|
Dick Burglar posted:Also, I hope her domains are going to change because her current edicts and anathema are... kind of a joke. I know there are some gods with some really niche or just plain dumb domains, but c'mon dude. She's becoming a core 20, that poo poo ain't gonna fly. Pre alignment removal I really wanted to play a CG liberator champion of Arazni who was all about preventing unwilling undeath
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 13:41
|
|
" Kinda feel like that goes without saying for basically all gods, except maybe gods of self-humiliation or something.
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
ZZT the Fifth posted:Correct. And then one of these angry grognards, Mike Mearls, famous for basically saying "warlord healing is shouting limbs back on", took over development of 4e and smothered the system in its crib so he could push 5e back towards caster supremacy. as opposed to a bard who shouts and your limbs go back on but it's okay because they're Officially Designated Magic. and also it's fine when you take a one hour sit down in 5e and all your limbs come back on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
Nobody ever claimed the grognards' arguments were logically consistent or even sensical. "Healing was traditionally the realm of casters and, by god, we hate change." That's about as far as the thought process goes. I think it's funny that 4E was so uniquely reviled, and yet, when systems from 4E get introduced to other games, people (often those who deeply reviled 4E) applaud the design. Kind of telling, that. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
I mean, it's also been like 10-15 years, and an influx of new people, or people who maybe have changed and grown up over that time frame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:I think it's funny that 4E was so uniquely reviled, and yet, when systems from 4E get introduced to other games, people (often those who deeply reviled 4E) applaud the design. Kind of telling, that. I think a big part of that is a matter of presentation. Also, even the games that draw most heavily on 4e tend to do so selectively. I was about to say that you yourself hate the Raven Queen, so you have some complaints about 4e lore yourself, but then I saw that you edited that part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:07
|
|
|
I in no way pretend like 4E design (or especially its writing) was perfect. I largely think that PF2E is a better-designed system that iterated upon 4E's design flaws. And yeah the Raven Queen was just plain garbage. IIRC the story goes that she was the PC of some top-level dev's girlfriend, and they made her super-special-awesome because "lol im banging the dm." Or maybe that was just some misogynist trash rumor that got circulated. Regardless of her purported origin, she was still a dumb character. I still think PF2E could stand to crib more mechanics from 4E, not least of which turning saves into defenses a la AC, and making spells roll like attacks rather than saves, but I've already made that argument in the thread. Yeah, it'd require redesigning some stuff—of course it would. Any significant change would, and I think the change would be worthwhile. I also think the game would benefit from using the better of two stats to determine saves (STR/CON for Fortitude, DEX/INT for Reflex, WIS/CHA for Will) so you aren't mandated to invest in WIS. I'd argue you're still mandated to invest in CON because having low hit points in PF2E seems like an incredibly bad idea for 99% of builds. You could get away with it in 4E because CON had far less of an effect on your overall hit point total. 4E using any stat to make attacks was an easy thing for grognards to attack, and yeah that's one thing I don't mind leaving behind because it was a little weird thematically and mechanically. As long as the system allows for multiple stat raises, I think it's fine to have "phyiscal" stats and "mental" stats. Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:I in no way pretend like 4E design (or especially its writing) was perfect. I largely think that PF2E is a better-designed system that iterated upon 4E's design flaws. And yeah the Raven Queen was just plain garbage. IIRC the story goes that she was the PC of some top-level dev's girlfriend, and they made her super-special-awesome because "lol im banging the dm." Or maybe that was just some misogynist trash rumor that got circulated. Regardless of her purported origin, she was still a dumb character. if you want this many fundamental changes to the system may I suggest you play something else that fits your vision
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
I feel like I feel like those alternative save stats seems great, but it's quickly going to make it so that my swash only needs dex con and cha. Better on paper than in practice
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
