# Pathfinder 2 Character Sheet #4: Seelah, Human Paladin



## Kaodi (Jul 16, 2018)

What does this Natural Ambition feat do? Valeros had it as well, and it says the stats were included in the sheets. But I oblivious as to how.


----------



## Blue (Jul 16, 2018)

Interesting how Lay on Hands has multiple feats to adjust it - if that's true everywhere that gives a nice level of customization that characters can be very different even if the same class.

I'm all for off-table customization options - give a lot of choices to the players outside of a session when creating and advancing a character.  And looking at how they are built, they get factored right in so it doesn't increase at-table complexity at all.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jul 16, 2018)

Blue said:


> Interesting how Lay on Hands has multiple feats to adjust it - if that's true everywhere that gives a nice level of customization that characters can be very different even if the same class.
> 
> I'm all for off-table customization options - give a lot of choices to the players outside of a session when creating and advancing a character.  And looking at how they are built, they get factored right in so it doesn't increase at-table complexity at all.




As long as the option list doesn't overwhelm the players with choice paralysis. A medium amount of significant choices at every level would be ideal, I think.


----------



## mellored (Jul 16, 2018)

Kaodi said:


> What does this Natural Ambition feat do? Valeros had it as well, and it says the stats were included in the sheets. But I oblivious as to how.



It seems to be a human feat that give an extra class feat.


----------



## Hurin88 (Jul 16, 2018)

Must act with honor eh? I guess she won't be using her Pickpocket skill much then.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 16, 2018)

Hurin88 said:


> Must act with honor eh? I guess she won't be using her Pickpocket skill much then.




Considering it's at -2, I'd argue that's exactly the case.  Nice character history flavor though.


----------



## Eryndur (Jul 16, 2018)

Can someone remind me what the formula is for starting HP?


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 16, 2018)

Hurin88 said:


> Must act with honor eh? I guess she won't be using her Pickpocket skill much then.



Yeah, I noticed that too... Thanks to the hierarchy of the Paladin’s code of conduc though, it is technically possible to use Pickpocket without violating the code, but only if doing so would prevent an innocent from coming to harm. I could maybe see that happening if she like... nick a vial is poison off of someone if she knew they were about to use it to kill an innocent? I dunno, seems like a waste of her 1st level Skill Feat. Then again, I suppose it’s there just for flavor. She was an urchin as a child after all.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 16, 2018)

Eryndur said:


> Can someone remind me what the formula is for starting HP?




Ancestry HP (which is 8 for humans) + Class HP (10 for Paladins) + Con mod.


----------



## Eryndur (Jul 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Ancestry HP (which is 8 for humans) + Class HP (10 for Paladins) + Con mod.




Ah, thank you!


----------



## Blue (Jul 16, 2018)

FitzTheRuke said:


> As long as the option list doesn't overwhelm the players with choice paralysis. A medium amount of significant choices at every level would be ideal, I think.




You make a good point.  The "1" in "Feat 1" makes me think that they phase in Feats over time (well, levels).  So you have a reasonable amount of options at first, and later progression would only be adding in a controlled amount of new choices each time.


----------



## Finrod_Shaelara (Jul 16, 2018)

At least the background is not another Farmhand. I was beginning to think Assurance Athletics was a must have feat. It may still be.


----------



## Nutation (Jul 16, 2018)

I see Seelah is a leftie in this version. (She has been portrayed both ways.)


----------



## mellored (Jul 16, 2018)

Weren't paladin's supposed to have a higher AC than fighters?


----------



## techno (Jul 16, 2018)

Not sure I want to track damage to shields (dents) in detail. That seems *more* fiddly than even Pathfinder 1. Isn't this supposed to be an easier, faster, and streamlined version of the game? If so, I'm not seeing it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jul 16, 2018)

Fear the short bow. I like that a crit from a short bow is properly deadly.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 16, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> Fear the short bow. I like that a crit from a short bow is properly deadly.



Me too, and just in general I love that weapon properties make weapon choice about more than just damage die size. I hate that in 5e there is no good reason for a character with martial weapon proficiency to use a shortbow over a longbow, a light crossbow over a heavy crossbow, a sickle over a scimitar, etc. With weapon properties, you might actually consider less damaging weapons for more than just budget reasons.


----------



## Marshall Lawless (Jul 16, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, I noticed that too... Thanks to the hierarchy of the Paladin’s code of conduc though, it is technically possible to use Pickpocket without violating the code, but only if doing so would prevent an innocent from coming to harm. I could maybe see that happening if she like... nick a vial is poison off of someone if she knew they were about to use it to kill an innocent? I dunno, seems like a waste of her 1st level Skill Feat. Then again, I suppose it’s there just for flavor. She was an urchin as a child after all.



