The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 23 of 31 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 661 to 690 of 910
  1. - Top - End - #661
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
    Let me give you an example of how PF2 is designed to address this. Rangers have a Favored Terrain feat at level 2, so they pick a terrain. Then, at level 8 there's another feat that lets them study the terrain they currently are in for 1 hour, and it becomes their favored terrain until they leave that terrain.
    While it's a flavorful ability, favored terrain has two issues. One is that there are so many terrain types that the chance of it applying is too small. The other is that the bonus is too small to be relevant.

    This so-called fix has the opposite problem: since the ranger's bonus effectively applies all the time regardless of where he is, it's no longer flavorful. The other issue is still that the bonus is too small to be relevant.

    So this fix misses the point.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  2. - Top - End - #662
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    TO me, skill feats just feel like a waste. Most of the time you really don't have enough upper level skill proficiency to take most of the master and legend feats, so you just end up slurping up all of the lower level ones as you level. Then you take the feats for the skill you focused on, and that's about it. Not only are your skill feats no necessarily having an impact, but they're also not really decisions because you're locked into a narrow set of options based on a selection you already made with your skill bumps.

    So why have skill feats at all? Wouldn't it be better if these were just tied to the skill rank? I guess it would be, but maybe better, more easily accessed skill feats will become present in later books, so having feat slots for them would be good. However, waiting for better feats is just waiting for power creep, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    While it's a flavorful ability, favored terrain has two issues. One is that there are so many terrain types that the chance of it applying is too small. The other is that the bonus is too small to be relevant.

    This so-called fix has the opposite problem: since the ranger's bonus effectively applies all the time regardless of where he is, it's no longer flavorful. The other issue is still that the bonus is too small to be relevant.

    So this fix misses the point.
    I know we're talking about PF2, but this sounds like Ranger for as long as I remember. Most of the time my advice for terrains/enemies is to ask your DM, because you have no idea. Hopefully you can get the flavor and crunch to mesh if you're a guy whose story is attached the area and enemies in the area, but needing your DM sort it out is almost Oberoni.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  3. - Top - End - #663
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Firechanter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    TO me, skill feats just feel like a waste. Most of the time you really don't have enough upper level skill proficiency to take most of the master and legend feats, so you just end up slurping up all of the lower level ones as you level.
    And let's not forget here that those other feats that you take before hitting the next threshold are the ones that you considered not attractive enough when you first qualified for them. So as you level up, you get to pick weaker and weaker feats until you finally qualifiy for a good one again.

    Edit: some 5E classes have the same problem, particularly the Battlemaster Fighter.
    Last edited by Firechanter; 2019-08-22 at 08:02 PM.
    Let me give you a brief rundown of an average Post-3E Era fight: You attack an enemy and start kicking his shins. He then starts kicking your shins, then you take it in turns kicking until one of you falls over. It basically comes down to who started the battle with the biggest boot, and the only strategy involved is realizing when things have gone tits up and legging it.

  4. - Top - End - #664
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Firechanter View Post
    And let's not forget here that those other feats that you take before hitting the next threshold are the ones that you considered not attractive enough when you first qualified for them. So as you level up, you get to pick weaker and weaker feats until you finally qualifiy for a good one again.
    Hm, this is true. Not only they are the ones for your weaker skills but the ones you didn't want.

    Also, one of the rogues gets like a free critical success on their feinting. While this is cool, it kinda sucks it doesn't really come up via skill or archetype feats.

    Edit: some 5E classes have the same problem, particularly the Battlemaster Fighter.
    I really can't think of another, aside from the Arcane Archer. Fighter is bad at options, but EK is decent as long as you didn't tank your int stat, and sometimes even then you have a lot of utility and defensive options.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  5. - Top - End - #665
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Gwynfrid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Particle_Man View Post
    I am curious as to what happens if I go the lazy route and take a fighter, say, and take all of the skill feat options that require one to be trained or better at athletics. Am I going to get a FOMO compared to what I ďshouldĒ have done?
    I don't think you would. On this, a key point about skill feats: They're separate from class feats, and that's on purpose. The point is to allow players to pick out-of-combat options without taking the place of combat-oriented feats. In PF1, if you pick a feat because you like the flavor, you're usually sacrificing combat potential. In PF2, direct combat feats are mostly class feats. This leave you free to choose a skill feat because it feels cool, or just thematic for the character, even if it's not useful every day.

    This isn't to say that skill feats are useless in combat, but their utility is not directly tied to attacks. Athletics-driven feats, for example, are mostly about movement. Those that help with combat do so just because they eliminate combat penalties you take in certain situations, like climbing or underwater; or let you use combat maneuvers against bigger creatures. In other words, skill feats help with combat either indirectly or in special circumstances only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Particle_Man View Post
    Alternatively if there are literally no bad choices but no awesome choices, can one randomly determine all of oneís feat (race, heritage, background, skill, class, spell, etc.) choices and go from there? Is it down to basically flavour text, with no meaningful mechanical distinctions between them, like with the spell wish being exactly the same on the four spell lists except for the name?
    Definitely, more than just flavor differences. For example, let's say you're creating an elf fighter. At level 1, you get the following options as a fighter:
    - Double Slice: Improves your attacks with 2 weapons.
    - Exacting Strike: Make a careful attack; if it fails, your next attack doesn't have an increased iterative attack penalty.
    - Point Blank Shot: Improves your attacks at short range.
    - Power Attack: Deal extra damage, but your attack uses 2 actions, so this attack isn't a no-brainer. Depending on your weapon, your Str bonus, and the opponent's AC, you need to consider if you'd be better off simply attacking twice but with a penalty on the second attack.
    - Reactive Shield: This is defensive. You can benefit from your shield without burning an action for that (but you have to burn a reaction instead).
    - Snagging Strike: In addition to the damage if you hit, you make your enemy flat-footed.
    - Sudden Charge: For the cost of 2 actions, do 2 moves and 1 attack (this replaces the PF1 charge, which didn't require a feat, but only worked when you had a straight, obstacle-free path to the target).
    So, your choice will define your basic fighting style. You can go more like TWF, more defensive, ranged, maneuver-oriented, etc.
    Then, as an elf you choose from:
    - Ancestral Longevity: Remembering past experiences lets you choose to be trained in a different skill every morning.
    - Elven Lore: Extra skills.
    - Elven Weapon Familiarty: Use special elf weapons.
    - Folorn: Bonus to save against emotion effects.
    - Nimble Elf: Add 5ft to your speed. Since PF2 combat allows for much more tactical movement, that speed boost is a very good thing to have.
    - Otherwordly Magic: Use a cantrip at will. Chose between damage-dealing cantrips (these are a good backup weapon since their damage scales with level, unlike PF1's cantrips); utility cantrips; or maybe a Shield cantrip (Shield takes 1 action to cast and it's verbal, so if you adopt a 2-weapon style, you can benefit from a shield while your hands are full; this shield is weaker than a physical shield, though).
    - Unwavering Mien: Better resistance against sleep, and mental effects.
    This choice will also influence your combat style, you can be more defensive, more offense-oriented, or just get more focused on utility skills.

