Search Posts
Hi, GentleGiant and Selene Spires! The Pathfinder 2nd Edition Gamemastery Guide PDF should now be available to download from your accounts. All the best! A heartfelt thank you coming your way! I hope to be able to pay it forward some day.
That's incredibly generous, completely coincidental!
I have a feeling there's a twist to the whole angle that we haven't thought of yet.
I got a huge vibe of Battlestar Galactica from the latest episode:
BG spoiler: they end up on Earth and one of the crew members becomes the "Mitochondrial Eve" of this Earth and then fast forwards to present day, 21st century Earth
Good call! I don't know if you did a comparison through theorycrafting or this is just a case of a broken clock is right twice a day, but 2 fighters, a barbarian, and a druid rolled through Plaguestone with trivial ease. I made a couple mistakes, like not advancing the party a level when I was supposed to, but because they were martials, it wasn't a big deal. I believe the game designers expected a balanced party, which would have been much harder. In any case, you are correct! Well done!I'm sure you're right about spellcasters being better. My players just didn't make the right choices and I am not smart enough to see what choices would have done the trick, at least for Fall of Plaguestone. No doubt, those spells are awesome when we finally figure out how to play this game. Unfortunately, we are going to move onto Hellknight Hill with new characters now that we have gotten some experience and we are just going to houserule spellcasters to give them A LOT more power. Open spell slots (choose spell on the fly) feels about right. I'll be around to say how that goes.Now, being true to form you should, of course, not implement any house rules and just have everyone create a fighter. Then come back and let us know how your 4 fighters roll through the entire AP without a problem due to them being so superior to casters at hitting things. No, no, no, no, you don't get to cheat. You have consistently said over the last 12 pages that a group of 4 fighters would be much better than a mixed group and that casting a spell would always be the inferior choice to just hitting things with a weapon, so put your money where your mouth is. Ask your players to play through the AP with only fighters, no multi-classing with classes that gets spells or spell-like powers, as that would be an inferior choice. You clearly said that both the druid and the cleric would have been better off if they had played fighters instead.
I'm sure you're right about spellcasters being better. My players just didn't make the right choices and I am not smart enough to see what choices would have done the trick, at least for Fall of Plaguestone. No doubt, those spells are awesome when we finally figure out how to play this game. Unfortunately, we are going to move onto Hellknight Hill with new characters now that we have gotten some experience and we are just going to houserule spellcasters to give them A LOT more power. Open spell slots (choose spell on the fly) feels about right. I'll be around to say how that goes. Now, being true to form you should, of course, not implement any house rules and just have everyone create a fighter. Then come back and let us know how your 4 fighters roll through the entire AP without a problem due to them being so superior to casters at hitting things.
I wonder how many of those who are dissatisfied with the new incarnation of the Wizard (or other casters) have actually tried playing one for 12+ levels to see if they're actually fun to play in the framework of the new system (in the ~ 3 weeks it might have been out for some people)?
Semi-transcribed the part about the Advanced Player's Guide from the announcement panel:
Here's the summarized version of what was said during the Sunday panel: Paizo sees Core rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide and the Bestiaries as "the heart, the core of the Pathfinder system". Going forward, from a design point of view, they'll assume that most tables will use these books.
Reasons for including these 4 classes:
(all this is from the Pathfinder 2e Design Philosophy panel early Sunday)
As for some more of my thoughts.
Investigator will certainly have alchemy abilities (DMW lays it out nicely why above).
I'm pretty sure Mark is using "them" so as not to reveal the gender of the iconic, not because the new iconic will use "they/them" pronouns. Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but Shardra uses "she/her". None of the PF1 iconics use gender-neutral pronouns, though it'd be great to get one who does in PF2.Shardra, who has been illustrated for PF2 art already previewed, will be the Oracle iconic. Yeah, I was just amending my post with that piece of information as you were writing this. ;-)
Alahazra (Oracle iconic) does look like she's had a new, upgraded outfit in the latest PF1 offering (Druma, Profit and Prophecy), which could speak against her being replaced.It's not a new outfit specifically for her; she's dressed as a Kalistocrat and Harsk is dressed as a member of the Mercenary League, two of the big factions for Druma. True, I had forgotten about that detail.
