Your First Adventure

Will the surveys include a question about which version of errata was used during the games? If not, I'd be concerned about results being a mix of different versions of the playtest rules, and for the critical updates, this could skew the results.

That is the plan starting with Part 2

Hey, if we already changing things. What about new backgrounds for each phase of the Doomsday Dawn Playtest ?

Very excited to see some errata coming out already! The stealth changes are especially appreciated, it makes much more sense this way.

The fix to Warded Touch is clumsy. It means that every paladin who actually wants to use lay on hands, as opposed to ignoring it in favor of other champion powers, like weapon surge at low levels, or out-of-combat heal with Channel Life at 4th.

A better fix would be to replace Warded Touch with a different class feat altogether, and to integrate Warded Touch's functionality into lay on hands. That way, paladins could actually use lay on hands out of the box, no fuss needed.

It is not as if lay on hands is an incredibly strong power. As it currently stands, lay on hands is nigh-unusable out of the box.

The Stealth changes were a big standout from my read through as well, glad to see it updated!

EDIT: Actually, with these updates, does the Skill Feat Cruel Diversion need to be updated? It seems to be useless now, and I didn't see it updated.

Everybody can find traps that don't require a minimum proficiency rank to discover, even if they aren't searching.

Yay, updates!

This one doesn't cover the shield/hardness/dent confusion (my current biggest issue), but it does have a bunch of good fixes. It's good to see that the playtest isn't going to be a static "test everything, then we'll make all our changes" one. Looking forward to next week's update!

I appreciate the removal of "common" from advanced alchemy. Clears up a lot of weirdness.

So. Effectively Alchemist's only start with 4 Formula now, not 8? That.. sucks.... combined with how bloody heavy and expensive Alchemist Kit are, you can't really even buy formulas..

The alchemist is now even harder to play.. Before they at least could be a toolbox of free items, but now they've got even less of a usable premium. I guess its a good thing they get unarmoured proficiency.. because quite a few people will have to drop bulk and costs somehow. Alchemist kit 2bulk, Formula book 1bulk. Daily allotment items (that most people will use instead of quick alchemi imo) could be up to another bulk at lv 1, more later.

I love Alchemists.. but it is a bit wonkey and really does not have much quality of life going for it.

Still.. i'll be playing that every time I can to get more data.

Why... did you lower alchemist formulas from 8 to 4? They're already hurting so bad... and you drive the dagger in deeper. Just... why?

While the updates to alchemists are the first step in the long and arduous road towards uplifting the very weak class, I do not see why alchemists deserve to start with only four common formulas.

They should really start with eight, as the sidebar in page 51 suggests.

Or am I misreading this? Either way, something is either unappealing or poorly-worded, and that could deserve to change.

Also, thanks to all of you for doing a great job finding a lot of these issues and helping us tighten things up! While many of these were things we ourselves had located after it went to print, many others were things that you guys were the first to find.

Now I just have to click enough times on the download link to get the errata. It took me a week and dozens of clicks to get lucky and download the screen reader players handbook. If the errata goes as well, I'll get the errata by the time part 2 of the survey comes out... :P

Hooray, it is finally clear what Warded Touch does!

It does, however, seem like this might not need to be a thing that's a feat. Since if the Paladin serves as the champion of a deity by being that deity's sword and shield, it's not wholly unreasonable to expect champion powers to be compatible by default with a sword and a shield.

The alchemist erratum isn't doing what we had hoped (we were trying to clarify that you definitely do get 8, since people weren't sure between 4 and 8). This will be reflected in the next errata update!

Everybody can find traps that don't require a minimum proficiency rank to discover, even if they aren't searching.

All players can find traps of any difficulty level, simply by running up and down the hallways, touching all the doorknobs, and opening any chest they find.

OH, find them without TRIGGERING them...

Yes, of coarse...

Also, thanks to all of you for doing a great job finding a lot of these issues and helping us tighten things up! While many of these were things we ourselves had located after it went to print, many others were things that you guys were the first to find.

Oh. no totally thank you and the team for working through things, having an open playtest, and well.. dealing with plenty of rather strong worded mostly unhelpful statements with some good grace, civility and such.

The alchemist erratum isn't doing what we had hoped (we were trying to clarify that you definitely do get 8, since people weren't sure between 4 and 8). This will be reflected in the next errata update!

Oh that makes me super happy to hear that~

Thank ye kindly

I'm a little annoyed by the fact that the changes are so small. There's certainly nothing here that would have prevented my Lost Star party from being TPK'd. I hope that's just because of the youth of the playtest?

I'm really sad clarifications to the bastard sword and Shield Block didn't make it into the first Update. I am fairly sure that Shield Block should be using much the same wording as Construct Armor (see Rulebook 309, and Bestiary 30).