    Based on this, I think you could choose ancestry and class feats at random and build a viable character, if you wanted to. Personally, I wouldn't do this, because thematically it may just get a bit inconsistent (not at level 1, though).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    While it's a flavorful ability, favored terrain has two issues. One is that there are so many terrain types that the chance of it applying is too small. The other is that the bonus is too small to be relevant.

    This so-called fix has the opposite problem: since the ranger's bonus effectively applies all the time regardless of where he is, it's no longer flavorful. The other issue is still that the bonus is too small to be relevant.

    So this fix misses the point.
    Well, first off, favored terrain doesn't give you a bonus. It lets you ignore non-magical difficult terrain. This is relevant in PF2 combat because there's more mobility. Then, at level 11 you get a bigger benefit depending on terrain (for example, a climb speed in forests).

    Then, I don't think changing favored terrain temporarily removes flavor. It means at low level you have the flavor of your native land giving you an advantage, and then at high level you have the flavor of the ranger that adapts to new environments. I agree with Snowbluff : This is pretty thematic for rangers.
    Last edited by Gwynfrid; 2019-08-22 at 10:07 PM.
    DM in Mummy's Mask I, II, III | Kamorkas in Curse of the Crimson Throne | Avatar courtesy of Neoseph7

  6. - Top - End - #666
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Thanks for the complete list. I am a little confused about exacting strike. It has the press tag so it seems like I can only use it if I am making three attacks; if I miss with the second one (with the -5 penalty) then my third attack has a -5 penalty rather than a -10 penalty.

    Or can I also use it if I miss with my first attack so that my second attack has no penalty rather than a -5 penalty?

    Indeed, if I use it on the first attack and second attack and miss both times would my third attack have no penalty?

    Light the lamp not the rat LIGHT THE LAMP NOT THE RAT!!!

  7. - Top - End - #667
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
    I don't think you would. On this, a key point about skill feats: They're separate from class feats, and that's on purpose. The point is to allow players to pick out-of-combat options without taking the place of combat-oriented feats. In PF1, if you pick a feat because you like the flavor, you're usually sacrificing combat potential. In PF2, direct combat feats are mostly class feats. This leave you free to choose a skill feat because it feels cool, or just thematic for the character, even if it's not useful every day.
    Of course, back in 3e and PF1, you didn't have to take feats to do a lot of basic things that skill feats charge for. Cat Fall? Have ranks in Jump or Tumble. Courtly Graces? Have ranks in Disguise and Bluff. Forager? As someone already noted, just have ranks in Survival. Experienced Professional? Er, no one generally actually put ranks in Profession, but if you really wanted to have a day job, that'd do it.

    ...

    You know, for all that people complain that 3e and PF1 are the "You Need A Feat/PrC For That" games, PF2 has somehow managed to make it worse.

    Does anyone else remember how, back when 3e was going out of print and PF1 was just a rumor, the big trend in homebrew here and elsewhere was giving out lots of scaling and/or level-appropriate options for free? People wrote up skill systems that gave you free skill-trick-like or feat-like perks at certain ranks (1/4/7/10/13/16/19/22 or 5/10/15/20 or whatever), condensed boring feat chains into one or two feats that gave you the benefits of the whole chain and/or folded various feat taxes into the base rules, ToB-ified existing martial classes to add maneuvers on top of what they got already, rewrote feats and PrCs to ditch excessive prerequisites, reduced epic skill DCs to make them accessible to characters with levels in the mid teens, and so on.

    People basically collectively agreed that viable options are good and jumping through hoops is bad, a fairly uncontroversial stance when casters get bunches o' options that don't suck for free.

    And of course when PF1 came out it added onto all that, giving every class more options at lower levels in the form of archetypes, making formerly-piddly skill and combat feats scale (which, still not really impressive, but A for effort), and so forth.

    But then PF2 swings the pendulum far in the other direction. The ranger gives you a bonus in a certain terrain and it's lauded for having a feat you can take (at level 8, right before the level range when back in 3e/PF1 the only terrain you started to care about was "the air" when flying or "the Astral Plane" when teleporting) to let you retrain that bonus to fit your current terrain, instead of just...giving them something substantial and letting them retrain it to start with. Terrain Expertise might as well be +0.01 to Survival checks for all the impact it has. Cat Fall requires a feat to reduce falls by 10 feet, which anyone could do with a DC 15 check in 3e, and at 15th level they have the privilege to ignore falling damage (which, again, doesn't matter much when you're flying all the time) if you happened to have increased Acrobatics to Legendary at that level; not particularly impressive.

    And then the fighter gets one of these:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
    Definitely, more than just flavor differences. For example, let's say you're creating an elf fighter. At level 1, you get the following options as a fighter:
    - Double Slice: Improves your attacks with 2 weapons.
    - Exacting Strike: Make a careful attack; if it fails, your next attack doesn't have an increased iterative attack penalty.
    - Point Blank Shot: Improves your attacks at short range.
    - Power Attack: Deal extra damage, but your attack uses 2 actions, so this attack isn't a no-brainer. Depending on your weapon, your Str bonus, and the opponent's AC, you need to consider if you'd be better off simply attacking twice but with a penalty on the second attack.
    - Reactive Shield: This is defensive. You can benefit from your shield without burning an action for that (but you have to burn a reaction instead).
    - Snagging Strike: In addition to the damage if you hit, you make your enemy flat-footed.
    - Sudden Charge: For the cost of 2 actions, do 2 moves and 1 attack (this replaces the PF1 charge, which didn't require a feat, but only worked when you had a straight, obstacle-free path to the target).
    ...where Double Slice/Exacting Strike/Snagging Strike are, essentially and respectively, Wolf Fang Strike/Steel Wind/Sapphire Nightmare Blade, of which a Warblade 1 could have all three and a stance besides, and Power Attack/Reactive Shield/Sudden Charge have extra drawbacks and/or are limited to the fighter for no particular reason where before they were basic tools in every martial class's tool kit.

