Alright, gonna try to make this the last time and just clarify a few things.
They are - although 4e bonuses normally start at +2. The thing is that 4e is not a perfect system and one of its flaws is that there are too many stacking modifiers by paragon tier. PF2e encourages a proliferation of +1s.
Yeah, but you are limited by how many you can actually use. So you can have one Circumstance bonus (Something you are doing about your situation, like raising a shield), one Item bonus, and one Status bonus (Spells and other buffs). The same applies to penalties, though there are "untyped" penalties which have no limit as to how many can be applied. These are largely your range and multiple attack penalties (so someone doesn't try getting out a person being in cover because the range penalty is bigger
).
So obviously you want to gain pluses, but you can't doomstack them by having multiple blesses and such.
I'm literally suggesting using the three action economy the way it was intended to be used and killing someone with an axe as one action and trying to demoralise someone as a second.
You mean Intimidating Strike? And not the same thing at all. I have no problem with Intimidating Strike existing. A two action combo trick that you use in combination with a standard attack action.
What I am saying is that anyone should be able to demoralize people non-verbally if they can communicate why they should be demoralised and spend the normal action.
That's a matter of communication. If a bard glares at people a lot of people are going to shrug. If a wizard threatens people non-verbally with fire or a fighter makes a mess of someone's friend they should be able to demoralize them.
There is room for an "Intimidating glare" feat; the problem is in the hyper-rigidity of the PF2e skills that require intimidation to be an auditory effect (and give a -4 penalty for cross-language intimidation)
Fixing this badly put together mess Demoralize should require some form of action or communication showing you have the ability. It should not require the flapping of gums. But Pathfinder 2e is an obnoxiously over-detailed system that details its skills as special cases.
This change would free up the Intimidating Glare feat to be just by glaring and not using any other form of communication.
Sorry, I was mixing up with what you were saying in regards to your order of actions, which is why I went to Intimidating Blow.
I feel like the restriction is fine, though we've had this discussion elsewhere and there's really nothing that says you can't allow it with a small circumstance penalty. As it stands, it's worth noting that with the tight math that the Frightened condition is particularly strong and I get why they might want to keep that on a leash.
Actually, I think this is somewhat covered.
I'd probably rule your attempts falling under that, having minimal auditory quality but still there.
Not much any more. I dropped in quite a bit to the board and didn't comment much to see if there was anything I found worthwhile about the system. And the three action economy was about it.
I mean, can't comment on it then. To me it's made combat flow so much more easily by comparison.
Someone did a version of the 4e brawler fighter in Pathfinder 2? Nice. (And having looked at some of the abilities that really looks like someone had fun playing the brawler fighter and decided to convert it). The biggest difference other than system I'd say is that the 4e brawler is very much about dragging their foes around as well as just grabbing and grappling them.
Yeah, the Wrestler is kind of about grapple damage and inflicting status effects. But it's easily one of my favorite archetypes, because creating wrestlers is a gimmick in my group.
So am I. My problem with PF 2e isn't that it's crunchy. I've used GURPS Vehicles in cold blood in the past. My problem with PF2e is that it doesn't seem to give me anything.
Ah, you "I need to have one army stronger than the other" crazyperson. But I suppose "adaptable" was a bad choice of words. I suppose my taste might be broader than yours, for better or worse. For you, I don't think it really fills what you want given that you're not big on 5E and already have 4E.
Would that be the traits that are just fluff or the ones that do something.
The weapon traits that you can find next to the attacks.
Honestly the points you've pointed out this post that I've liked have all been slightly watered down 4e. And no it won't replace 4e but I can see there's a bit more there than I thought even if it is borrowed from 4e.
I can't speak for 4E, but to me it runs closer to what I want from D&D. 4E has always been a curiosity for being such a drastic and interesting shift, but my one time playing it was just kind of rough. Admittedly it was the first adventure when it first came out, and as I understand it there were monster math problems at the start, right? I swear no one could hit anyone in that slap-fight of an encounter.
Good to see them taking more inspiration from 4e
Having looked at the dragons I think I like Draconic Momentum - but I'm not sure whether it's that meaningful given the action economy and the way you're likely to have already taken two actions to use Draconic Frenzy.