The Pickpocket skill feat comes from her background, not as one she chose as part of her normal progression. A different background could give a better skill feat, but it wouldn't fit her backstory.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 16, 2018)

Retributive strike seems like it would be awful in play.  (As in slowing things down/breaking the flow of combat.)  These kinds of fliddly, game-interrupting things are a HUGE turn-off for me.  At this point I may have to stop looking at the playtest stuff because it reminds me of the type of things that made me skip 4E completely.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 16, 2018)

DaveMage said:


> Retributive strike seems like it would be awful in play.  (As in slowing things down/breaking the flow of combat.)  These kinds of fliddly, game-interrupting things are a HUGE turn-off for me.  At this point I may have to stop looking at the playtest stuff because it reminds me of the type of things that made me skip 4E completely.




Keep in mind that unlike in 4e, you can only take one reaction per round.


----------



## Raith5 (Jul 16, 2018)

techno said:


> Not sure I want to track damage to shields (dents) in detail. That seems *more* fiddly than even Pathfinder 1. Isn't this supposed to be an easier, faster, and streamlined version of the game? If so, I'm not seeing it.




Agree. I like what I see but there just seems to be a unnecessary layer of mechanics like dents, spell points, touch AC which look like they would overly complicate things.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Keep in mind that unlike in 4e, you can only take one reaction per round.



 You could only take one Reaction per round in 4e.

In 3.x/PF and 4e you could have multiple AoOs, but only one Immediate action between turns.  5e consolidated them into a single 'Reaction.'  I hadn't notice that PF 2 had gone the 5e route with that, too...


----------



## Ebon Shar (Jul 17, 2018)

Blue said:


> Interesting how Lay on Hands has multiple feats to adjust it - if that's true everywhere that gives a nice level of customization that characters can be very different even if the same class.
> 
> I'm all for off-table customization options - give a lot of choices to the players outside of a session when creating and advancing a character.  And looking at how they are built, they get factored right in so it doesn't increase at-table complexity at all.




Until the optimizers get to it and then there will be one "right" way to build a Paladin.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jul 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Me too, and just in general I love that weapon properties make weapon choice about more than just damage die size. I hate that in 5e there is no good reason for a character with martial weapon proficiency to use a shortbow over a longbow, a light crossbow over a heavy crossbow, a sickle over a scimitar, etc. With weapon properties, you might actually consider less damaging weapons for more than just budget reasons.




I think 5E really would have been better served to just so a "simple light 1d4, medium 1d6, heavy 1d8" and a "martial light 1d6, medium 1d8, heavy 1d10" rather than stick to specific weapons.  Which is why we have the "Rapier Problem".  Let a player flavor their weapon however they want, the point is keeping it simple.

I'm not sure I entirely like Pathfinder's new approach to weapons, but they're clearly going for a "more fiddly bits" angle and it's fitting.


----------



## Kite474 (Jul 17, 2018)

So far Im liking everything except the shield stuff. I think its an awesome idea that makes the shield actually mean something instead of a really crummy AC bonus. At the same time it needs a good bit of work, for now its a bit too fiddly even for Pathfinder


----------



## Jester David (Jul 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Keep in mind that unlike in 4e, you can only take one reaction per round.



While you could take multiple opportunity actions in a round (one per turn), you could only take one immediate action (aka reaction) per round. Which is what used to slow down and derail combat in 4e, with lots of stopping each turn and people regularly acting multiple times per round.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Jul 17, 2018)

Funny. I actually love the shield mechanics. We did something similar in 2E. We have a fragile property in 5E for our weapons too.
Those that don't like it = easy. Don't. It is an optional reaction that you never need take.

(Anyone interested in our expanded WEapon Qualities for 5E might want to check: http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/all-weapon-properties).


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> While you could take multiple opportunity actions in a round (one per turn), you could only take one immediate action (aka reaction) per round. Which is what used to slow down and derail combat in 4e, with lots of stopping each turn and people regularly acting multiple times per round.




Oh, you're right, I misremembered.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jul 17, 2018)

I really don't like what it says about PF2's approach to skills that you need a feat to pick pockets.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 17, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I really don't like what it says about PF2's approach to skills that you need a feat to pick pockets.



