Gearing Up!

Friday, May 4, 2018

In Monday's blog, we talked about weapons and all the plentiful options you have when you're picking those. So let's stay in the Equipment chapter for the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook and take a look at armor, other gear, and everything else having to do with items!

Don Your Armor!

Armor's job is to protect you from your enemies' attacks. Your character can have proficiency in light armor, medium armor, or heavy armor (or, in some cases, none of the above). Most classes are only trained in their armor at first, though some martial classes gain better proficiency at higher levels. In Pathfinder First Edition, many types of armor were effectively obsolete because you could just buy a better type, but for Pathfinder Second Edition, we've made a few new adjustments to make each type a little different.

A suit of armor has many of the same statistics as in Pathfinder First Edition, but now each one also gives a bonus to your TAC (Touch Armor Class). For instance, studded leather gives a +2 item bonus to AC and +0 to TAC, whereas a chain shirt gives a +2 item bonus to AC and +1 to TAC, but it is heavier and noisier. That last bit comes from the noisy trait, one of a small number of traits some armors have to reflect their construction and effect on the wearer. Armor also has a Dexterity modifier cap (which limits how much of your Dexterity modifier can apply to your AC); a check penalty that applies to most of your Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based skill checks; a penalty to your Speed; and a Bulk value. You'll balance these variables to pick the armor that's best for you.

As you adventure, you'll find or craft magic armor. Weapons and suits of armor alike can be enhanced with magical potency runes. For weapons, a potency rune gives an item bonus on attack rolls and increases the number of damage dice you roll on attacks with the weapon. For armor, the potency rune increases the armor's item bonuses to your AC and TAC and gives you a bonus to your saving throws! For instance, studded leather with a +3 armor potency rune (a.k.a. +3 studded leather) would give you +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves. You can also upgrade the potency later, etching a +4 armor potency rune onto that armor to increase its bonus. You can even upgrade the potency of specific armor (and weapons) so you can hold on to your celestial armor at higher levels. If you don't wear armor, not to worry! Your bracers of armor give you a bonus to AC, TAC, and your saves without requiring you to clad yourself in a clunky metal box. They might not protect you quite as well, but maybe that trade-off is worth it to your wizard or monk!

Illustrations by Wayne Reynolds

Shield Yourself!

You've probably seen mention of shields in previous blogs, announcements, and broadcast play sessions. To gain the benefits of a shield, you have to spend an action to raise it, which then gives you a bonus to AC and TAC (+1 for a light shield or +2 for a heavy shield) for 1 round. Your character has proficiency in shields just like she does with armor, and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

Shields don't have potency runes. Instead, you might pick up a shield made of a durable material like adamantine or craft a magic shield that catches arrows, reflects a spell back at its caster, or bites your enemies!

Fill Your Backpack!

The Equipment chapter also includes all sorts of other gear you might want on adventures, from rope to tents to musical instruments to religious symbols. Many of these items are required to perform certain tasks, like thieves' tools. The new system of item quality makes it pretty straightforward to figure out how tools work. For example, you need thieves' tools to pick a lock or disable many traps. Normal thieves' tools let you do this normally, expert-quality tools give you a +1 item bonus on your check, and master-quality tools give you a +2 item bonus on your check. Now what if you get stuck without your tools and need to improvise? Well, if you can scrabble something together, you've created a poor-quality set of tools, which gives you a -2 item penalty (much like the penalty for having an proficiency rank of untrained in a task). The same thing might happen if you had to turn vines into improvised rope or use an empty chest as a drum for an improvised musical instrument!

Take a Load Off!

Not everything you can purchase is adventuring gear. Cinco de Cuatro wouldn't be complete without some luxuries like a bottle of fine wine or renting an extravagant suite! You might even rent an animal to ride about town. Of course, an extravagant lifestyle can have a high cost, and the chapter includes costs of living per week, month, or year so you can accurately budget your lifestyle decisions.

Switch It Up!

One of the squidgy parts of Pathfinder First Edition we wanted to clear up with the redesign is how holding, wielding, and stowing items work, particularly switching how many hands you're using for an item. Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed, or detaching a shield from your arm all require the Interact action. We've codified the rules for many of the basic things you do with items so the other rules interface with them cleanly. That [[A]] code you see there indicates this is an action, and will be a lovely icon in the final rulebook!

[[A]] Interact

Manipulate

You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or do some similar action. You may have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.

The equipment chapter also covers the full rules on item quality and on Bulk, plus a section on how items and Bulk work for creatures of different sizes.