Also as long as initiative is tied to WIS people will want WIS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:if you want this many fundamental changes to the system may I suggest you play something else that fits your vision Dick Burglar posted:I still think PF2E could stand to crib more mechanics from 4E, not least of which turning saves into defenses a la AC, and making spells roll like attacks rather than saves, but I've already made that argument in the thread. Yeah, it'd require redesigning some stuff—of course it would. Any significant change would, and I think the change would be worthwhile. I also think the game would benefit from using the better of two stats to determine saves (STR/CON for Fortitude, DEX/INT for Reflex, WIS/CHA for Will) so you aren't mandated to invest in WIS. I'd argue you're still mandated to invest in CON because having low hit points in PF2E seems like an incredibly bad idea for 99% of builds. You could get away with it in 4E because CON had far less of an effect on your overall hit point total. Double-stats for each save value also work for spreading out build types in the abstract, although I'm sure some spreadsheet dude will tell me that it actually ruins builds somehow. Harold Fjord posted:I feel like I feel like those alternative save stats seems great, but it's quickly going to make it so that my swash only needs dex con and cha. Better on paper than in practice mind the walrus fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I feel like I feel like those alternative save stats seems great, but it's quickly going to make it so that my swash only needs dex con and cha. Better on paper than in practice 13th age had the idea of making it the middle modifier of 3 stats, which I quite like. Though also what you say isn’t exactly a change from normal swashbuckler. Dex con cha then your choice of str or wis for the fourth boost at any given point, which under the 4e system would just mean str
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:49
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:I in no way pretend like 4E design (or especially its writing) was perfect. I largely think that PF2E is a better-designed system that iterated upon 4E's design flaws. And yeah the Raven Queen was just plain garbage. IIRC the story goes that she was the PC of some top-level dev's girlfriend, and they made her super-special-awesome because "lol im banging the dm." Or maybe that was just some misogynist trash rumor that got circulated. Regardless of her purported origin, she was still a dumb character. I don't really like the best of stats thing in a system like PF2e. You're already getting to raise four attributes when you get attribute boosts. I think it's desirable for characters to be able to invest in some things over others, you don't need to be able to increase every save and your HP and your offensive stat and your social stat every boost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:drat I'm on a low-sodium diet and this post made me have to log a full meal. there are a lot of great table top role playing game systems out there and if you don't like the fundamentals of one, such as who rolls dice and when, or degrees of class and attribute specialization, you can go play a different one. it's not a bad thing to play a game that you like
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:if you want this many fundamental changes to the system may I suggest you play something else that fits your vision it is almost like i am arguing for the direction i would like the next edition to take  and said direction is essentially a continuation of the direction it has already taken Taciturn Tactician posted:I don't really like the best of stats thing in a system like PF2e. You're already getting to raise four attributes when you get attribute boosts. I think it's desirable for characters to be able to invest in some things over others, you don't need to be able to increase every save and your HP and your offensive stat and your social stat every boost. I agree, getting four stat boosts lessens the issue. Not super sold it negates the complaint, but I'll grant you it's much less of an issue than it would be in a system with only 2 stat boosts like 4E had.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:there are a lot of great table top role playing game systems out there and if you don't like the fundamentals of one, such as who rolls dice and when, or degrees of class and attribute specialization, you can go play a different one. it's not a bad thing to play a game that you like Taciturn Tactician posted:I don't really like the best of stats thing in a system like PF2e. You're already getting to raise four attributes when you get attribute boosts. I think it's desirable for characters to be able to invest in some things over others, you don't need to be able to increase every save and your HP and your offensive stat and your social stat every boost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
