The Gaming Den

deaddmwalking wrote:I am baffled why an item that Patrick gives his companions counts against his 'wealth by level'.

While Wealth By Level is reported per individual, it is inherently a collective concept. What it is is the total usable items found or purchasable with found monies by the party divided among the members of the party. So the statement "increases the character's wealth by level by X" and the statement "increases the party's wealth by level by X" are completely interchangeable. That we choose to talk about Wealth by Level per individual rather than per party is a wholly arbitrary choice. There are advantages and disadvantages to doing it that way, but the choice doesn't really matter in terms of the results the numbers have.

So if one of the characters is 10,000 gold above their wealth by level guidelines and another character is 10,000 gold below their wealth by level guidelines, the players are still at their wealth by level guideline point. If you arbitrarily announce that one character's wealth by level target is 10,000 gold higher, it doesn't actually matter who on the team gets the goods for that guideline to be achieved. All the extra equipment could go to the character in question, or to another character, or it could all be split evenly so that five different characters get a bonus 2,000 gp item. It genuinely doesn't matter.

Now there are a lot of problems with Wealth By Level. The numbers don't actually output the kinds of equipment that characters should actually have when facing level appropriate opposition at most levels. The entire concept is based on the idea that the MC is in essentially full control of the wealth acquisition of the player characters, which requires believing that the players of mercenary treasure hunter and inquisitive artificers have no agency at all in whether and how much treasure and gizmos their characters acquire and build. So WBL numbers are bad and probably aren't enforceable anyway.

Such that WBL guidelines have any purpose, it is to act as an objective measure for claiming that an MC is being too stingy, too monty haul, or displaying too much or too little favoritism to one of the characters. But again and still, that's all a question of placed treasure. WBL guidelines aren't so much about what you get, but whether the DM should give you any more. And from that perspective, whether the players have decided to stash all their magic items on Kevin or not doesn't really enter into it.

-Username17

So they limited Barbarians to 3 rounds rage then you are fatigued a round.
After that round, you can rage again. It comes with Temp hps that regen every rage. You can always rerage.

Totem's are free choice at 1st, but again we seem to be limited to one. Also all come with a penalty (Anthama).

So I guess that means Pathfinder's decided that the barbarian aesthetic needs to revolve around being winded. Because I know I can't envision someone pulling from their wellspring of rage not panting heavily and needing a break afterward...

I mean, I don't have a problem with the idea of barbarians being winded after their rage, I more have a problem with them being winded after 18 seconds of rage.

It's eighteen seconds of rage, then six seconds of panting, then another eighteen seconds of rage, then six seconds of panting... so basically while probably workable as an idea (putting aside what the benefits of Rage are), it's also incredibly stupid. It's more like something that might happen in a comedy scene in a Jackie Chan movie or Men in Tights or something.

I like the way the preview seems to be written to convey as few information as possible.

a barbarian can enter a rage that drastically increases her damage and grants her a significant booster shot of temporary Hit Points, in exchange for a –1 penalty to AC and the inability to use concentrate actions unless they specifically have the rage trait (note, this means that somatic-only spells are now possible in a rage!).

So you get +$TEXAS to damage and HP. But remember, in P2 "Legendary" means "+3 on a D20, ie ~0.5 * sigma"; I wouldn't be surprised if $TEXAS = 2. And I don't think anyone would be actually surprised - peoples expectations are so low...

The barbarian can't use the "concentrate actions", unless they have "rage trait". The definition of a "concentrate action" is left as an exercise to the reader - but somehow this doesn't include spells with somatic component only. Or maybe it does, but those spells have the "rage trait" ? Maybe "concentrate actions" include other spell. Maybe not. Maybe a lot a spells have the "rage trait". At that point, I'm not sure I care anymore - and that's the first section of the preview (barring the introduction).

I read that differently, the "they" referring to the barbarian, not the actions. IE, Barbarians get Rage Traits, like PF1 Rage Powers, and one allows them to take Concentrate actions.

Though your interpretation seems more likely given how terrible PF2 is looking.

Prak wrote:I read that differently, the "they" referring to the barbarian, not the actions. IE, Barbarians get Rage Traits, like PF1 Rage Powers, and one allows them to take Concentrate actions.

Oh, yes, this is another possible interpretation.

In term of grammar, the preview uses the singular for "barbarian" while "concentration actions" is plural. Hence "they" may refer to "concentration actions" but not to "a barbarian". But I wouldn't be surprised if the author used "they" to refer to the barbarian because he doesn't give a single fuck to grammar.

I'm guessing that some spells don't require 'concentration' - possibly spells that don't require any type of ongoing control or management. So maybe barbarians can cast fireball (not that they can typically cast spells, but Paizo will tease you that multi-classing a caster is viable when it is not), but not comprehend languages. Or maybe I have no way of guessing what 'requires concentration' and it'll be completely random.