Now you have a basic rundown of the gear in this book. We'll dive deep into magic items at a later date. Looking at what you see here, what sort of useful, peculiar, or silly things do you think your character will spend their silver pieces on?

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
101 to 150 of 660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Cuàn wrote:

A question on the shield thing: Can you use potency runes on a shield as a weapon?

The wording in the blog more or less says you can't, which would be a sad thing. I love shield bashing.
+1 to this question. I'd love to know more about shields-as-weapons in the playtest rules.

It's an interesting question, but I'd personally be cool with shields as weapons mostly fading away. Sure people bashed with shields in real life, but this was generally to create an opening to get a real weapon in. (So, maybe a combat maneuver to lower AC?) The shield itself wasn't meant to do much damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Noir le Lotus wrote:


Are you really sure that you want that any character can use any skill even untrained ? Because in my long experience of RPG, it can only mean 2 things :
* either we will very soon see high-level characters open locks of any house with a hairpin
* either we will see the difficulty of these skill checks depend not on the circunstances of the situation but on the level of the characters

While I sort of agree with most of what you said, it has been explained that certain uses of skills are locked behind a proficiency wall.

Specifically, a person Untrained in Thievery CAN'T even attempt to pick locks, but a higher level character is better at picking pockets.

On the second part, I think the idea is that your PCs are going up against more difficult tasks. If your level 15 adventurers want to break into the level 1 commoner's hovel, the check will still be low, but they should be thinking about breaking into a dragon's lair at that level (or maybe the king's treasury house).

Silver Crusade

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Cuàn wrote:

A question on the shield thing: Can you use potency runes on a shield as a weapon?

The wording in the blog more or less says you can't, which would be a sad thing. I love shield bashing.
+1 to this question. I'd love to know more about shields-as-weapons in the playtest rules.
It's an interesting question, but I'd personally be cool with shields as weapons mostly fading away. Sure people bashed with shields in real life, but this was generally to create an opening to get a real weapon in. (So, maybe a combat maneuver to lower AC?) The shield itself wasn't meant to do much damage.

Counterpoint: I don't care about history, I just want to play Captain America.

(I mean this in good humor, but I'm still serious about it.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Noir le Lotus wrote:
What is the point of needing to use a reaction to activate the bonus of a shield when it lasts ONE FULL ROUND ? You could as well say it is always active but remove the possibility to use your reaction ...

It doesn't take a reaction to ready a shield; it takes one of your three actions per turn. Then, depending on your build, you can use a reaction (like an AoO, between your turns) if you are attacked before your next turn (or whatever the trigger happens to be for your reaction).

Basically, you can use your three actions on, say, attacks, or you can save one to raise your shield and get DR and a bonus to AC against attacks that happen before your next turn. Shields are all about what happens on the other combatants' turns.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Don Your Armor!:
"For armor, the potency rune increases the armor’s item bonuses to your AC and TAC and gives you a bonus to your saving throws!" + Your bracers of armor give you a bonus to AC, TAC, and your saves without requiring you to clad yourself in a clunky metal box." = now EVERY wizard or monk is forced to wear bracers of armor instead of any other bracers type. IMO, you've concensed the big 6 into the big 2 and those 2 are even MORE important to have then the 6 and less made it less possible to work without them.

"Bulk value": Have I mentioned lately how much I dislike bulk...

Interact: NOT loving that all those free actions are now folded into an action that requires you to spend one of your 3 big actions. Seems SUPER punitive for the classic staff wielding caster: now you have to figure out if you want to be able to use your staff OR cast your spells... Lame...

"how items and Bulk work for creatures of different sizes.": Oh goodie! something to make me like the bulk system less. :P

The rest:
Armor stats: hard to say out of context. Looks ok.
Shields: much like armor. looks ok but without seeing everything working together.
quality tools/costs of living: nothing unexpected here.

Overall: it ranged from expected to headscratching, so not a favorite. Interact is my biggest concern [i've already complained about bulk in earlier threads].


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder, could you have something like Big Bulky Robe armor that was +0 to normal AC but say +2 to Touch AC because of how well they conceal your form with their bulk?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not sure that I like shields not getting potency runes. I look forward to playing the other new shield rules.

You mentioned Bracers of Armor, could we sub bracers with bracelets, or earrings, or some other such item. I am asking because I am presuming that the AC and TAC bonus from Bracers does not stack with AC and TAC from a suit of armor. Then I can "reuse" the item as something more flavor oriented. (I am a bad GM and will do it anyway, but I do appreciate the design and am curious if this factors into your design thoughts.)

