Your First Adventure

Monday, August 13, 2018

The Pathfinder Playtest is live!

I know that it's hard to believe, but the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook is less than 2 weeks old, and we've already learned so much about the game. Feedback for the first part of Doomsday Dawn and the three Pathfinder Society adventures is pouring in through our surveys and the paizo.com forums. While there are some interesting early trends in the data that point at a few things that are going to need some work, we want to avoid getting into any of the fine details until the first part of the playtest is over (in just about 2 weeks). Until then, we'd like to talk about a number of other things.

Rules Updates

Starting today, you're going to begin seeing some rules updates from the team to clarify or fix issues with the current draft of the playtest. Rather than focusing on typos or other small errors, we're going to try and keep the updates restricted to things that we think are problematic to the gameplay if left as-is. In the coming weeks, you might also see us replace entire subsystems of the game, if warranted by playtest feedback.

The updates themselves are broken into two categories. The first is critical updates. These are issues that distort the game heavily and should be fixed immediately. The second category, just called updates, refers to rules that are important enough to warrant a fix, but that have a relatively limited impact at the game table. There are plenty of other changes we're noting as well, but most of these will have little to no impact on the current state of the game.

You can find the current updates by going to the downloads section on PathfinderPlaytest.com. After you download the PDF, you'll get an email notifying you of additional changes whenever we post an update!

Playtest Surveys

As mentioned above, some of the playtest surveys are now live! If you have completed your playthrough of Part 1 of Doomsday Dawn or of any of the three Pathfinder Society playtest scenarios, then we have some surveys for you! For those of you who have not, I have a couple of reminders.

  • If you are playing Doomsday Dawn, make sure your group has the playtest tracking forms, which are located at PathfinderPlaytest.com. These will help GMs and players track a few vital statistics during play that you might otherwise forget when it comes time to take the surveys.
  • The surveys are only for people who have completed Part 1 of Doomsday Dawn or one of the three available Pathfinder Society playtest scenarios. Each adventure has a survey for Game Masters and a survey for players. Doomsday Dawn also has an open response survey, allowing you to give more descriptive feedback of your experience.
  • General surveys asking about classes, ancestries, and other mechanics will come out next month (giving everyone a chance to get in some play time first).
  • The surveys are each a few pages long (usually 4 main sections) and most should take you no more than about 10-15 minutes to complete. Please make sure you go all the way to the end of the survey!
  • Here are the links for the surveys:

Doomsday Dawn Part 1, The Lost Star
Player Survey | Game Master Survey | Open Survey

Pathfinder Society Playtest Scenario #1: The Rose Street Revenge
Player Survey | Game Master Survey

Pathfinder Society Playtest Scenario #2: Raiders of Shrieking Peak
Player Survey | Game Master Survey

Pathfinder Society Playtest Scenario #3: Arclord's Envy
Player Survey | Game Master Survey

What's Next

For the remainder of the playtest, you can expect to see a blog from the design team once per week looking at the playtest, talking about where we're at, what we've learned, and where we're going. In addition, you can find us livestreaming Doomsday Dawn as we play through the adventure in the office with staff. Finally, after each part of the playtest is over, you will find us on the Twitch stream talking about what we've learned from the playtest and taking questions from the room and from the forums. It's sure to be a lot of fun, and you will be able to watch it all live over at twitch.tv/officialpaizo.

Until next time, keep playing and sending us that feedback. We've only just begun on our journey to make a better Pathfinder, and we need your help to see it through! Will you join our noble quest?

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Join the Pathfinder Playtest designers every Friday throughout the playtest on our Twitch Channel to hear all about the process and chat directly with the team.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
1 to 50 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

That is the plan starting with Part 2


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

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.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

21 people marked this as a favorite.

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!

Dark Archive

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
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...


Mark Seifter wrote:
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.

Mark Seifter wrote:
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~

The main issue with this bit of eratta statement is that, now with the modification to the Formula book section, no where except the small example on page 51 states 8.
In Advanced alchemy, it references 4, but it is directly after receiving a free Feat. So it reads as if its the 4 from the feat.
I think just adding "4 more formula" would work fine in the end.

Thank ye kindly

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

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


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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. :>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco Bahamut wrote:
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.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco Bahamut wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.

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?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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 ^^


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?

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


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?

Costs more, make it uncommon?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
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)


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...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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!

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zwordsman wrote:


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!


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?


Shady Stranger wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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

EDIT: And maybe something like parry to the longsword?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
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)


Captain Morgan wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

1 to 50 of 156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Your First Adventure All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.