I do use secret rolls. Not for anything they can get physical feedback on such as lockpicking or athletics, but for in combat knowledge checks and for perception in a lot of cases.
Part 2 perception spoiler:
When they decided to go looking for secret doors. Good thing too, as they reasoned from the map shape that there had to be a hidden room and kept spamming checks, and knowing their outcome would likely have massively altered how they played.
Blood Magic, Sorcerer feat 8, page 132 wrote:
Possibly reading it wrong but I don't think the or is clear enough in this case as to whether it's one individual or not. I'm also not clear on how it interacts with long-lasting AOE spells like Field of Life.
Common sense or not, I actually would like this cleared up. It's a little awkward to look at the actual rules and come to the conclusion that being behind a wall equates to cover and unseen/sensed.
It came up in combat for me and with some needling from players I ended up deciding that some gnoll tents were made of thick fabric that could be shot through even through two walls of the tent, as it was the closest I could find to RAW.
I'd be happy to run it like that for e.g. a giant attacking through a brick wall, but I'd rather my players not simply stab through one.
Incidentally and on a similar subject. As object ACs aren't really brought up elsewhere, basing them off the Wall of X spells it would probably be:
EDIT: It came up because one of my players was a ranger with favoured aim, who knew the location of the target gnoll. RAW shooting through the tent was a perfectly valid tactic.
The wizard is also frustrating in that they don't have anything beyond their limited amount of spells and spell powers. They don't have the skills and proficiencies of the bard, druid, and rogue.
In the chance that you aren't currently aware: that got heavily tweaked in update 1.2. Sig skills have been ditched, and unless otherwise stated classes start trained in their primary skill and 4+int mod others (druid and cleric/paladin being trained in nature+order skill and religion+deity skill respectively and 3 other each, before int mod. In some cases the primary skill is chooseable). Bard gets occultism+performance+6+int mod, ranger survival+5+int mod, rogue (steath or thievery)+9+int mod.
Because a standard wizard is starting with 16 or 18 int, they're starting with arcana+4+(3 or 4) skills, which is to say 8 or 9, 9 being on par with a 12-int Bard and only one skill behind a 14-int bard.
Actually, as far as I could tell (actually went and listened this time) the ranged option works like Flurry of Blows. Unclear on the melee option as nothing really seemed to be said.
Numbers wise it sounds like it will pan out overall closer to a buff for trained and higher characters with untrained maybe playing about the same. Bulmahn (apologies to you Mr Dev if I've spelt your name wrong and you happen to be trawling through this) explicitly stated the DCs on the DCs table getting knocked down "a peg or 2", which I'd guess translates to 2 in a lot of cases, courtesy of that being the peg size for the closely spaced difficulties.
As best I could tell, bolstering was implied on a crit fail only. I wouldn't be too surprised if the DC scaled with the target though. Depending on how this all works out, Assurance(Medicine) might be a very good pick.
In my own opinions, I really like how the dying tweaks sound. They sound terrifying. I had a pretty fun combat in 5e where a storm giant kept stomping on this poor sorcerer with the other players healed him to keep him from dying, in a similar situation with these the poor sorc would probably panic as he got a little closer to death's door each time he got downed. For me at least it's less about the actual lethality, and more about the looming consequences.
Spellwrack should probably be clearer, but I got the impression that unless otherwise stated it's permanent.This would also fit with how the majority of other curse spells work, like feeblemind, Mariner's Curse (by my reading of it), Outcast's Curse, Spiritual Epidemic. Geas is a weird case, but it's a ritual. Geas and Celestial Brand seem to be the only curses that don't directly work like this.
In case it's relevant here:
Appendix 1: Traits wrote:
A curse is an effect that places some long-term affliction on a creature. Curses are always magic and are typically the result of a spell or trap.
Overall Celestial Brand is a weird exception as it explicitly only lasts one round.
I like the elegance of Flurry of Blows. The monk can make two Strikes at the cost of only one action slot, but both Strikes have to be unarmed.
Talking of flurry, I really really like it and think it's a great example of a well-designed core feature, at least on paper. Simply because it opens up so much more of your turn to use freely. As an asides, I'm kind of curious as to how easy it will be to access if at all via the Monk Multiclass. For obvious reasons.
Emblazon symbol is kinda cool for absurd plans (e.g prison breaks), but something like that could help out pallies with the "not enough hands" issue.
