The Gaming Den

So, apparently, in Playtest details, you get critical damage if beat AC by 10 now.

Wonder how they make Longsword better than battleaxe's than since higher Crit damage is usually better if no Critical chance increase.

Either they forget to do anything about that and it's scythes all the way down, or they remove that and everything is a x2 crit and you just try to find the weapon with the best base damage or something.

Weapons with high crit multiplier tend to be weapons with good armor penetration in history (picks, axe will have more focused impact than a sword, etc.)

It feels weird that the pick is better than a scimitar against people not wearing any armor.

On that topic are there any quick patches to PF to add in armor penetration quality of weaponry?

Slade wrote:So, apparently, in Playtest details, you get critical damage if beat AC by 10 now.

Wonder how they make Longsword better than battleaxe's than since higher Crit damage is usually better if no Critical chance increase.

Perhaps they'll make longswords and such "swift" weapons that reduce the penalty for making multiple attacks, because of course...of course...sword guy has to pay for being a stupid jock and not an AP trigonomancy student. Of course. This is actually really good design, because otherwise sword guy might be doing too much hit point damage in a system where attrition is a sucker's game.

Or maybe they do nothing because they're Paizo. Their fans could open their $60 deluxe hardback playtest books to find it hollowed out with a dead bird in the middle, and they would still crawl over broken glass to hurl themselves into a bonfire because they took the time to write about a fucking bugbear who likes pickles.

GnomeWorks wrote:At least in 4e, there was the idea that you could only convert some actions into others. Standards to moves, yes, but not moves to standards.

Action economy is one of the few things they got right in 4e. They understood a buff isn't worth as much as an attack, hence, many class may spend a quick action to get a bullshit bonus : the bonus is bullshit, but activating it doesn't reduce their damage output.

In Pathfinder 2, who will ever cast a buff ? You may spend two actions to cast Bless and get a +1 to hit and you'll be repaid after 40 attacks (that is, never), or you may attack. Twice.

Anyway, it's Pathfinder. Many of those suckers actually believe using "aid another" is a valid choice of action. They will spend two attacks giving bullshit bonuses and they will be happy about it.

OgreBattle wrote: On that topic are there any quick patches to PF to add in armor penetration quality of weaponry?

2E Combat & Tactics did a bit with that for crossbows and firearms. Depending on your range category, you could ignore 2/5/all of your opponent's armor bonus to AC.

So, a quick port could be a similar principle, where you'd have a property like Armor Piercing: X. You'd ignore up to X points of Armor or Natural Armor bonus to AC (and maybe Shield?). Perhaps it penetrates X points of Hardness and DR, too?

It'd be yet another fiddly thing to keep track of that could be situationally awesome or useless, but I guess we're talking about Pathfinder, anyway...

GâtFromKI wrote:

GnomeWorks wrote:At least in 4e, there was the idea that you could only convert some actions into others. Standards to moves, yes, but not moves to standards.

Action economy is one of the few things they got right in 4e. They understood a buff isn't worth as much as an attack, hence, many class may spend a quick action to get a bullshit bonus : the bonus is bullshit, but activating it doesn't reduce their damage output.

In Pathfinder 2, who will ever cast a buff ? You may spend two actions to cast Bless and get a +1 to hit and you'll be repaid after 40 attacks (that is, never), or you may attack. Twice.

Anyway, it's Pathfinder. Many of those suckers actually believe using "aid another" is a valid choice of action. They will spend two attacks giving bullshit bonuses and they will be happy about it.

Playing devil advocate a bit here, they already said lesser spells may only cost 1 action with the example of magic missile. And then you can spend more actions for extra missiles.

RobbyPants wrote:

OgreBattle wrote: On that topic are there any quick patches to PF to add in armor penetration quality of weaponry?

2E Combat & Tactics did a bit with that for crossbows and firearms. Depending on your range category, you could ignore 2/5/all of your opponent's armor bonus to AC.

So, a quick port could be a similar principle, where you'd have a property like Armor Piercing: X. You'd ignore up to X points of Armor or Natural Armor bonus to AC (and maybe Shield?). Perhaps it penetrates X points of Hardness and DR, too?