The natives of Bezodan, a jungle island chain, wear no armor and minimal jewelry. They carry spears and shields which they now threaten you with. Bracers would flavor wise be out of place for these islanders, though mechanically they provide exactly what I want for the chiefs bodyguards.

In older, other FRPGS I would just hand out +1 or +2 shields and call it good. I do not mind changing it up, say to "totems of power", since they do the exact same thing as bracers. I just like to know that I am being smart and not working directly against the design of the game.

Does this now mean that we can wear a shield and use a polearm? Make an attack and then raise my shield (conveniently hiding whatever crazy hand work might be required to do the polearm and shield thing).

Love that proficiency adds to AC and TAC - well it adds to the item bonus granted to AC and TAC.

Thanks for the heads up on what is coming.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Cuàn wrote:

A question on the shield thing: Can you use potency runes on a shield as a weapon?

The wording in the blog more or less says you can't, which would be a sad thing. I love shield bashing.
+1 to this question. I'd love to know more about shields-as-weapons in the playtest rules.
It's an interesting question, but I'd personally be cool with shields as weapons mostly fading away. Sure people bashed with shields in real life, but this was generally to create an opening to get a real weapon in. (So, maybe a combat maneuver to lower AC?) The shield itself wasn't meant to do much damage.

Everything is a weapon in HEMA. Shield bashing was common (though it was mostly done by "punching" people with the rim of your shield).

Just like you can parry with a weapon, you can attack with a shield.

True, the shield's primary purpose is to protect you from your opponent's attacks, but it can be a very effective weapon if not kept in check. If you were in combat with someone and you pinned their weapon arm, you'd be a fool to not expect a shield rim to be coming for your teeth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So potency runes are what we call enhancement bonuses? Does magic armor exist without the runes or even at all?


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Blog wrote:
Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed, or detaching a shield from your arm all require the Interact action

Wait-what? Changing grip is an action!?

That's... that's going to change a lot of things. Considering that Paladins needed to change their grip twice every time they need to LoH and spellcasters needed to change grip if they were using sword-and-board or two-handed weapons... that's a lot of cases where you're looking at an onerous tax to take these actions.

Logan Bonner wrote:
Yeah, we can probably tighten up the language on that to make it clearer. If, as in the example upthread, you were releasing your weapon to open a door, releasing your grip should be part of that first Interact action and returning and rebalancing your grip on the weapon would be a second action. You shouldn't need three.

So what sort of actions can you combine the change grip action with for free? Obviously you can't combine the grip change with making an attack (otherwise there would functionally never be a situation where you'd need to make a stand-alone grip change) but what about things like casting a spell or using a class ability?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be nice if there are armors that grant higher touch AC then standard AC...or maybe touch AC only.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope there are ways to boost saves without armor and magic items.

Not a fan of the bulk rules.

It is a shame that shields don't get potency runes.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Noir le Lotus wrote:
What is the point of needing to use a reaction to activate the bonus of a shield when it lasts ONE FULL ROUND ? You could as well say it is always active but remove the possibility to use your reaction ...

No, you've got it all wrong.

Raising your shield uses one of your three *actions* in the round. Then you get the +2 to AC, and you get to make a reaction to do a shield block and use the shield as DR against one attack. It looks like a highly effective defensive action.

Noir le Lotus, your final remark is inappropriate and totally off base. Just so you know. <wry grin>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see fusion seals also came out of the PF2 Playtest. I hope the maths is less confusing for these than for SF.

Designer

23 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Cuàn wrote:

A question on the shield thing: Can you use potency runes on a shield as a weapon?

The wording in the blog more or less says you can't, which would be a sad thing. I love shield bashing.
+1 to this question. I'd love to know more about shields-as-weapons in the playtest rules.
It's an interesting question, but I'd personally be cool with shields as weapons mostly fading away. Sure people bashed with shields in real life, but this was generally to create an opening to get a real weapon in. (So, maybe a combat maneuver to lower AC?) The shield itself wasn't meant to do much damage.

To make it less confusing than before where you could have a shield simultaneously enchanted as both a weapon and an armor in the same weapon, we have separated out the shield spikes (for piercing) or boss (for bludgeoning) as weapons that you deal with separately. This incidentally allows you to do a lot more with your shield and to switch out your really nice boss or spikes into a new shield if you find one that's awesome.


I wonder if different types of armor will have any bonuses or penalties vs physical damage types like bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.


