in general and I think you'll arrive at something closer to 5e's paradigm.

And slot-based heightening may very well ultimately simply result in more casting flexibility; as advertised, it allows for getting more use out of lower level spells known.

But they do so by paying for them with higher slots, which they'll need if spells don't autoscale as well as they used to. So yes, you get more flexibility in what spells you can learn, but the opportunity cost to actually use them would still be higher - again, like it is in 5e.

(And it should be noted that plenty of spells likely won't have any need for heightening since they'll remain useful anyways, as mentioned by previous posters).

This again depends on how they'll scale, which is a detail we don't know yet.

Raven777

2018-04-17, 06:56 PM

Why does the system need to coddle your apparent inability to create a setting without basing it on racial sterotypes?For one, because tropes are not stereotypes and using tropes as a universal language to convey immediately understandable expectations and intents in design, while making few but interesting allowances for deviations as "flavor", is considered best practice when building a core setting. For second, because system depth, especially ease of access versus rewarding mastery, is carved out of the interplay of constraints and allowances over many subsystems, races being one of those.

This conversation, if it is to have any merit, is gonna be about design. I advise against dragging it into ethics.

Pex

2018-04-17, 07:28 PM

If you want to do that in your games, it's as easy as making every single race have the floating +2. Why does the system need to do it for you? The default is meant as an aid for worldbuilding - a flawed world full of inequities, much like our own.

Anyone can make house rules for anything. That's irrelevant.

Psyren

2018-04-17, 07:50 PM

Anyone can make house rules for anything. That's irrelevant.

It's perfectly relevant. We're talking about what the default should be, and your desire is mutually exclusive with mine. One has to give, and yours is a heck of a lot easier to houserule.

137beth

2018-04-17, 08:39 PM

Why does the system need to do it for you?

Why should I pay Paizo money for a "game" that I have to create myself?

Pex

2018-04-17, 09:06 PM

It's perfectly relevant. We're talking about what the default should be, and your desire is mutually exclusive with mine. One has to give, and yours is a heck of a lot easier to houserule.

But we're talking about a new system, not what we have now. For a new system new things can be tried. With racial features not including ability score bonuses be the official, if they do that, that would help avoid race/class combo stereotypes which is what I was talking about. It's conjecture, not demanding that must be done right now to Pathfinder as it is currently published.

Anyway, as for the new magic system, I see they're converting it to 5E magic and calling it a new idea. Even Cantrips get the 5E treatment. The only differences is in what they don't say - no one spell only concentration mechanic and no change in number of spell slots. Those may or may not appear when the playtest is released, but welcome to 5E Magic Pathfinder's version.

Psyren

2018-04-17, 09:54 PM

Why should I pay Paizo money for a "game" that I have to create myself?

If that's what you want in your game, then you absolutely shouldn't; furthermore, I never said you should.

But we're talking about a new system, not what we have now. For a new system new things can be tried.

And homogenizing all the races is a thing to try... why exactly? :smallconfused:

Anyway, as for the new magic system, I see they're converting it to 5E magic and calling it a new idea. Even Cantrips get the 5E treatment. The only differences is in what they don't say - no one spell only concentration mechanic and no change in number of spell slots. Those may or may not appear when the playtest is released, but welcome to 5E Magic Pathfinder's version.

Well for starters, 5e's magic system is one of the things I like most about it (including the scaling cantrips), so I'm all for that.
And second, not seeing where they claimed scaling cantrips are a "new idea." New to PF, at best.

Pex

2018-04-17, 10:25 PM

And homogenizing all the races is a thing to try... why exactly? :smallconfused:

Who said anything about homogenizing the races? All I conjectured was getting rid of ability score bonuses from the races. They can have all the unique racial features you want.

Psyren

2018-04-17, 10:59 PM

Who said anything about homogenizing the races? All I conjectured was getting rid of ability score bonuses from the races. They can have all the unique racial features you want.

And if those features make, say, halflings and elves the best rogues, how is that different than just giving them a dex bonus?

Moreover, why is something like "in general, elves are more lithe, dwarves are more stout, and orcs are more ferocious than humans" a bad thing in the first place?

Yeah, you could come up with a very specific suite of racials to capture all that, all for the novelty of saying your races don't have modifiers anymore. I just don't see what it would add beyond that novelty.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-18, 12:55 AM

Who said anything about homogenizing the races? All I conjectured was getting rid of ability score bonuses from the races.
Unless you want to make ability scores irrelevant or get rid of them entirely, I don't see any benefit to that approach.

Anyway most P2 races seen so far do have a "floating" +2.

Morty

2018-04-18, 07:13 AM

I really don't think the choice is between using attribute score modifiers and "homogenizing" the races. Different races should feel different in play... which attribute bonuses and penalties don't actually accomplish. Like attributes in general, they're a numbers game that adds up to the same thing more often than not.

I quit playing a dwarf rogue in 5e recently, because of how horrifically dull the class is there. But while still playing the character, I wondered what she'd look like in 4e and realized that while 4e's racial abilities are a very mixed bag, there's some that work.

While a dwarf's racial stat bonuses would be as inconsequential to a crossbow-using rogue in 4e as they are in 5e, things like using Second Wind as a minor action certainly wouldn't be. This is the kind of thing that actually affects how a character plays. Every character is going to lose HP, and a dwarf can shrug it off and keep doing more easily, regardless of which class they are. Every class benefits from that, but no non-dwarf can do that. This might lead to a situation where a dwarf character takes more risks because they know they'll have an easier time healing. That's something we want and something the +2 Con modifier doesn't do.

Minor flavorful bonuses like poison resistance are also useful for every class when they do come up. All the fiddly little +2/+1 modifiers to skills aren't, but 4e is lousy with those in any event.

The PF 2e designers seem to have realized that to some degree, which is why we're getting ancestry feats. The quality of which has varied so far. But since they're optional, they can actually synergize with classes, because if this halfling feat doesn't work for a sorcerer... your halfling sorcerer doesn't have to take it.

Pex

2018-04-18, 01:11 PM

And if those features make, say, halflings and elves the best rogues, how is that different than just giving them a dex bonus?

Moreover, why is something like "in general, elves are more lithe, dwarves are more stout, and orcs are more ferocious than humans" a bad thing in the first place?

Yeah, you could come up with a very specific suite of racials to capture all that, all for the novelty of saying your races don't have modifiers anymore. I just don't see what it would add beyond that novelty.

More than just rogues would appreciate a halfling's resistance to fear. More than just rogues would appreciate an elf's resistance to sleep and charm. More than just rogues would appreciate low-light or darkvision. Ferocious is an attitude. An orc wizard burning his enemies in fireballs is as ferocious as the orc barbarian disemboweling his enemies with a great axe.

137beth

2018-04-18, 08:03 PM

Psyren

2018-04-18, 08:25 PM

More than just rogues would appreciate a halfling's resistance to fear. More than just rogues would appreciate an elf's resistance to sleep and charm. More than just rogues would appreciate low-light or darkvision.

None of that relates to elves and halflings being more agile/lithe, as fantasy typically depicts them. Equally important, you can have all of that stuff AND a dex bonus just fine.

I really don't think the choice is between using attribute score modifiers and "homogenizing" the races. Different races should feel different in play... which attribute bonuses and penalties don't actually accomplish. Like attributes in general, they're a numbers game that adds up to the same thing more often than not.

It's less about "feeling different in play" (class does that actually, not race) and more about explaining why race X tends toward or away from class Y in general. For example, dwarves have disdain for sorcery and few practice it, and their racial Cha penalty helps explain that tendency mechanically. Similarly, elf barbarians aren't much of a thing (outside of Eberron anyway) and their Con penalty dovetails with that nicely.

None of that stops you from playing a Dwarf Sorcerer or an Elf Barbarian, and even from being a very strong one. But it does explain why such combinations are rare even among the already rare subset of the population that take up adventuring as a career.

Pex

2018-04-19, 07:56 AM

None of that relates to elves and halflings being more agile/lithe, as fantasy typically depicts them. Equally important, you can have all of that stuff AND a dex bonus just fine.

But you don't absolutely must have the dex bonus. Agile and lithe could mean faster movement rate, which I understand elves are getting. It's still only a conjecture of what could be done. Apparently they're keeping the bonuses and giving everyone a floater +2. Hopefully the floater will be the thing that stops race/class stereotypes to get PC dwarf wizards and halfling barbarians.

I hope more that Humans don't get dealt a raw deal of bland ribbons.

Morty

2018-04-19, 08:21 AM

Just in terms of the blog itself, I think that this magic blog is much better written than the previous ones. This post seems like the first time they are giving us enough information that it can be meaningfully analyzed.

Someone on the Paizo thread said something I thought was pretty entertaining.

That's an amusing and accurate way of putting it. And we certainly did get a lot more information than from any other blog post.

It's less about "feeling different in play" (class does that actually, not race) and more about explaining why race X tends toward or away from class Y in general. For example, dwarves have disdain for sorcery and few practice it, and their racial Cha penalty helps explain that tendency mechanically. Similarly, elf barbarians aren't much of a thing (outside of Eberron anyway) and their Con penalty dovetails with that nicely.

None of that stops you from playing a Dwarf Sorcerer or an Elf Barbarian, and even from being a very strong one. But it does explain why such combinations are rare even among the already rare subset of the population that take up adventuring as a career.

I consider providing a distinct experience of playing each race a far more worthwhile goal than modelling fantasy demographics. Or penalizing people for picking class/race combos that go against those demographics. Especially if we're then going to reduce those penalties anyway.

Psyren

2018-04-19, 09:19 AM

I consider providing a distinct experience of playing each race a far more worthwhile goal than modelling fantasy demographics.