Alahazra (Oracle iconic) does look like she's had a new, upgraded outfit in the latest PF1 offering (Druma, Profit and Prophecy), which could speak against her being replaced.
Shardra, who has been illustrated for PF2 art already previewed, will be the Oracle iconic. Except it's not an updated picture by Wayne Reynolds, who does the first illustration of all the iconics. Shardra is also in the section specifically about the shamanistic Rivethun order. On the other hand, Mark does use the "them" pronoun - even though Shardra specifically uses the pronoun "she" in her introduction blog.The Iruxi on the Lost Omens character guide could also be a viable candidate (Oracle?).
Shardra, who has been illustrated for PF2 art already previewed, will be the Oracle iconic.You say this with such confidence that I'm not sure if it's your theory or if there's confirmation somewhere that I haven't seen. I don't think Shardra would work as the Oracle unless they scrap the curse mechanic (which I suppose they could). They're not scrapping it. Jason even said that he wish in PF1 they could have made a mechanic for the Oracle to "throw/pass" their curse on to others.
Paizo sees Core rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide and the Bestiaries as "the heart, the core of the Pathfinder system". Going forward, from a design point of view, they'll assume that most tables will use these books.
Reasons for including these 4 classes:
(all this is from the Pathfinder 2e Design Philosophy panel earlier Sunday)
Jason clarified the announcement from yesterday regarding the archetypes in the APG. There's going to be 60 PAGES of archetypes (which would probably be close to 60 archetypes anyway he chuckled).
Item quality rules could be some of the optional rules that show up in the GameMastery Guide.
Semi-transcribed the part about the Advanced Player's Guide from the panel:
APG will also have backgrounds (Jason).I am very curious to see what bonuses the (Jason) background will give. It gives you the Control Matrix skill at Master level.
Semi-transcribed the part about the Advanced Player's Guide from the panel:
My best guess at the iconic that'll be changed, it's probably Jirelle, the Swashbuckler - mostly based on how Erik Mona talked about how the class would function, which seems to fit a slightly changed iconic.Could you give us some more details on this? I'm very curious to hear what the new Swashbuckler is going to look like, given that the old one was... not great. He said something to the tune of it being the most mobile and agile class, being able to do things all the other classes would be envious of. And that it was going to be great to see all that in the 3 action economy. His description sounded more like an acrobat-type character.
They did specifically mention that with the new ancestries you could make e.g. an elf-aasimar (or a dwarf-aasimar).
My best guess at the iconic that'll be changed, it's probably Jirelle, the Swashbuckler - mostly based on how Erik Mona talked about how the class would function, which seems to fit a slightly changed iconic.
July - Advanced Player's Guide
Made a few extra notes for some of the products:
January/February - GameMastery Guide
February The Dead God's Hand
March/April - Bestiary 2 July - Absalom: City of Lost Omens
August - Absalom: City of lost omens poster map folio
July - Agents of Edgewatch Adventure Path
July - Advanced Player's Guide
A decided nerf. The playtest gave such hope, TK Projectile offering a d10 combat spell, electric arc a d6, chill touch a d 8, and all scaling comparable to other classes in capability. In the release this has all bewn castrated, d4 and d6 instead, and only one scale to 2 dice. Basicly it's back to twidling our thumbs unless the martial type pause long enough to cast a 3rd level or higher spell. back to begging the gm to start at 3rd again, sigh.... Erm, the "Heightened (+1)" means that for every level you add one damage die and cantrips automatically autolevel "A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level rounded up—this is usually equal to the highest level of spell you can cast as a wizard. For example, as a 1st-level wizard, your cantrips are 1st-level spells, and as a 5th-level wizard, your cantrips are 3rd-level spells. "
