Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2nd Edition Game Trade Media Playtest Video

Ancalagon said:

that's a 40% difference. And there may be strength bonuses involved, and aren't they multiplied in PF? I don't think we know enough to make a reliable analysis yet... but one day we will.

Click to expand...

Oh, good point on the strength bonus.

Mostly what I’m trying to say is, without feat support, dual/wielding is all but useless and sword-and-board vs. 2-handed seems to be reasonably balanced, with 2-hander dishing out more damage and sword-and-board offering more defense and versatility.

Ancalagon said:

As someone with some experience* with sword and shield fighting... I don't know how I feel about this. You sacrifice an action to use your shield... but I can tell you that just holding your shield tight to you you already have denied your foe a lot of angles of attack (in fact, using your shield *too much* makes it easier for the foe to knock it out of alignment and creating an opening). (this was a fairly large shield, not a buckler, but not quite a tower shield either). So it's silly to me that you are sacrificing an action to use your shield!

On the other hand... part of learning how to use a shield is not just about learning how to use it for defense - it's learning how to attack while holding a shield. That thing gets in the way! You have to learn how strike without dropping your guard. It *is* a reduction of your offensive potential... but if you know what you are doing, the shield will hinder you far less than it hinders your foe.

Click to expand...

I'm looking at this in game terms. When you were learning the skills in real life, I doubt (hope) someone wasn't telling you how to use your three actions and only one opportunity to react on your opponent's turn.

At any rate, I think this is better than just having a passive bonus for just holding it, which anyone can technically do. The game only requires proficiency, which assumes the character is doing more than just holding it in front. But someone trained to fight and use one effectively as yourself, and like the fighter, can also use it to bash foes unexpectedly, throwing them off balance, shield nearby allies without losing his own footing, or whatever extra tricks he might learn so that is more than just a portable wall.

Game, not simulation. Now if only we can talk them out of using that stupid d20 mechanic...

Jacob Lewis said:

I'm looking at this in game terms. When you were learning the skills in real life, I doubt (hope) someone wasn't telling you how to use your three actions and only one opportunity to react on your opponent's turn.

At any rate, I think this is better than just having a passive bonus for just holding it, which anyone can technically do. The game only requires proficiency, which assumes the character is doing more than just holding it in front. But someone trained to fight and use one effectively as yourself, and like the fighter, can also use it to bash foes unexpectedly, throwing them off balance, shield nearby allies without losing his own footing, or whatever extra tricks he might learn so that is more than just a portable wall.

Click to expand...

There were tricks you could do, but I always felt that the game over-estimated the facility/utility of a shield as a weapon. A shield bash with the flat of the shield was really a *shoulder* bash, done with your shield held fairly close to you. If you over extend your shield it becomes vulnerable to being pushed/yanked out of alignment.

A shield rim bash had more range (and could do damage if you got someone in the face/neck/joint) but then you really are overextending your shield. It's only something you should ever do if your opponent's guard is way down ... and if that is the case, why aren't you hitting him with your sword?!?

Game, not simulation.

Click to expand...

Very fair. If I wanted a more realistic system, I would recommend warhammer frpg (2nd ed), not D&D

I just think it does help to give it a bit of thought when thinking about if it works. And well, I think it's not too crazy off base - and thus now we'll have to see how the game balance is. Basically the way I see it, if it passes the vaguely plausible line, then we can move on pass that and talk about game balance and *fun* - the system has to be fun to use!

For example, warhammer is waaay more realistic than d&d, but resolving an attack has way more steps... so less fun.

Now if only we can talk them out of using that stupid d20 mechanic...

Click to expand...

... hmm? Do you mean using a less swingy dice like 2d10 instead? I would be in favor of using 2d10 *outside* of combat. Combat is wild!

Arakasius said:

Where have they said in PF2 that its too powerful to cast 2 spells in a round? They already showed in the earlier preview that you could cast Shield and a 2 action spell in the same round. I don't see why that wouldn't scale if you got an extra action.

Click to expand...

I was presuming that there were very few 1 action spells.

Not in PF2 but in 3.0 it was an issue, that's why Haste was changed (either errata or by 3.5) so casters could not cast 2 spells per round.

I guess we will have to see how powerful this is and how it balances with the mundanes. Hopefully they do lots of playtesting around this.

Another comment on shields, realism and gaming: using 2 shields as a fighting style seems just plain wrong to me. (This was mentioned in an earlier post by Paizo). If I was GMing the game (probably won't ever happen) I wouldn't allow it, and I certainly won't use it as a player.

Edit: source: http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2018/03/pathfinder-2nd-edition-playtest-special/ said by Mona (from the compilation thread done by [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] )

Id like to see them introduce bucklers again. Smaller defensive bonus, but they have different maneuvers such as being able to bash and also to pin an opponents weapon

I thought I read previously that the shield could be a passive part of the AC or an action could be used to actively block or bash? Was this incorrect?

R_Chance said:

I thought I read previously that the shield could be a passive part of the AC or an action could be used to actively block or bash? Was this incorrect?

Click to expand...

From what we know so far, just having a shield does nothing. You have to spend an action every round to raise it and gain its AC bonus. If the shield is raised, you can use a reaction to block and reduce damage.

Nikosandros said:

From what we know so far, just having a shield does nothing. You have to spend an action every round to raise it and gain its AC bonus. If the shield is raised, you can use a reaction to block and reduce damage.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm short reading / watching time right now.
OK. Odd, I would think it would add to AC just be being on your arm. I can see an action to block / deflect or bash though, that makes sense. Well, we'll see how it goes.

Ancalagon said:

that's a 40% difference. And there may be strength bonuses involved, and aren't they multiplied in PF? (edit: I mean when using a two-handed weapon). I don't think we know enough to make a reliable analysis yet... but one day we will.

Click to expand...

So, after this conversation, I threw together a spreadheet to do a more detailed analysis that does take strength mod into account. I had to make a few assumptions (like, for example, that a natural 20 is still a crit even if it isn't 10 above the target number) and I didn't multiply the strength mod for 2-handed weapons, so this probably isn't 100% accurate. It also doesn't take into account things like Power Attack, or other abilities that might add damage on a hit. But it's a start.



The "X to hit" at the top refers to the required number to hit with the first attack. The damage values are cumulative, so for example the 15.4 expected damage from 2 attacks with a 2d6 weapon at 7 to hit includes the 9.9 expected damage from the first attack. I used +4 as the damage mod, since that's what everyone in the video seemed to have in their main stat.

What I'm seeing from this is that with any target number and any number of attacks, a 2-handed weapon puts out the the clear highest DPR, and that's assuming a 2-hander doesn't multiply the strength mod. If you're not using a 2-hander, then one d8 weapon is usually better than dual-wielding a d8 and a d6 nimble weapon unless you attack three times, though the difference is very small either way. A single d6 nimble weapon is of course always going to have lower raw DPR than a d8 non-nimble, even with three attacks, but it might be worth the trade off if hitting at all is more important than hitting hard, such as if you have something like Sneak Attack or your opponents have very low HP. What is absolutely certain though is if the defensive value of a shield is worth the damage drop off from a 2d6 2-hander to a 1d8 weapon, then it's absolutely not worth sacrificing that defensive value in favor of the very small damage increase from dual-wielding.

Now, it's probably safe to assume that there will be Feats that make dual-wielding worthwhile for those who want to invest in it (I expect probably some Weapon Proficiency Feats, and some Ranger Class Feats, if nothing else). But for anyone who isn't built for it, dual-wielding is pretty much only going to be useful as a backup for shield users if their shield breaks, or for characters who don't have Proficiency with shields or any decent 2-handers.