    How the heck did the devs see all that "Fighters should get more Nice Things!" stuff on the intertubes for the past decade and yet end up at "Whoa, now, maybe one nice thing, two is way too many!" for PF2?

    And again with ancestry stuff:
    Then, as an elf you choose from:
    - Ancestral Longevity: Remembering past experiences lets you choose to be trained in a different skill every morning.
    - Elven Lore: Extra skills.
    - Elven Weapon Familiarty: Use special elf weapons.
    - Folorn: Bonus to save against emotion effects.
    - Nimble Elf: Add 5ft to your speed. Since PF2 combat allows for much more tactical movement, that speed boost is a very good thing to have.
    - Otherwordly Magic: Use a cantrip at will. Chose between damage-dealing cantrips (these are a good backup weapon since their damage scales with level, unlike PF1's cantrips); utility cantrips; or maybe a Shield cantrip (Shield takes 1 action to cast and it's verbal, so if you adopt a 2-weapon style, you can benefit from a shield while your hands are full; this shield is weaker than a physical shield, though).
    - Unwavering Mien: Better resistance against sleep, and mental effects.
    I know we already had the whole ancestry feats debate regarding perk-heavy races a dozen pages back, but is there any particular reason why an elf can't just, y'know, get all of those things for free, and then pick an actually-interesting ancestry feat on top of that? I mean, Elven Weapon Familiarity/Forlorn/Unwavering Mien map directly to the PF1 elf's Weapon Familiarity and Elven Immunities (except of course that Elven Immunitiies is stronger than Forlorn and Unwavering Mien put together), so at the very least getting 3 ancestry feats instead of 1 at 1st level or combining those all into one "Elven Training" feat would make sense, and bonus skills and a speed bonus just aren't exciting and the game wouldn't break in half if elves had 35 base speed and every race just got 2-3 more skills in various ways and combinations; Otherworldly Magic makes sense as an actual feat, since it has many potential applications and lets you blur class boundaries, but that's the only one and even then every race getting a cantrip-level freebie wouldn't be out of line if you really want to make ancestry have more of an obvious impact.

    Not a single class in PF1 just got one benefit per class level at every level, not even the fighter whose every-five-levels Bravery class feature barely counts, yet that's deemed good enough for PF2 classes (and no, I don't count ancestry/general/skill feats, since those are things everyone gets and why every class has those cluttering up its table I still have no idea). Even when I play SWSE--a system with fairly solid and beefy talents and feats, of which you get one talent or feat per class level--I frequently houserule that players can pick two instead of one at each level just because gaining a whole level and only getting one new thing for it is kinda lame.


    Hell, I'm going to go out a limb and say that someone GMing PF2 could probably let their players take five feats of a given type whenever they'd normally be granted one, for at least the first 10 levels, and not only would the game not break in half but those characters might be able to approach the power level and interestingness of 3e or PF1 characters. (Granted, I haven't done a deep dive of all of the PF2 feats, but I'm saving that for when I run out of melatonin and need to get to sleep in a hurry. )
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  8. - Top - End - #668
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
    For example, let's say you're creating an elf fighter. At level 1, you get the following options as a fighter:
    The problem with P2 is not the lack of options, but the fact that most options just don't do a whole lot. Rather than getting bread-and-butter options at level one, the fighter's feats are either ridiculously situational, or let you do something you can already do without the feat. And almost all of them have keywords like open/press/flourish/stance, that have the sole purpose of inhibiting combos. WHY would a system have four keywords to inhibit combos, anyway?

    • Double Slice: for two actions, you can make two attacks. Without this feat, you can already spend two actions to make two attacks.
    • Exacting Strike: only works if you make three attacks in a turn (which is usually bad for accuracy reasons), and then only affects the third attack if the second misses.
    • Point Blank Shot: costs an action to negate a penalty that didn't exist in earlier editions (i.e. bows take -2 to hit within 30'). Without this feat, you could negate the penalty by simply moving.
    • Power Attack: for two actions, make a single attack that deals less than twice the damage. This usually will not increase your damage.
    • Reactive Shield: spend an action to raise your shield. Without this feat, you can already spend a (different kind of) action to raise your shield.
    • Snagging Strike: since it requires a free hand, it locks you out of every common fighting style. But at least it doesn't have limiting keywords.
    • Sudden Charge: it's pretty rare that an enemy is exactly within two moves but not within one move. It's more effective to simply increase your speed.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  9. - Top - End - #669
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Yea to me 3e and certianly in PF they had a tendency to make way too many feats for things that either should not be feats at all (and just be baked into something else) or they made something take multiple feats rather than just one.

    A common example in 3e I would use is TWF feats. IMO two weapon fighting, imp TWF, and greater TWF should all be rolled into one feat that you take that gives its benefits when you hit certain levels of BAB.

    Another example in PF is vital strike. The improved and greater versions should have been part of the vital strike feat (and honestly the game would have been better off having it as being free so that attack actions are actually worth something at higher levels and allowing more weapon using classes to work when they are forced to move 10 feet or more a turn) that also improve as you gain BAB.

    Sadly the designers from then and a really common problem with this.
    A vestige for me "Pyro火gnus Friend of Meepo" by Zaydos.