This thread has seriously derailed, and grown rather rude. Magnuskn and I are allowed to dislike the changes to magic, and disliking it doesn't invalidate our right to be here. Geez. It's an open forum. No one has said that you're not allowed to dislike the changes. The manner in which these complaints are worded, by some, is the biggest issue people seem to have. I get a limited number of non-cantrip spell slots, and then I'm pretty much done for the day. Erm, same as PF1. In PF1 I could do that by pumping my spell DCs. At higher level, yes. Now your DC automatically rises with your level, actually making your lower level spells more impactful even at higher level. I could cast mage armor at the entrance to the dungeon and fire off one of my three spells per encounter knowing I'd made an impact. How is that different than now? Well, except that now your Mage Armor lasts all day, vs. the 1 hour at 1st level in PF1. So I have less of a limited resource, it has a smaller/weaker effect, I can't be certain that it will be impactful, and the adventuring day is longer. That doesn't feel wizardly. That doesn't feel heroic. That doesn't fit with the narrative of most fantasy literature, nor with the feel of about 20 years of 3.x. This is why we're upset. You potentially have the same amount of your limited ressources (actually more, if you count over the whole day as you can regain your focus points). You couldn't be certain that you would be impactful in PF1 either. In other words, you actually have more options now at 1st level than in PF1, so how do you feel less wizardly and heroic?Yes, if you sit down and do the math on the d4 cantrips they aren't as horrible as they seem, but the d4 is a bad first impression. Especially when casters in the playtest were rolling d8s, and in 5e they're rolling d8s and d10s. I said before, that's bad PR. The d6 isn't that much more damage, isn't as off-putting, and hurts less when you step on it. It would have been, in my opinion, a better decision. Acid Splash is d6 + 1 damage, with the possibility of persistent damage. Chill Touch is d4 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4).Electric Arc is d4 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4) on up to TWO targets. Produce Flame is d4 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4), with the possibility of persistent damage. Ray of Frost is d4 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4) with a potential speed penalty. Telekinetic Projectile is d6 + spellcasting modifier (usually +4). Sorry, but your complaint seems disingeniuous. Even the d4 cantrips all have your spellcasting modifier added. (plus the potential for a once or twice per encounter chance of doing a whopping 3d10+8 points of damage at a range of 500 feet - dwarven ancestry using Hand of the Apprentice with a pick) There also aren't very many cantrips themed to each school. It's hard to feel like a necromancer if you can only cast one necromancy spell in a day. It's hard to feel like a conjurer if you can only summon one creature in a day. What? You can summon as many creatures as you have spell slots to memorize Summon spells. My preference would have been to make magic weaker, but at will. The kineticist did this very well. That's basically what your cantrips do! Before you were complaining that they were too weak, now you're proposing that there should be a "weak" option that you can use all the time.
Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them). Grumbling about a false comparison isn't productive either and just seems like it's grumbling for the sake of grumbling instead of an honest look at the rules. Also, as the peeps at Paizo say themselves, if you want to continue to play PF1, great!
Wizard 18 int Spell DC: 10 + 4 + 3 = 17Fighter 12 wis Will save: 3 + 1 = 4
Charm: Failure The target's attitude becomes friendly toward you. If it was friendly, it becomes helpful. It can't use hostile actions against you = combat over. Color Spray: Failure The creature is stunned 1, blinded for 1 round, and dazzled for 1 minute = move away and attack from a distance, easily defeating the fighter.
Command: Failure For the first action on its next turn, the creature must use a single action to do as you command = Run Away command and move away from fighter, attack from distance for basically 2 rounds.
Fear: Critical Failure The target is frightened 3 and fleeing for 1 round = move away and attack from distance. Granted, this is the only one that's really conditional on a Critical Failure. Sleep: Failure The creature falls unconscious. If it's still unconscious after 1 minute, it wakes up automatically = Walk away or line up for a Crit to the skull.
All of these are still kind of silly, as this isn't "Arena Death Fights: Second Edition", but a cooperative roleplaying game.