Dragon78 wrote:
I wonder if different types of armor will have any bonuses or penalties vs physical damage types like bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.

Wasn't something like that in PF Alpha or Beta and they took it out for being too fiddly to keep track of in play?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Mark, a key question is still being skirted around.

Do you or don't you add your level to your proficiency bonus with armor (or shields) and hence to your AC?

It looks like the answer is "yes, you do". Which is going to make fighting a higher-level opponent really, really tough work. I'm not sure yet if that's a feature or a bug.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Don Your Armor!:

"For armor, the potency rune increases the armor’s item bonuses to your AC and TAC and gives you a bonus to your saving throws!" + Your bracers of armor give you a bonus to AC, TAC, and your saves without requiring you to clad yourself in a clunky metal box." = now EVERY wizard or monk is forced to wear bracers of armor instead of any other bracers type. IMO, you've concensed the big 6 into the big 2 and those 2 are even MORE important to have then the 6 and less made it less possible to work without them.

"Bulk value": Have I mentioned lately how much I dislike bulk...

Interact: NOT loving that all those free actions are now folded into an action that requires you to spend one of your 3 big actions. Seems SUPER punitive for the classic staff wielding caster: now you have to figure out if you want to be able to use your staff OR cast your spells... Lame...

"how items and Bulk work for creatures of different sizes.": Oh goodie! something to make me like the bulk system less. :P

The rest:
Armor stats: hard to say out of context. Looks ok.
Shields: much like armor. looks ok but without seeing everything working together.
quality tools/costs of living: nothing unexpected here.

Overall: it ranged from expected to headscratching, so not a favorite. Interact is my biggest concern [i've already complained about bulk in earlier threads].

OR, they could rely on some kind of upcast Mage Armor spell and there might still be other save-boosting things...

...btw, I wonder what mage armor gives to touch ac? Full bonus perhaps?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So are potency runes like magic stickers I can find in dungeons, that I can slap on my magic sword and make it better?

I'm trying to imagine how to visualize these things since when I think "rune" I think "engraved into something", but that's probably just me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I can’t say the “change grip” thing is to my liking, and i’m Still not sold on bulk (i’m Not liking the way it works in starfinder) but i’m Still on the edge of my seat for August!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So are potency runes like magic stickers I can find in dungeons, that I can slap on my magic sword and make it better?

I'm trying to imagine how to visualize these things since when I think "rune" I think "engraved into something", but that's probably just me.

The use of the word "rune" definitely sounds like it's engraved in. So you shouldn't be able to remove the runes from one weapon and slap them on another. It's just giving a name to what was previously a nameless action of "enchanting" a magic weapon or set of armor.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I still say raising your shield to gain a passive bonus to defense makes no sense, and seeing as you can never improve a shield's bonus to AC through magical enchantment, the suggestion for the bonus to be permanent is perfectly reasonable mechanically.

And before anyone says you have to actively use a shield to block, the Raise Shield action is not blocking, the Shield Block reaction is. As a passive defense AC represents how hard it is for your enemy's weapon to hit your body, hence why a big wooden board in front of you is a passive bonus to AC, by adding an extra barrier between your enemy's weapon and your body, forcing the enemy to go around it, and hence the AC bonus.

Deflecting the blows attempting to circumvent your shield is an active defense, which makes sense for it to require a reaction, but having a shield between you and the enemy, forcing them to have to go around it, is a passive defense, there's no more action needed to it than making sure you're always facing that enemy.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Cuàn wrote:

A question on the shield thing: Can you use potency runes on a shield as a weapon?

The wording in the blog more or less says you can't, which would be a sad thing. I love shield bashing.
+1 to this question. I'd love to know more about shields-as-weapons in the playtest rules.
It's an interesting question, but I'd personally be cool with shields as weapons mostly fading away. Sure people bashed with shields in real life, but this was generally to create an opening to get a real weapon in. (So, maybe a combat maneuver to lower AC?) The shield itself wasn't meant to do much damage.
To make it less confusing than before where you could have a shield simultaneously enchanted as both a weapon and an armor in the same weapon, we have separated out the shield spikes (for piercing) or boss (for bludgeoning) as weapons that you deal with separately. This incidentally allows you to do a lot more with your shield and to switch out your really nice boss or spikes into a new shield if you find one that's awesome.

Thibbledorf Pwent, HERE I COME!!!!

Silver Crusade

Mark Seifter wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Cuàn wrote:

A question on the shield thing: Can you use potency runes on a shield as a weapon?