    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...5&postcount=26

  10. - Top - End - #670
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Gwynfrid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Particle_Man View Post
    Thanks for the complete list. I am a little confused about exacting strike. It has the press tag so it seems like I can only use it if I am making three attacks; if I miss with the second one (with the -5 penalty) then my third attack has a -5 penalty rather than a -10 penalty.
    Correct. This feat is only useful if you want to do a lot of attacks, and it only gives you a benefit on the third and subsequent attacks. So you probably want your sorcerer buddy to cast Haste on you. PairO'Dice Lost and Kurald Galain are correct in their assessment that PF2 feats are only moderate in their power: I only disagree with the characterization of them as useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    People basically collectively agreed that viable options are good and jumping through hoops is bad, a fairly uncontroversial stance when casters get bunches o' options that don't suck for free.
    So in PF2 casters get bunches of options still, but with seriously curtailed power. And feats aren't super powerful either. This means the effort to balance the game and make it playable up to level 20, while still offering a great variety of choices, results in options that are less powerful individually. You took the example of Cat Fall, which lets you ignore falling damage at high levels: Useless when you're going to fly all the time... Except, you're not going to fly all the time in PF2. It takes a 7th level Fly spell to fly for 1 hour, and before that, you've got items to fly 10 minutes per day, or the regular Fly spell (now 4th level) for 5 minutes. This is why the skill feats and monk feats that let you jump from wall to wall, run up vertical surfaces, gain a climb speed, etc., have a chance to shine. Personally, I find that more cool than just routinely casting Overland Flight every morning and never touching the ground again, but I totally understand why this heavy nerf can feel like a huge downer.

    I suppose the game could have been designed another way, indeed:
    - With more free stuff, as you suggest. In that case, mechanically, there are less options to choose from. This would go more in a 5E direction, but that would be valid.
    - Or with still plenty of options but more powerful ones. In that case you would trend more towards a superhero game at high levels. That would also be a valid design choice.
    I guess PF2 designers wanted to stay closer to the general PF1 power level and modularity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Hell, I'm going to go out a limb and say that someone GMing PF2 could probably let their players take five feats of a given type whenever they'd normally be granted one, for at least the first 10 levels, and not only would the game not break in half but those characters might be able to approach the power level and interestingness of 3e or PF1 characters.
    And why not? That sounds like a perfectly fine house rule for those who prefer a high-powered game. OK, 5 for one might be a bit much, you're going to run out of options in the CRB (the solution is of course, wait for more books ). If I want to try that one day I'll likely go 2 for one, maybe 3. I suspect the game would remain balanced overall.
    DM in Mummy's Mask I, II, III | Kamorkas in Curse of the Crimson Throne | Avatar courtesy of Neoseph7

  11. - Top - End - #671
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RedKnightGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    I don't even mind the "too many feats" problem in PF 1e and DnD 3e all that much, the problem is the number of feats you get in those systems. If you get a feat at every level, most of the feat chain problem where you need to take two more feats to keep, say, TWF scaling as you level actually vanishes, or is at least greatly ameliorated.

    One of the problems I've noticed with d20 system design is that 1st party devs often treat feats as worth less than (or even worth the same as) a full class level, but you get fewer feats than class levels which makes feats a much more scarce resource (7 in 3.x, 10 in PF 1e). And then the 3rd party devs have to balance feats to the core book feats or get accused of power creep.

    That's the whole reason Fighter and Monk are dip classes. You can trade 1/10th of your class levels to get two whole feats that you would have had to wait 6 or 4 levels to get if you hadn't dipped. If you gave people enough feats to keep up with all of the feat trees, they wouldn't have to dip into other classes just for the feats!

    And yeah, then you need a compelling reason to actually take levels in the feat dip classes. Could try giving them a real identity and actual class features, I suppose. Failing that, as I mentioned earlier, you could strip all the "good" class features into feat chains and make classes a flavor/theme thing.

    Or if you really want them to stay the "feat classes", that's actually fine, but you need to go back to 3.x feat progression and then condense the feat chains into single feats that scale so I don't have to spend all but two of my feats up to level 11 just to keep TWF relevant.

  12. - Top - End - #672
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
    PairO'Dice Lost and Kurald Galain are correct in their assessment that PF2 feats are only moderate in their power: I only disagree with the characterization of them as useless.
    I wouldn't say "useless" as much as "really boring". Nothing about the feats and spells makes me excited about actually playing this game (instead of e.g. P1 or 5E).

    It's pretty easy to make feats that are weaker than to 3E/P1, and still miles ahead of P2 feats.

    So in PF2 casters get bunches of options still, but with seriously curtailed power.
    "Curtailed" in the sense that most spells aren't worth casting in combat, except for the direct damage cantrips.
    • Web only immobilizes on a fumbled save (a failed save reduces your speed), its area is halved, and its range reduced to 30'.
    • Slow only staggers on a fumbled save (a failed save gives you 2 actions instead of 3), and only affects one creature.
    • Stinking Cloud only staggers on a fumbled save (as per Slow), and no longer lingers after leaving the cloud.
    • Glitterdust only blinds on a fumbled save, and then only for one round.
    • Sound Burst doesn't stun any more, it just reduces your actions to 2, and then only on a fumbled save.
    • Resilient Sphere now has 10 hp, so it goes down in one hit (whereas its 1E/2E/3E version is immune to most attacks, because that's the whole point). It also has its duration reduced, and no longer works on huge creatures.
    • Blindness has its level increased to 3, its range severely reduced, and the "+10 to all saves" keyword.
    • Solid Fog takes a full round to cast, has a much shorter duration, and no longer negates missile attacks (although it does give concealment).


    I mean, even without comparing it to earlier editions, most of that is simply a waste of an action.
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  13. - Top - End - #673
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I wouldn't say "useless" as much as "really boring". Nothing about the feats and spells makes me excited about actually playing this game (instead of e.g. P1 or 5E).

    It's pretty easy to make feats that are weaker than to 3E/P1, and still miles ahead of P2 feats.


    "Curtailed" in the sense that most spells aren't worth casting in combat, except for the direct damage cantrips.
    • Web only immobilizes on a fumbled save (a failed save reduces your speed), its area is halved, and its range reduced to 30'.
    • Slow only staggers on a fumbled save (a failed save gives you 2 actions instead of 3), and only affects one creature.
    • Stinking Cloud only staggers on a fumbled save (as per Slow), and no longer lingers after leaving the cloud.
    • Glitterdust only blinds on a fumbled save, and then only for one round.
    • Sound Burst doesn't stun any more, it just reduces your actions to 2, and then only on a fumbled save.
    • Resilient Sphere now has 10 hp, so it goes down in one hit (whereas its 1E/2E/3E version is immune to most attacks, because that's the whole point). It also has its duration reduced, and no longer works on huge creatures.
    • Blindness has its level increased to 3, its range severely reduced, and the "+10 to all saves" keyword.
    • Solid Fog takes a full round to cast, has a much shorter duration, and no longer negates missile attacks (although it does give concealment).


    I mean, even without comparing it to earlier editions, most of that is simply a waste of an action.
    How did PF2e managed to have less interesting core book magic than the last edition of Savage Worlds?