That's not my grumble.Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status.Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them). Never said it was yours specifically. There are others who have voiced their (negative) opinions in this thread. I am going to use PF2 for my next campaign, so I'm kicking the tires. I don't like the wizard nerf because my players are experienced, so they are going to know when one class is dramatically weaker than another. The roleplayer of our group is going to choose what suits his fancy and I don't want him to be mechanically inferior just because he feels like playing a wizard. I can already guess what the powergamer is going to pick and it ain't wizard; my guess is straight fighter, sword & board. The other classes don't seem as problematic as the wizard, which I find funny because I remember reading in surveys wizards were considered the most boring and second most powerful class. It just isn't true. You keep claiming this ultimate truth... based on some highly unlikely theory crafting that you keep referencing, but haven't actually showed (and it would still be theory crafting, not how the various classes would actually play in an average game).
Your mistake was not realizing that wizard players got so used to optimizing the s~++ out of Fireball so that a 20 ft radius spread competes in damage on singular targets that they'd throw a tantrum when it returns to "AOE spell" status. Indeed, a lot of the grumblings seem to stem from not being able to do the same with the Second Edition core book as you could with PF1 core book + XYZ books (and the sometimes silly feats and combinations between them).
In the end I made the call to stay with PF1E after consulting with my players. One could wonder why you're posting in the Second Edition part of the forum if you've already decided not to play it? Seems like you're more interested in stirring up trouble (by posting hyperbolic claims about the new edition) and accusing the developers of being disingenuous than providing constructive feedback (positive or negative).It seems quite clear that you're not interested in Second Edition (as you've also just admitted), so I think it's best to just ignore your grumblings.
1st level spells: CharmColor Spray Command Fear Sleep If you only compare on damage output, then you're making an unfair comparison. A wizard can do much more than just pure damage. All of the above spells can incapacitate the fighter to one degree or another. Also, one on one combat between two PC-type characters is pretty damn rare, so you're basing your assessment on theory crafting, not on actual game play.
Funny, that sounds quite like a fighter-wizard you're describing, what with wanting to use several martial weapons quite capably.He only mentioned one weapon, though? Well, he keeps switching weapons, so I used plural.
I mean have you tried using a scythe? They are difficult to use as a TOOL let alone a weapon. To be fair, a war scythe (which should be the weapon in question) is quite different from the tool version. But even the weapon version requires practice to use.
What "RP reasons" prevent you taking the Fighter Dedication? It doesn't require any deity, alignment, anathema, etc. Funny, that sounds quite like a fighter-wizard you're describing, what with wanting to use several martial weapons quite capably.
Some spells last longer from the start but never scale after leveling past the point you outscale the congruent PF1E level (i.e. Mage Armor lasts 8 hours, but after level 8 you don't get the benefit you'd have in PF1E of it lasting even longer). Have you even read the finished product? Mage armorDuration until the next time you make your daily preparations Where are you getting 8 hours from?
I have a tangentially related question. Does anyone know if I purchase the pdf tomorrow will I get an immediate download link or does it have to be processed or something first? Yes, you'll get a link to download it "immediately" in the digital content section of your My Account link at the top right corner of the page. It might take a few minutes to go through, depending on how busy the page is (tomorrow it might be VERY busy).
And probably won't even arrive faster if you don't live in the US so.It very much depends - I live in the UK and got my books last Friday I've seen people posting pictures of the books on a Danish RPG FB group over the last couple of days, so the pre-orders from Paizo have hit mainland Europe too.
And for anyone who can answer this, what is the design behind the AC? Is that a suit of armor? A shield? I can't tell.I believe it's from an existing piece of art, but I can't remember which. Indeed. I just scoured the blogs to see if I could find it. Found it in... the playtest armour blog. ;-)
And for anyone who can answer this, what is the design behind the AC? Is that a suit of armor? A shield? I can't tell. It's a suit of armour. Neck opening at the top and the pointy bits on the left side are the pauldrons (shoulder armour) and sleeve.I believe it's from an existing piece of art, but I can't remember which (I just seem to recall that I've seen that shape before).
For those asking for a character sheet, they've been released here (in case you didn't read the blog or saw the front page at release). Also, once you receive your book(s) it might be a good idea to take proper care on how you open it the first time. Here's a video showing and describing how to open such a large book to ensure the spine of the book lasts longer.