These aren't mutually exclusive goals, you can do both.

But you don't absolutely must have the dex bonus. Agile and lithe could mean faster movement rate, which I understand elves are getting. It's still only a conjecture of what could be done. Apparently they're keeping the bonuses and giving everyone a floater +2. Hopefully the floater will be the thing that stops race/class stereotypes to get PC dwarf wizards and halfling barbarians.

I hope more that Humans don't get dealt a raw deal of bland ribbons.

Then I guess we'll see.

upho

2018-04-20, 01:13 PM

I think it has a bigger impact on consumables, which casters were more reliant on for extending past their slot limitations. Combine that with fewer slots/bonus slots in general and I think you'll arrive at something closer to 5e's paradigm.Maybe. But if that happens I'm pretty certain it won't be due to Resonance; it will be due to fewer slots. The C/MD issue doesn't go away from PF1 should you remove consumables, and I'm more inclined to think it would end up as in 3.5 (where this has been tested more in detail). Meaning it wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the power difference. But yes, all this depends on details we don't know yet (such as the relative usefulness of consumables vs permanent items vs spells etc).

But they do so by paying for them with higher slots, which they'll need if spells don't autoscale as well as they used to. So yes, you get more flexibility in what spells you can learn, but the opportunity cost to actually use them would still be higher - again, like it is in 5e.Here's two interesting posts by Mark relating to this:
Cantrips aren't 0-level spells; they're spells you can perform all day. The damaging cantrips aren't super powerful compared to a martial's attacks in any case, but they'll still change what sorts of things you want to prepare in your various spell slots. So for instance, if you're really high level and have a cantrip that deals the same damage as a 1st-level magic missile, it might make sense to prepare utility spells in your 1st-level slots unless you have a reason to really want no-miss force damage in particular on that day.

I've been looking forward to blogs that actually address what I see as the principal issues with the current Pathfinder game, the caster/martial power discrepancy and the way that the turns of some classes with companions can take twice as long as many other classes. I'm happy to see this post give some initial ideas on magic, but I don't see it (or any of the other posts so far) actually address the power discrepancy. The heightening of spells described in this, including the heightening of cantrips, seems to actual increase the power of caster, potentially increasing the discrepancy. The new system also seems to add considerably to the complexity of the game system. I'd like to hear more about what Paizo staff thought were the biggest problems with the existing system and their plans for fixing those problems. Instead, we've heard a lot about fixing things that aren't broken (again in my opinion), such as changing races and racial traits to ancestries and ancestry feats.Well the key to making a system less prone to those sorts of problems is that we need to address those problems in a balanced fashion. If you just make spellcasters weaker, that's not particularly exciting. But if you give all sorts of fun new opportunities to heighten spells and much better at-will cantrip options? That's a much better way to design a system where the casters are no longer quite as exponential in power increases (heightening being how you increase effects means you should hopefully no longer have a situation where a 20th level caster can still end the entire fight with one 4th level spell, which she can at that point do for every fight because she has dozens of spells of 4th level or higher), but it allows more opportunities and cool stuff that feels like more power, as you mention, when it's really different power, evening out the smaller turns you don't cast your big wow spell (through heightened cantrips) while lessening the number of "I win" buttons.Judging by this, I'd say my suspicions are mostly correct when it comes to lower level slots being mainly for utility spells, while the higher level ones will often be primarily reserved for (often heightened) big guns combat stuff.

I believe the greatest potential flaw in Mark's reasoning is the apparent belief that it's 4th level combat spells that end entire fights at 20th level in P1. If disregarding certain metamagic shenanigans, IME such combat spells are pretty worthless at that level, while what is primarily considered lower level utility spells remain potentially encounter-solving, or at least more so than anything martials bring to the fight (stuff like DD, haste, fly etc). I can only hope such spells also have their higher level usefulness gated with heightening, instead of just the most obviously combat focused ones.

In addition, P1 can at least theoretically be considered more "balanced" if judged according to the following philosophy:

Martial has 10 "effect" in each of the three rounds of each of the first three encounters (30 per encounter), and 13 in each of the four rounds in the fourth and last fifth vs the BBEG (52 per encounter), for a total of 11.4 "EPR" (194 over 17 rounds).
Caster has 5 "effect" in each round in the first three encounters (15 per encounter); 20, 14, 5, 5 in the fourth; and 35, 30, 25, 15 in the last fifth encounter vs the BBEG, for the same EPR as the fighter.
Ergo: martial and caster are balanced.

But in a real game, the caster is of course going to be not just vastly more useful, but his spells will also grant him far more "shine time" when he saves the day in the fight against the BBEG and ends up the hero of the story. Meanwhile, the martial gets an honorable mention in the footnotes as an effective mooks clean-up guy. The new casting system doesn't seem to address this at all AFAICT, unless they also intend to radically improve martials' ability to step up their game when needed (or change the typical structure of an adventuring day or something).

Psyren

2018-04-20, 02:38 PM

Here's two interesting posts by Mark relating to this:

---

Judging by this, I'd say my suspicions are mostly correct when it comes to lower level slots being mainly for utility spells, while the higher level ones will often be primarily reserved for (often heightened) big guns combat stuff.

I'm not seeing how that contradicts anything I said though. "Big guns combat stuff" are the encounters where you're most likely to, you know, die - so the dearth of higher-level slots is still an important balancing factor, because you'll need to devote a relatively greater percentage of your most powerful spells to not dying, with fewer left over for miscellaneous purposes. Using our more numerous lower level slots primarily for utility is exactly what I want.

In addition to that, P2 gives us the new paradigm where lower level spells can't trump higher-level ones - i.e. detect magic can't spot major image or detect greater invisibility, say, or protection from evil can't beat dominate monster anymore etc. So even if you're packing your lower level slots with utility, you'll still want to devote some higher level ones to that role too, increasing the paucity of those slots further and making the casters choose very carefully which encounters they try to end with a single spell (if they even still can) and which ones they'll have to let the mundanes shine in.

Maybe. But if that happens I'm pretty certain it won't be due to Resonance; it will be due to fewer slots. The C/MD issue doesn't go away from PF1 should you remove consumables, and I'm more inclined to think it would end up as in 3.5 (where this has been tested more in detail). Meaning it wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the power difference. But yes, all this depends on details we don't know yet (such as the relative usefulness of consumables vs permanent items vs spells etc).

Well for starters let's be clear - my own goal/hope isn't to make C/MD go away, not entirely. Even 5e didn't do that, and by all observable evidence it's doing fine.

So with that, I'm not saying reducing consumables will solve balance by any means - but I do think it has the potential to improve it. Because when you can't carry a library's worth of scrolls around, or leave half your slots empty at the beginning of the day just in case something comes up, mundane solutions to problems (be they a trio of bugbears or a locked door leading to the mansion cellar) become a lot more appealing, I'd say.

stack

2018-04-20, 03:30 PM

New blog (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkq6?Secrets-of-Alchemy#discuss) has some info on alchemy.

upho

2018-04-20, 03:34 PM

I'm not seeing how that contradicts anything I said though.It wasn't intended to. Sorry, I should've been more clear. It was just intended to provide a little insight into how the devs think about this.

"Big guns combat stuff" are the encounters where you're most likely to, you know, die - so the dearth of higher-level slots is still an important balancing factor, because you'll need to devote a relatively greater percentage of your most powerful spells to not dying, with fewer left over for miscellaneous purposes. Using our more numerous lower level slots primarily for utility is exactly what I want.And what I'm saying is that if the number of slots remain about the same as in P1, how does what you're saying meaningfully differ from how it works in P1?

Again, if a low level spell saves your butt in higher level combat, it's rarely going to be a combat spell and often a utility spell. And again, if such utility spells are also meaningfully gated, I think what you're saying here should work just fine and have the effect we're wishing for. Otherwise, not so much.

Guess that puts us squarely back into the same old pit of "don't have enough details" yet again... :smallsigh:

In addition to that, P2 gives us the new paradigm where lower level spells can't trump higher-level ones - i.e. detect magic can't spot major image or detect greater invisibility, say, or protection from evil can't beat dominate monster anymore etc. So even if you're packing your lower level slots with utility, you'll still want to devote some higher level ones to that role too, increasing the paucity of those slots further and making the casters choose very carefully which encounters they try to end with a single spell (if they even still can) and which ones they'll have to let the mundanes shine in.This I agree will indeed most likely actually have some impact on the C/MD issue. It may not be great, but at least it's something. And of course, how big of an impact it will have is also largely dependent on how magic items are treated in this regard. If not handled correctly, these mechanics may end up nerfing martials more than casters.

Well for starters let's be clear - my own goal/hope isn't to make C/MD go away, not entirely. Even 5e didn't do that, and by all observable evidence it's doing fine.I agree. Or rather, I think I would be the happiest if the category of tools primarily used by a class didn't make for a clear divider in terms of mechanical power, whatever that category of tools may be (spells, combat maneuvers, skills, etc). It makes for a less dynamic game overall. Otherwise I'm not just fine with classes having some varying levels of power potential, I endorse it. Perhaps most notably because it makes it easier for a group of players to balance PCs despite varying levels of system mastery, experience and different game expectations.

So with that, I'm not saying reducing consumables will solve balance by any means - but I do think it has the potential to improve it. Because when you can't carry a library's worth of scrolls around, or leave half your slots empty at the beginning of the day just in case something comes up, mundane solutions to problems (be they a trio of bugbears or a locked door leading to the mansion cellar) become a lot more appealing, I'd say.Well, if what you believe will turn out to be true, then yes, Resonance has the potential to be a balancing factor. Unfortunately, I also suspect you would make this particular sub-system significantly more balanced than the Paizo devs have, as I don't believe this balance is particularly high on their priority list (which isn't strange, considering the average level of play and the average level of system mastery most players seemingly have).