    Like damn that was one of the weaknesses of that game to me compared to Pathfinder for me. (Current edition SW is a lot better, but still)

    I only bothered to check out the magic system long enough to see that all my favorites PF spells were gone or useless. I didn't bother checking the staples.
    Last edited by Rhedyn; 2019-08-23 at 09:02 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #674
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Originally Posted by Rhedyn
    ...all my favorites PF spells were gone or useless.
    Out of curiosity, which ones were these?

  15. - Top - End - #675
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
    I don't think you would. On this, a key point about skill feats: They're separate from class feats, and that's on purpose. The point is to allow players to pick out-of-combat options without taking the place of combat-oriented feats. In PF1, if you pick a feat because you like the flavor, you're usually sacrificing combat potential. In PF2, direct combat feats are mostly class feats. This leave you free to choose a skill feat because it feels cool, or just thematic for the character, even if it's not useful every day.

    This isn't to say that skill feats are useless in combat, but their utility is not directly tied to attacks. Athletics-driven feats, for example, are mostly about movement. Those that help with combat do so just because they eliminate combat penalties you take in certain situations, like climbing or underwater; or let you use combat maneuvers against bigger creatures. In other words, skill feats help with combat either indirectly or in special circumstances only.
    Which, again, is a weird position that prides itself on its ďoptionsĒ. My Starfinder character is amazing at skills, and junk in combat, because I built him that way. My daughterís murder hobo is the opposite, because we made those choices. PF2 design philosophy is ďwe give you tons of choices, as long as you all come out equal in and out of combatĒ.

  16. - Top - End - #676
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Palanan View Post
    Out of curiosity, which ones were these?
    Polymorph, Summoning, Planar Binding, etc.

  17. - Top - End - #677
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Count me as one who would be happy if characters got roughly twice as many feats in P2. Given how many it takes to effectively master a fighting style, you donít really have spares to branch out. This means you fall into the same problem thatís plagued martials for decades: the drop off from Plan A (whether thatís charge, trip, full attack, etc) to Plan B gets progressively greater as you level up in a way that it doesnít for casters.

    So maybe 3 ancestry feats at first, plus one every odd level. General feats every even level. Then a skill feat and a class feat every level. At those quantities, you might get satisfying results, rather than running into barrier upon barrier against things that might be cool.

    In another direction, what would it be like if all the level prerequisites for feats were halved? When I looked things over, there were a few that wound up inappropriate, mostly capstones and ones that grant early spell access. But the strong majority of them actually sounded pretty good when you dropped them from level 8 to level 4. Whirlwind Attack is cool... at level 8. By 14, it just feels like ďabout time.Ē

  18. - Top - End - #678
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Blackhawk748's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tharggy, on Tellene
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    The problem with P2 is not the lack of options, but the fact that most options just don't do a whole lot. Rather than getting bread-and-butter options at level one, the fighter's feats are either ridiculously situational, or let you do something you can already do without the feat. And almost all of them have keywords like open/press/flourish/stance, that have the sole purpose of inhibiting combos. WHY would a system have four keywords to inhibit combos, anyway?

    • Double Slice: for two actions, you can make two attacks. Without this feat, you can already spend two actions to make two attacks.
    • Exacting Strike: only works if you make three attacks in a turn (which is usually bad for accuracy reasons), and then only affects the third attack if the second misses.
    • Point Blank Shot: costs an action to negate a penalty that didn't exist in earlier editions (i.e. bows take -2 to hit within 30'). Without this feat, you could negate the penalty by simply moving.
    • Power Attack: for two actions, make a single attack that deals less than twice the damage. This usually will not increase your damage.
    • Reactive Shield: spend an action to raise your shield. Without this feat, you can already spend a (different kind of) action to raise your shield.
    • Snagging Strike: since it requires a free hand, it locks you out of every common fighting style. But at least it doesn't have limiting keywords.
    • Sudden Charge: it's pretty rare that an enemy is exactly within two moves but not within one move. It's more effective to simply increase your speed.
    DS: That's dumb. It has to do something else otherwise its literally pointless.
    Exacting Strike: Ok, this helps your consistency, which is something, but it's a boring feat and should probably have something extra as well.
    PBS: Are you ****ing kidding me? Bows take a penalty at 30 feet? Clearly, no one at Paizo has ever shot a bow. Or been near a bow, or played a game with a bow, or stood next to someone who has touched a bow. Because there is a lot of people who shoot things at that range, a lot of hunters for instance.
    Power Attack: Thats just sad
    Reactive Shield: This shouldn't be a feat and it shouldn't take an action to actually use your freaking shield
    Sudden Charge: It has niche uses. *pity clap*
    Quote Originally Posted by Guigarci View Post
    "Mr. Aochev, tear down this wall!" Ro'n Ad-Ri'Gan, Bard
    Tiefling Sorcerer by Linkele
    Spoiler: Homebrew stuff
    Show
    My Spell, My Weapon, Im a God

    My Post Apocalyptic Alternate Timeline setting: Amerhikan Wasteland


    My Historical Stuff channel

  19. - Top - End - #679
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Gwynfrid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I wouldn't say "useless" as much as "really boring". Nothing about the feats and spells makes me excited about actually playing this game (instead of e.g. P1 or 5E).
    This was my exact reaction on my first reading of the playtest book. On paper, it felt rather bland. But I changed my mind during play at the table. There were issues, of course (especially for casters, because the monsters' saves were too high; that was adjusted in the final release). But my group found combat pretty exciting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    "Curtailed" in the sense that most spells aren't worth casting in combat, except for the direct damage cantrips.
    • Web only immobilizes on a fumbled save (a failed save reduces your speed), its area is halved, and its range reduced to 30'.
    • Slow only staggers on a fumbled save (a failed save gives you 2 actions instead of 3), and only affects one creature.
    • Stinking Cloud only staggers on a fumbled save (as per Slow), and no longer lingers after leaving the cloud.
    • Glitterdust only blinds on a fumbled save, and then only for one round.
    • Sound Burst doesn't stun any more, it just reduces your actions to 2, and then only on a fumbled save.
    • Resilient Sphere now has 10 hp, so it goes down in one hit (whereas its 1E/2E/3E version is immune to most attacks, because that's the whole point). It also has its duration reduced, and no longer works on huge creatures.
    • Blindness has its level increased to 3, its range severely reduced, and the "+10 to all saves" keyword.
    • Solid Fog takes a full round to cast, has a much shorter duration, and no longer negates missile attacks (although it does give concealment).