Ok, now that you mention it I'm honestly curious... what does the rest of the world do about creature speeds and the expected 5-foot square battle mats? Do people convert to meters or is that just a fight you've given up on? Distance and length measurements come up in game play much more frequently, so if you've been playing for a while it's fairly easy to convert (although, for me anyway, it's not so much an exact conversion as it's a sort of rounded off number). 1 foot is 30.48 cm.So 3 feet is ~ 1 meter 5 feet is ~ 1.5 meter 10 feet is ~ 3 meters 30 feet is ~ 10 meters A mile is 1.609 kilometers, so it's fairly easy to do a "slightly above miles x 1.5" calculation. As for weight, it's easiest to go with 1 lb ~ ½ kilo/500 grams A gallon is ~ 4 litres 6' (for height) is ~ 183 cm (I'm 6'6" so the height of other creatures is also extrapolated from that, for me) - yes, I know this "clashes" with the 3 feet ~ 1 meter, like I said, it's rounded off/ballpark numbers. Volume, however, isn't as easy to just conjure up a sense of. Temperature, however, doesn't come up as often - at least not as a direct conversion (as temperature rarely shows up in e.g. published adventures) - so it's not something that's kept fresh in the mind. Mind you, we still use the imperial numbers and such at the table, but for individual visualization it's easier to convert it in your head to the above figures.
Pathfinder Advanced GM Screen (P2) (slated for February release, but could also come out in January alongside the Gamemastery Guide)There can be a lot to keep track of while running a thrilling game of Pathfinder, but the right GM screen can make all the difference. This four-panel horizontal screen has a lavish illustration on one side and a wealth of useful charts and tables on the other, referencing a number of the advanced rules systems first presented in the Pathfinder Gamemastery Guide. This screen will help keep your secret notes and maps hidden from players, while making your job as GM simpler than ever! So it's a screen containing the extra/alternative rules from the Gamemastery Guide.
Age of Worms in Golarion?
If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. Feel free not to trivialize things others want to discuss. But that's just the thing, there's nothing do discuss. You've read something into it that isn't there. If anything, you're the one trivializing the answers you've gotten already, just because they're not from anyone on the design team.
I'd rather not move it to another thread. I'd rather get clarification on the blog in the blog thread. So you're just looking for someone from the design team to pop into the thread and tell you what everyone else has been telling you for several posts now?
Like others have said, you've seemingly come up with the "currency" and "spend" thing on your own. In the description above it simply says "subtract 1000 xp" - nothing about paying 1000 xp to gain a level or similar wording. Also, having xp as a "currency" is generally a problematic concept, as you'll have some characters who might do whatever would require xp to be "spent", while others don't, thus probably creating a level disparity that might not be balanced with the whatever it is the xp are used for.
I'm not following you. Pf1 has different xp tracks now. It doesn't have anything to do with xp as a currency vs an accumulated total.I think you may be reading too much into it... I see it as simply improving support for customised XP tracks. For example you could decide to skip the early levels faster, so maybe you needed 500xp to get to level 2 but 800 xp to level 3. So once your character would beat 13x40 XP encounters, they would be 2nd level with 20 XP on their way to next level. Saying "they have 520 XP" would not mean much on its own without also mentioning the XP track they're on. If you want to put it in a similar context to PF1 you can easily put it on a cumulative chart. So: 1st - 02nd - 1000 xp 3rd - 2000 xp 4th - 3000 xp 5th - 4000 xp It's just important to note at the same time, that at-level encounters will continue to give the same number of xp, while lower level encounters will give continually decreasing number of xp (in order to explain that no, you can't continue doing lvl 1 encounters to reach lvl 20). The "subtract 1000" is simply an easy way to do the math. When you get to 1040 xp you've gained a level, subtract the 1000 and you now have 40 xp towards the next level. This is the same formula no matter what level you reach.
What is that ‘Confirmed’ link supposed to go to?? This should work. Link There are a couple of follow-up posts on Jasons's Twitter feed, but nothing ultra revelatory... yet.
Sign in to create or edit a product review. |