Makes sense to me. It's not really the kind of thing anyone can just do without specialized training. And keep in mind that as a Skill Feat, it only comes at the opportunity cost of other skill feats, which you get every other level (or every level for the class most likely to actually want this feat), and that anyone who wants to can get it for free at first level by taking the Urchin Background.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jul 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Makes sense to me. It's not really the kind of thing anyone can just do without specialized training.



Specialized training such as might come with acquiring proficiency in a skill named "Thievery"?

And even untrained people can try it. I'm certainly no fingersmith, but there is nothing physically stopping me from putting my hand in somebody else's pocket the next time I'm on a crowded bus. Yes, it's harder to do it successfully than lifting an unattended item, but that can be better modeled with a penalty to the would-be-thief's roll (a penalty which a skill feat might well eliminate).



Charlaquin said:


> And keep in mind that as a Skill Feat, it only comes at the opportunity cost of other skill feats, which you get every other level (or every level for the class most likely to actually want this feat), and that anyone who wants to can get it for free at first level by taking the Urchin Background.



Acknowledged. Nevertheless, the question it raises is how many other common actions are gated by skill feats this way, which might make the opportunity cost that you're downplaying actually pretty darn steep. Is a low-level criminal going to have to choose to be a Pickpocket _or_ a Locksmith _or_ a Card Cheat? Because in PF1, those would not have been exclusive, and I at least have never thought to myself, "Wow, these skills sure are overpowered for being so flexible, better put some limits on them."


----------



## Jester David (Jul 17, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Makes sense to me. It's not really the kind of thing anyone can just do without specialized training. And keep in mind that as a Skill Feat, it only comes at the opportunity cost of other skill feats, which you get every other level (or every level for the class most likely to actually want this feat), and that anyone who wants to can get it for free at first level by taking the Urchin Background.




It's not for free though. It comes at the cost of your background feat. 
So Seelah is given a feat she cannot use and likely will never use, and the rogue has to spend a class or background feat to do something expected by baseline proficiency.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It's not for free though. It comes at the cost of your background feat.
> So Seelah is given a feat she cannot use and likely will never use, and the rogue has to spend a class or background feat to do something expected by baseline proficiency.




Yes.  However there's a player somewhere that created Seelah, and that player wanted the background and the feat as a result of coming up with their backstory.

That's not a problem with the rules.  That's a player weighing options and choosing one that fits for them.  If you don't like it, don't do it yourself.

KB


----------



## Jester David (Jul 17, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Yes.  However there's a player somewhere that created Seelah, and that player wanted the background and the feat as a result of coming up with their backstory.
> 
> That's not a problem with the rules.  That's a player weighing options and choosing one that fits for them.  If you don't like it, don't do it yourself.
> 
> KB



Paizo's staff created Seelah. There was no player. Her backstory was created for her PF1 character, which didn't reflect her past as a thief. 
Then they created this character and took feats to match that backstory, creating an inoptimal character that has a feat they will NOT use as their Thievery score is -2. 

They took a character designed potentially for new players and introducing the game and wasted a quarter of their feats on an option that you're penalised for attempting while also making the character feel potentially weaker than the rest of the party.


----------



## Nathan Fish (Jul 17, 2018)

techno said:


> Not sure I want to track damage to shields (dents) in detail. That seems *more* fiddly than even Pathfinder 1. Isn't this supposed to be an easier, faster, and streamlined version of the game? If so, I'm not seeing it.




Most hits won't dent.  It's not like tracking HP.  When you get hit for more than the shield can take you check off a box.  I don't see it as being very complex.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Paizo's staff created Seelah.... and I'm missing your point entirely to complain about something that means nothing to anyone else.




Fixed that for you.


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 17, 2018)

Nathan Fish said:


> Most hits won't dent.  It's not like tracking HP.  When you get hit for more than the shield can take you check off a box.  I don't see it as being very complex.




"Most hits won't dent"? With hardness 5, only the weakest of hits will not dent.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 17, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Fixed that for you.



Because it's not an issue for *you *it can't be an issue for *someone else*?

Do you foresee ANY situation where Seelah, a paladin, would want to attempt to pick a pocket? 
But... can you see a situation where a new player, upon seeing that her character can pick pockets, attempts to do so. And is disappointing by the character's absolute inability to successfully do so? 
There is a _trap_ option on the sample character. It unlocks the option to do X but not the actually ability to do so. It's like giving someone a feat that increases their fly speed by 20 feet, but not the ability to actually fly.