Zanos

2018-04-20, 06:31 PM

In addition to that, P2 gives us the new paradigm where lower level spells can't trump higher-level ones - i.e. detect magic can't spot major image or detect greater invisibility, say, or protection from evil can't beat dominate monster anymore etc. So even if you're packing your lower level slots with utility, you'll still want to devote some higher level ones to that role too, increasing the paucity of those slots further and making the casters choose very carefully which encounters they try to end with a single spell (if they even still can) and which ones they'll have to let the mundanes shine in.
This sounds awful. Lower level spells transitioning from offensive power to good utility over the levels is an example of good game design, not bad.

Cosi

2018-04-20, 06:40 PM

This sounds awful. Lower level spells transitioning from offensive power to good utility over the levels is an example of good game design, not bad.

This is true. Also, the implied paradigm of an ever-escalating battle between defensive and offensive spells without any functional difference other than level sounds terrible. The fact that the biggest differences between high and low level martial characters are quantitative rather than qualitative is something to be fixed, not emulated.

Overall, this solution is simply worse than scaling by caster level and giving some people totally arbitrary bonuses to certain kinds of spells. Like the Illusionist gets +6 to their CL for the purposes of winning out against true seeing or whatever.

Psyren

2018-04-20, 08:02 PM

This sounds awful. Lower level spells transitioning from offensive power to good utility over the levels is an example of good game design, not bad.

They're still utility mate. Just not unimpeachable anymore. So that detect magic can still be used to spot somebody who is polymorphed for instance, or to identify a magic item or an active spell - but auto-spotting illusions and magic traps are out now, you'll probably want a rogue for that if you want to save your higher level spells. (Oh those poor dirty mundanes, expecting to be valuable and all, how dare they.)

And what I'm saying is that if the number of slots remain about the same as in P1, how does what you're saying meaningfully differ from how it works in P1?

That's my point though, I don't think they will. Starfinder has fewer bonus spells than P1, and 5e doesn't have any at all. That's the paradigm now. Casters need to conserve their nukes, which means mundanes doing more stuff. And the sky has yet to fall.

Zanos

2018-04-20, 08:27 PM

They're still utility mate. Just not unimpeachable anymore. So that detect magic can still be used to spot somebody who is polymorphed for instance, or to identify a magic item or an active spell - but auto-spotting illusions and magic traps are out now, you'll probably want a rogue for that if you want to save your higher level spells. (Oh those poor dirty mundanes, expecting to be valuable and all, how dare they.)
Expect Detect Magic was never unimpeachable, since it takes three rounds of focus, can't penetrate all that much material that traps are usually behind, and can't actually do anything about the trap other than tell you that there is magic there.

Yay for solving problems that don't exist? But if it did, the wizard could just heighten the spell and invalidate the rogue anyway.

Cosi

2018-04-20, 08:42 PM

(Oh those poor dirty mundanes, expecting to be valuable and all, how dare they.)

You mean expect that no one will ever get abilities that negate their first level ability to have skills?

That's not "expecting to be valuable", that's "holding everyone else's character progression hostage because you refuse to advance farther than John McClane".

Mundanes should be valuable at high levels because they get, new, interesting, valuable abilities. Like how the Cleric gets raise dead or the Wizard gets teleport. Not because no one gets to have abilities that negate 1st level challenges.

Psyren

2018-04-20, 08:50 PM

Expect Detect Magic was never unimpeachable, since it takes three rounds of focus

You can usually spare 18 seconds if there are traps around.

can't penetrate all that much material that traps are usually behind

Most magic traps have to be uncovered, so that would be pretty dumb.

and can't actually do anything about the trap other than tell you that there is magic there.

And that's when your summoned celestial monkey triggers it for you.

Anything else?

But if it did, the wizard could just heighten the spell and invalidate the rogue anyway.

And use up their valuable higher level slots in the process. Thanks for restating my point?

Kurald Galain

2018-04-21, 04:47 AM

Expect Detect Magic was never unimpeachable

As written, 3E/PF's Detect Magic will immediately reveal any and all illusions (including invisibility) and polymorphed creatures, in the round it is cast, because all of those have an aura that the spell can pick up. That is problematic.

To be fair, many DMs will in fact rule that the second-level Invisibility spell trumps the zeroth-level Detect Magic, but the rules don't actually say so. That is precisely what P2 is changing here.

Zanos

2018-04-21, 08:11 AM

It will only reveal that there's magic(yes/no) in the area of concentration on the first round.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-21, 08:28 AM

It will only reveal that there's magic(yes/no) in the area of concentration on the first round.

Yes, and that information is already enough in the hands of a clever player. Aim your cone at a wall; if there's magic there, you probably need to search that. Aim your cone at a single creature; if it's magical, then it's probably suspicious. Aim your cone at empty space, and you know roughly where the invisible creature is. It's clearly not 100% foolproof, but it's still way too easy to foil a second- or third-level spell with a mere cantrip.

If your GM rules that it doesn't work that way: congrats, he's doing the same thing as P2 now. It's rather silly to suggest it's great when your GM does it but not great when the new rulebook says so :smallamused:

Zanos

2018-04-21, 08:37 AM

You can't aim the cone at a specific space only, so all that tells you is that there's something in a 45 degree 60 foot long cone, which is a lot of tactical squares. It won't even tell you it's illusion until round 3 either.

"Detect Magic doesn't work on invisibility at all because it's higher level" and "detect magic takes three rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature that's constantly moving so it's of limited use in that scenario" are pretty different.

Psyren

2018-04-21, 10:40 AM

"Detect Magic doesn't work on invisibility at all because it's higher level" and "detect magic takes three rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature that's constantly moving so it's of limited use in that scenario" are pretty different.

You seem to be assuming combat here, when I clearly said utility. You know the problem with "constantly moving?" It increases your chances of making noise, not the best strategy for a sneak or a spy. The best advantage to Invisibility is that they don't even realize something is there to look more closely in the first place, and footsteps are kind of antithetical to that. Sure you can try to move silently, but if you were that good at it you probably wouldn't need glamers as a crutch in the first place.

upho

2018-04-21, 11:25 AM

That's my point though, I don't think they will. Starfinder has fewer bonus spells than P1, and 5e doesn't have any at all. That's the paradigm now. Casters need to conserve their nukes, which means mundanes doing more stuff. And the sky has yet to fall.I hope you're right. Especially since what Mark said on the topic didn't exactly sound reassuring to me, to put it mildly.

You mean expect that no one will ever get abilities that negate their first level ability to have skills?

That's not "expecting to be valuable", that's "holding everyone else's character progression hostage because you refuse to advance farther than John McClane".

Mundanes should be valuable at high levels because they get, new, interesting, valuable abilities. Like how the Cleric gets raise dead or the Wizard gets teleport. Not because no one gets to have abilities that negate 1st level challenges.While I fully agree with you, I think you may have misunderstood what Psyren said. I don't really see how you managed to read that as "no one will ever get abilities that negate their first level ability to have skills", and neither do I see how the few P2 reveals indicate that this will be the case.

Expect Detect Magic was never unimpeachable, since it takes three rounds of focus, can't penetrate all that much material that traps are usually behind, and can't actually do anything about the trap other than tell you that there is magic there.

Yay for solving problems that don't exist?It rarely exists from a PC caster's perspective perhaps, but I can assure you that it's a very real problem from the perspective of the sneaky martial PC scouting the evil wizards' tower. The resident casters certainly have enough reason to raise the alarm if they detect the existence of magic in an area where there shouldn't be any. And then the intruding PC is likely to get tagged by more powerful and focused detection magic within seconds. Or to put it in other words, the Lurker In Darkness (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/feats/lurker-in-darkness-general/) feat solves a very real issue in a game where these things are played according to RAW.

That said, I absolutely agree that using CL as the sole deciding factor for determining which spell trumps which would be very bad design. But we don't know nearly enough to say whether that is actually the case in P2. And speaking of, I think there's a much bigger issue with the general rule in P1 basically being:

"Magic can affect both the mundane and the magic, while the mundane can only affect the mundane."

If I had to choose, I'd definitely vastly prefer if P2 radically changed this rather than fiddling about with the finer points of P1's spell interaction mechanics.

Zanos

2018-04-21, 11:32 AM

That said, I absolutely agree that using CL as the sole deciding factor for determining which spell trumps which would be very bad design. But we don't know nearly enough to say whether that is actually the case in P2. And speaking of, I think there's a much bigger issue with the general rule in P1 basically being:

"Magic can affect both the mundane and the magic, while the mundane can only affect the mundane."

If I had to choose, I'd definitely vastly prefer if P2 radically changed this rather than fiddling about with the finer points of P1's spell interaction mechanics.
Yeah, I'd prefer martials had more options to interact with magic than "take this feat and spell don't work at all no more". Lurker in the Darkness is a necessary feat, but is also itself bad design.

I will point out that the detect magic problem specifically is one PF introduced by giving casters unlimited cantrips.

Cosi

2018-04-21, 11:46 AM

While I fully agree with you, I think you may have misunderstood what Psyren said. I don't really see how you managed to read that as "no one will ever get abilities that negate their first level ability to have skills", and neither do I see how the few P2 reveals indicate that this will be the case.

I read it that way because Psyren seems to be suggesting that the solution to the disparity between casters and mundanes should be solved not by giving mundanes new abilities, but by making caster's abilities (specifically, the ones that allow them to obsolete mundane skill checks) no longer work. That is the exact opposite of the correct solution.