Yeah, I really liked how the big cats operate! Most of these abilities seem much more fun to use in play than what PCs get. A lot more fun edition for GMs this time around! Specially compared to 5E where the original bestiary only had meatbags with basic melee attack and nothing else.
One thing that was interesting to run though in the PF playtest, is that the new action economy and weapons rules made it feel interesting for me to run even a bunch of mindless skeletons. Scimitar sweep encourages focusing on two players after all.
5e has some monsters I like, but most of them are big high end monsters with legendary actions, so it's going to be fun actually enjoying running low level combat as the norm, rather than the exception.
I mean I'll happily give more detail. Some abilities I like:
Drag. I just think this is fun because I can have some monsters play tug of war with somebody or drag a squishy off. I'm not expecting it to do too much, but I think it could cause a low level player to freak out when their wizard buddy starts getting pulled away by his ankles. Part 2 difficult terrain stopped me having as much fun with them as I hoped though.
Beasts in general:
I like that a lot of animals have abilities that you automatically think of when you think of the animal. E.g. crocodiles have a death roll, camels have an unpleasant spit, and great white sharks can leap out of the water and take a bite out of a low-flying enemy. This is doubly nice because, as mentioned many times, I'm coming from 5e. 5e Beasts are generally dull, sloggy, and weak. Here most of them have something (e.g. cats having both sneak attack and pounce) that makes them play different, and some like the smilodon are actually pretty horrifying.
Demilich I like mostly because of how they can be swiftly tailored to a theme, and because I just really like the flavour of "lich imploded and absorbed their magic items into themselves. Now they're just a malicious little arcane nexus." E.g. I'm possibly tempted to run at some point a Transmuter demilich, with the appropriate staff rolled in (meaning that they could cast Humanoid Form and disguise themselves as themselves in life) and one of the eye gems being something like Monstrosity Form so they could turn into a purple worm and dig a tunnel or whatnot. I like how they awaken, but mostly it's all about how they interact with spells.
I mostly like Saxra as the auras and knowledge stuff mean it's basically a living malicious storm that you go to for advice and try not to get too close. At a glance over the PF1 version though, it doesn't seem much different. So mostly I guess I'm glad it got included in the playtest.
I like how much mileage they get out of different sorts of hitting people -AoO (sextuple opportunity), Defensive assault (esp the interactions it has), focused assault, sextuple strike.
I like that they can shapeshift, move, and attack in one turn. Mostly I just think this is fun with the action economy, esp when they have other things at their disposal. Like the hyenas I think I'd like to use a quasit with more metaphorical bark than bite.
I like that the miasma obscures the dragon, so they can flood a location with noxious gas and then lurch out of the gloom to attack somebody else. I like the white dragon blizzard for similar reasons, but I think poison gas makes it thematically horrifying.
Flaming gallop. I quite like flaming gallop.
I'll agree that crumble sounds annoying, but I think the major earth elemental Spike Stones sounds interesting.
If you had players with access to flight you could potentially run a midair combat over water in a storm -midair maneuvers are acrobatics checks, swimming is an athletics check.
Hard same. Thematically rogues are and always have been one of my favourite classes, but this is the first iteration of a rogue I've seen that I actually like. Like, really like. They feel clever, sneaky, and tricksy. While in 5e where I'm shifting from I detested them, because they felt to me like little more than high skill bonuses strapped to a high-end striker ladder. If I wanted to play a rogue in that game I played a warlock or a wizard. When I wanted to play something rogue-ish in PF1 I ended up more happy with an alchemist.
While it's fun that high damage is possible, it's not why I love the PF2 class (and frankly if I wanted that I'd play a rogue-fighter, which is fun, but in its own way). Everything else is what I love about it, and I'd probably rather see damage ditched than relegate rogue to being a combat class first and foremost.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It's like, alright but not exceptional? I think I've mostly given it out for stuff like the barb swinging through and attacking Maegera the Flame Titan (landing by crashing through a window. At least, I think I gave it out for that), or an incredibly brave yet reckless plan paying off (splitting the party considerably via Dimension Door to save an imprisoned angel on the other side of an ambush). I actually used it more when it was co-opted into a daily resetting pseudo-ShadowrunEdge mechanic (inspiration number equal to prof mod, can get one daily back for normal reasons, can use inspiration for some other stuff and also after a roll) for in-game Reasons.