    I mean, even without comparing it to earlier editions, most of that is simply a waste of an action.
    I won't debate this line by line, instead I'll make 3 general remarks:
    - In PF2, combat is more dynamic, so there are good reasons to move around the battle field a lot more (if only because attack+move+attack and move+attack+move are now valid ways to spend your round). Therefore, your speed, and the enemies' speed, matter a lot more. A 10-ft speed increase or penalty can have a significant impact.
    - Combat lasts, in most cases, 4 to 5 rounds (according to the designers). This means everyone (if they don't go down early) gets 12 to 15 actions in total. So, for each action you manage to deny your enemy, you get a benefit equivalent to reducing their HP by about 6-8%: Not huge, but it does count, as they can't use this action to hurt you. Of course, if you use a spell (2 actions), you want to deny the enemy team at least 3 actions to come out on top. This typically happens on a failed save (not a crit fail), while on a successful save (not a crit success) you deny maybe 1 action, which isn't a win, but it's still better than no effect at all like in PF1.
    - Also, note that SR no longer exists. That's another big factor in PF2 moving away from the all-or-nothing nature of PF1 magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
    Which, again, is a weird position that prides itself on its ďoptionsĒ. My Starfinder character is amazing at skills, and junk in combat, because I built him that way. My daughterís murder hobo is the opposite, because we made those choices. PF2 design philosophy is ďwe give you tons of choices, as long as you all come out equal in and out of combatĒ.
    I hear Starfinder is a fine game, I hope I can try it one day. But my preference is when all characters can have a meaningful (not equal!) impact in all situations. If the adventure starts with a big social gathering, I don't want my burly, gruff barbarian to be forced to shut up for fear of ruining the evening; if the whole session is combat, I don't want my skill-focused character to just watch from the sidelines and stay out of the way of the monsters.
    DM in Mummy's Mask I, II, III | Kamorkas in Curse of the Crimson Throne | Avatar courtesy of Neoseph7

  20. - Top - End - #680
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    The problem with P2 is not the lack of options, but the fact that most options just don't do a whole lot. Rather than getting bread-and-butter options at level one, the fighter's feats are either ridiculously situational, or let you do something you can already do without the feat. And almost all of them have keywords like open/press/flourish/stance, that have the sole purpose of inhibiting combos. WHY would a system have four keywords to inhibit combos, anyway?

    • Double Slice: for two actions, you can make two attacks. Without this feat, you can already spend two actions to make two attacks.
    • Exacting Strike: only works if you make three attacks in a turn (which is usually bad for accuracy reasons), and then only affects the third attack if the second misses.
    • Point Blank Shot: costs an action to negate a penalty that didn't exist in earlier editions (i.e. bows take -2 to hit within 30'). Without this feat, you could negate the penalty by simply moving.
    • Power Attack: for two actions, make a single attack that deals less than twice the damage. This usually will not increase your damage.
    • Reactive Shield: spend an action to raise your shield. Without this feat, you can already spend a (different kind of) action to raise your shield.
    • Snagging Strike: since it requires a free hand, it locks you out of every common fighting style. But at least it doesn't have limiting keywords.
    • Sudden Charge: it's pretty rare that an enemy is exactly within two moves but not within one move. It's more effective to simply increase your speed.
    Ok... I'll be the first to complain that Level 1 fighter feats are uninspired. But this description of them feels disingenuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Double Slice: for two actions, you can make two attacks. Without this feat, you can already spend two actions to make two attacks.
    Making 2 attacks as 2 actions eats an iterative attack penalty normally. So this is like a P1 feat that read: +5 to your first iterative attack. That's decent. Plus, since 2-handers deal 1d12+str, this lets you deal 1d8+1d6+2xstr as a 2 action attack. That's not small potatoes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Exacting Strike: only works if you make three attacks in a turn (which is usually bad for accuracy reasons), and then only affects the third attack if the second misses.
    Ya, this is a lame action that gets out-classed fast. To use it, you need to miss your second attack and have an action left...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Point Blank Shot: costs an action to negate a penalty that didn't exist in earlier editions (i.e. bows take -2 to hit within 30'). Without this feat, you could negate the penalty by simply moving.
    IDK how I feel about volly. I like that a longbow is not just a better shortbow. But eh. This gives you +2 damage with your shortbow. Seems like a fine feat. Especially with damage bonuses being rarer then hen's teeth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Power Attack: for two actions, make a single attack that deals less than twice the damage. This usually will not increase your damage.
    Yup. This one is bad. I think that during the play test the mathers showed that it is always worse then 2 attacks barring absurd resistance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Reactive Shield: spend an action to raise your shield. Without this feat, you can already spend a (different kind of) action to raise your shield.
    This complaint makes it look like you don't understand the action economy. Of course using a different action is valuable. Its like saying "Using a move action for a thing is the same as using a standard... They are both actions." Reactive shield is good when you didn't have time to raise shield last turn and someone just hit or crit you by 2. Its fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Snagging Strike: since it requires a free hand, it locks you out of every common fighting style. But at least it doesn't have limiting keywords.
    Two-handed fighting is not dominant in P2 anymore. This lets you give all your allies +2 to hit vs a target. That's a sweet bonus. It would be cool in P1 too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Sudden Charge: it's pretty rare that an enemy is exactly within two moves but not within one move. It's more effective to simply increase your speed.
    It functionally doubles your speed. If you are wearing heavy armor it is quite useful.

    So In summary, yes, 2 level 1 feats are lame. 5 are fine. My problem with the fighter list is that of the combat styles he supports (shielded, singleton, twf) each only gets about 1 feat per level. That means that every fighter of a given level uses their shield in the same way. That's what makes me saddest.

  21. - Top - End - #681
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
    I hear Starfinder is a fine game, I hope I can try it one day. But my preference is when all characters can have a meaningful (not equal!) impact in all situations. If the adventure starts with a big social gathering, I don't want my burly, gruff barbarian to be forced to shut up for fear of ruining the evening; if the whole session is combat, I don't want my skill-focused character to just watch from the sidelines and stay out of the way of the monsters.
    And itís fine that you want that. Sometimes I do too. Sometimes I donít. Thatís what it means when a game gives you choices. Actual, meaningful choices. Itís not having 20 different places on your sheet where you write down situational modifiers. Itís saying: I want to be well balanced or I donít. I want to be a combat god or I donít. I donít want my Paizo daddy in the sky telling me my burly gruff Barbarian HAS to be viable in a social setting or otherwise I might make a choice they donít like. My character. My call.