Morty

2018-04-21, 11:47 AM

The alchemy looks pretty good, their odd insistence that it's not in magic notwithstanding. That said, there's still some awkwardness at the point where alchemy is a Craft specialty that alchemists just happen to do better.

I also do hope that an alchemist's round by round combat contribution isn't just bomb-throwing. Like, can I play someone who prepares poisons and then applies them with ranged weapons?

Finally, they really have to show us some of the abilities afforded by weapon and skill proficiencies now. In some detail, not just vague promises.

Psyren

2018-04-21, 02:39 PM

I will point out that the detect magic problem specifically is one PF introduced by giving casters unlimited cantrips.

Nah, at-will Detect Magic (and arbitrarily high numbers of same) is easy to get in 3.5 too.

I also do hope that an alchemist's round by round combat contribution isn't just bomb-throwing. Like, can I play someone who prepares poisons and then applies them with ranged weapons?

There will likely be archetypes focused on this even if the base version isn't quite as good at it.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-21, 04:37 PM

using CL as the sole deciding factor for determining which spell trumps which
Spell level, not caster level.

the general rule in P1 basically being:

"Magic can affect both the mundane and the magic, while the mundane can only affect the mundane."
P1 does allow fighters to deflect spells with their swords, and barbarians to negate magic by hitting it really hard. No really, those abilities both exist in P1 and are pretty straightforward to obtain. I would expect them to include similar options in P2.

Zanos

2018-04-21, 04:59 PM

Nah, at-will Detect Magic (and arbitrarily high numbers of same) is easy to get in 3.5 too.
It doesn't get much easier than getting it at level 1 on every casting class in the game for free.

I know you can permanency detect magic/arcane sight in 3.5, but I don't think it's possible to get it at the levels where this is frequently a concern.

P1 does allow fighters to deflect spells with their swords, and barbarians to negate magic by hitting it really hard. No really, those abilities both exist in P1 and are pretty straightforward to obtain. I would expect them to include similar options in P2.
I'd like more maneuverish stuff. I know it''s spells by just another name, but still.

Psyren

2018-04-21, 05:27 PM

Spell level, not caster level.

Indeed, and this is important, because SL does not automatically scale.

It doesn't get much easier than getting it at le
2vel 1 on every casting class in the game for free.

I know you can permanency detect magic/arcane sight in 3.5, but I don't think it's possible to get it at the levels where this is frequently a concern.

The fact is that at-will cantrips aren't actually the problem. Whether detect is limited or not, the real issue is that a type of magic that is designed to conceal things (illusions) or to be concealed itself (traps) being that easy to notice is utter nonsense in-universe. Designing illusions and traps to not work that way is logically the first thing they would do.

I'd like more maneuverish stuff. I know it''s spells by just another name, but still.

I'm not against that, but you're vastly underestimating how controversial ToB was (and is, outside of these boards.) Even 5e has left it alone and they invented it.

darkdragoon

2018-04-21, 07:36 PM

so presumably 4d6+int is supposed to be "a lot" right?

The Epic Destinies are mostly all right, though there are some I think should probably be shifted down (but nothing as stupid as having "fights in a pit" as a Paragon Path).

"It sounds cools so it must be good" is shaky at best, especially in light of PRCs or Grandmaster of Flowers compared to plain old Wizard.

Gladiator would perhaps be more known for bloodsport, but it's just as generic and there's more connotation of showmanship. I guess I thought after 10 years "what it do" would have become as important as "'Horseman? I am ze Chevalier!"

Cosi

2018-04-21, 07:41 PM

"It sounds cools so it must be good" is shaky at best, especially in light of PRCs or Grandmaster of Flowers compared to plain old Wizard.

It needs to sound cool because its entire job is to justify you getting powers that are sufficiently anime to compete when the enemies include mountain-sized giants made of ice. The reason we are requiring Fighters to become Thunder Champions or Dread Lancers at 11th level is because "Fighter" is no longer a viable concept. That is why concepts like "Fighter in a pit" or "Fighter who fights to entertain people" don't work.

darkdragoon

2018-04-21, 08:07 PM

Wizards r dum, only Chad Spellslingers can beat Rock Lee?

Thor, slayer of all manner of trolls and giants was a god with a super special hammer, special gloves to use that hammer, a belt of strength, and of course most important a chariot with goats.

Aragorn is a Ranger with Dunedain Heritage (long lifespan, run for days without tiring etc.) and True King/Heir ("hands of a healer", persuade Oathbreakers etc.) Maybe even Raised by Pointy-Ears. those certain factor into his kit but I don't know that they demand a class path.

Heracles was a demigod, while his more famous counterpart Hercules got promoted to god of strength because the Romans copied Dragon Ball Super.

Beowulf is as unnatural as Grendel, yet is on God's good side.

Guts on the other hand, gets a gunarm replacement and a seemingly cursed dwarven armor to go with his big sword.

Kenshiro is the rightful heir to Your Head Asplode Fu, but otherwise is just that darn good.

upho

2018-04-21, 08:45 PM

Spell level, not caster level.But that was precisely what I... Ooops! :smallredface:

My bad. Seems even when I'm thinking SL, I'm writing CL out of habit or something... :smallsigh:

Indeed, and this is important, because SL does not automatically scale.Hmm... Actually, considering a hypothetical CL version, I think my main grievance would remain largely the same. Sure, a CL version would no doubt be worse, but the SL one is bad enough IMO, and largely for the same basic reason.

But regardless, I'm not really worried this particular issue will be an annoyance in P2 as I'm fairly confident there'll be quite a few other determining factors besides SL, including for example effect types, magic schools/sub-schools and even specific spells.

P1 does allow fighters to deflect spells with their swords, and barbarians to negate magic by hitting it really hard. No really, those abilities both exist in P1 and are pretty straightforward to obtain. I would expect them to include similar options in P2.Oh, I absolutely agree the benefits of spell sunder and Smash From the Air are great examples of what the game desperately needs. Not so much their prerequisites and relative inaccessibility though. And actually, I believe what you're saying here simply confirms how true "the M/M rule" I posted is in P1; despite there being more than a thousand options available to martial PCs, it's very hard to think of even just a handful which actually goes against said rule in any noticeable way, while I'd estimate easily 99.9% of options don't.

Also, I'd say "Barbarian 6, witch hunter rage power" (plus the superstition rage power, I might add) and "Str 13, Cut from the Air, Power Attack, base attack bonus +9, weapon training class feature with a melee weapon" are both far from being "pretty straightforward to obtain". And the IMO quite contrived nature of these options also confirms how difficult it appears to be to break away from the M/M rule and realize it simply makes for bad design. To me, it's as if the devs were really nervous the very concept of options like these would be too controversial, regardless of the actual mechanical power of their benefits. And as if they felt they had to justify the existence of these options by adding numerous more or less arbitrary limitations to ensure they remain niche exceptions to the sacred M/M rule.

If spell sunder had been released as a feat with, say, Greater Sunder and Power Attack as prereqs, had it been OP? And if Smash From the Air had it's overly long list of prereqs cut to maybe simply "Str 13 or Dex 13, Cut from the Air, base attack bonus +7, Weapon Focus with a melee weapon", would that have ruined the balance in P1, making more melee inclined classes all-powerful and full casters weak?

I'd like more maneuverish stuff. I know it''s spells by just another name, but still.
I'm not against that, but you're vastly underestimating how controversial ToB was (and is, outside of these boards.) Even 5e has left it alone and they invented it.I have the same wish as you, Zanos, but judging by what I've read on for example the Paizo forums, I'm afraid I believe Psyren is right about anything resembling ToB stuff still being highly controversial for some reason, even though PoW seems to have made quite a bit of progress in shifting people's attitudes. We're most likely simply gonna have to wait for DSP to pick up the slack also this time around.

Knaight

2018-04-21, 10:17 PM

This sounds awful. Lower level spells transitioning from offensive power to good utility over the levels is an example of good game design, not bad.

So is having a solid way to handle immovable object vs. unstoppable force quandries, which is where these sorts of things are likely to crop up (notice the examples being explicit illusion magic against Dispel Magic). It's similar to the Numenera rules for cypher interactions, where if they explicitly contradict each other in effect the more powerful one dictates the effect.

Psyren

2018-04-21, 10:20 PM

I have the same wish as you, Zanos, but judging by what I've read on for example the Paizo forums, I'm afraid I believe Psyren is right about anything resembling ToB stuff still being highly controversial for some reason, even though PoW seems to have made quite a bit of progress in shifting people's attitudes. We're most likely simply gonna have to wait for DSP to pick up the slack also this time around.

I mean, has it? Made progress, I mean. Even being freely available this time via the PFSRD, I would wager the percentage of the playerbase that actually read it (much less used it) is fairly small compared to the whole.

Hmm... Actually, considering a hypothetical CL version, I think my main grievance would remain largely the same. Sure, a CL version would no doubt be worse, but the SL one is bad enough IMO, and largely for the same basic reason.

I'm genuinely confused about what grievance that is. Casters having to manage scarcity and thus rely on mundanes more? A world that is more logically consistent, where magic designed to be hidden has a chance to stay that way?

Cosi

2018-04-21, 10:21 PM

So is having a solid way to handle immovable object vs. unstoppable force quandries, which is where these sorts of things are likely to crop up (notice the examples being explicit illusion magic against Dispel Magic). It's similar to the Numenera rules for cypher interactions, where if they explicitly contradict each other in effect the more powerful one dictates the effect.

Why is caster level insufficient for this? It also gives you an elegant way of representing a character with really strong illusion/detection/fire magic -- give them a CL bonus for the purpose of determining whether their magic wins out or not.