Had this actually been a personal character, that's different. It's one player making a choice for themselves. Okay, in that instance they're (probably) fine with the choice of investing a non-insignificant amount of their starting resources on flavour. (Like a wizard getting heavy armour proficiency with a feat.)
But..  again, this is *not *something created by one player for their personal use. This is a sample PC built, likely by committee, to show off the system, embody their iconic characters, and also be used by brand new players who are being introduced to the game. 
This is the playtest version of the pregens that will be used by every Pathfinder 2 Society game. And I am giving feedback on its design.

They had problems with in-optimal characters in the previous iteration. Harsk, the dwarf ranger, was a hugely problematic character, as the crossbow was not a mechanically strong item. And so players of the iconic were largely penalized in play for "story" reasons (aka how the artist drew the character). 


Also, what is this telling me about the game? 
Well, it's telling me that the system really isn't designed for characters whose backstories are playing against type. Because you apparently don't get any *meaningful* bonuses for that. Or that backstory options are limited as the least problematic option was one that conferred no benefit. 
Neither really sell me to the game. 

Does thievery match Seelah's backstory? Kinda. She was an urchin living on the streets who stole the helmet of a paladin, and ran with it. The paladin caught her and showed her compassion, which prompted young Seelah to follow in her footsteps and become her student, eventually earning her mentor's armour. 
There's lots of elements to that backstory that could work with a different feat. Surviving in the streets. Being mentored by a holy warrior. 
(It's not like the Pickpocket feat would have really helped with that backstory. Either the helmet was off and thus no feat was required, or it was worn and not subject to the feat.)


----------



## Blue (Jul 17, 2018)

Ebon Shar said:


> Until the optimizers get to it and then there will be one "right" way to build a Paladin.




Is character customization a sham because in reality it will only allow a the "most optimized" character to be built the majority of the time, so there's really no customization?


----------



## mellored (Jul 17, 2018)

Blue said:


> Is character customization a sham because in reality it will only allow a the "most optimized" character to be built the majority of the time, so there's really no customization?



It doesn't seem like it, at least so far.

Mainly, we havn't seen many "+number" options (i.e. no +Cha damage to a damage type, and only having enough fire spells for each level), and all the classes seem to have a pretty narrow window of damage/HP/AC/skills/ect...
Though, everyone get's +level to everything, so the *level* difference will be very noticeable, but that has nothing to do with the build.


Instead, PF2 seems to be focusing on giving you abilities.  Like stealthing at full speed, crafting items, don't provoke OA's, not hurting allies with splash damage, access to different spell lists, turns sneak attack into ongoing damage, etc...

Which, at least on the face of it, means plenty of customization.


----------



## mellored (Jul 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> While you could take multiple opportunity actions in a round (one per turn), you could only take one immediate action (aka reaction) per round. Which is what used to slow down and derail combat in 4e, with lots of stopping each turn and people regularly acting multiple times per round.



Many of the 4e reactoins where fairly complex.
i.e. move, attack, and push someone.  
Which could trigger other reaction, like your movement provoking an OA.


Interrupts that just boost/reduce damage/AC didn't confuse people.  As it's resolved in the same roll.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Because it's not an issue for *you *it can't be an issue for *someone else*?
> 
> Do you foresee ANY situation where Seelah, a paladin, would want to attempt to pick a pocket?




Yes



> But... can you see a situation where a new player, upon seeing that her character can pick pockets, attempts to do so. And is disappointing by the character's absolute inability to successfully do so?




It's at -2 and the character is a paladin.  No.  I can't see a situation where a new player who knows what the character is and sees the math thinks it's a good idea to do.  



> There is a _trap_ option on the sample character. It unlocks the option to do X but not the actually ability to do so. It's like giving someone a feat that increases their fly speed by 20 feet, but not the ability to actually fly.




You see it as a trap.  I see it as history and backstory flavor that opens up options to the character in the future that would not be available to the average paladin.  



> Had this actually been a personal character, that's different. It's one player making a choice for themselves. Okay, in that instance they're (probably) fine with the choice of investing a non-insignificant amount of their starting resources on flavour. (Like a wizard getting heavy armour proficiency with a feat.)
> But..  again, this is *not *something created by one player for their personal use. This is a sample PC built, likely by committee, to show off the system, embody their iconic characters, and also be used by brand new players who are being introduced to the game.
> This is the playtest version of the pregens that will be used by every Pathfinder 2 Society game. And I am giving feedback on its design.




1. You're assuming its significant because the rules aren't out yet.
2. You're assuming that there's no way for the feat to be used that breaks your logic, because the rules aren't out yet.
3. You're being negative without enough data before you to tell if there's really a problem to be bothered by.