It'd be yet another fiddly thing to keep track of that could be situationally awesome or useless, but I guess we're talking about Pathfinder, anyway...

PF guns hit touch in first increment or first five with advanced, IIRC.

Mask_De_H wrote: PF guns hit touch in first increment or first five with advanced, IIRC.

Is there an English translation of this available?

Iduno wrote:

Mask_De_H wrote:PF guns hit touch in first increment or first five with advanced, IIRC.

Is there an English translation of this available?

In the Pathfinder RPG, they have rules for firearms. These ranged weapons only need to hit their target's Touch AC to strike for damage, so long as the target is within the firearm's first range increment (typically about 30'). Attacks made past the first range increment target standard AC like every other ranged weapon, such as bows. There exist options to enhance this trait such that you can target Touch ACs for distances up to five range increments.

virgil wrote:

Iduno wrote:

Mask_De_H wrote:PF guns hit touch in first increment or first five with advanced, IIRC.

Is there an English translation of this available?

In the Pathfinder RPG, they have rules for firearms. These ranged weapons only need to hit their target's Touch AC to strike for damage, so long as the target is within the firearm's first range increment (typically about 30'). Attacks made past the first range increment target standard AC like every other ranged weapon, such as bows. There exist options to enhance this trait such that you can target Touch ACs for distances up to five range increments.

Thank you. That makes sense, at least for what it is.

I'm glad that the first set of previews for Pathfinder 2e show that they fundamentally don't understand good design, or people, or what makes this kind of game fun.

On the plus side, doubling down on the mistakes of previous editions will be a great educational lesson for the public.

That implies people learn from their mistakes in TTRPGs, K.

K wrote:I'm glad that the first set of previews for Pathfinder 2e show that they fundamentally don't understand good design, or people, or what makes this kind of game fun.

On the plus side, doubling down on the mistakes of previous editions will be a great educational lesson for the public.

Okay, color me intrigued. What could they have possibly done worse than what we've already seen shared around on here?

When Pathfinder 2e drops, WotC should do a big pdf release of D&D3e with new modules

How's this for an overly-specific feat?

Take the 4th-level feat Quick Reversal, for example. If you are being flanked and you miss with your second or third attack against one of the flankers, this feat lets you redirect the attack to the other target and reroll it, possibly turning a miss into a hit!

It looks like there's a whole bunch of stuff (including the ability to make AoOs at all, or the ability to get a benefit from charging) gated behind feats now. That may keep the base combat system simpler, I'm not sure. It'll be interesting to see whether feats of magical classes are as extremely specific as the fighter feat above.

OgreBattle wrote:When Pathfinder 2e drops, WotC should do a big pdf release of D&D3e with new modules

I suspect WotC is earning a decent chunk of its money from 3.x (and earlier) .pdf sales on RPGNow right now.

Orca wrote:How's this for an overly-specific feat?

Take the 4th-level feat Quick Reversal, for example. If you are being flanked and you miss with your second or third attack against one of the flankers, this feat lets you redirect the attack to the other target and reroll it, possibly turning a miss into a hit!

It looks like there's a whole bunch of stuff (including the ability to make AoOs at all, or the ability to get a benefit from charging) gated behind feats now. That may keep the base combat system simpler, I'm not sure. It'll be interesting to see whether feats of magical classes are as extremely specific as the fighter feat above.

I'm guessing they aren't making the system any simpler. Technically being Flanked isn't a continuous state in 3rd edition, you only have it while you are being attacked. This is important because it's very possible to be threatened by 3 enemies where two of them flank and the third does not and you are flanked during the attacks of the two that flank you and you are not flanked during the attacks of the one that doesn't. That means that Elusive Target technically functions, because it triggers during an opponent's attack while you are flanked. But Quick Reversal would do nothing because you aren't flanked while you are the one doing the attacking.