Zanos

2018-04-21, 10:49 PM

Didn't really think ToB/PoW was controversial. When I was running a PF persistent world most of the homebrew requests were people begging for Path of War.

So is having a solid way to handle immovable object vs. unstoppable force quandries, which is where these sorts of things are likely to crop up (notice the examples being explicit illusion magic against Dispel Magic). It's similar to the Numenera rules for cypher interactions, where if they explicitly contradict each other in effect the more powerful one dictates the effect.
It's not really a qunadry. Dispel magic is for getting rid of spells, that is it's only purpose. I've never had an issue with dispel magic being able to dispel spells above 3 without heightening.

Psyren

2018-04-21, 11:06 PM

Didn't really think ToB/PoW was controversial. When I was running a PF persistent world most of the homebrew requests were people begging for Path of War.

Personal Incredulity Fallacy aside, WotC themselves attempted to address concerns (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911) that ToB was seen by some as "too anime." That's a pretty odd epithet for them to write about their own book out of the blue, unless they'd actually been on the receiving end of such comments, and in numbers sufficient enough to provoke an official response no less.

Now, with that said I'm not trying to impugn ToB and PoW's mission at all, and if P2 ended up with a laundry list of maneuvers-as-martial-spells" (in core or later on) I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I do have major doubts that will be the case all the same.

It's not really a qunadry. Dispel magic is for getting rid of spells, that is it's only purpose. I've never had an issue with dispel magic being able to dispel spells above 3 without heightening.

Consider though that if a 3rd-level Dispel has a chance of suppressing (or even eliminating) any magic spell effect, item or trap regardless of how late in the game you encounter them - is it any wonder that strategies like Disable and Sunder get relegated to the backseat? In P1, there is precious little else that is worth putting in those slots as a result, since almost nothing will scale as well/remain useful as long. If however you were forced to use a 7+ slot at those levels to dispel instead, you'd be much more conscientious about when you'd do so, and much more likely to resort to that only when mundane solutions are impractical or fail.

Cosi

2018-04-21, 11:20 PM

Consider though that if a 3rd-level Dispel has a chance of suppressing (or even eliminating) any magic spell effect, item or trap regardless of how late in the game you encounter them - is it any wonder that strategies like Disable and Sunder get relegated to the backseat? In P1, there is precious little else that is worth putting in those slots as a result, since almost nothing will scale as well/remain useful as long. If however you were forced to use a 7+ slot at those levels to dispel instead, you'd be much more conscientious about when you'd do so, and much more likely to resort to that only when mundane solutions are impractical or fail.

It it's wrong for dispel magic to remain relevant at the same cost throughout the whole campaign, why is it right for Sunder to remain relevant at the same cost throughout the whole campaign?

Knaight

2018-04-21, 11:29 PM

Why is caster level insufficient for this? It also gives you an elegant way of representing a character with really strong illusion/detection/fire magic -- give them a CL bonus for the purpose of determining whether their magic wins out or not.

It's not. It's another good way of handling it. That said, spell level with optional upcasting is a bit more interesting, in that it creates a decision around how much magic to spend.

Cosi

2018-04-21, 11:43 PM

It's not. It's another good way of handling it. That said, spell level with optional upcasting is a bit more interesting, in that it creates a decision around how much magic to spend.

I disagree. I think if you are going to spend "more magic", you should get an effect that is more substantively impressive, not merely one that is higher on the trump card totem pole. The 7th level dispel magic variant should do something like steal buffs, damage your target, suppress casting, or jump to other targets -- all (I think) things that higher level dispel magic variants do in 3e already. Simply requiring that you use a 7th level slot for it to have 7th level numbers is boring.

Zanos

2018-04-22, 01:28 AM

Personal Incredulity Fallacy aside, WotC themselves attempted to address concerns (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911) that ToB was seen by some as "too anime." That's a pretty odd epithet for them to write about their own book out of the blue, unless they'd actually been on the receiving end of such comments, and in numbers sufficient enough to provoke an official response no less.

Now, with that said I'm not trying to impugn ToB and PoW's mission at all, and if P2 ended up with a laundry list of maneuvers-as-martial-spells" (in core or later on) I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I do have major doubts that will be the case all the same.

Not really "personal incredulity" fallacy. Maybe the sample size is biased but I had a couple hundred PF players come through my PW over the years, and almost all of them wanted Path of War, which we eventually did allow. There were people making the same "anime" complaints(which PoW kind of invites, especially with stuff like Mithral Current), but they were a very verbal but extremely tiny minority, maybe totaling 5 people.

Consider though that if a 3rd-level Dispel has a chance of suppressing (or even eliminating) any magic spell effect, item or trap regardless of how late in the game you encounter them - is it any wonder that strategies like Disable and Sunder get relegated to the backseat?
Yes, actually. Dispel magic as mentioned generally only has a chance and each attempt consumes resources, where skill usage generally costs nothing. The problem is that those abilities are difficult to leverage without sticking your head under a guillotine. Still if a Wizard is in a party with a rogue, do you think the wizard is going to spend resources trying to do what the Rogue is doing for free? Perhaps if the player and character are obsessed with being in the limelight, but not generally a rational action.

In P1, there is precious little else that is worth putting in those slots as a result, since almost nothing will scale as well/remain useful as long. If however you were forced to use a 7+ slot at those levels to dispel instead, you'd be much more conscientious about when you'd do so, and much more likely to resort to that only when mundane solutions are impractical or fail.
Simply not true. There are many good third level spells that can have a relevant impact even at high levels. Haste, Slow, Arcane Sight, Herosim, Communal Energy Resistance, Lesser Animate, Shrink Item, and I'm sure more if I cared to look can all be useful at high levels, even if they aren't your first choice to cast every round or might not have immediate relevance in combat.

And again, what wizard is wasting resources, even marginally less valuable ones like lower level slots, before the rogue even rolls? Even if he does dispel isn't an ideal solution for traps, since it only suppresses them for 1d4 rounds and has its own roll to make.

I disagree. I think if you are going to spend "more magic", you should get an effect that is more substantively impressive, not merely one that is higher on the trump card totem pole. The 7th level dispel magic variant should do something like steal buffs, damage your target, suppress casting, or jump to other targets -- all (I think) things that higher level dispel magic variants do in 3e already. Simply requiring that you use a 7th level slot for it to have 7th level numbers is boring.
I agree. Running on a treadmill to do the same thing you were doing 10 levels ago is extremely uninteresting and dull.

Morty

2018-04-22, 06:30 AM

stack

2018-04-22, 08:37 AM

Wouldn't mind seeing a basic dispel option at 1st level (touch, single effect, requires a roll) that scaled to cover the other options.

Ignimortis

2018-04-22, 09:01 AM

I think the ship on ToB/PoW-style maneuvers has sailed. They seem devoted to the vision of non-magical abilities not having any kind of internal resource. The fighter and rogue feats they've revealed are passive, random or can be performed at will at the cost of an action... and they're also firmly in the realm of "add your shield bonus to Reflex", "scare someone" and "deal a bit of bleeding damage".

Then again, they've also talked big about how weapon and skill proficiencies will let them do amazing things, but provided no details. Of course, proficiencies are available to every class.

I already supposed that I'll have to wait for DSP to release PoW II: War Harder. Shame, but also good, because PoW is the best subsystem period, IMO, and Paizo could bungle it if they decided to make some parts of it default and then leave out something else.

Psyren

2018-04-22, 01:18 PM

Not really "personal incredulity" fallacy. Maybe the sample size is biased but I had a couple hundred PF players come through my PW over the years, and almost all of them wanted Path of War, which we eventually did allow. There were people making the same "anime" complaints(which PoW kind of invites, especially with stuff like Mithral Current), but they were a very verbal but extremely tiny minority, maybe totaling 5 people.

I'm certain you believe your campaign to be representative. Maybe it even is. As I've said, if there truly is a sea change of some sort happening, I'm not opposed to seeing it reflected - and I'll further note, there is plenty of opportunity outside core to do that too. My doubts however remain.

Yes, actually. Dispel magic as mentioned generally only has a chance and each attempt consumes resources, where skill usage generally costs nothing.

In P1, the "resource cost" of 3rd-level slots on 9th-level casters eventually becomes so minuscule as to be non-existent. It may not actually be infinite, but it doesn't affect your overall strategy to anywhere near the degree that upper slots do, and that is in part what relegates mundanes to the dust heap.

Simply not true. There are many good third level spells that can have a relevant impact even at high levels. Haste, Slow, Arcane Sight, Herosim, Communal Energy Resistance, Lesser Animate, Shrink Item, and I'm sure more if I cared to look can all be useful at high levels, even if they aren't your first choice to cast every round or might not have immediate relevance in combat.

Indeed, and these are precisely the kind of spells casters should be using their lower slots for - doing jobs that they are best suited for (e.g. Arcane Sight and Shrink Item) or making the martials and thus the overall party better in ways that save them build resources (Haste, Heroism, Energy Resistance.) These are very different than a low-level dispel being a spammable swiss army knife.

Not sure why you mentioned Slow, it's a pretty bad example - the save DC will be pretty low unless you heighten (which defeats the purpose) or are up against a bunch of mooks (in which case it hardly matters what you use, you're going to win.)

And again, what wizard is wasting resources, even marginally less valuable ones like lower level slots, before the rogue even rolls? Even if he does dispel isn't an ideal solution for traps, since it only suppresses them for 1d4 rounds and has its own roll to make.

I agree, except that is the constant refrain around here, that you have "no reason" to bring a rogue when the wizard can do his job.

