How does terrain affect large spaces?
Say I have a Huge (3x3 squares) creature walking through an area that's only 2 squares long full of dense rubble. Does difficult terrain affect them?
What about, say, a 10 ft. x 10 ft pit and my Huge or Gargantuan creature is going through it. Is their movement normal or is it difficult terrain? What if they stop and are partially in the space?
Thanks to those who can direct me on what to do. I am in a situation where I have a Huge (3x3 square) creature with a 2x2 square pit in front of them, and a Wall of Stone blocking the other side. I was curious if my Huge creature can partially share that space without hindrance as they attempt to break the wall down (the creatures only have 10 ft. reach).
The Gold Sovereign wrote:
We now have 7 Inevitables, 8 Aeons, 14 Psychopomps and 10 Proteans. The "neutral" denizens of the outer planes are still far from the celestials and fiends in number and diversity, but fortunately Mr. Jacobs has said there are new Inevitables in this book - the ones with fewer members until then.
New Inevitables finally. I hope new Aeons as well.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
If you look at ENWorld's compilation of PF2e ruleset, NOTHING will be easy to export to PF1. It is its own RPG system barely based on the old.
I'm just looking for ways to reverse engineer their feats to PF1e. Man, Paizo sure made the new edition as alien as possible to stop people from converting and staying with PF1.
The Debilitating Shot feat, how can I make that a PF1e feat? I am guessing Point-Blank as a prerequisites with Dex 15 as well. I am thinking the target hit makes a Fortitude save or is slowed for 1 round.
I mean, if no one in their department is going to reverse these to make them work for PF1e, I might as well try.
captain yesterday wrote:
Well they are to me, I want more options and new monsters for the material they have now. I would also like maybe a PF1 version of some of the PF2 stuff that's coming out, but for my PF1 games. Right now, if I want to support Paizo, I MUST play PF2E. If that's not screwing over the base, then what is?
Here's an interesting idea that can easily rake in a ton of cash while ALSO pleasing the community at the same time.
Why not support BOTH PF1E and PF2E?
Yes, I know what people will say. But I'm not suggesting they equally do both, as we all know that will split their resources when they really want to focus on PF2E.
I'm saying maybe they release just a few products per year, better than nothing, I say! Right?!
It's better than screwing an entire community over who still want official PF1 material and don't really like and want to be forced to play PF2 because everybody else is, or arguing why they should switch.
I'm pretty much hanging on a thread here hoping I can look forward to more PF1 material, even if it's just a miniscule amount.
This is utterly depressing me thinking about it. :'(
Judging by all the PF2 information given on ENWorld, conversion to 2E is not simple at all. PF2 is entirely new system, a complete overhaul. Many many things are getting changed, hardly anything is being kept from PF1.
Many of the feats, classes, spells, archetypes and other options WILL NOT translate to PF2 well at all. What will happen is you'll have to sit around and wait for a PF2 version to be printed (again) and buy that product (again) or wait for a 3rd party website to throw it up since it's OGL.
The 2E APs are probably the only things us PF1 players will get use out of.
Considering the entire restructuring of their feat system, magic and spells system, and their monsters we are all screwed from harnessing any of the crunchy material from PF2 to our PF1 games.
Converting a PF2 monster to PF1, for example, is probably not going to be possible. Or may be with a ton of work.
Saw some more of the 2E Pathfinder rules today. It's all compiled on ENWorld.
It's no longer Pathfinder anymore. 2nd Edition is a complete overhaul and I hate it the more and more I read it. You don't want me playtesting it. I'll just be suggesting and pushing a lot of things to bring it more in line with PF1 again.
I expected this kind of garbage from WotC with D&D. WotC with the complete abandonment of the 3.0/3.5 community for their crap 4e and, then soon after, 5e, was why I left them and came to Paizo. Paizo showed the RPG industry that you can do an edition change without throwing away so much of the original material. This was why Pathfinder had the moniker of "3.75" but, to me, they are MY 4th Edition D&D. They were what 4E D&D should have been.
Now Paizo is just another clone of WotC, abandoning a great system like PF1 and giving us a completely new, different, and unnecessary 2nd edition.
The saviors have now become the perpetrators. Thanks for succumbing to the same mistakes WotC has made.
It has me pretty mad. They couldn't fit in at least one more Bestiary at least? As like a going away present for us who don't want to go to 2E PF?
Actually no one truly moved on from 3.5. Many came to Pathfinder BECAUSE it was a 3.75e
It was what 4e D&D SHOULD have been, I would argue.
The fact that many of the 3.5 material is very compatible with PF with minimal tweaking made it a very wonderful transition. The only things left in the dust were some of WotC’s classes (like Warlock, for example). It was specifically stated as a PILLAR to Pathfibdwr’s foundations.
Now they want to abandon it. And everyone who came on board with it with something more akin to 5th edition D&D than to Pathfinder 1e.
I’d rather play 5e D&D.
Brother Fen wrote:
Pretty much. They lost a customer here.
I would prefer they continue to support 1st Edition PF, even if it means 1 product every few months. At least it's something.
To be completely abandoned (again, with D&D already having started that trend with 4e), there's only so much this gamer's soul can take.
The new edition sounds and reads like an overhaul, and not some kind of update/clarification/some new stuff/minor-but-important changes kinda thing.
So much for a Bestiary 7. Nice knowing ya, Paizo.