GâtFromKI wrote:

Prak wrote:I read that differently, the "they" referring to the barbarian, not the actions. IE, Barbarians get Rage Traits, like PF1 Rage Powers, and one allows them to take Concentrate actions.

Oh, yes, this is another possible interpretation.

In term of grammar, the preview uses the singular for "barbarian" while "concentration actions" is plural. Hence "they" may refer to "concentration actions" but not to "a barbarian". But I wouldn't be surprised if the author used "they" to refer to the barbarian because he doesn't give a single fuck to grammar.

*ahem*

They can be singular. It is the english pronoun when referring to someone of unknown/undisclosed gender.

Prak wrote:

GâtFromKI wrote:

Prak wrote:I read that differently, the "they" referring to the barbarian, not the actions. IE, Barbarians get Rage Traits, like PF1 Rage Powers, and one allows them to take Concentrate actions.

Oh, yes, this is another possible interpretation.

In term of grammar, the preview uses the singular for "barbarian" while "concentration actions" is plural. Hence "they" may refer to "concentration actions" but not to "a barbarian". But I wouldn't be surprised if the author used "they" to refer to the barbarian because he doesn't give a single fuck to grammar.

*ahem*

They can be singular. It is the english pronoun when referring to someone of unknown/undisclosed gender.

The barbarian in the above quote has already been referred to using "her." It's pretty much unheard of to go from a gender specific pronoun to the generic "they" in the same paragraph, in reference to the same person.

Pedantic wrote:

Prak wrote:

GâtFromKI wrote: Oh, yes, this is another possible interpretation.

In term of grammar, the preview uses the singular for "barbarian" while "concentration actions" is plural. Hence "they" may refer to "concentration actions" but not to "a barbarian". But I wouldn't be surprised if the author used "they" to refer to the barbarian because he doesn't give a single fuck to grammar.

*ahem*

They can be singular. It is the english pronoun when referring to someone of unknown/undisclosed gender.

The barbarian in the above quote has already been referred to using "her." It's pretty much unheard of to go from a gender specific pronoun to the generic "they" in the same paragraph, in reference to the same person.

It's actually insanely common, because you write the class mechanics first, and then someone else comes up with the sample barbarian, and then you go back and change all the pronouns and sometimes forget some.

I had completely missed the "her," to be honest.

Mismatching pronouns would hardly be a first for an RPG or for Pathfinder specifically. Nevertheless, it seems highly likely that they are saying that some Concentration actions have the [Rage] trait, which means you can use them in a Rage. I have no fucking idea why you'd want to do that, considering that Concentration actions are distinct from other actions in that they can't be used while in a Rage. Presumably there's some other effects of them (for example: not being able to maintain two Concentration actions at a time unless you have the "two at a time" trait).

In any case, bad wording aside, this Rage is pretty similar to various versions of Rage we've had since 2nd edition AD&D if not before. So I honestly can't get that excited about it one way or the other. The only red flag in the whole description is the fact that the AC penalty is only -1, which means that they are doubling down on modifiers that are too small for me to care about.

-Username17

Oh hey look, don't you think that the ability to bypass damage resistance, and seemingly not even all of it, at level 19, about 16 levels after damage resistance starts appearing regularly, is awesome?

Also, a class that is naturally suited to be a straightforward vehicle for noobs still totally needs fiddly round- and temporary hp-counting, number-tweaking mechanics.

Koumei wrote:It's eighteen seconds of rage, then six seconds of panting, then another eighteen seconds of rage, then six seconds of panting... so basically while probably workable as an idea (putting aside what the benefits of Rage are), it's also incredibly stupid. It's more like something that might happen in a comedy scene in a Jackie Chan movie or Men in Tights or something.

They wanted to recreate Mr. Furious from Mystery Men. He rages for only 18 secs of pure rage before he stops I think.

Maybe it'd be more than three rounds if there was some way for non-spellcasters to have defenses. Or maybe the devs just aren't thinking of the implications of what they're making.

WiserOdin032402 wrote:Or maybe the devs just aren't thinking of the implications of what they're making.

Yeah. Maybe. Also, maybe the core dice mechanic will be d20+modifiers. Maybe.

So Monk don't get Wis AC bonus from being unarmored.
They get graceful expertise so Expert in being unarmored: so +1 I guess if I remember how the mastery system works. Everyone else is trained in being unarmored.

They deal +1 increase die unarmed strike (so 1d6 again) and no penalty nonlethal.

Chain shirt is only +2 AC and Touch so I guess they aren't that far behind in AC.
Flurry of Blows is a single action that deals 2 unarmed strike (1/rd).
So you can do 4 attacks or move and attack trice or some other combo.
Unarmed Strike have Agile property so -4, -8 from multiple attacks.