Eldariel

2018-04-22, 01:33 PM

Indeed, and these are precisely the kind of spells casters should be using their lower slots for - doing jobs that they are best suited for (e.g. Arcane Sight and Shrink Item) or making the martials and thus the overall party better in ways that save them build resources (Haste, Heroism, Energy Resistance.) These are very different than a low-level dispel being a spammable swiss army knife.

Not sure why you mentioned Slow, it's a pretty bad example - the save DC will be pretty low unless you heighten (which defeats the purpose) or are up against a bunch of mooks (in which case it hardly matters what you use, you're going to win.)

Eh, I dunno, the system has bad saves as a mechanic; if you target anyone's bad save (like, oh, say a Fighter's), a 3rd level slot is more than a match for all the random bonuses they may have accrued. Same with monsters, with the key difference that the toughest monsters, Outsiders and Dragons, have all good saves of course.

Psyren

2018-04-22, 01:59 PM

I think the ship on ToB/PoW-style maneuvers has sailed. They seem devoted to the vision of non-magical abilities not having any kind of internal resource.

I think so too, but if they did decide to do this, core is an unlikely place for it. For one thing, the folks who do want this sort of thing have demonstrated (repeatedly) that they don't mind paying to get it separately.

Eh, I dunno, the system has bad saves as a mechanic; if you target anyone's bad save (like, oh, say a Fighter's), a 3rd level slot is more than a match for all the random bonuses they may have accrued. Same with monsters, with the key difference that the toughest monsters, Outsiders and Dragons, have all good saves of course.

If someone has that bad a will save at high levels though (that a 3rd-level spell can lay them low), Slow is the least of their problems. But my overall point is that P1 casters have so much breathing room to spare that they could very well stick a Slow in there on the off-chance that they come across such a benighted foe. As 5e has proven, drastically reducing the casters' complements has not caused riots in the streets or lack of sales.

Consider for example a 5e cleric - they get 37 spell slots total at max level, including domains, across their 9 spell levels. PF Clerics meanwhile get 49 - and that's just the base, before we even take bonus spells into account, or pearls, or consumables etc. But I haven't personally heard any cleric players in 5th crying poverty, and a big part of that is that the 5e cantrips being at-will and also autoscaling makes up for a lot of the reduction, even as it forces them to consider what they prepare more carefully.

Pex

2018-04-22, 03:45 PM

If someone has that bad a will save at high levels though (that a 3rd-level spell can lay them low), Slow is the least of their problems. But my overall point is that P1 casters have so much breathing room to spare that they could very well stick a Slow in there on the off-chance that they come across such a benighted foe. As 5e has proven, drastically reducing the casters' complements has not caused riots in the streets or lack of sales.

Consider for example a 5e cleric - they get 37 spell slots total at max level, including domains, across their 9 spell levels. PF Clerics meanwhile get 49 - and that's just the base, before we even take bonus spells into account, or pearls, or consumables etc. But I haven't personally heard any cleric players in 5th crying poverty, and a big part of that is that the 5e cantrips being at-will and also autoscaling makes up for a lot of the reduction, even as it forces them to consider what they prepare more carefully.

I was personally put off at first by the lower number of spell slots, but I got used to it. It's not only Cantrips to make up for it. Saving throw DC is independent of spell level. Bad guys don't have saving throws of +Yes except for the BBEGs, not even counting Legendary Resistance. Low level spells remain relevant as the levels progress. The few that don't never were (Witch Bolt) or niche for low level play (Sleep). Even damage spells remain relevant despite the hit points of bad guys because it's enough for hit points attrition to let the warriors finish them off better. (Egad I can't believe I'm promoting 5E magic. Yes, yes, I do, I do very much like Pathfinder magic. :smalltongue:) Whatever P2E does, if low level spells remain relevant beyond utility and buffing as the levels progress that's a plus.

Morty

2018-04-22, 05:58 PM

I think so too, but if they did decide to do this, core is an unlikely place for it. For one thing, the folks who do want this sort of thing have demonstrated (repeatedly) that they don't mind paying to get it separately.

Of course, plenty of problems people have with ToB/PoW result from their being attached as a late, and in PoW's case third-party, supplement that has to exist beside the more typical classes, rather than being integrated into the base game.

137beth

2018-04-23, 07:33 PM

New blog (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkqb?Cleric-Class-Preview), this time about clerics.

Hmm, one think that jumps out at me is the heal/harm feature that replaces channel energy. Specifically:

Your choice of deity determines which spell you can cast with channel energy. Pharasma lets you cast heal, Rovagug makes you cast harm, and someone like Abadar or Lamashtu lets you choose your path at 1st level.
So it looks like they are stepping away from the angle of "good=healing, evil=harm."

upho

2018-04-23, 07:47 PM

I mean, has it? Made progress, I mean. Even being freely available this time via the PFSRD, I would wager the percentage of the playerbase that actually read it (much less used it) is fairly small compared to the whole.Probably, but my point was mostly that many of those who disliked ToB but still had a look at PoW seem to think a lot better of it. AFAICT, the most often mentioned reason for this appears to be that PoW doesn't come with a deeply integrated and controversial flavor like "Tome of Battle: The Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Weeaboo_Fightan_Magic)" did. So PoW seems to have far less of ToB's flavor issues which you and the article you linked to mentioned:
Personal Incredulity Fallacy aside, WotC themselves attempted to address concerns (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911) that ToB was seen by some as "too anime." That's a pretty odd epithet for them to write about their own book out of the blue, unless they'd actually been on the receiving end of such comments, and in numbers sufficient enough to provoke an official response no less.Of course, it also helps that PoW has easily three times the amount of content of a generally higher quality, including several good archetypes for Paizo classes, and is very actively supported by its designers, something which WoTC unfortunately ignored doing for the 3.5 predecessor.

Now, with that said I'm not trying to impugn ToB and PoW's mission at all, and if P2 ended up with a laundry list of maneuvers-as-martial-spells" (in core or later on) I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I do have major doubts that will be the case all the same.I share those doubts. And as someone mentioned, Paizo not introducing that particular system may turn out to be a good thing for its fans in the end, as I believe DSP is far more likely to do it right, at least if a large part of the motivation for doing so is P2 struggling with C/MD issues.

I'm genuinely confused about what grievance that is. Casters having to manage scarcity and thus rely on mundanes more? A world that is more logically consistent, where magic designed to be hidden has a chance to stay that way?No, my grievance is specifically with a system where the general rule for spell interactions is based CL or SL and lacking enough meaningful exceptions to that rule (which AFAICT was what some previous posters suspected may be the case in P2).

The reason why I would dislike such a system is that it makes for a less dynamic game where the players are less rewarded for using in-game and IC tools creatively, but are instead encouraged to focus more on boring PC build numbers. As an example, I don't want a game where a specialized spell such as dispel magic must be heightened or CL-boosted to the max just in order to have a chance of doing its thing against a spell or caster of a higher level. Note that I also don't want a 3rd level dispel magic to remain as capable against all sources of magic (such as items and traps) as it is in P1. Since I also agree with Cosi that a heightened spell should generally provide a fundamental mechanical improvement, not merely increased numbers, having dispel magic apply to such sources of magic seems like decent options for heightening IMO.

BTW, I would really like to see P2 apply the same principle to pretty much all PC tools, including those of martials.

upho

2018-04-23, 09:03 PM

If someone has that bad a will save at high levels though (that a 3rd-level spell can lay them low), Slow is the least of their problems.Are you saying that the fighter having say a 50% chance of making the save against a 3rd level spell is a huge difference from him having a 25% chance of saving against the same caster's 8th level spell? And if you do, in comparison to what, exactly? I mean, the differences between good and bad class save bonuses are themselves at least equally great in higher levels, not to mention the even greater potential differences based on whether the class promotes prioritizing boosts of the relevant stat or not. When these factors are put together, the differences between different same-level targets' chances of saving often have a greater impact than SL does also in an actual P1 game IME.

And of course, in P1 it's pretty likely that if a high level caster flings a 3rd level offensive spell which allows for saves, most targets who don't have both a good save progression and a pretty high related stat (and/or substantial other bonuses) aren't going to have much of a chance of making that save.

Consider for example a 5e cleric - they get 37 spell slots total at max level, including domains, across their 9 spell levels. PF Clerics meanwhile get 49 - and that's just the base, before we even take bonus spells into account, or pearls, or consumables etc. But I haven't personally heard any cleric players in 5th crying poverty, and a big part of that is that the 5e cantrips being at-will and also autoscaling makes up for a lot of the reduction, even as it forces them to consider what they prepare more carefully.Regardless of my other thoughts on 5E, this is most certainly a thing P2 should copy.

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-23, 09:35 PM

No, please keep away from 5e. :smallannoyed:

I don't bring it up because people here are aggressive against criticism but I personally deeply dislike 5e on almost every level.
I think its mainly popular because people just pick up the broken pieces and see whatever they like in it.

But having played it for 6 months with a good GM everybody involved was disappointed and I played a cleric.

Psyren

2018-04-23, 10:10 PM

New blog (http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkqb?Cleric-Class-Preview), this time about clerics.

Hmm, one think that jumps out at me is the heal/harm feature that replaces channel energy. Specifically:

So it looks like they are stepping away from the angle of "good=healing, evil=harm."

So the variant channeling by deity is going to be baseline it looks like. Hopefully they have guidelines for coming up with abilities for other deities.

No, my grievance is specifically with a system where the general rule for spell interactions is based CL or SL and lacking enough meaningful exceptions to that rule (which AFAICT was what some previous posters suspected may be the case in P2).