Otherwise I am fairly happy with this list of updates as a start.

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?
I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

Now looking forward to the next errata, where they give every class as many feats as the wizard, extend the druid design philosophy to give every class a meaningful choice of "path" at level 1 that doesn't exclude you from other options, and overhaul ancestries and give at least one more ancestry feat at 1st. :>

Hey, if we already changing things. What about new backgrounds for each phase of the Doomsday Dawn Playtest ?

Well I suppose that'd be useful to replacing lost PCs as the game goes on.

Hey, if we already changing things. What about new backgrounds for each phase of the Doomsday Dawn Playtest ?

Two reasons we won't be doing something like this:

1) We want folks to playtest the backgrounds in the playtest rules themselves as well.

2) This is new content, akin to adding more encounters or more story, not fixing rules, and as such is not in the scope of an errata or clarification.

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

Can you guys think with love about light sources? The way is handled low light vision don't do much in dungeons. And dark bid corridors are really dangerous unless you are a dwarf or goblin

I was also hopeful to see clairification regarding light sources, and the confusion regarding how Darkvision interacts with the Darkness rules (I've already argued in detail about that elsewhere).
It sort of looks like a bunch of obvious erratum got left off to keep the first update to a single page of actual errata.

Remember, there is lag time between each phase of this process: when someone writes something, we won't see it right away (and when there's tons of posts, possibly at all, even if you have seen it). After we do see it, we fix it. Then we send the fixes to editing and layout. And then they go through the process to be uploaded onto the site. So other than sporadically where we happened to notice and read a thread pretty quickly, I'd expect a bit of a lag between when you guys first find something and when we get them onto the errata.

I just need to know. Is the Bastard Sword supposed to be Piercing ONLY?

Ah one thing I was supprised wasn't in it, as an easy clarification. Which I'm guessing now was probably just not noticed.

the clarification on whether Backpacks, and Belt Pouchs give you "extra bulk" or are just "places to carry your bulk, and DO NOT give any extra bulk carry weight"
Well some future Errata. easy enough to play as just carry space which I think is how its written. No biggie.

Thanks Mark Seifter. for thread particpation! also have a great afternoon as its near end of work days

I'm trying to gather friends here in order to play the playtest, but schedule problems kept me from playing it so far now. I really want to play.
So far now, there are no big surprises in the rulebook. The previews, articles and all were pretty informative, so most stuff is as I expected it. I think it's a good thing. I have criticism for the magic item system, but that could be left to the survey or another thread, and I still need to play it ^^

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

Costs more, make it uncommon?

Remember, there is lag time between each phase of this process: when someone writes something, we won't see it right away (and when there's tons of posts, possibly at all, even if you have seen it). After we do see it, we fix it. Then we send the fixes to editing and layout. And then they go through the process to be uploaded onto the site. So other than sporadically where we happened to notice and read a thread pretty quickly, I'd expect a bit of a lag between when you guys first find something and when we get them onto the errata.

Which is completely fair in principle. However, the Bastard Sword has been being mentioned regularly since the playtest began.

On the other hand, the topic of Darkness & Darkvisions interaction to which I was just refering is fairly recent. It is also resulting in (what I believe to be) unfairly difficult encounters for some players during The Lost Star.
(A Link To A Thread On The Subject Of The Rule Interaction Itself)

Shady Stranger wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

I guess lowering the Two-handed damage to d10 could be an option, as well? And perhaps add another trait to the Longsword to make it an attractive choice to avoid picking the Bastard Sword over it, all the time. Agile, maybe? Though, I guess Agile wouldn't make very much sense on a Longsword, hmm...

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

Please do check!

I would not make it any harder for Amiri to justify her already very niche weapon choice; you've already had to build an entire totem just around ensuring she could be updated to the new edition. Don't make her suffer proficiency issues all career too!

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

I guess lowering the Two-handed damage to d10 could be an option, as well? And perhaps add another trait to the Longsword to make it an attractive choice to avoid picking the Bastard Sword over it, all the time. Agile, maybe? Though, I guess Agile wouldn't make very much sense on a Longsword, hmm...

Yeah, longsword is doing fine overall with what it has. We don't want to unbalance it compared to the other one-handed weapons. The answer has to come from the bastard sword itself.

Mark Seifter wrote:

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

Please do check!

The 1st level pregen Barbarian's Bastard Sword lists them as Slashing weapons with Two-hand d12 (so as the rulebook but slashing instead of piercing).

I would not make it any harder for Amiri to justify her already very niche weapon choice; you've already had to build an entire totem just around ensuring she could be updated to the new edition. Don't make her suffer proficiency issues all career too!