The wording in the blog more or less says you can't, which would be a sad thing. I love shield bashing.
+1 to this question. I'd love to know more about shields-as-weapons in the playtest rules.
It's an interesting question, but I'd personally be cool with shields as weapons mostly fading away. Sure people bashed with shields in real life, but this was generally to create an opening to get a real weapon in. (So, maybe a combat maneuver to lower AC?) The shield itself wasn't meant to do much damage.
To make it less confusing than before where you could have a shield simultaneously enchanted as both a weapon and an armor in the same weapon, we have separated out the shield spikes (for piercing) or boss (for bludgeoning) as weapons that you deal with separately. This incidentally allows you to do a lot more with your shield and to switch out your really nice boss or spikes into a new shield if you find one that's awesome.

Exciting. Between "attack," "ready," and whatever actions from shield feats, it sounds like a shield based fighter will have a good menu to choose from. I look forward to playtesting one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Armor also has a Dexterity modifier cap (which limits how much of your Dexterity modifier can apply to your AC); a check penalty that applies to most of your Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based skill checks

I realize that this question may simply reveal that I'm not the core target audience, but my reaction to the above is: why?

My first encounter with Pathfinder was the Confirmation scenario. I was a paladin in chain or splint or similar. There was a smallish stream and on the other side of the stream there was an ally in mortal danger from an imposing foe. Wading through the water would take a while and require one or more rolls with a significant penalty, detouring to the rickety crossing would take a while. "I know," I thought, "I'll jump the stream"

Yeah, no. Total penalty to whatever skill was involved was around -8 and made the maneuver nearly impossible. I had built a character with significant physical attributes and those attributes were wholly irrelevant because the character was wearing the (requisite) armor and a shield. That encounter has stuck with me, and will stick with me, and it sucked.

YMMV, of course; if that's what Paizo's aiming to deliver and, crucially, what the players want, nothing wrong with that. It's just...I dunno, for some reason the proficiency blog a while back led to me expect something else, with the talk of going from Olympic to Herculean.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

So now that I have had the time to read through again, I'm returning to a thought I've posted before... Why is touch AC still even its own thing? It could easily be handled with Touch AC = 10 + Reflex save bonus + gear bonus. That way it still scales with level, but you don't have the wonky situation where a flippy ninja can evade fireballs, but somehow can't avoid being touched because their touch AC is lower than their Reflex.

Though of course then you can get the worse situation where the ninja's Reflex is also higher than her AC altogether, so she can avoid being touched more easily than being actually hit, despite her armor.

This actually makes some sense. It all comes down to striking surface. Lemme explain:

A ray attack, more or less, follows the same concept as a bullet.

A relatively small striking surface moving at a high velocity in a straight attack.

Removing the increased velocity from the equation and assuming the average width of a human male (shoulder to shoulder) is 18.25 inches. Thus assumes that to avoid a shot at the largest portion of a human body at the dead center the target needs to move, at most, 9.125 inches. Giving the "shooter" the maximum possible hit chance.

Literally aiming dead on fully forward without any upper body rotation.

Turned to the side, ie if the target is "facing" the attacker in a fencer's side stance the strike area is reduced to only 6.5 inches. Meaning the shot can be avoided by moving 3.25 inches.

A single step (not stride) of an average human male is 13 inches. Meaning one step is all that is necessary to avoid a "ray" style attack.

This is easy to miss, not harder to miss, which is why shooters are told to fire multiple rounds.

A typical sword swing? Well... An arming sword's blade is 29 inches long.

When swung in a horizontal arc you're looking at a much larger strike area which makes it much harder to actually dodge, but easier to block or parry.

So it's easier to dodge a bullet than to block or parry one.

It is easier to block or parry a sword swing than to dodge it.


ENHenry wrote:
OR, they could rely on some kind of upcast Mage Armor spell and there might still be other save-boosting things...

Not much help for monk... If they plan to have those kind of things, I'd love to hear about them: heck just a comment like 'there are other ways to get save-boosting' would make me happy.

ENHenry wrote:
...btw, I wonder what mage armor gives to touch ac? Full bonus perhaps?

Well we have a nifty shield cantrip. We might not get a mage armor spell.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm. Silver standard sneaking in there at the end.

Interact... just sounds clumsy. Both linguistically and the action-eating usages. That it's going to be an icon as well is just.. frustrating. You're writers, folks, not mimes. Use your words. Break out a thesaurus and come up with something that flows. Don't choke the readers with pictographs and unnatural contortions of language.