Therefore you don't have enough information to really provide good feedback on the design.  Not trying to be confrontational here, but it is what it is.  At best, you're choosing to have an opinion based on limited information and calling it feedback.  Lastly, and least importantly 

4. Characters do not spontaneously appear.  At some point, there was a person creating it.  Therefore a player creating it.  I feel reasonably confident in saying that all designers play the game and before the iconic was an iconic; it belonged to someone.



> They had problems with in-optimal characters in the previous iteration. Harsk, the dwarf ranger, was a hugely problematic character, as the crossbow was not a mechanically strong item. And so players of the iconic were largely penalized in play for "story" reasons (aka how the artist drew the character).




Yesterday is not today and tomorrow is wasted by dwelling on it.  Regardless of how you feel and how in some cases past history may be the best predictor of future issues, now it's just a waste of time.



> Also, what is this telling me about the game?
> Well, it's telling me that the system really isn't designed for characters whose backstories are playing against type. Because you apparently don't get any *meaningful* bonuses for that. Or that backstory options are limited as the least problematic option was one that conferred no benefit.
> Neither really sell me to the game.




Yes well, not all benefits in game need to be tied to a resolution mechanic to be useful.  Again, when the rules are out, feel free to revisit.  At least in my opinion, at my table players get advantages all the time that never turn in to a die roll boost.



> Does thievery match Seelah's backstory? Kinda. She was an urchin living on the streets who stole the helmet of a paladin, and ran with it. The paladin caught her and showed her compassion, which prompted young Seelah to follow in her footsteps and become her student, eventually earning her mentor's armour.
> There's lots of elements to that backstory that could work with a different feat. Surviving in the streets. Being mentored by a holy warrior.
> (It's not like the Pickpocket feat would have really helped with that backstory. Either the helmet was off and thus no feat was required, or it was worn and not subject to the feat.)




I know how you feel, usually happens when I'm off my meds.

Be well
KB


----------



## mellored (Jul 17, 2018)

Nathan Fish said:


> Most hits won't dent.  It's not like tracking HP.  When you get hit for more than the shield can take you check off a box.  I don't see it as being very complex.



The paladin does 1d8+4 (5 damage minimum).  Enough to dent a shield each hit.

Thus a shield roughly provides you with extra 10 HP, which is fair.
But I wonder if something like "the shield can absorb 10 damage before it breaks" would be easier.


Maybe like Final Fantasy Tactics, where armor and shields only gave you THP.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 17, 2018)

mellored said:


> Many of the 4e reactoins where fairly complex.
> i.e. move, attack, and push someone.
> Which could trigger other reaction, like your movement provoking an OA.
> 
> ...



True. 
I wasn't claiming that Seelah's reaction was as complicated as 4e.

But, this is a full on attack that can be done every round. So Seelah basically gets a bonus attack. (The rogue really wants her as a flank buddy.) 
It is also an example of a  level 1 reaction, and we don't know what else a level 5 or level 10 Paladin can use to buff a Strike via feats/ spellls/ magic items.


----------



## Jester David (Jul 17, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I.... 

I can't do this. I cannot do this for six more months.  I cannot have every discussion giving feedback on the playtest and elements of the playtest turn into a giant debate where one side argues things work just fine while the other side argues it's a problem. 
It's not worth my time or the levels of stress it causes me.

I'm out. I am done with the Pathfinder 2 playtest. Congratulations, you have won. You have driven me away. I hope you are satisfied with your victory.


----------



## Nathan Fish (Jul 17, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> "Most hits won't dent"? With hardness 5, only the weakest of hits will not dent.






mellored said:


> The paladin does 1d8+4 (5 damage minimum).  Enough to dent a shield each hit.
> 
> Thus a shield roughly provides you with extra 10 HP, which is fair.
> But I wonder if something like "the shield can absorb 10 damage before it breaks" would be easier.
> ...




I was operating under the assumption that shields would be hardness 9+, as in the Glass Cannon Podcast.  If ~5 is truly the newer number, then yeah, there's gonna be a lot of dents.  As for damage tracking, I prefer the Dent system.  The player doesn't need to do any subtraction, and repairs can be "I fix a Dent".  HP would get progressively more mathy as numbers get bigger.  Dents are just checkboxes that you put on your sheet.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I....
> 
> I can't do this. I cannot do this for six more months.  I cannot have every discussion giving feedback on the playtest and elements of the playtest turn into a giant debate where one side argues things work just fine while the other side argues it's a problem.
> It's not worth my time or the levels of stress it causes me.
> ...