I think there will be exceptions to that rule. True Seeing for example. What won't be possible however is a dozen different ways to render illusions pointless by realizing they're there just via low-level detection.

No, please keep away from 5e. :smallannoyed:

Ship's sailed I think.

Besides, less spell slots isn't just beneficial, it's downright necessary if at-will cantrips are going to scale.

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-23, 10:52 PM

Ship's sailed I think.

I get it that. Im just not interested in buying all the fixes that I use for PF all over again with a big 2.0 written near them.

Like again, Paizo doesn't want a playtest, it wants a victory lap. Like when is the actual mechanical coaching going to start? The baseline for their maths? Stuff thats actually important for this sort of thing instead of just extrapolations from previews.

Besides, less spell slots isn't just beneficial, it's downright necessary if at-will cantrips are going to scale.
Im not complaining about the less spell slots thing in this perspective. I consider all spell slots archiac, fiddly and overall a bad system.
I consider 5e downright UNFINISHED. Not modular, or open ended, or flexible but unfinished.

Pex

2018-04-23, 10:59 PM

First read on cleric I don't like removing spontaneous healing. That along with Channel Energy is what allows the cleric not to be a healbot yet have healing when it's necessary. I need to see how the new channeling works before making a final judgment.

Turn Undead only working if the undead rolled a 1 (critical fail) is not worth a feat. That needs to change.

Their plan is to lessen the numbers of spell slots but not as much as 5E did since you'll have multiple spell slots of levels 6-9. With more potent Cantrips this could be alright. Having played spellcasters in 5E I was never perturbed playing being out of spell slots. I still had Cantrips and those spells needed to be cast. It was long rest time anyway when I needed the long rest.

They are right it is nice to have choices to make for class features. On one hand it is a nerf you only get one Domain to start and do not automatically get the higher level ability as you do now, having to spend a feat on it, but it makes sense in reformatting the game to the 2E template. It's not even much of a nerf really. There's no real difference between P1 where you automatically get the 8th level ability of a Domain and P2 where at 8th level you take the feat to get the higher level ability. The nerf is only having one Domain. Perhaps the Domain abilities will be potent enough in their own right, doing more than what they are in P1.

Baroncognito

2018-04-23, 11:50 PM

Turn Undead only working if the undead rolled a 1 (critical fail) is not worth a feat. That needs to change.

You haven't been keeping up on what a critical failure is.

If your result was 10 or more lower than the target DC, or if you rolled a natural 1 and didn't meet the target DC, then you critically failed.

It looks like the flee effect might be in addition to the damage. So it might look something like:

Turn Undead:
Success: Half Damage
Critical Success: No Damage
Failure: Damage
Critical Failure: Double Damage, Flee

The current version is:
Success: No damage, no fleeing.
Failure: No damage, fleeing

So it seems like it sacrifices turning capability, yes, but it also does something to the undead that don't flee. I don't know, I haven't used "Turn Undead" since 3.5, despite playing a fair amount of clerics.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-24, 02:13 AM

skaddix

2018-04-24, 04:56 AM

Frankly I found this disappointing.

I dislike that they're using superlatives like "becoming legendary" when they really mean "get Spell Focus as a feat". As a mandatory pick, and at level 12. Buff-focused clerics (like their example cleric of Gorum) wouldn't even want that, and debuff-focused clerics want this feat several levels earlier. And either way, getting 5% better at things you can already do is not "legendary". What is this, 5E?

Reduction of spells per day seems fine to me. Mid-level casters in 3E/P1 have way more slots than they need, anyway. It's kind of weird how they announce "spell points" as a unified mechanic for all classes' resource pools, and then give the cleric a distinct channel pool anyway. It also appears that they're running off the paradigm that all rolls and DCs increase by the same amount each level, making this increase effectively meaningless.

I suppose the idea is to make non utility spells more useful at higher levels but really most don't get to higher levels. I was confused about how many spell slots you actually get is it 3 per spell level? How many spells known?

I want the reach cleric to work. I suppose one domain for free is good for balance since plenty of Divines only gave you one good Domain if that while others got two of them which was pretty unfair. Granted they could have just rebalanced those domains and beefed up the crap one so every Divine at least had two good ones.

But I also agree you cannot claim a unifying spell points system then give something separate. I guess this is for balance reasons. Otherwise the Clerics would probably get an absurd number of spell points which they could spend on non channel skills or make them absurd as a multiclass.

I don't like paying a feat tax for Turn Undead.

Pex

2018-04-24, 07:43 AM

You haven't been keeping up on what a critical failure is.

It looks like the flee effect might be in addition to the damage. So it might look something like:

Turn Undead:
Success: Half Damage
Critical Success: No Damage
Failure: Damage
Critical Failure: Double Damage, Flee

The current version is:
Success: No damage, no fleeing.
Failure: No damage, fleeing

So it seems like it sacrifices turning capability, yes, but it also does something to the undead that don't flee. I don't know, I haven't used "Turn Undead" since 3.5, despite playing a fair amount of clerics.

Correction noted, but I'm still not comfortable with it. If your DC is 15 the undead has to get a total of 5 or less including its saving throw modifier. Might as well be only rolling a 1. Skeletons and zombies can turn, but wraiths? specters? mummies at higher level? On first read it doesn't look effective. The details will matter - the expected DCs, the undead saving throw modifier, something else they didn't mention because it's only a looksy.

exelsisxax

2018-04-24, 07:57 AM

Correction noted, but I'm still not comfortable with it. If your DC is 15 the undead has to get a total of 5 or less including its saving throw modifier. Might as well be only rolling a 1. Skeletons and zombies can turn, but wraiths? specters? mummies at higher level? On first read it doesn't look effective. The details will matter - the expected DCs, the undead saving throw modifier, something else they didn't mention because it's only a looksy.

You add your level to all your DCs, so we're stepping into a realm where getting DC 20 is likely trivial early on, and at higher levels 40 would be expected. Doesn't seem too low, but they haven't told us what saves actually are yet either.

Then again, it's probably meaningless because level is likely getting added to saves, because nobody learned anything from 4e and 5e having pointless character advancement schemes.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-24, 09:07 AM

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-24, 09:30 AM

DC 15 is the expected target for level one. Whatever makes you think that every low-level undead will have at least +4 on its will save?

Assuming it follows similar patterns, +1 Level, +2 Prof, +1 Stat.

=P
This is a guesstimate because Paizo isn't interested in solid playtesting.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-24, 09:33 AM

Assuming it follows similar patterns, +1 Level, +2 Prof, +1 Stat.
So, again, whatever makes you think that every single low-level undead has a 12+ wisdom and a +2 proficiency? Especially when Paizo calls +2 "legendary" and reserves it solely to high-level anything?

If, say, skeletons have one hit die, 6 wisdom and are non-proficient in will saves, that gives them a -3 to the roll against a DC of 5. Those are pretty good odds for a 1st-level cleric of turning skeletons.

Remuko

2018-04-24, 09:34 AM

Assuming it follows similar patterns, +1 Level, +2 Prof, +1 Stat.

=P
This is a guesstimate because Paizo isn't interested in solid playtesting.

I wouldnt expect undead to have "proficiency" in will saves w/e that even means especially a mindless undead. Also do low level undead have Wis mods of +1? I thought they have 10-11 Wis so no +1 from that either. This means they'd have +1 level. That's it.

Cosi

2018-04-24, 09:37 AM

Calling a +2 bonus legendary is insane. It's one tenth of the RNG. A guy with a +2 bonus beats a guy without it something over half the time. We don't tell stories of the legendary Hercules, who beat mortal men in contests of strength slightly over half the time.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-24, 09:45 AM

Calling a +2 bonus legendary is insane.
Well, yes.

On the one hand, this is precisely what 5E does, too; and 5E is pretty popular. On the one hand, this is probably the most common criticism of 5E.

Psyren

2018-04-24, 09:50 AM

Like when is the actual mechanical coaching going to start? The baseline for their maths? Stuff thats actually important for this sort of thing instead of just extrapolations from previews.

I'm not sure how many different ways someone can tell you "August" before it finally sinks in.

I consider 5e downright UNFINISHED. Not modular, or open ended, or flexible but unfinished.

I feel this way about all rules-light systems too. I don't think P2 will go that route - but if it does, I think it will fail (it can't beat 5e in that space) and I will stick with something closer to Starfinder.

stack

2018-04-24, 10:04 AM

...
I don't like paying a feat tax for Turn Undead.

PF1 requires a feat for turn undead, so it isn't much of a change. Channel energy for Heal is just a more action intensive (for the AOE option) channel energy.

Morty

2018-04-24, 10:34 AM

Turn Undead requiring a feat is good. It never made any kind of sense for all clerics everywhere to be able to turn undead. Whether or not it's worth a feat is another question.

Fewer spells per day is kind of a mixed thing. On the one hand, it's good that spellcasters can't just throw spells at problems willy-nilly. On the other, I really don't think rationing daily spells produces a healthy dynamic and game pace. Particularly when run alongside characters without per-day limits. But as bad as they are, daily spells aren't going anywhere in PF.

Channel energy seems like an awkward attempt to let clerics be healbots while sticking to per-day spells. I do wonder if other classes will get similar features... or if clerics are going to be mandatory if you want to heal between fights.

Giving class-based attribute bonuses dilutes them even further and reinforces your ability spread being locked in once you pick your class.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-24, 10:54 AM

I really don't think rationing daily spells produces a healthy dynamic and game pace.
This is why they get infinite-use auto-scaling cantrips.

Also, bear in mind that in the average campaign, you only need 10-12 spells per day total to be able to cast something every single round of combat. Marathon scenarios are commonly considered in forums but are really not commonplace.