Along with another poster above, this was why I left D&D too. Edition changes bringing TOO drastic of a change. And I'm not liking any of this at all, it's too unfamiliar and too simplified and too...different.
Well, I am going to pass on this. I'm not liking what I am reading, it's becoming too much like 5th Edition D&D and Star Wars Saga and everything else that's getting too "streamlined" and "easy" and all it really does is dumb down and make less options in a game. Also makes transitions really hard. Really hard.
I jumped onto Pathfinder because it was easy to convert 3.5 material to PF system, but now I'm supposed to make a 2nd jump? And I can't even enjoy new goodies from Pathfinder 2nd Edition because it appears that while PF 1e can be converted to 2e, it doesn't seem like Pathfinder 2e can be converted to PF 1e.
Therein lies my problem. (Doubt it is anyone else's, but it could be)
Were I able to, say, purchase a 2e PF product but find that it wouldn't be easy to switch it to a 1E PF ruleset, then you lost a customer.
But when you make things like "10th Level" spells, for example, you're adding a dimension to the game that really shouldn't be there and making backwards compatibility too much work to bother with.
Edition changes are more harmful, I believe, than good because it separates communities and sadly this is where I part ways with keeping up with PF anymore and just stick to its roots in 1e.
The players are heavily experienced and know how to optimize, so I have to go extra hard on optimizing my "boss fights" in order for my players not to run them over in 2 rounds using little resources.
Well, my players won't be too happy to learn the fiendish fire giant Fighter 12 that they successfully blinded was able to use his dual-wielded earthbreakers to use Cut from the Air to block the gunslinger's barrage of bullets coming at him. That was the idea, but if rules suggest otherwise, I get heat. Mainly because my players eyeball what the enemies do, because somewhere along the line they will try to pull a similar tactic knowing how I ruled it before.
That SHOULD be a cool thing Fighters can get away with but Fighters almost never get the good stuff.
For feats like Deflect Arrows and Cut from the Air, they require the character to "be aware of the attack."
So what does that term mean mechanically speaking?
My best assumption is, if you're surprised in the surprise round. Such as a rogue sneaking up on you, you fail Perception, and they take a shot at you from their hiding spot.
Does this term rely on the character also needing sight to the incoming attack, or just simply knowing the are being attacked? For example, mid-battle my character is blind. He's aware of enemies present and attacking, he just can't see, but can he still use Deflect Arrows?
If the answer is no, then a follow up would be "Does Blind-Fight prevent this, since you keep your Dex bonus to AC when being attacked while blinded/can't see enemy?"
I am asking this because I have a fire giant fighter against the PCs, who wields two weapons and has the Cut from the Air feat. He was blinded by a PC spell, but he still has Blind-Fight. The Cut from the Air feat specifically says it USES an attack of opportunity, but it's not making an attack of opportunity, it's using one to make a melee attack against an incoming ranged attack in order to deflect it.
Can my Blind-Fight blinded fire giant who is aware he is being attacked still use Cut from the Air when some arrows get shot his way?
Oh they added more stuff in the FAQ. Just noticed. That's a good start.
So how much more fixes can we expect and when?
For my next campaign, I have a player wanting something Druid-like without the spellcasting and Shifter is right up his ally cause he likes martial types. But, sadly, until the Shifter gets the update it needs, he's not going to want to opt into it.
Is it me, or is Starfinder causing the slump of new Pathfinder material? We used to have a PF Campaign and Player Companion product almost every month, but lately I have seen it every other month (and it looks that way for the future according to the schedule). Not that I have anything against Starfinder, but I thought Paizo was a growing industry yet it seems Starfinder is replacing some PF releases instead of side by side releases?
They haven't for Dragon Magazine, but an RPG system like Pathfinder they did do a playtest for the material. Even the rules material, not just the classes.
After that it was all classes, except for Words of Power.
Now...nothing at all?
Paizo never playtested arcehtypes. It's sad we'll probably see more 'quality' like this now because there are no more playtests. What a cycle its in, eh?
Why doesn't Paizo do playtests anymore? I wholly believe past classes have been great and would have been horrible were it not for the playtests.
Does Paizo intend to purposefully let Pathfinder degrade in quality? Maybe to have some "legitimate" reason to usher in a 2.0?
It's mind boggling to me. Was there some sort of management change?
Personally, I don't see how hard it would be to do some sort of revision. A separate PDF file anyone can download and/or print. For those with the PDF, a new copy. For those with hard copies, well, best print out the PDF revision.
Many companies will take your product and replace it with something functional. If not, they still compensate you and you can get the same thing or something else entirely.
Car companies do "callbacks." Bring your car in, get what's wrong with it fixed, and continue on with what you originally paid for. A great quality product.
Now I'm not suggesting Paizo callback all their hard copy orders. But to do the electronic equivalent, instead. Revise, release as a PDF for those with hard copies to print (not the entire book, just the Shifter) and those with electronic copies can simply get a revised version of the PDF to re-download.
That's just how efficient customer service should work. Otherwise, you're just harming yourself as well as those who bought into something believing and being told it's one thing, only to find out it's nothing they expected or just poor quality of what they expected.
I believe we're not hearing much from their end because they're still considering what to do, if anything at all, but my hope is they're trying to do something. Maybe they're in the process and don't want to say much.
In time, we'll see.