I mean, it's big. The Breath Weapon does not count for the Multiple Attack Penalty, which means you can light it off and it's way more likely at least cause damage equal to two of your strikes, if not more. And if someone is left within reach, you can whap them at no penalty.
Draconic Fury is good, but also somewhat limited: If you are using two actions to get three attacks, you'll want to make them better than just two regular attacks. So lead with Horns (your weakest attack) and use the Agile Claws to try and get two more. However, if they're spread you'll have fewer options since your Claws are your shortest range attack. If you have a decent enough bonus on who you're fighting, you can attempt to crit-fish and get your Breath weapon back, which is why if you are a spellcaster or not is meaningful, as it can steal one of your best options to get your breath weapon back. You better be good at magic.
On the other end, Tail is obviously useful for a long range strike depending on where you are at while Jaws are the damage-dealer if you have someone in range, and with a crit can easily be more damaging than three regular attacks, though obviously focused on a single target. Depending on what you want or can do, each is going to have their uses... except for Horns, which you're only going to want to use with Draconic Fury unless you feel like styling on someone.
For the record here's the Young Black Dragon from Monster Vault
View attachment 147519
Yes, the tail sweep is different for the different colours. So is the instinctive action (which IME really sells that this is a king of monsters) and the acid blood equivalent. (The main awkward symbol is the sword in the circle by bite - that indicates it's a melee basic attack so you can use it on a charge or opportunity attack; you get an unlimited number of opportunity actions but only one immediate action per round).
Yeah, any time you get a free attack it'll be the bite. I do know a
little bit.
But I think the big thing here is that the numbers being played with are very different. Pathfinder 2E combat is generally 3-5 turns, give or take. The hitpoints on that Young Dragon are nearly equal to the HP on the Adult Dragon for PF2, which means you probably need a bit more going on if you don't want things to get dull.
I will say the Ancient Dragons start to get into crazier territory (again, outside of maybe the Black Dragon) as the players start to get crazier as well. The Blue creates thunderclouds which can zap you with lightning as well as being able to fire its breath weapon from the illusory double it can create (which is hilarious since it has burrowing). The Green creates a miasma that hurts and conceals when it uses its breath, and both the White and Red have a ton of tricks similar to what you show off here.
And Black gets Darkness. Though Befouling Water can really mess up a party if they are relying on potions... or you want to pick on an Alchemist.
The non-classic dragons like the Elementals and Imperial dragons are a bit better, which makes sense given that they are from later books. Their best forms are very much their Ancient ones, especially the Magma Dragon's Molton Loogie Prison.
I'm not sure what makes people feel it is all that revolutionary. I mean, 4e has action types, PF2e has action COSTS, its not all that much different. I think the PF2e approach might sometimes give you slightly more complicated choices. So, like in 4e if you have a minor action effect, there's no question, you can do it or not, but normally it won't be a choice between that and making some bigger splashier main attack, whereas in PF2e that might be an option (IE make a 3 action attack or a 2 action attack and something else that takes one action). Is that a GOOD thing? I mean, it eliminates the concept of action types (at least for in-turn actions, PF2e still has free actions and off-turn actions) but replaces it with "action cost" instead.
I'll just close by saying that in HoML I did away with the minor action. It was always too tempting to design in extra attacks and such. If something is really trivial its a free action anyway, and if it isn't, then its a standard! Likewise with bonuses, HoML has ONE situational adjustment, advantage/disadvantage, and that is it. There are fixed bonuses from 4 sources (level, proficiency, permanent, and ability), and they NEVER STACK. You just take the best one you have, and they don't change, unless the character itself changes. Things run WAY quicker this way! People don't worry about little stuff, they go for the tactical 'breakers', the things that give advantage! My game design motto is to not sweat the little stuff, if something isn't "oh WOW!" then its just taking up space and should go away
.
I mean, it's not exactly revolutionary because as I understand it, the action system was in Pathfinder Unchained.
But what's amazing is that it really cleans up so much confusion about what you can do, as well as avoiding that whole "Searching for a Bonus Action" idea that comes up. When everything is an action, a player just can more clearly see what they can and can't do, and thus it's balanced less on "Do I have the right kind of actions" and more "Do I have
enough actions". It might not sound big, but in practice it just feels very smooth.
And that modification of modifiers sounds quite nice.