Giving class-based attribute bonuses dilutes them even further and reinforces your ability spread being locked in once you pick your class.
That's a good point. What if I want to play a str-based cleric? Or for that matter a str-based wizard? Both are viable character concepts in P1.

Scowling Dragon

2018-04-24, 11:08 AM

On the one hand, this is precisely what 5E does, too; and 5E is pretty popular. On the one hand, this is probably the most common criticism of 5E.

Now were back to the skill ranks=unlock new skills argument stuff. Pleh. That still doesn't sit right with me.

I'm not sure how many different ways someone can tell you "August" before it finally sinks in.
My point is that I have seen serious playtesting done before even on a game level and this is not the way to do it.
Even if they suddenly release maths spreadsheets on August, thats still time that could have been spent beforehand prepping the playerbase.

And I HIGHLY doubt that anything in the playtest will have serious mathematical exploration and explanation behind it. If it will I will take back my words. But Paizos playtests are pretty sloppy and mostly set overall regardless.

exelsisxax

2018-04-24, 11:17 AM

My point is that I have seen serious playtesting done before even on a game level and this is not the way to do it.
Even if they suddenly release maths spreadsheets on August, thats still time that could have been spent beforehand prepping the playerbase.

And I HIGHLY doubt that anything in the playtest will have serious mathematical exploration and explanation behind it. If it will I will take back my words. But Paizos playtests are pretty sloppy and mostly set overall regardless.

THIS.

Paizo has already declared their unwillingness to alter some things regardless of feedback during the playtest. Because they published the shifter, they have demonstrated how worthless their internal playtesting is. If the game is screwed up, are we supposed to believe they will fix it before release?

Cosi

2018-04-24, 12:00 PM

Turn Undead requiring a feat is good. It never made any kind of sense for all clerics everywhere to be able to turn undead. Whether or not it's worth a feat is another question.

That's a problem with the Cleric class, really. It's covering too much ground. There's no reason that priests of Kord need to have the same chassis as priests of Boccob or Nerull or Wee Jas. So the answer isn't really to make Cleric class features into feats, but to make Cleric into something other than a class. Priests of Kord should just be Barbarians with some extra divine powers.

Fewer spells per day is kind of a mixed thing. On the one hand, it's good that spellcasters can't just throw spells at problems willy-nilly.

I think I disagree actually. The expected contribution of a spellcaster in any situation should be to cast one or more spells. It's in the damn name. The rest of the game (which here includes all of what abilities other characters have, what spells actually do, and what challenges are expected to be) should be calibrated in a way that makes doing so minimally disruptive. Using your abilities is good. Resource management should be about how you use your abilities and which of them you use, not whether you use them at all.

Psyren

2018-04-24, 12:23 PM

My point is that I have seen serious playtesting done before even on a game level and this is not the way to do it.

Well if it truly isn't, then the market will be the judge, not individual complaints.

Paizo has already declared their unwillingness to alter some things regardless of feedback during the playtest.

As they shouldn't in many cases. Even if game design were a democracy, it's all too simple during a playtest for an overly loud minority to believe they aren't either of those things.

But I can point to examples where the playtest has made positive improvements in the past. For example, the Advanced Class Guide's Hybrid Classes removing the "associated class" multiclassing restriction came out of the playtest.

Kurald Galain

2018-04-24, 12:34 PM

But I can point to examples where the playtest has made positive improvements in the past. For example, the Advanced Class Guide's Hybrid Classes removing the "associated class" multiclassing restriction came out of the playtest.

Or how they changed P2's alchemist bombs from two-handed to one-handed, several months before the playtest even starts. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously people, just because Paizo doesn't agree with your personal pet peeve doesn't mean they don't listen to anybody.

upho

2018-04-24, 03:59 PM

No, please keep away from 5e. :smallannoyed:I most likely will because of ongoing campaigns in other systems, and because I think there are decidedly more interesting fantasy TRPGs with systems of comparable rules-density, such as the different, dark, story-focused and extremely flavorful Symbaroum (https://youtu.be/Nh1TL7kXJ-E) (shameless advertising - it was written and illustrated by old friends of mine, two of which are players in my PF game - but award-winning and top rated in reviews, so highly recommended also by far less biased sources).

I don't bring it up because people here are aggressive against criticism but I personally deeply dislike 5e on almost every level.
I think its mainly popular because people just pick up the broken pieces and see whatever they like in it.5e seems fine or even great for people starting out in the hobby, especially if they're drawn to the traditional D&D fantasy flavor. But AFAICT, more experienced players are likely to quickly become annoyed with the system's lack of breadth and flexibility, and/or find the same old flavors, settings and general adventure design boring. Unless perhaps if they're nostalgic old grognards who spent their youth playing AD&D, or if WoTC manages to surprise everyone and put together some kind of ground-breaking and monumentally awesome "must-play" campaign.

When it comes to P2 in this regard, I really appreciate that Paizo seems to understand the complex game-y mechanics of P1 (and 3.5) means the Pathfinder brand represents what is today considered more of a fantasy TRPG niche rather than the mainstream, and that this is a major reason for P1's appeal which P2 should maintain and expand. So while I appreciate streamlining the needlessly complex mechanics in P1 and renaming its more poorly chosen/defined game terms, I still want Paizo to deliver a game reflecting mentioned understanding, meaning P2 should for example allow for significantly more tactically focused combat and a far greater mechanical diversity and resolution of elements in the game world than 5e does.

Out of curiosity, were you actually serious when saying "people here are aggressive against criticism"? If you were, I believe you clearly haven't actually looked around much (and/or possibly confuse a commonly outspoken dislike of hyperbole and lack of nuance with a dislike of serious critique). I mean, the Playground in general, and probably the 3.5/PF corner of it in particular, isn't exactly known for people trying to silence critique or being void of those voicing it, but rather the opposite. (Try searching for say the C/MD issue or stupidities like Sacred Geometry or the Crane Wing errata and you'll find hundreds of PF related examples.)

I dislike that they're using superlatives like "becoming legendary" when they really mean "get Spell Focus as a feat". As a mandatory pick, and at level 12. Buff-focused clerics (like their example cleric of Gorum) wouldn't even want that, and debuff-focused clerics want this feat several levels earlier. And either way, getting 5% better at things you can already do is not "legendary". What is this, 5E?Yeah, I find those mandatory Spell Focus feats really weird, especially considering the general P2 class design framework seems to basically be:

Take P1 class, remove all class features mentioned under "Special" in the progression table.
Put a couple of the features you consider most iconic for the class back at 1st level, and spread out some of their benefits across several levels.
Put the rest of the features in the Class Feats chapter after you've added a few level prerequisites to them.
Make an alternative class feature at each prerequisite level and add those to the Class Feats chapter as well.

Which is not a bad thing at all, mind, since it can give you a lot more freedom to customize your features to fit with you character concept. Except if you're a cleric who play beyond 11th level, then you better find a way to appreciate those Spell Focus feats you get at levels 12 and 16, even if you were stupid enough to confuse actual design goals with the sales pitch that it's "more practical now for you to play a cleric of Gorum who focuses on Strength and uses spells that don't involve your spell DC"... :smallamused:

Also, nitpick: AFAICT the only time "becoming legendary" is mentioned I'd say it's actually perfectly appropriate: "Like your other spells, your 9th-level spells cap out at three spells, so at 19th level you become legendary in spellcasting instead." There's a distinct lack of similar superlatives in connection with the mandatory spell DC increases.

Reduction of spells per day seems fine to me. Mid-level casters in 3E/P1 have way more slots than they need, anyway. It's kind of weird how they announce "spell points" as a unified mechanic for all classes' resource pools, and then give the cleric a distinct channel pool anyway. It also appears that they're running off the paradigm that all rolls and DCs increase by the same amount each level, making this increase effectively meaningless.
But I also agree you cannot claim a unifying spell points system then give something separate. I guess this is for balance reasons. Otherwise the Clerics would probably get an absurd number of spell points which they could spend on non channel skills or make them absurd as a multiclass.Yeah, I'm not at all surprised they don't share a pool, considering such a pool would inevitably end up too large or too small, with most reasonable sizes often being both simultaneously depending on which particular cleric you're asking. The same would be true of other limited use caster abilities that aren't spells or school/domain/equivalent powers in P1.

I don't like paying a feat tax for Turn Undead.Really? Even if you were to play a cleric serving a deity who don't have any connection to undead at all, like say Calistria, Gorum or Nethys? And even if you can spend that feat on something much more suitable for you character concept instead of having it picked for you just because D&D tradition demands it?

Personally, I think it's great that deity/alignment based class features are finally made optional instead of mandatory. Hopefully this means you don't have to run around with a bunch of abilities you never use which are completely irrelevant to - or even at odds with - your person and beliefs. Not to mention you don't have to pay an additional feat tax in order to get the abilities that actually are relevant to - and align with - the views and concerns of you and your patron. I really hope they've given the pally the same treatment and finally allow for all deities to have pallys by dumping the monumentally stupid LG requirement.

Correction noted, but I'm still not comfortable with it. If your DC is 15 the undead has to get a total of 5 or less including its saving throw modifier. Might as well be only rolling a 1. Skeletons and zombies can turn, but wraiths? specters? mummies at higher level? On first read it doesn't look effective. The details will matter - the expected DCs, the undead saving throw modifier, something else they didn't mention because it's only a looksy.AFAICT, unless the cleric has access to some very substantial channel DC boost options, the new TU will basically only be useful against hordes of relatively harmless undead mooks. Meaning I find it unlikely that TU will be worth a class feat unless you play in a game named "The Walking Dead - PF Edition", "Golarion War Z" or similar...