'I interact with my staff to put two hands on it' isn't a phrase I ever want to say with witnesses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Cinco de Cuatro wouldn’t be complete without some luxuries..."

On Glorian, they celebrate '5 of 4' in Español?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, uhhh... Icons. I can read words instantly by passing my eyes over them, but colorful abstract shapes are confusing and aren't really helpful for me.
[[ICON]] Interact Manipulate sounds like it's going to be a bit of a headache to look at, but I guess it's an efficient use of space. Meh.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Good to get a bit more details on armour and potency rune. Seems like ACs from armour will be lower than currently, with only +2 with the light armours. I think this is a good thing, given the bonuses from proficiency.

Speculation around cloak of resistence being rolled into armour is confirmed. Good work Fuzzypaws. I was pretty sure this was going to happen as well.

Pretty please, with sugar on top, can you rename "studded leather armour" to something else that actually existed? Maybe call them "jacks".

Interesting to see that changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed is an interaction action. It is great to see this clarified in the rules.
Unless you can get 1 free interaction per turn (purely speculation, and I doubt it) this means that people wielding a two handed weapons are going to have a very hard choice if they want to cast a spell with a somatic component.
I actually think this is very good. Since a bunch of spells seem to have verbal only option, it allows for some interesting choice. Do I want to go one handed with more potent spells, or two handed with verbal only spells (and pay 1 extra action re-gripping my weapon to cast V&S spells and C&S&M)? Good stuff, good stuff.

I really like that potency rune can be placed on specific armour. That also give me the impression that specific armour is going to be appearing far more often, which adds a lot more fun items and effects.

Interesting to see that the potency rune also improves +hit of weapons. I wonder if this will stack with the weapon quality (+1,+2, +3 to hit). I hope that it will not stack, because of the stacking scaling issues that are in PFe1.

I think I want potency runes to be transferable between items. Probably only by characters with the appropriate magic creation feat. So if you get a weapon or armour that no one can use, that you can transfer the rune it to your current weapon or armour at a reduced cost. Maybe transfering could cost 30-40% of what it would to scribe the rune itself. That way looting a powerful weapon still feels great, even if no one wants to use it.

I hope that the potency rune is independent of weapon and armour special abilities. In PFe1 you generally want a +5 weapon before to put any other abilities on it (maybe "keen" as an exception). It would be great to be able to put interesting abilities on weapons and armour without the opportunity cost of +1 hit and damage.

"Constitution-based skill checks" interesting.

Good to see that touch AC does scale a bit with armour.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is the most concerning blog entry for me so far. Generic numbered bonuses to weapons and armor was something I hoped would be left behind. But I will wait to see how it interacts with other magical weapon enhancements.
Also not excited about the impressive number of penalties that heavier armor will be imposing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
1of1 wrote:

So, uhhh... Icons. I can read words instantly by passing my eyes over them, but colorful abstract shapes are confusing aren't really helpful for me.

[[ICON]] Interact Manipulate sounds like it's going to be a bit of a headache to look at, but I guess it's an efficient use of space. Meh.

Yeah, I sort of agree with this. The little icons in the bestiaries are real nice but I usually have to squint and turn the book this way and that and look up whatever they are supposed to be more often than not.

Reading is FUN!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blog wrote:
"Your character has proficiency in shields just like she does with armor, and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class."

For the life of me I just don't understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. I feel like we're missing context.

This is the first playtest blog post that has me going "meh."

We don't have enough core system math info to draw many conclusions about the data presented here about AC, TAC, etc. I know the blog posts are meant to be teasers but this feels like an uninformative teaser.

I can't fathom why having Constitution-based skill checks is exciting anyone. 3.5's only Con skill was Concentration, which was a garbage idea that was an effective skill tax on all casters due to the (admittedly necessary for balance purposes) harsh rules for combat casting. Doing away with this was a great idea in Pathfinder.

Merging resist bonuses into armor is good.

I'm not seeing anything compelling, fun, or interesting about the differences between armors as presented in this blog. The approach in the weapons blog post was interesting but wonky, feeling like a ham-fisted and potentially complicating way to make weapon choice matter, but it definitely succeeded in making weapon choice matter. From the scant examples of armor given, I'm still seeing players taking the chain shirt over other light armors.