I find it very likely that Pathfinder 2 is not radically re-imagining the way Flanking works, and that Quick Reversal is simply an ability that doesn't work in the rules as written at all. It wouldn't be the first time that the chucklefucks writing shovelware feats for Pathfinder wrote a feat that negated a penalty that didn't exist or allowed you to perform an action that was already legal or let you spend from a reserve that would definitionally be empty when triggered or in some other way did not and could not do anything.

-Username17

In PF2 "Flanked" is a condition you have when there are enemies in a flanking position around you, and it gives you a -2 penalty to AC (or attackers a +2 bonus to hit... I don't remember and it doesn't make a difference). It doesn't go away until they're no longer there. Even creatures that aren't flanking you benefit from you being flanked.

No one posted the link to the preview of the new fighter: here.

It seems so... Bland.

So uninteresting, I can't even say it's bad. If the other previews are in the same vein, I think this thread should be renamed "Pathfinder 2 is bland".

So there's the fighter. He can deal damages in a 5-feet-radius. He has feats. The feat allowing AoO is given to him, but he needs a feat to charge. There's power attack also, it add a few damages at the cost of an attack (... lol).

At level 13 the fighter becomes legendary and he's the best with a weapon. At level 19 he becomes a legend. That's not the same as legendary, and I guess he's even better with weapon, so he's better than being the best. A feat he can take a legendary level allows him to raise his shield when a dragon uses his fire breath. Because raising his shield is totally a legendary action.

I guess "legendary" is actually the Path equivalent of 4e's "Parangon": a buzzword with no meaning at all.


This whole preview is so... bland... uninteresting... boring... Path2 doesn't even seem bad or worse than Path or better, it seems only boring and useless.

GâtFromKI wrote: At level 13 the fighter becomes legendary and he's the best with a weapon. At level 19 he becomes a legend. That's not the same as legendary, and I guess he's even better with weapon, so he's better than being the best.

The link says at level 13 they're a legend with one weapon, and with all simple and martial weapons at level 19.

RobbyPants wrote:The link says at level 13 they're a legend with one weapon, and with all simple and martial weapons at level 19.

Yes.

And since he's using only one weapon at a time, and two weapons total (a sword and a bow), the level 19 doesn't look very special if the bonus does not increase. Who cares about his proficiency with wooden stake when he has a +5 holy vorpal sword ?

(Actually, the link says at level 13 "his proficiency rank becomes legendary". So "legendary" is just a technical word meaning "your bonus is +5" ; it has nothing to do with being a legend.)

In theory a unified Maths system seems alright (Target number should essentially always be directly level based as opposed to Saves, Skills, and Attacks all following their own scale ratio), of course, they are going at this completly backwards.

If having a +10 Attack bonus over the wizard didn't make the fighter feel like a legend in Pathfinder 1e, what makes them think that having a +5 attack bonus over the wizard will be so much more satisfactory?

Shrieking Banshee wrote:If having a +10 Attack bonus over the wizard didn't make the fighter feel like a legend in Pathfinder 1e, what makes them think that having a +5 attack bonus over the wizard will be so much more satisfactory?

There are enough people who will agree just because they are told 5>10, that I quickly lose whatever misplaced faith I've ever had in humanity. They don't need to put in effort to make a good game, they just need to put in a lesser amount of effort to attract idiots. I mean, if not being incompetent was necessary, they wouldn't have put Mearls in charge of tying his own shoes, let alone given him a second edition of D&D (and JH for Shadowrun, and really a frightening number of lead devs).

GâtFromKI wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:The link says at level 13 they're a legend with one weapon, and with all simple and martial weapons at level 19.

Yes.

And since he's using only one weapon at a time, and two weapons total (a sword and a bow), the level 19 doesn't look very special if the bonus does not increase. Who cares about his proficiency with wooden stake when he has a +5 holy vorpal sword ?

(Actually, the link says at level 13 "his proficiency rank becomes legendary". So "legendary" is just a technical word meaning "your bonus is +5" ; it has nothing to do with being a legend.)

I wasn't saying either ability was good. I was correcting your mischaracterization that 19 was him becoming "even better with weapon" and thus "better than being the best".