Search results

I'm waiting on a game to standardize on the 37.5 inch (95.25 cm) "meter-yard" or "yard-meter" that makes everyone equally happy and uncomfortable at the same time. Settings like Golarion can have their own standard.

Whoa now, or I'll drag my club, and my knuckles, out of here. We finally got Geico to drop the "so easy a caveman can do it" and now you say this. Sheesh.

In the Playtest we never really saw a Cleric get a chance to unleash a powerful attack. It was a given that a Boss was clobbering somebody each round and that the Cleric was going to be putting them back together. But your numbers do illustrate that a character with both a 2H and S&B options...

Thanks for the analysis. The S&B did better than I would have thought. But a more likely fight for us is a party of 6 characters fighting 1 boss. Assuming a Wizard and a Cleric this leaves 2-4 melee types. What puts the boss down faster? The Cleric will keep whoever tanks on their feet.

They were in house rules all the way back. I remember a DM using them when running the original Boot Hill back in the 1970s.

This is the result of a plot by the junk food industry. ;)

Its looks useful for those who do things by hand. We tend to use automation. Still, it is a handy reference. For instance, page two does a nice job of indicating when you'll be asked to pick something like a Feat.

And here I thought when somebody suggested "PF2 is Paizo's 4E" they were saying it like "PF2 is Paizo's Waterloo" implying that PF2 might be a flop because it didn't capture as large an audience as expected.

That's an impressive wall of text. Where did I put my adamantine reading glasses?

Err yeh, sorry. I slipped back into PF1 thinking there about DR. You're right.

Agreed. That does seem to be the design intent. Players at our table routinely came to the conclusion outbound damage was worth more. I don't know that any of them performed any deep analysis. In one scenario there was a Paladin who made great use of their shield.

Certainly. From a to-hit perspective, the magic weapon bonus is irrelevant assuming the magic armor bonus is realized at the same time. In the Playtest, the magic armor bonus was usually available 1 level earlier than the magic weapon bonus, but that's from memory. In terms of damage, even a...

And that may have been true of the Playtest too. I don't recall how high they went. The important part is that magic weapon damage improves by the item's dice, not its bonus.

I'd argue armor would be more apropos for absorbing damage and a shield for AC, but that's neither here nor there. That is certainly an alternative, though the longsword damage in the same amount as the greatsword, so the greatsword becomes even more likely to be the weapon of choice because...

Sorry? Err, um, my mistake. ;) I suspect the dilemma the designers faced was balancing the magic weapon bonuses against the magic armor bonuses, and then not having some offensive to-hit bonus to put against a magic shield AC bonus.

In PF1, a +5 two-handed weapon would do something like 1d12+5. In PF2, a +5 two-handed weapon would do something like 5d12. A PF2, the differences in damage based on the die-size of the weapon separate significantly as the magical bonus advances. This lets magic weapons keep up with spell...

I'd say we found the martials were really good in melee and the casters did well at range. Multi-classing a Wizard into Fighter made for a consistently potent character in any situation. It is easy to make an ineffective martial character: wield a dagger. Because of the way magic item damage...

It seemed to me to hearken back to various systems where you paid for training. The costs were coin and time. You're certainly free to reject a game based on its system -- I do it all the time -- regardless of if there is a method to the madness. Back in the days when I encountered such...

I have no idea, though perhaps others on the board have heard...?

That's an interesting perspective. I wouldn't have called it a patch, but I get your meaning. I do appreciate that I can use the rules to make monsters/NPCs. I like having the option. I just don't feel bound to always use them. When it comes to PF2, I may not be a fan, but I can appreciate why...