For the most part though I don't really care for it, similar to how I'm not really a fan of Hero Points (though I like them slightly less because of the "do stuff for GM" aspect).
Mark Seifter wrote:
Kind of sounds like Darksol ran the 3rd encounter great, and I wish I'd ran it more like that. Unfortunately while my players did try and enter diplomacy, I effectively forced combat as I was worried about going off-rails altering the feedback.
It's good to know some flexibility is allowed within the playtest, so thanks for that Mark!
My biggest problem was that the Barbarian just wasn't doing enough damage. I believe they should make their + to damage a little higher as right now it's a little underwhelming it seems. Again this may not be true as I haven't seen them in play so much.
Just curious, but at what level was the damage not enough? At level 1 at least the party barbarian was a terrifying force of death that sudden charged out of nowhere to murder and maim. This apparently inexorable elf lopping heads off left right and centre, propped up by 3 rounds being a really long time at level 1.
Hi, thanks for clarifying your precise issues.
I'm in a bit of a rush right now so I'll just TL;DR some of my points:
Solid tactics are fair, but it depends on the monster. I've just tried to adhere to the bit in the book that insisted on running creatures as how they'd act. So mindless monsters with worse tactics and whatnot.
Skeletons are mindless, so while they were in a nasty position (poor barb was flanked) and I played them reasonably efficiently, small clusters basically just locked on to different people to bully and left unmoving downed folk alone, instead of systematically killing individuals. The centipedes swarmed, but while 3 did go for one guy, another just went for a free bit of space to bite at. Most centipedes got one shotted, the one that didn't tried to scamper off. Quasits went for scary looking tactics, while the goblins actually did all focus on the paladin in response to him closing in.
The rulebook states that you get XP for combat and social encounters. What's about potential encounters the group managed to avoid? Will those also add up to the XP for an adventure? Or are only killed monsters awarded with XP? This would be a little letdown because it would prevent the group from seeking alternative solutions. Am I missing anything here?
If players managed to outwit or escape something in a reasonable manner then it's probably fair to treat it as normal, else consider using the accomplishments table on page 339.
I mean you can only max out 3 skills unless rogue (in which case 6), so even if you could go from untrained straight to genius then it's a pretty bad plan and unlikely.
I liked that sig skills gave a pretty little thematic block, but nothing else about them.
More skills? This news gets better and better.
Clearly it's time to play a certain ritualist and crafting fighter:
Survey data for Chapter 1 was coming in at 6% character deaths and so far on Chapter 2 it was about the same so it doesn't sound like there is a huge TPK problem.
This.With the number of TPKs reported I began to think I'd ran everything wrong in part one and couldn't find where I'd botched up.
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
I want the system to have a stronger influence on the narrative. Label it "rollplaying" if you want but it's a false dictomy to claim it's the opposite of "roleplaying". That really depends on the group. I've had great RP come out of rules heavy systems. Heck, I've had some great RP in games of Risk.
Only time I've ever played a character for more than one or two sessions was in a year-long Shadowrun 5 campaign. Party tank, effectively minmaxed for one thing and one thing only... being a musically brilliant pop star. Even when it got to the point where I was rolling 42+ d6s for things I still had great fun playing her, from drinking a troll and dwarf under the table, to launching concerts as distractions and using the proceeds to buy nice gifts for party members.
Not to be rude or anything, but "roleplay Vs rollplay" tends to really tick me off. Solid and specified combat mechanics, in my eyes at least, don't force a contradiction with playing your character as you want according to their personality. It annoys me on a similar level to the min-max or roleplay false dichotomy. Personally as a GM I feel like players should have a character they enjoy on both an RP and mechanical level, a lot of them are here for both, after all.
By tradition, pathfinder playtest (like other games in its lineage) is heavily based around combat. In my experience so far, the playtest feels very, very tactical -something that makes a nice change after running D&D 5e for two years. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that tactical focus might make it fall flat for you. However. Enough things in the document have caught my eye that I'm writing reasonable parts of a rejigged setting to work with it, with the intent of creating an interesting sandbox world (once we finish the playtest adventures) for my players to explore, find goals, and triumph within. The monsters have abilities that to me at least are narratively fun, while I'm in love with how the highly flavourful IMO ritual system works. So overall I see plenty of fun roleplaying in my future, even between all the combat and trying to find the rules for everything.