Yes.


----------



## mellored (Jul 17, 2018)

Jester David said:


> True.
> I wasn't claiming that Seelah's reaction was as complicated as 4e.
> 
> But, this is a full on attack that can be done every round. So Seelah basically gets a bonus attack. (The rogue really wants her as a flank buddy.)
> It is also an example of a  level 1 reaction, and we don't know what else a level 5 or level 10 Paladin can use to buff a Strike via feats/ spellls/ magic items.



It's not nearly that powerful, as there are many ways to counter it.

1: The enemy can attack the paladin.  (Which is the intent).
2: The enemy can walk away.  (Only fighters have OA's).
3: The enemy misses.  (Only triggers on a hit).
4: Another creature can attack the paladin, force it to use shield block. (only 1 reaction).

Paladin + rogue isn't bad, but again, the enemy can still just walk away around the rogue and stab them from the other side.
So really, you want a paladin + paladin or paladin + fighter, with reach weapons.  But that still only adds 1 bonus attack between them, and trades away a shield, and puts you in fireball formation...


So there's nothing broken about it so far.  But yea, there's more to come.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Jul 17, 2018)

Hey there all,

So, I just wanted to make a thing clear here. Seelah has the Pickpocket skill feat from her background, as it reflects her history. None of the background feats are meant to be game-changers. They are a flavorful aspect of your character that you might sometimes get some use out of. Now, if you make a rogue and grew up a Street Urchin, it might be more useful to you, but it is not going to give you any great advantage over another character in the group if that works out for you.

I wanted to address another issue as well. The discussions about the playtest are bound to get passionate, sometimes even heated. This sort of back and forth is not going to be for everyone and that is perfectly okay. This playtest is going to utilize a lot of surveys to give a voice to those who do not want to battle out their points on various threads, while also giving us a more scientific way to look at the results from the table. If the boards and arguments are not for you, I would encourage you to work with us on the survey side of things. The more data we get the better.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 17, 2018)

Jason Bulmahn said:


> Hey there all,
> 
> So, I just wanted to make a thing clear here. Seelah has the Pickpocket skill feat from her background, as it reflects her history. None of the background feats are meant to be game-changers. They are a flavorful aspect of your character that you might sometimes get some use out of. Now, if you make a rogue and grew up a Street Urchin, it might be more useful to you, but it is not going to give you any great advantage over another character in the group if that works out for you.
> 
> I wanted to address another issue as well. The discussions about the playtest are bound to get passionate, sometimes even heated. This sort of back and forth is not going to be for everyone and that is perfectly okay. This playtest is going to utilize a lot of surveys to give a voice to those who do not want to battle out their points on various threads, while also giving us a more scientific way to look at the results from the table. If the boards and arguments are not for you, I would encourage you to work with us on the survey side of things. The more data we get the better.




Thank you Jason.

KB


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jul 17, 2018)

Kobold Boots said:


> Yes.



 Don't get too comfortable, he's never stayed away before.



Blue said:


> Is character customization a sham because in reality it will only allow a the "most optimized" character to be built the majority of the time, so there's really no customization?



 Only if the gap between optimal and slightly-sub-optimal is so huge as to make everything else functionally non-viable.
So, in the case of PF2, time will tell.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Jul 18, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Don't get too comfortable, he's never stayed away before.




My intention wasn't to annoy him to the point where he'd stop posting so there's no comfort to be had.   End of day, there's too many people making assumptions and getting riled up about rules previews.  It's a bit more sane to wait until there's something to actually play test before talking about the play test.  

No way for me to know if my common sense is the last straw for anyone, until it happens.  By the time I felt something was off I wasn't trying to talk down to him as much as talk him down off a cliff, but without being face to face, it's hard to judge things.

But if someone asks me if I will enjoy a victory, I'm going to say yes.  Doesn't mean that my victory is his loss.


----------



## Shasarak (Jul 18, 2018)

I just do not understand the fuss over a background feat on a 1st level character.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 19, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I just do not understand the fuss over a background feat on a 1st level character.



Seriously.


----------



## rmcoen (Jul 19, 2018)

Kyra's Sling does d6+1, average 4.5 damage.  Shield Hardness blocks all the damage with no dent.  Fundus's dogslicer does d6+2, average 5.5 damage.  Shield blocks all damage with no dent half the time.  Putting your shield up to block Seelah's or Valeros's hit is probably tossing away your shield - but it is still 5ish more HP than you would have had.  Plus you can easily model different types of shields and materials - perhaps a stout oaken shield is Hardness 3, but can suffer 2 Dents, while Stonejaw's unique crystal shield has Hardness 10 instead of AC 3 (i.e. "shield +1").