I do kinda like the system of saves against spells and effects, mainly in that, on the receiving end it actually feels like there's more I can do to influence the outcomes, and it creates more interesting situations when each of the party members has to roll their own save. You could change it to where only players lean more towards making attack rolls for spells, but I feel like that'd take away from the illusion that spells are something that exists outside of just being fancy toys for players. IMO it also creates more interesting variance in combats where you have multiples of the same enemy. Like if I upcast Fear to level 3 and hit 5 enemies, if I rolled against a DC the outcome for all 5 would usually be the same, if they all roll separately it adds more of element of unpredictability. The one thing I will say is it does make a lot of single-target nukes feel like gambles you can't have too much of an influence on. It's probably a perception issue but it feels like the game's means to lower defenses are geared more towards aiding martials than spellcasters, or at least it feels like I have to do a lot more setup to help my spellcaster buddy blast better than I have to do to make our martials hit more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I didn't know rule speculation killed your dog and I apologize. It must have been very traumatic. Pf2 isn’t even five years old why would you write bad homebrew rules for pf3 lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 20:48
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:Pf2 isn’t even five years old why would you write bad homebrew rules for pf3 lol why are you being so weird about this
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
My biggest want from the remaster was either cutting the bad spells entirely or rebalancing them so that there would be fewer trap options. I don't think they went far enough. The difference in effectiveness between a spellcaster who picks bad spells and one who picks the good ones is far greater than the difference between being a fighter and one of the C-tier martials. The current deluge of garbage wouldn't even be so bad if it was properly labeled as utility that you shouldn't build your character around, but instead use to fill your less important lower rank spell slots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
Taear posted:Oh gently caress I hope not that's the most of anything. Like the saying goes, when you are number two you try harder. WotC: You want to play D&D? Here it is. Ya filthy animals. Paizo: We have a really good game too. We want you to love it and we'll do what we can to make the experience the best it can be for you. Please love us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:The difference in effectiveness between a spellcaster who picks bad spells and one who picks the good ones is far greater than the difference between being a fighter and one of the C-tier martials. Didn't Mark Seifter go on record to say this is more or less as intended? KPC_Mammon posted:The current deluge of garbage wouldn't even be so bad if it was properly labeled as utility that you shouldn't build your character around, but instead use to fill your less important lower rank spell slots. I think, this too, is intentional. Like this is something you have to learn and is deliberately not explained to you outright.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 21:25
|
|
|
Clerical Terrors posted:The one thing I will say is it does make a lot of single-target nukes feel like gambles you can't have too much of an influence on. It's probably a perception issue but it feels like the game's means to lower defenses are geared more towards aiding martials than spellcasters, or at least it feels like I have to do a lot more setup to help my spellcaster buddy blast better than I have to do to make our martials hit more. I think it's mostly that it's just easier to inflict off-guard than it is to inflict any of the fort/reflex/will lowering conditions. Frightened and sickened work on both, but I think think the only way to lower reflex is an ancestry or rogue feat, and Bon Mot requires charisma, which is more of a caster thing unless you have a thaumaturge in the party. KPC_Mammon posted:My biggest want from the remaster was either cutting the bad spells entirely or rebalancing them so that there would be fewer trap options. I don't think they went far enough. The difference in effectiveness between a spellcaster who picks bad spells and one who picks the good ones is far greater than the difference between being a fighter and one of the C-tier martials. The current deluge of garbage wouldn't even be so bad if it was properly labeled as utility that you shouldn't build your character around, but instead use to fill your less important lower rank spell slots. I definitely feel that spells are the least balanced part of this system bar maybe skill feats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:[...] For what it's worth, I think this is relatively easy to implement. Just have players roll for things where the enemy currently saves, with a modifier equal to their spell DC -10. Then give the monsters a DC equal to their save +12. That should pretty much work out "close enough" for most purposes. (It's +12 instead of +10 because the "meets it beats it" thing switches the effect of two different die rolls when you move rolls from the defender to the attacker.