Logan Bonner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Why change a grip is an action and not a free action? Because it can boost your damage? Is that so good to change a grip from two hands to one hand? Open or close a hand takes the same effort of Strike?!? Why?
We actually don't know yet that it goes the other way. The blog says "Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed,..." so it's possible that only increasing your handedness requires an action while releasing your grip could be a free action.
Yeah, we can probably tighten up the language on that to make it clearer. If, as in the example upthread, you were releasing your weapon to open a door, releasing your grip should be part of that first Interact action and returning and rebalancing your grip on the weapon would be a second action. You shouldn't need three.

Does a heavy shield take up a hand? Does that mean that a sword-and-board user would have to drop either their weapon or shield to use a door with their hands?

Can I use my foot to open a door as long as the handle is ADA-compliant?

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

No....this was your chance to ditch studded leather.

How does weapon quality interact with magical potency runes?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Serum wrote:
No....this was your chance to ditch studded leather.

Thank you.

Down with studded leather!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I motion for Thief's Tools (let's use the correct terminology here, Thieves' implies that it's a tool used by multiple thieves, and only multiple thieves, but it's really an item that's for one thief at any given time) to be called Legerdemain's Tools, because not everyone who uses Thief's Tools is a Thief, in the same vein that not everyone who uses Thievery is a Thief.

Okay, fine, I don't buy that argument either. But please change it to Thief's Tools. I'd really hate for my Thief to be considered working with other Thieves just because he has tools that claim otherwise, just because of "Ye Olde Ways Grammare."


I heard Crestfallen laughing bitterly when I told him his Touch AC went up by one in exchange for swords hitting him more often by a margin of heavy shield.
Well, he's kind of a pessimist, and we don't really know much about the rest of the system. I guess we'll see how it works out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so Bracers of Armor will presumably be covering the magical enhancement bonus for the Monk that potency runes are applying to conventional armors. Presumably, the Monk will have a class feat/feature allowing him to protect himself unarmored to the same-ish extent that regular armor provides. So how will he be getting the potency rune equivalents for his unarmed attacks? Provided by items like prayer beads or hand wraps? An innate class feature?

Also, one thing I really didn't like was how certain magical effects were consigned to armor. For example, Glamored is a really nifty little enchantment just for the sake of being able to easily illustrate how you want your character to look. Unless you're a Monk. With the exception of a very obscure non-armor magic item hidden away in an Eberron book, there was no way to achieve this same level of aesthetic customization for a Monk character.

Is there anyway we can have an armor-filler type of outfit? Something that armor-based magic effects can be applied to but otherwise doesn't provide an armor benefit at all?


sound great....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I'm mostly just worried about shields only being worthwhile with a huge investment. Sword and shield style or two-handed weapon style should be "equally good" with the same levels of investment. I don't feel like PF1 comes close to doing this.
In Mark and Logan's playtest games, I've played more shield users than non-shield-users, and when playing a non-shield-user I have on more than one occasion found myself wishing that I could be spending that third action to raise a shield for some extra AC and damage reduction instead of taking a swing that probably isn't going to connect and definitely won't crit. Granted I've only played a handful of the classes in the new system, but I've consistently been very effective and felt very useful while playing shield users, regardless of class.

I was kind of lead to believe that there would be more exciting things to do with that third action than raise a shield - even moving to a better position.

What about when the choice is between raising the shield and your second attack, because you need your third for something else?

Meaningful decisions is a laudable goal, but I'm not sure that it should be every round, nor whether rasing your shield or not should be one of them.

I am not convinced.


I don't dislike anything in this blog. I'm excited by the idea that armor traits will possibly be the biggest deciding factor among armors of the same weight class, but just the one trait (and a detrimental trait at that) isn't enough to satisfactorily sink my teeth into as much as I'd like.

Adjusting your AC on the fly based on your different proficiency with armors and shields feels unnecessarily unwieldy to me. It might be more elegant to simply always add the proficiency modifier (not the whole proficiency bonus, mind) to the shield's bonus and be done with it. So someone trained with shields always adds whatever the shield is to their AC when using it. A master at shields would add shield + 2 to whatever their AC is. Someone completely untrained with shields is being really desperate for that sweet, sweet DR. Since shields are active things, just adding some number to your AC or not feels better than also recalculating your AC as you do it. Now it doesn't matter whether your proficiency in armor or shields is lower, because they don't interact with each other whatsoever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
Logan Bonner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Bruno Mares wrote:
Why change a grip is an action and not a free action? Because it can boost your damage? Is that so good to change a grip from two hands to one hand? Open or close a hand takes the same effort of Strike?!? Why?
We actually don't know yet that it goes the other way. The blog says "Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed,..." so it's possible that only increasing your handedness requires an action while releasing your grip could be a free action.
Yeah, we can probably tighten up the language on that to make it clearer. If, as in the example upthread, you were releasing your weapon to open a door, releasing your grip should be part of that first Interact action and returning and rebalancing your grip on the weapon would be a second action. You shouldn't need three.