I personally prefer keeping it martial and not versatile because that lets more types of characters (and Amiri) use it. But if enough playtesters want it to be versatile for both damage types, we can certainly do that and make it exotic; Amiri could get away with having a greatsword if necessary anyway, since she rarely one-hands her weapon.

Heck yeah Warded Touch clarity. I was going to assume this was how it was MEANT to work anyway, glad I don't need to.

Thanks Mark Seifter. for thread particpation! also have a great afternoon as its near end of work days

You're welcome, and as always, thanks for the feedback!

Shady Stranger wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

I guess lowering the Two-handed damage to d10 could be an option, as well? And perhaps add another trait to the Longsword to make it an attractive choice to avoid picking the Bastard Sword over it, all the time. Agile, maybe? Though, I guess Agile wouldn't make very much sense on a Longsword, hmm...

Yeah, longsword is doing fine overall with what it has. We don't want to unbalance it compared to the other one-handed weapons. The answer has to come from the bastard sword itself.

Fair enough, I find it hard to imagine a Bastard Sword dealing as much Damage as a Greasword, though. d10 Damage, keep the Versatility trait and make it harder to come by?

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

I guess lowering the Two-handed damage to d10 could be an option, as well? And perhaps add another trait to the Longsword to make it an attractive choice to avoid picking the Bastard Sword over it, all the time. Agile, maybe? Though, I guess Agile wouldn't make very much sense on a Longsword, hmm...

Yeah, longsword is doing fine overall with what it has. We don't want to unbalance it compared to the other one-handed weapons. The answer has to come from the bastard sword itself.

Fair enough, I find it hard to imagine a Bastard Sword dealing as much Damage as a Greasword, though. d10 Damage, keep the Versatility trait and make it harder to come by?

Rarity isn't a balance factor for pure power. Also, Bastard Swords being Uncommon would really rub me the wrong way because Paizo loves giving them to NPCs.

What about giving an extra trait like forceful or sweep or something to Greatsword?

EDIT: And maybe something like parry to the longsword?

I'm really sad clarifications to the bastard sword and Shield Block didn't make it into the first Update.

You're not the only one, as I'd love to see an unofficial clarification (with detailed examples) to tell us which of the multiple interpretations of shield block/hardness/dents applies. It'd be nice, but something we're already seeing from the commentary on the Bastard Sword is that changing one game mechanic often impacts other game mechanics, so any changes have to be carefully evaluated for roll on effects that could make things worse.

Until we get one, players should go with whatever interpretation makes the most sense to them, adding that to the survey feedback if there's any room on the form to do so. Otherwise the results will be all over the place.

I feel like changing it from Piercing to Slashing is the only change it NEEDS right now. Assuming weaknesses and resistances are common enough to make the versatile trait worth the loss in hand flexibility for using a greatsword.

If the damage needs to be lowered to d10 when two handed, some testing will probably reveal it.

Edit: And needs may be a strong word, as it is probably just as well balanced as a piercing weapon, it just doesn't make as much sense.

I personally prefer keeping it martial and not versatile because that lets more types of characters (and Amiri) use it. But if enough playtesters want it to be versatile for both damage types, we can certainly do that and make it exotic; Amiri could get away with having a greatsword if necessary anyway, since she rarely one-hands her weapon.

I am perfectly fine with Bastard Swords just being slashing weapons.

However, the current weapon design appears to overestimate the value of having Versatile Piercing on a Slashing Weapon (or vice versa) in my opinion. Being able to both stab and hack is so common a weapon trait that I'm not sure it should count against a weapon's maximum number of positive traits. On the other hand, Versatile S or P certainly feel valuable enough on a Bludgeoning weapon (and conversely Versatile B on a Slashing or Piercing Weapon).

I admit though, that changing that valuation would involve giving a lot of weapons an extra trait, and every other trait is fairly significant. Things would undoubtedly break as a result of the changes.

Now I just have to click enough times on the download link to get the errata. It took me a week and dozens of clicks to get lucky and download the screen reader players handbook. If the errata goes as well, I'll get the errata by the time part 2 of the survey comes out... :P

Yeah--what is up? I've re-downloaded twice. Is there a list of the errata somewhere? (Failed Perception Check)

I feel like changing it from Piercing to Slashing is the only change it NEEDS right now. Assuming weaknesses and resistances are common enough to make the versatile trait worth the loss in hand flexibility for using a greatsword.

If the damage needs to be lowered to d10 when two handed, some testing will probably reveal it.

I can see it being ONLY ONE damage type making it easier to justify picking the Longsword over it. But as you say, testing will reveal any faults in our logic, eventually. It might even be fine at d12 with ONLY, say, Slashing damage.

But why would a Bastard Sword be only Slashing, and a Greatsword versatile? That makes no sense to me...