At 3rd level, Unarmed Strike are Magical and you get Expert proficiency with Unarmed.
You get Unarmored Proficiency master at 13th level and then to legendary at 17th.

Still gets speed increase if not wearing armor. Honestly, for first few levels you'll likely want to unless there are awesome unarmored feats.
After all, Expert status is more important than AC bonus.

Honestly, at this point, it really seems like FATE would be a better system for the people who enjoy the small scale of 5E/Pf2.

Like... I get that there is a market who enjoys the narrative-focused, small numbers games. And watching Dice Friends from Loading Ready Run, I can see the desirability of the narrative flexibility.

But, seriously, if you want a game with a high focus on narrative, and a very constricted RNG, and a very small number and degrees of modifier...

We have that. It's called FATE. And your basketweaving barbarian-thief swamp elf can have whatever abilities you and your gm agree on the stats of.

Prak wrote:Honestly, at this point, it really seems like FATE would be a better system for the people who enjoy the small scale of 5E/Pf2.

Like... I get that there is a market who enjoys the narrative-focused, small numbers games. And watching Dice Friends from Loading Ready Run, I can see the desirability of the narrative flexibility.

But, seriously, if you want a game with a high focus on narrative, and a very constricted RNG, and a very small number and degrees of modifier...

We have that. It's called FATE. And your basketweaving barbarian-thief swamp elf can have whatever abilities you and your gm agree on the stats of.

I don't think that there is a big secret to what the intent was with the 5e bounded accuracy and what the hell pathfinder is doing.

High level play in D&D basically sucks. Nobody understands it, most DMs find it impossible to challenge players, and generally the game breaks down.

There is also no real analog to what high level D&D play is like in literature either. High level play is not really like greek myth or classical epics. It isn't like modern fantasy literature. It isn't like comic books. So there are no analogs for what stories for high level D&D characters should look like.

By comparison, mid level D&D generally functions and tells stories with understandable stakes and players and DM's generally can come up with reasonable challenges.

5e and the cluster that pf2e is turning into are built with the idea that if you make the numbers smaller and tweak the spell system you can make high level play more like low to mid level play. I don't think it really helped with 5e considering that there are no written adventures for level 15+. I am not thinking it will do much in pf2e either. However, I can understand why they want to extend the playable portion of the game.

Wrong. Problems with "high-level DnD" as opposed to "mid-level DnD" were either perceived rather than real, or boiled down to obvious pieces of bad design that clearly aren't going to be fixed in PF2E.

As about the perceived problem, 80% of the stuff that actually broke campaigns in half if used as written came online by level 9. Higher-level spells added some interesting bells and whistles, but really only Astral Projection, Gate and Shapechange, maybe Shades, were the major bombs.

As about the real problems, there were two main ones (once you realized that fighters just suck in general and should not be played at low levels too) - RNG inherently falling apart due to mounting differences in BAB/save progressions, and complexity overload, with the latter being more important. Designers of PF2E seem to be putting some effort to fix the former, while making the latter worse.

As about high-level DnD being not like anything, there are several reasons for that. One is unfixable - stories that usually center on just a single character and involve heavy use of narrative tropes aren't well suited to be emulated in a game meant to be, you know, a game for a party of four, with outcomes of conflicts determined by comparative numbers and chance, and with every turn and twist in a fight taking substantial time to calculate at the table, instead of 30 seconds needed to read a description in a book. Others are fixable, but are not fixed because DnD takes nearly all of its inspiration from itself ever since Gygax has left. In any case, Paizo's designers clearly have no desire to fix high-level play in the first place, because just as not not comfortable with allowing characters to actually do something significant narratively, as with entrusting mechanics that actually do something to them. All or almost all of their adventures are good deal smaller in scale than a typical fantasy book plot - or, to think of it, even an atypical fantasy book plot, where PCs are mercenary grunts or witless dupes of the evil overlord - even if they have a doomsday plot device tacked on at the end (which PCs are supposed to defuse, so that nothing would actually happen in the end), and they get fits every time it is suggested that maybe PC should be strong enough to actually repaint the world map.

Tl;dr, the main reason they are constantly toning down what is allowed the system is not mathematical/gameplay problems (which are likely to be even worse in PF2E) the system allowing things too awesome for the stories they want to sell.

Also - if you haven't read Feists' Riftwar Trilogy, you only have yourself to blame. That's high-level DnD, right there. True, Milamber doesn't throw down the top-end spells all that often, but definitely has access to them (Time Trap,Gate, etc)[/i]

If your name is "Pug" you are not high level. That's just a brutal fact of life.

Malazan Book of the Fallen is good high-level D&D esque material.

infected slut princess wrote:If your name is "Pug" you are not high level. That's just a brutal fact of life.

I don't know how many low level casters are throwing moons at people, but if they are out there I want to play in those games.