Does a heavy shield take up a hand? Does that mean that a sword-and-board user would have to drop either their weapon or shield to use a door with their hands?

Can I use my foot to open a door as long as the handle is ADA-compliant?

More thoughts on Interact actions...

Does transferring a weapon from one hand to the other use an action? Does sheathing a weapon use an action? Is picking up a weapon off the floor one action? Would a character using a sword and a heavy shield have to drop their sword, open a door, and then pick up the sword again to maintain the same action economy as a two-handed character? Does the first weapon transfer get rolled into the door's Interact action? If so, why and how are some Interact actions allowed to be grouped?

Is kicking open a door one action (if the check is successful)? Preserving actions is important, and if doing things in a way that seems sensible doesn't work with the rules... we are going to get a lot of Kool-Aid Man adventurers.


Can we please not have "Item bonus"? The only more gamey term I've seen (in any kind of game) is Victory Points.

Bonus types in PF1 describe what kind of effect gives you the bonus, Enhancement bonuses make things perform at a higher rate, Morale bonuses give you a confidence, Luck bonuses twist chance in your favour, etc.

What the hell does an item bonus mean, other than "an item gives you this bonus". It does nothing to describe why it gives that bonus!

Can we have something actually descriptive, like Tool Bonus for things like thieves' tools or other implements that assist your work, the good old Armour and Shield bonuses didn't need fixing.

Bonuses in PF1 are typed by effect, not source, please keep this in PF2.

And yeah, a full action to switch grips is BS.

If Touch AC is gonna be interacted with so very differently (which is a definative setting change as well in how magic considers an entity as a target), might as well get rid of it and simplify. Or make touch attacks target reflex bonus instead.

Not too excited about Runes either, more ambiguous unacknowledged setting changes. I hope we can at least get more in-depth descriptions of how all these things that are changed works (like Resonance and spell points and magic item rune crafting). I'd love to get a proper (and official) guide to all the system-driven setting changes (like how some previously legal clerics are now non-canon with different alignment restrictions, not that I mind that change as much). It would be great if the devs could at least acknowledge that these changes are changes to the setting and game world, not just the system used to portray it.

I'm also a bit bummed out about cloak of resistance being folded in with magic armour, since that means less room for interesting save-boosting alternatives (like a cloak of evasion that boosts your reflex and lets you use your reaction to basically get Evasion).

And I hope we're getting real magic shields and not just shields that break more slowly. I want something as magic, unique and permanent as the Mirror Shield from the Legend of Zelda, or Captain America's iconic shield, a piece of equipment that is as or sometimes even more of a symbol for my character than my weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I motion for Thief's Tools ...

You move for that change in terminology. The motion is the thing that you move, not the action.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
I wonder how these two item bonuses (weapon quality + potency rune) interact.
They've made it very clear that bonuses of the same type will never stack in PF2. So those bonuses don't stack.

This just seems redundant, though. Why bother with making a high quality weapon that you need to add a potency rune to, when you could just have a poor quality weapon and get the same final result? Surely the proper solution should be that weapon quality gives an attack bonus only and weapon potency only gives bonus damage?

Or does weapon quality also give bonus damage, so this is an either/or situation?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With "change grip" being one of the interaction actions, does that mean you need to spend two actions to draw and ready a weapon? It seams like it would be better to simply have a "ready weapon" action that encompasses both shifting grip and drawing the weapon. This is how Shadowrun handles it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm. Adding my voice to those concerned about the grip changing thing. IMO this should be a free action. As it is, the clarification from Logan is... less bad, but then we end up with confusion about when you can group things and when you can't. Yes, this technically makes single-weapon fighting better, but not in a fun way - it should be better of its own accord, not because the other methods are flat-out kludgy. I also see clerics especially getting screwed over by this system.

Also a bit reassured by Mark's comments about shields (namely the treatment of spikes/bosses as weapons and the proficiency thing), but it still seems like it would be a better use of an action if you get the higher of your proficiencies. Using the lower would make more sense if you always got the AC bonus and the raise action were just to prepare that block reaction.

I do like the different armor qualities and want to hear more about those! I was literally just having a conversation a couple days ago about chain shirts being mechanically optimal and yet thematically weird for stealthy characters...

1 to 50 of 660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Gearing Up! All Messageboards