----------



## houser2112 (Jul 19, 2018)

First the bit about actually being able to use your shield costing you an action, and now these fiddly rules about shield durability, and then how a heavy steel shield is only good for one hit, it's not really inspiring the warriors to deviate from the tried and true 2H style. One would think that Paizo would want to make the S&B style MORE attractive, not less.


----------



## rmcoen (Jul 19, 2018)

Maybe playtest feedback will result in Shield-Block-enhancing feats, like Seelah's Lay-On-Hands-enhancing feats.  Like "+3 to the effective hardness of your shield", or "Make a skill check / save / whatever to negate a Dent as it is applied to the shield".  If they do "Potency Runes" for shields like they do for weapons, maybe a "+1 shield" has Hardness 10 and 2 Dents; +2 has Hardness 15 and 3 Dents, etc.  Sign me up for negating 15 damage 3 times in a fight!

Also, I meant to reference the Pickpocket skill -- the paladin tenets, as they are outlined on the character sheet, do seem to nearly completely eliminate any situation where she can actively use the skill. Particularly the catchall "follow the laws".  However, Seelah *could* have a flexible definition of what "an innocent" means, stealing from corrupt folk (rich or otherwise) and giving to the poor, for example.  And the OP mentions that she could use the Pickpocket skill as a downtime activity as a "Security Consultant", showing people how to avoid being pickpocketed ("those who can't, teach" ?).

It is interesting to have a background ability.  It is exciting when you get to use that background ability in a useful way.  It is not quite as exciting or interesting to use the ability... and suck at it.  Other than perhaps - once! - a self-deprecating chuckle as you fail, followed by a "and *that's* why I'm a [insert different occupation] now!"  I point to the bookshelves I built - tucked away in the basement, mind you - and say "And *that's* why I'm a programmer, not an engineer."

I had a character with a very similar background to Seelah [I was first!  was 2e!], but my character became a cleric, not a paladin.  Except, when the time came for me to use my "old training", *I* was good at it - an actual level of Rogue, specialized in the couple skills I wanted for my background, plus a good DEX.  Not a single feat, based on a dump stat...


----------



## mewzard (Jul 19, 2018)

rmcoen said:


> I had a character with a very similar background to Seelah [I was first!  was 2e!], but my character became a cleric, not a paladin.  Except, when the time came for me to use my "old training", *I* was good at it - an actual level of Rogue, specialized in the couple skills I wanted for my background, plus a good DEX.  Not a single feat, based on a dump stat...




There is absolutely nothing stopping someone using a character set up like that at level one from becoming more proficient at thievery over time, taking skill feats to improve said abilities, or boosting one's Dex to further help (you get four +2 every 4 levels, it's not that difficult). I think the armor is hurting it, but given you add your level to your skills, you can eventually become quite the thief, even if it's not your main skill feature.

Plus, when you get to raise your proficiencies, you can choose which skills to do (whether that's getting trained at all, or going up the proficiency scale, Expert, Master, Legendary). you could absolutely use your X+INT number of starting skills plus starting skill and general feats to start as someone who trained as a thief, and use your future feats, skills, etc to reflect your changed life priorities.

This is just for one of Paizo's characters at level 1.

Also, I'm surprised the post about the Playtest Bard isn't up yet. I guess they wait a bit before posting it?


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 20, 2018)

I feel as though I don't have a very clear idea of what playstyle PF2 is attempting to achieve.


----------



## mellored (Jul 20, 2018)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I feel as though I don't have a very clear idea of what playstyle PF2 is attempting to achieve.



best as I can tell....
Just a bucket of abilities to choose from.  And plenty of fiddly bits so each ability has it's niche.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2018)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I feel as though I don't have a very clear idea of what playstyle PF2 is attempting to achieve.




Could you be more specific about what you mean by playstyle?


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 20, 2018)

mellored said:


> best as I can tell....
> Just a bucket of abilities to choose from.  And plenty of fiddly bits so each ability has it's niche.






Charlaquin said:


> Could you be more specific about what you mean by playstyle?





I've seen a few interviews which talk about a more "cinematic" style.

However, I also see rules such as damage to shields -which would imply touches of something a little more gritty.

Likewise, I see the idea of backgrounds and story being highlighted, but then the mechanics do not appear to support that very well.

If there's anything available which details encounter design, I haven't seen it.  I have not been following PF2 very closely.  