As a case in point, during the first mission of the playtest adventure, having completed a reasonable portion of the dungeon-crawly dungeon-crawl, my players had an absolute blast roleplaying an optional encounter, during which the evil party goblin buddy copped up with the goodie two-shoes paladin to solve it socially. And this was with me running everything as absolutely stringently and by the adventure book and hardline Rules-as-written as I could so as to ensure we gave viable feedback. The moment I get to start my next campaign and go off the rails then frankly I'd be surprised if we had any issues with roleplaying.
Also, regarding the phrasing to the devs. They've been pretty clear I feel about feeling strongly about making this a good RPG, on both the game end, and on wanting people to have stories they love.
TL;DR: It's probably fine. However, it sounds like you will probably find the specific sort of crunch off-putting.
Or something like "high difficulty DC of level [previous number of uses], subtracting Cha mod from the DC"? Not sure if I'd actually like that, but it could possibly be pulled into other mechanics. Probably a bad idea though.
I think I'd possibly be more interested in Fatigued or something than random effects, but that is in part a distaste for 5e wild magic table goofiness.
Yeah, some reasonably solid rules would be nice.
I really like the monsters in the playtest rn, but I'd like to build loads quickly. I am curious as to if Elite or Weak are supposed to be able to stack with themselves repeatedly.
It's good, but there are a lot of ways to get it and it's not super interesting as a crit effect for a weapon compared to pretty much all the others. You could accomplish something similar with an inverse of polearm or club -allowing you to make a Step for instance, which would be a reasonably cinematic version of sword fighting.
Edit: Shroud is right, of course. I just think it could be fun if Sword were to feel like it shined for you as much as or more than for allies.
Yeah. The sort who runs across the battlefield and then remembers to actually attack the dude next to the fighter. Alas, they exist.
I mean, it's non something I say often, but I think Shadowrun handled material reagents (material components) well. It notes that they vary by magical tradition but tend to be something relevant (so e.g. a psionic magician probably uses objects charged with emotional importance, the hermetic mage uses bits of rocks and actual chemicals, and the shaman uses sacred animal bones or whatever) and gave a couple of examples.
Otherwise I like how the playtest has done it, cutting out specific items most of the time. I also sort of like how stuff like the new action economy, metamagic, and Magic Missile, Heal, and Harm sort of make the components feel more flavourful IMO as well as more tangible -if only because they feel less arbitrary to me. Also off topic but I sorta love the wizard arcane focus -being able to use my book or my shoe or sword as a magical battery actually sort of makes me want to play a wizard, and normally I don't care for them in the slightest.
Personally I think I'm worn out slightly with minor rituals, but I wouldn't necessarily care as much if they coexisted with playtest rituals.That said, I actually do really like the idea of that being what a scroll is.
Byron Zibeck wrote:
I do not like that paladins only advance in Heavy Armor Proficiency. Since the goal is to create any character in your head, paladin's should not be penalized for going with a lightly-armored more mobile build.
Yeah, I was hoping that a light armour pally would at least be reasonable.
Pallies probably also need Emblazon Symbol, or for it to be somehow associated with Deific weapon (e.g. it being treated like how clerics treat their holy sumbol) -warded touch has been noted to not feel like a great pick, and the Domain feat means that a pally can end up in a situation where she can't actually use her domain power, thanks to hands being full.
I feel like the new rituals are one of my favourite parts about the entire playtest. Minor rituals could be fine, but I would be really sad to see the new system poof away.
I'm just enamoured with the new ones and after running a 5e campaign for 2 years they feel like a breath of fresh air. It feels like grand, dangerous magic and I love that.
Thank you, resident dwarf.
Frankly if you're fighting an on par creature in a highly dangerous fight that could go either way, that final hit should probably be used on trying to hit a minion, do something else like ready a shield or, if you think you can get away with it, move to lure the monster to a new position. This is for a do or die fight so yeah, I'm probably fine with it. If it isn't a do or die fight, you've probably got a large portion of the party trying to bully the big monster anyway after mopping up the weaklings. So yeah, I'd probably be fine with it -lower ac and more hp to make the challenge the same would probably sit worse with me as a regular thing.
Edit: As specified, I care less about how the skill roll etc fulcrum gets shifted.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
"Dagger" is just a fancy dwarven word for a special type of chisel