    And if you donít want a game that lets you make meaningful choices, thatís fine too. Mario Brothers is a game whether your outfit is red or green. Just stop using your goal of making sure all adventurers are viable in all situations to claim that you are giving choices in character generation. The skill feats are a deliberate attempt to PREVENT me from spending all my character resources on certain parts of my build, because they donít like what meaningful choices look like. It is a deliberate if ineffective attempt to fool us with illusions of control.

  22. - Top - End - #682
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Madsamurai View Post
    So In summary, yes, 2 level 1 feats are lame. 5 are fine. My problem with the fighter list is that of the combat styles he supports (shielded, singleton, twf) each only gets about 1 feat per level. That means that every fighter of a given level uses their shield in the same way. That's what makes me saddest.
    All the feats are bad for the sin of being boring. Some are meh-chanically functional.

  23. - Top - End - #683
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Blackhawk748's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tharggy, on Tellene
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Madsamurai View Post
    This complaint makes it look like you don't understand the action economy. Of course using a different action is valuable. Its like saying "Using a move action for a thing is the same as using a standard... They are both actions." Reactive shield is good when you didn't have time to raise shield last turn and someone just hit or crit you by 2. Its fine.
    This is ignoring the fact that you shouldn't have to "ready a shield in the first place to get the bonus. Because that isn't how shields work. It'd be like having to "ready your sword" at the beginning of every round of combat, and noone would stand for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guigarci View Post
    "Mr. Aochev, tear down this wall!" Ro'n Ad-Ri'Gan, Bard
    Tiefling Sorcerer by Linkele
    Spoiler: Homebrew stuff
    Show
    My Spell, My Weapon, Im a God

    My Post Apocalyptic Alternate Timeline setting: Amerhikan Wasteland


    My Historical Stuff channel

  24. - Top - End - #684
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Gwynfrid's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnaeus View Post
    And itís fine that you want that. Sometimes I do too. Sometimes I donít. Thatís what it means when a game gives you choices. Actual, meaningful choices. Itís not having 20 different places on your sheet where you write down situational modifiers. Itís saying: I want to be well balanced or I donít. I want to be a combat god or I donít. I donít want my Paizo daddy in the sky telling me my burly gruff Barbarian HAS to be viable in a social setting or otherwise I might make a choice they donít like. My character. My call.
    This is where we differ, definitely. I believe that when out-of-combat abilities and combat abilities are put in the same bucket and compete for priority, combat abilities will win 95 times out of 100. Maybe your group is a fortunate exception, but this is a widespread trend: If I build my burly, gruff barbarian with social skills at the expense of his combat prowess, he'll be branded a subpar build. This results in an arms race, where players who don't want to participate get frustrated because they're overshadowed so much in combat. Maybe Starfinder manages to alleviate this issue, but PF1 certainly doesn't. That said, PF2 does take a heavy-handed approach to solving this problem, no question about it.
    DM in Mummy's Mask I, II, III | Kamorkas in Curse of the Crimson Throne | Avatar courtesy of Neoseph7

  25. - Top - End - #685
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Particle_Man View Post
    Thanks for the complete list. I am a little confused about exacting strike. It has the press tag so it seems like I can only use it if I am making three attacks; if I miss with the second one (with the -5 penalty) then my third attack has a -5 penalty rather than a -10 penalty.

    Or can I also use it if I miss with my first attack so that my second attack has no penalty rather than a -5 penalty?

    Indeed, if I use it on the first attack and second attack and miss both times would my third attack have no penalty?
    It's a [Press], so it can only be used when you have a multi-attack penalty. The number doesn't matter, just that the penalty is up. Remember that one of the general goals for combat in PF2 is that making three strikes in a row is generally a poor use of that third action. You can use Exacting Strike after your first attack, and if that strike misses you can still make a third attack with only the penalty from that first attack. Also remember the following rule:

    If your press action succeeds, you can choose to apply the failure effect instead. (For example, you may wish to do this when an attack deals no damage due to resistance.)

    So if you actually hit with that Exacting Strike but the effect of a success isn't beneficial you could choose to take the failure and still have your third action without incrementing the attack penalty. That's a niche use case, but might wind up being something is useful with future content or in actual play.
    Last edited by NightbringerGGZ; 2019-08-23 at 02:56 PM.
    WIP - Nightbringer's Guide to the Pathfinder Fighter
    Please send me any feedback you have! This is a huge undertaking as I'm evaluating all Combat Feats, a bunch of other feats and Combat Stamina too!.

  26. - Top - End - #686
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackhawk748 View Post
    This is ignoring the fact that you shouldn't have to "ready a shield in the first place to get the bonus. Because that isn't how shields work. It'd be like having to "ready your sword" at the beginning of every round of combat, and noone would stand for that.
    There is a game where you have to ready your sword. In GURPS if you have a really heavy weapon you have to ready it before you can attack with it. I think that's a fine way of modeling slow and unwieldy weapons.

    I personally think that it makes sense that you spend actions to focus on shield use. If actions are an abstract representation of time and effort during a combat round, you not spending an action raising your shield does mean that you are focusing on offense to the exclusion of all else. I can buy that a warrior that is both blocking with a shield and swinging a sword will be slower then one that just focuses on sword-work.

    Plus, from a gameist point of view, if using a shield takes an action it can have a greater mechanical impact then if it was just a passive effect. An action cost assigned to shield use is one of my favorite parts of P2 (though I think they could have made shield blocks less fragile).

  27. - Top - End - #687
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Blackhawk748's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tharggy, on Tellene
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Gwynfrid View Post
    This is where we differ, definitely. I believe that when out-of-combat abilities and combat abilities are put in the same bucket and compete for priority, combat abilities will win 95 times out of 100. Maybe your group is a fortunate exception, but this is a widespread trend: If I build my burly, gruff barbarian with social skills at the expense of his combat prowess, he'll be branded a subpar build. This results in an arms race, where players who don't want to participate get frustrated because they're overshadowed so much in combat. Maybe Starfinder manages to alleviate this issue, but PF1 certainly doesn't. That said, PF2 does take a heavy-handed approach to solving this problem, no question about it.
    I think that has more to do with the Out of Combat stuff being lousy. If there was a feat that gave people a 20ft climb speed in 3.5 and you're in a game with reasonable amounts of exploration, that is probably viable for that specific campaign.