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:My biggest want from the remaster was either cutting the bad spells entirely or rebalancing them so that there would be fewer trap options. I don't think they went far enough. The difference in effectiveness between a spellcaster who picks bad spells and one who picks the good ones is far greater than the difference between being a fighter and one of the C-tier martials. The current deluge of garbage wouldn't even be so bad if it was properly labeled as utility that you shouldn't build your character around, but instead use to fill your less important lower rank spell slots. Spell mastery is, and has always been, the highest level of system mastery in modern (3.0 and forward) D&D and its clones (and likely older D&D editions as well, but there's some weirdness about older editions that I don't want to get bogged down in here). Spells can break the fundamental rules of the game or have their own set of special rules within the text of the spell, so they allow you to do things that are otherwise impossible within the rules of the game. First you have to learn what all spells are available, then figuring out what all you can do with those spells (which isn't always the obvious thing), then identifying which spells are most effective (and how to maximize your chances of success). Clerical Terrors posted:Didn't Mark Seifter go on record to say this is more or less as intended? insufferable nerds will always act like theyre ~better than~ jocks edit: this is (mostly) a joke VikingofRock posted:For what it's worth, I think this is relatively easy to implement. Just have players roll for things where the enemy currently saves, with a modifier equal to their spell DC -10. Then give the monsters a DC equal to their save +12. That should pretty much work out "close enough" for most purposes. IIRC there's actually a variant rule for it? Or maybe it was just a homebrew option that was floated. Either way, yes, it's a pretty easy fix/change, but when I brought it up in the PF2E discord I got massive push-back, for all the typical grognardy reasons. Technically it changes the math of the game slightly, because whoever is rolling has the advantage on even rolls: if an attacker rolls equal to a target's defense, the attack succeeds. If your saving throw roll is equal to the caster's spell DC, you succeed at the check. If you reverse spells, an "equal roll" is now an effective failure on the part of the target. So it's a 5% power increase for casters. Edit: wait, you already addressed this in the quote. Did that get ninja edited in or did I just completely miss it? Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
Clerical Terrors posted:I think, this too, is intentional. Like this is something you have to learn and is deliberately not explained to you outright. Plus, if you want more straightforward caster options, things like Psychic, Magus, and arguably Kineticist exist. I also really don't feel like it's that hard to pore over a given spell list and find winners out of it? When I did a level 20 game with my Witch it took me way longer to settle equipment than it did a spell loadout.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
You can fix the even roll thing with an extra plus one or minus one adjustment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:I think it's mostly that it's just easier to inflict off-guard than it is to inflict any of the fort/reflex/will lowering conditions. Frightened and sickened work on both, but I think think the only way to lower reflex is an ancestry or rogue feat, and Bon Mot requires charisma, which is more of a caster thing unless you have a thaumaturge in the party. It's this but also the fact that Martials can straightforwardly do this by investing in skills that already likely scale with their stats. A STR fighter is going to be at least decent at Athletics for trips, a Rogue is very likely decent at Tumble Through. But these options rarely translate to benefits for spellcasters*, and a wizard isn't going to lower saves with an Arcana check, unless you count recall knowledge, which is effectively divided over 4-5 skills and has a high chance of failure against unique enemies like bosses. Meanwhile pretty much everything a spellcaster can do to lower saves will also benefit martials: Fatigued inflicts a -1 penalty to saves and AC, Clumsy inflects a -n to reflex saves and AC, and Frighetened/Sickened a -n to everything. The one notable exception being Stupified, which doesn't really benefit martials. On top of this you usually have to burn spells in order to give these debuffs, so you're effectively spending your ressources in order to have a slight chance to make spending your ressources give a better ROI. Compared to a martial only having to spend nothing but a single action to fish for something that's numerically almost as effective. *technically a prone enemy is easier to hit with an attack roll spell, but the lack of runes for those means you're already rolling these at a numerical disadvantage, hence why everyone takes a shadow signet. Clerical Terrors fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:IIRC there's actually a variant rule for it? Or maybe it was just a homebrew option that was floated. Either way, yes, it's a pretty easy fix/change, but when I brought it up in the PF2E discord I got massive push-back, for all the typical grognardy reasons. It was in there originally, but I ninja-edited it a bit to make it more clear. So, a bit of both. Anyways, ignore what the haters in the PF2e discord say! The background there is that a lot of groups come over from D&D 5e, post complaints that PF2e is bad / unbalanced, and then it turns out that their GM was homebrewing away very basic things about the system without telling anyone. This happens often enough that some PF2e communities end up being pretty hostile to rules homebrew. But, it's your game, and you seem to know what you are doing, so I say go for it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 22:49
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:I think it's mostly that it's just easier to inflict off-guard than it is to inflict any of the fort/reflex/will lowering conditions. Frightened and sickened work on both, but I think think the only way to lower reflex is an ancestry or rogue feat, and Bon Mot requires charisma, which is more of a caster thing unless you have a thaumaturge in the party. It’s partly that off guard is so easy to set up… and partly that off guard doesn’t have a caster analogue. Sickened, Frightened, Clumsy, et al? They’re all Status penalties. They stack with Off-Guard which is a circumstance penalty. There’s just no equivalent easy to set up -2 circumstance to saves. And that makes a dramatic difference in accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 23:54
|
|
|
Is Gravity Magic Sukgung Precision Ranger the closest I can get to a non-fighter Kitfox88 fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:It’s partly that off guard is so easy to set up… and partly that off guard doesn’t have a caster analogue. I mean, homebrewing buffing the status effects if they come from spells vs. items. Straightforward approach. I'm sure there's some very good reason why it doesn't work but like, has anyone tried it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:Is Gravity Magic Sukgung Precision Ranger the closest I can get to a non-fighter I think Gunslinger might get you closer with the accuracy bonus, with any of a half a dozen archetype options to add some flat damage to replace the 6 points you lose from Gravity + Precision edge (2 from gravity, 4.5 from the 1d8 precision).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:It’s partly that off guard is so easy to set up… and partly that off guard doesn’t have a caster analogue. don't forget that there's no source of item bonus to spell accuracy, so attack roll based spells will always be behind too, with no damage-on-miss effects
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 00:49
|
|
|
I prefer arbalest if you aren't a fighter or gunslinger, since you'll be critting a lot less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 00:49
|
|
|
Chevy Slyme posted:I think Gunslinger might get you closer with the accuracy bonus, with any of a half a dozen archetype options to add some flat damage to replace the 6 points you lose from Gravity + Precision edge (2 from gravity, 4.5 from the 1d8 precision). I'll gander at it too I guess. I'm kind of hating my rogue in Kingmaker and GM is letting me swap to a different class while keeping the character (which I do like a lot) and I was hoping to keep the nature/survival bent I've had so far. KPC_Mammon posted:I prefer arbalest if you aren't a fighter or gunslinger, since you'll be critting a lot less. Even with the +2 from Hunter's Aim? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:I'll gander at it too I guess. I'm kind of hating my rogue in Kingmaker and GM is letting me swap to a different class while keeping the character (which I do like a lot) and I was hoping to keep the nature/survival bent I've had so far. What level are you? Hunter's Aim can be hard to spare the actions for between reloading, repositioning, and quarrying new targets. It also conflicts with skirmish strike and penetrating shot. Ignoring lesser cover is really nice though! I'd still take the feat but you won't be using it most turns. Edit: I think a gunslinger sniper armed with a sukung might end up feeling better. Being able to hide as part of reloading puts you at +4 accuracy over a ranger and Vital Shot is basically power attack at range. KPC_Mammon fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:15
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:What level are you? Hunter's Aim can be hard to spare the actions for between reloading, repositioning, and quarrying new targets. It also conflicts with skirmish strike and penetrating shot. We just hit 5 last night.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:18
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:We just hit 5 last night. Having running reload will help the ranger feel better at that level. I'd still look at both builds and compare them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 01:25
|
|
|
In the fourth level of Abomination Vaults, my party of 5x 5th level PCs almost wiped to the Vaulgrist because only one of them had an ability to to Holy or Silver damage, and that was in the form of Needle Darts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:In the fourth level of Abomination Vaults, my party of 5x 5th level PCs almost wiped to the Vaulgrist because only one of them had an ability to to Holy or Silver damage, and that was in the form of Needle Darts. But now they'll look into getting silver weapons, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 02:48
|
|