I feel as though I have virtually no idea what type of game I'm looking at or what the design goals are.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2018)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I've seen a few interviews which talk about a more "cinematic" style.
> 
> However, I also see rules such as damage to shields -which would imply touches of something a little more gritty.
> 
> ...



I see. I would say the gameplay feel they are going for is something a bit more nebulous than “cinematic” or “gritty” or “background/story focused.” The feel I think they’re going for is “like Pathfinder,” which is to say, “like 3e D&D.” Their design goals, I think, are less about changing the feel of the game, and more about making the game more approachable, without sacrificing the current gameplay feel.

“Cinematic” just sounds like a buzzword to me, I don’t really know what it means, beyond “we’re not trying to accurately simulate mideival warfare.” As for shield breakage, I don’t think grit is the reason for it. They want to give martial characters lots of buttons to push on their turn, while making different weapon styles feel distinct. Spending an action to raise your shield, and then spending a Reaction to block with it accomplishes that, and having the shield take damage both limits the frequency with which this button can be pushed, and gives a nod to the simulationism crowd that makes up a not insignificant portion of their audience.

Don’t tell the 4e haters, but shield block is secretly just an encounter power. You can really only use it once per fight reliably, maybe twice if the enemy gets a bad roll the first time. Then you put your busted shield away for the rest of the fight, fix it between encounters, and you have it to use once again in the next fight. But by framing it as something the fighter can theoretically do as often as he wants and disguising the cooldown as repairing damage to the shield, it mollifies the folks who would complain if they just limited the power to once per encounter.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 20, 2018)

mellored said:


> best as I can tell....
> Just a bucket of abilities to choose from.  And plenty of fiddly bits so each ability has it's niche.






Charlaquin said:


> I see. I would say the gameplay feel they are going for is something a bit more nebulous than “cinematic” or “gritty” or “background/story focused.” The feel I think they’re going for is “like Pathfinder,” which is to say, “like 3e D&D.” Their design goals, I think, are less about changing the feel of the game, and more about making the game more approachable, without sacrificing the current gameplay feel.
> 
> “Cinematic” just sounds like a buzzword to me, I don’t really know what it means, beyond “we’re not trying to accurately simulate mideival warfare.” As for shield breakage, I don’t think grit is the reason for it. They want to give martial characters lots of buttons to push on their turn, while making different weapon styles feel distinct. Spending an action to raise your shield, and then spending a Reaction to block with it accomplishes that, and having the shield take damage both limits the frequency with which this button can be pushed, and gives a nod to the simulationism crowd that makes up a not insignificant portion of their audience.
> 
> Don’t tell the 4e haters, but shield block is secretly just an encounter power. You can really only use it once per fight reliably, maybe twice if the enemy gets a bad roll the first time. Then you put your busted shield away for the rest of the fight, fix it between encounters, and you have it to use once again in the next fight. But by framing it as something the fighter can theoretically do as often as he wants and disguising the cooldown as repairing damage to the shield, it mollifies the folks who would complain if they just limited the power to once per encounter.




I have seen a few things which look more similar to 4E than I'd expect from PF.  (not saying that's either good or bad)


I'm not sure that feeling "like 3rd Edition" really helps me a whole lot either.  I loved 3rd, but it wasn't always internally consistent either.  I don't mind a game being flexible, but -from a storytelling and world-building point of view- a clearer idea about the general ballpark of the game would be nice.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jul 20, 2018)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I have seen a few things which look more similar to 4E than I'd expect from PF.  (not saying that's either good or bad)
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that feeling "like 3rd Edition" really helps me a whole lot either.  I loved 3rd, but it wasn't always internally consistent either.  I don't mind a game being flexible, but -from a storytelling and world-building point of view- a clearer idea about the general ballpark of the game would be nice.




It is, like I said, a nebulous feeling they’re chasing. But it’s the feeling whose absence doomed 4e, and PF2 will live or die by their ability to capture it. Sorry I can’t be more specific.


----------



## Argyle King (Jul 20, 2018)

No need to apologize.  I understand exactly what you mean by a feeling.

"Feelings" are what I am trying to gather from the preview.  "Feelings" are also what prompted me to try other RPGs.  I'm aware it's not exactly scientific.  

I suppose my current conundrum is that I'm not getting much of a "feeling" from the previews.  Though, in the interest of being honest and looking inward at myself, that could likely be due to not having played a lot of PF and having moved toward non-d20 games over the past few years.

Your comments provided more insight than what I had during my original post.


----------