    The other reason is that Combat is always Combat. There isn't much outside of hard numbers that needs to be taken account of and so its easier to optimize for on account of it having less variables than say, exploration.

    Would still be nice if non combat stuff got mroe love I agree, but PF2 isn't doing a good job there either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madsamurai View Post
    There is a game where you have to ready your sword. In GURPS if you have a really heavy weapon you have to ready it before you can attack with it. I think that's a fine way of modeling slow and unwieldy weapons.

    I personally think that it makes sense that you spend actions to focus on shield use. If actions are an abstract representation of time and effort during a combat round, you not spending an action raising your shield does mean that you are focusing on offense to the exclusion of all else. I can buy that a warrior that is both blocking with a shield and swinging a sword will be slower then one that just focuses on sword-work.

    Plus, from a gameist point of view, if using a shield takes an action it can have a greater mechanical impact then if it was just a passive effect. An action cost assigned to shield use is one of my favorite parts of P2 (though I think they could have made shield blocks less fragile).
    Yes, but GURPs is typically talking about weapons like Guts' Dragonslayer or a Railgun so large Power Armor has trouble using it, not a nice round shield.

    And you don't "raise" a shield in combat, its just there. This isn't a video game where I have to click the block button to get the bonus (and I should get a passive benefit from just having the thing equipped but this has been a long-standing annoyance I've had with video games.) it should be protecting the side of your body that it is on by simply being there.

    On top of this when you attack and you have a Center Grip shield, the shield moves with your attack in order to keep your hand and arm safe, that's the whole point of it. Strapped shields are held in front of you and you attack around it. This doesn't make it cost more or anything, it just changes how you fight just like using any other combination of equipment would force you to change the smaller particulars. And as someone who LARPed for years, I can tell you that using a shield doesn't slow you down. At all. In fact, it lets you be more aggressive than the single sword people as you have better protection for reprisals.

    As for mechanics, I would agree with you if the shield actually did something without using an action, because as it stands its utterly useless and just hanging on your arm, like your character is an idiot or something instead of holding it somewhat in front of them to cover their side. Let it give a 20% miss chance for using an action as a representation of exerting more effort on defense, but have it actually do something without an action cost. It's armor after all.

    Also, don't make it take damage to block a shot. Just...please? All that is gonna do is either make people make an unbreakable shield and then its a waste of page space, people will just ignore it because it's too much bookkeeping (seems likely to me), or they don't use it because they don't want their equipment getting busted. And shields are rather durable so it just feels kinda silly on top of that, particularly because we generally don't deal with item durability in DnD esque games.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guigarci View Post
    "Mr. Aochev, tear down this wall!" Ro'n Ad-Ri'Gan, Bard
    Tiefling Sorcerer by Linkele
    Spoiler: Homebrew stuff
    Show
    My Spell, My Weapon, Im a God

    My Post Apocalyptic Alternate Timeline setting: Amerhikan Wasteland


    My Historical Stuff channel

  28. - Top - End - #688
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackhawk748 View Post
    DS: That's dumb. It has to do something else otherwise its literally pointless.
    Exacting Strike: Ok, this helps your consistency, which is something, but it's a boring feat and should probably have something extra as well.
    PBS: Are you ****ing kidding me? Bows take a penalty at 30 feet? Clearly, no one at Paizo has ever shot a bow. Or been near a bow, or played a game with a bow, or stood next to someone who has touched a bow. Because there is a lot of people who shoot things at that range, a lot of hunters for instance.
    Power Attack: Thats just sad
    Reactive Shield: This shouldn't be a feat and it shouldn't take an action to actually use your freaking shield
    Sudden Charge: It has niche uses. *pity clap*
    Double Slice: You make two attacks without incrementing your attack penalty on that second attack. You also combine the damage of the two attacks (but only apply precision damage once) so the target's damage resistance only gets applied once.

    Exacting Strike: Agreed

    PBS: No, ranged weapons have penalties after the first range increment, like in 3.5/PF. The feat eliminates the attack penalty for [Volley] weapons and gives +2 damage with other ranged weapons when attacking within the first ranged increment.

    Power Attack: It's Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike and Greater Vital Strike rolled into one feat. Why they didn't just name it Vital Strike I don't know. Keep in mind, with the new action economy it isn't as bad of an attack option as it was in 3.5.

    Reactive Shield: Remember that with 3 actions per turn, single action abilities are taking the place of Swift Actions. Going into a defensive stance with a shield is the same action cost as a combat style or other similar options. There are also feat chains that build off of the Raise a Shield action. Reactive Shield lets you use your Reaction to raise your shield when attacked instead, at the cost of not getting to make an attack of opportunity. This is very much a game mechanic and not a simulation mechanic.

    Sudden Charge: It's two Stride actions and a Strike action, basically letting you take 4 actions in a turn. That's why it isn't a universal option anymore. The 3.5 version of a Charge isn't required as the new action economy lets you do that normally. Stride > Stride > Strike
    Last edited by NightbringerGGZ; 2019-08-23 at 02:58 PM.
    WIP - Nightbringer's Guide to the Pathfinder Fighter
    Please send me any feedback you have! This is a huge undertaking as I'm evaluating all Combat Feats, a bunch of other feats and Combat Stamina too!.

  29. - Top - End - #689
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Rynjin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by NightbringerGGZ View Post

    Reactive Shield: Remember that with 3 actions per turn, single action abilities are taking the place of Swift Actions.
    This is...not accurate. Single actions are demonstrably not equivalent to Swift actions since Swift actions are not generally equivalent to an attack, and do not interfere with a full attack.

  30. - Top - End - #690
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Pathfinder 2 Release

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackhawk748 View Post
    Would still be nice if non combat stuff got mroe love I agree, but PF2 isn't doing a good job there either.
    I dunno about PF, but I know that 3.5 had quite a few really good feats for skills. Combat Panache, Silver Tongue, Wanderer's Diplomacy, and Imperious Command come to mind. The funny thing is that they were useful in a fight as well.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •