Gorbacz's page

But you can descend from a djinni!

PF2 has much tighter math, so this shouldn't be a problem. None of the stuff in post-CRB stuff gets anywhere close to overpowered or an upgrade that sidelines core options.

By talking to your GM.

Yeah, but that's super situational. Being a sentient repair kit isn't, especially given how shields work in PF2 and how your damage output is tied to weapons you really don't want to have broken.

Please add anything I missed.

2021 GenCon hardcover is Secrets of Magic, featuring Magus and Summoner. Yep, it's happening.

PF2 second round of errata is to drop promptly after GenCon.

Why is it that this 128 page book is a $25 pdf.

Is that a typo? It seems a wee bit rich.

Considering the Advance Player's Guide is $15.

APG is in the core line, where PDFs are discounted.

Here's the feat. The OP is trying to be funny about the fact that the feat saves you having to buy a 1sp crafting book, but misses the part where it frees you up from buying and carrying the 2gp Bulk 1 repair kit to put your shield back together. EOT.

That's not too powerful. I'm afraid you're wrong.

What's so powerful about it?

Despite Christmas being in July this year, Joey found a way to be unhappy.

If I were to hazard a guess as to when we will see Mitey Dragon Snares, it's going to be in Lost Omens Ancestry Guide.

Remember, if you like it - review it, or else somebody who was mad at the binding/shipping speed/lack of Summoner/Paizo betraying their emotions by producing PF2 - will leave a 1-star review and Paizo won't make books like this any more ;)

This is a lost cause.

The core rulebook already contains a lot of feats that makes GMing hard since it's easy to accidentally allow something that a feat gives you.

Paizo reserves the right to monetize (through feats) every little thing. The "yes, but" school of games mastering has no traction here.

You're supposed to say no unless the player can prove he's allowed to do something.

A reductive GMing style, but hey, how would otherwise Paizo be able to fill up book after book with a thousand feats, controlling every aspect of the world.

An edition where it's easier to wing it than PF1, this is not...

And yet, between this and the agonisingly crippling Incapacitation trait, you play it. Just how much pain more will you bear? :)

Marshal is the ultimate Warlord expy that can be bolted upon any class and fills a niche that PF1 wasn't really ever able to cover. That archetype alone is worth the retail price.

I can see reading a sealed letter as something featworthy. But not being able to read a letter because you saw it upside down? That'd be a very pedantic GM.

You need to play with more GMs :)

On a more serious note: I'd likely run it that without the feat, you need Expert or Master to quickly read upside-down text. With this feat, you need Trained.

For me, the intention for a lot of skill feats is more "you can do it easier/with lower proficiency threshold" rather than "you can only do it with the feat".

APG thread: 1000+ posts
Legends thread: 230+ posts

Yup, you can tell which of these books is player-side ;)

You're assuming that stuff like doublespeak, glean contents or through search is stuff every GM would allow without the feat. That's not the case.

And most importantly, curses only kick in after you use your revelation spells. They're not always-on nor do they trigger after regular, non-revelation spellcasting.

Squawk! is the best feat, ever.

Gorbacz wrote:

How do you compensate the martials, then? I expect an extensive array of well-playtested houserules to balance this out. Let us know your design chops.

I thought the underlying assumption by the people who want to remove incapacitation tag was that spellcasters are underpowered. Under the assumption, wouldn't there be no need to compensate martials?

I assume the game is balanced as it is, if you buff casters - fine, go ahead, but what about making sure martials don't lag behind?

Archives of Nethys just announced that GenCon stuff (APG, SF:SOM and more) will be added at a minute past midnight PDT.

Which for you, dear Yurpeens, means 9:00 (AM) CEST.

Striking runes were in since the very beginning of the playtest, so their inclusion is not a mistake. The whole math of the game is designed around martial classes getting more dmg due to striking runes while casters get that through heightening.

Removing striking runes would have the same effect as taking PF1 weapons and eliminating + to dmg from +X weapons and kicking any other damage enchants (flaming, holy etc) away. Meaning: weapon-based damage output would fall off drastically and no sane person would play a non-caster.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I don't know. I was responding only to the idea that it wouldn't matter because Japan, China and (South) Korea are major industrial powers, not marginalized.

If Asian-Americans aren't bothered by it, then that's cool. Paizo did a good job.

Are you operating on the basis that "not being offensive to USAns descended from people from (X)" is significantly more important than "not being offensive to people who currently live in (X)" ?

While I don't have any hard data to back this up at the moment, I think Paizo's primary audience is America, followed by Canada and Western Europe. Which means for Paizo (and importantly their bottom line), not being offensive to people who live in America is more important than people who live in China and Japan.

Correct, US+CAN is 80% of D&D/Pathfinder market.

Wake me up if Strategy Guide gets pocket treatment, then.

Gorbacz wrote:

Ah, Wednesday morning, time to buy my PDF.

N....N...NANI????!!!!!!!

It's a GenCon release, and that starts tomorrow

*draws the katana*

FUMEIYO ... YORI SHI!!!

Ah, Wednesday morning, time to buy my PDF.

N....N...NANI????!!!!!!!

The Raven Black wrote:

Martialmasters wrote:

It would be better to remove all incapacitation spells than having the incapacitation trait

Removing tactical options does not make the game better IMO.

I'd rather keep the spells and just remove the trait from the game.

How do you compensate the martials, then? I expect an extensive array of well-playtested houserules to balance this out. Let us know your design chops.

Persona 5, Resident Evil 4, Team Fortress 2, Zelda: Breath of the Wild.

It is finished, when it's done. Take your time.

Now to figure out how to convert the Mesmerist class...

Hey, I have the EXACT same problem :D I guess Bard, maybe? Or Occult Sorcy...

Gorbacz wrote:

You haven't addressed the question. Is 5-foot step an action? The book says no, it isn't. It doesn't fall into any action type. The spell says you can't take an action after it. So, you can take a 5-foot step, because it's not an action.

Of course, there are lots of actually intelligent counter-arguments, starting with one that teleporting could be considered "movement", so you shouldn't be able to take a 5fs after it. Or the argument that it would be really weird if ddoor prevented you from taking a free action to talk (as much as GM allows you) but not prevented you from taking a 5-foot step.

But there's no clear answer in the rules and we can argue until the end of days.

A 5ft step is listed under miscellaneous actions so yes it is an action and no according to spell you can't do it.

Well, page 183 of the Core Rulebook tells me that 5 foot step is "No Action". The book contradicts itself.

We're not going to come to a conclusion and honestly, I think you can't make a 5fs after a teleport, because that makes SENSE. But the point was that the PF1 action system is dense, exception-based, self-contradictory and leads to repeated arguments (the "what is an attack/attack action/standard action used to make an attack" argument is right next door).

I'd echo the question from Rysky - if you buff casters this way, what are martials getting to compensate?

Thought so.

Gorbacz wrote:

Why not? Sure, the spell is clear, it says you can't take any actions after ddoring.

But what action is 5ft step? Is it even an action? The game has move, standard, swift, immediate, free and full-round actions and in the very "Action Types in Combat" table in the Core Rulebook, it says under "No Action", there's the 5-foot step. So is it an action, or isn't it one?

There've been massive threads where people would argue back and forth about this. Both interpretations are valid. Both could be correct if ever Paizo would issue a FAQ/errata on this (they won't). But the entire problem arises from the action system in PF1 being an obtuse mess that it is. Unlike, erm, the PF2 one.

Why not? Because that's how that spell works, you don't like how the spell works don't use it.

You answer your own question about 5ft steps here so I'm not going to repeat you. It is clearly explained what a 5ft step is and the reason you can't take a move action to move afterwards is because the 5ft step doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity so to make sure it's not abused, it has that limitation put on it.

You haven't addressed the question. Is 5-foot step an action? The book says no, it isn't. It doesn't fall into any action type. The spell says you can't take an action after it. So, you can take a 5-foot step, because it's not an action.

Of course, there are lots of actually intelligent counter-arguments, starting with one that teleporting could be considered "movement", so you shouldn't be able to take a 5fs after it. Or the argument that it would be really weird if ddoor prevented you from taking a free action to talk (as much as GM allows you) but not prevented you from taking a 5-foot step.

But there's no clear answer in the rules and we can argue until the end of days.

If a core gameplay element like action economy can be a "burning mess" and an "obtuse mess" but plenty of fun can still be had playing the game, the edition must not be quite so awful. Perhaps it'd be useful for multiple posters on all sides to cool down the rhetoric in this thread and get back to the original post? Why don't you tell us a bit about what PF1 games you're playing? I'm sure people are curious.

Sure, I'm running Hell's Rebels, currently book 5, for a party whom I ran Skulls and Shackles for. I'm also running Strange Aeons, book 3, for another group. I have also ran the entire Rise of the Runelords and Reign of Winter for two groups that fell apart because Real Life.

Are we having fun? Yes. Is PF1 a fun game? Yes. Is the system getting in the way of fun? Yes, especially at higher levels. Will we switch to PF2? Yes, once the APG drops.

4) The numbers crunch is a little to tight for our liking. Most relevant challenges (hazzards, skill checks and sometimes also combat) seem to assume that there is a maxed out specialist in the party (or has the correct spell selection available), which a) not always is the case and b) makes you feel bad if you for any reason did not max your relevant skills or attributes, especially during character creation (and which also can't be retrained).

I knew this will happen.

Playtest: Why is +level to everything! Why can't we be abysmally bad at something! Why is everyone at least competent at everything!

Paizo: OK, untrained doesn't give +level.

Full rules: Why do we need specialists in everything! Why is the game assuming somebody will be trained in something! Why can't we all be at least competent in everything!

Sadly, Paizo once again listened to people who wanted something else than they were asking for.

I don’t take all this sturm und drang seriously. A couple of posters who will rant and rave about how PF2 is utter nirvana and the best game ever will also, when asked why they spend all their time posting endlessly in PF1 threads, say it’s because they’re in multiple PF1 campaigns. Make of the irony what you will. Trolls just gonna troll, and edition warring is easy grist for the mill.

There's no irony in that at all. I'm in one Call of Cthulhu campaign despite the fact that I vastly prefer Trail of Cthulhu for my horror RPGing, but perhaps shockingly to some, playing in an RPG campaign is not just because of the ruleset, but also because of what's the story, who runs the game, who plays it and how much fun you're having despite the rules being not your first pick.

Yes, I can play both PF1 and PF2 games at the same time despite preferring PF2. If you think that's verboten or that I'm breaking some basement law on edition purity, heh, I can't feel but sorry for you.

Gorbacz wrote:

The1Ryu wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.

You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.

Vs.

You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions

I don’t agree and as a forever GM I have a ton of examples on both sides of the GM screen to show that they are effective even without feats.

1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.

So, can you take a 5-foot step after a teleport/ddoor in PF1?

Not after ddoor but that’s and effect of the spell not the rules governing action.

Why not? Sure, the spell is clear, it says you can't take any actions after ddoring.

But what action is 5ft step? Is it even an action? The game has move, standard, swift, immediate, free and full-round actions and in the very "Action Types in Combat" table in the Core Rulebook, it says under "No Action", there's the 5-foot step. So is it an action, or isn't it one?

There've been massive threads where people would argue back and forth about this. Both interpretations are valid. Both could be correct if ever Paizo would issue a FAQ/errata on this (they won't). But the entire problem arises from the action system in PF1 being an obtuse mess that it is. Unlike, erm, the PF2 one.

Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. Combat Maneuvers without the feats were "effectively" invalid, not "actually". Most other actions were easily more reliable and less risky. Stop being a pedant. I don't see how you can even say that PF1's action system isn't more complicated, either.

You get a Standard, Move, Swift, and Reaction. The Move and Standard can be combined for a full action. The standard can be traded for a move but not vice versa. Steps are a free action but they disallow movement. Some actions use the movement action without moving the character, etc.

Vs.

You have three actions and a reaction. Some things take multiple actions

I don’t agree and as a forever GM I have a ton of examples on both sides of the GM screen to show that they are effective even without feats.

1e Actions could easily and accurately described in the same way you described 2e actions. Three and a reaction some taking multiple action aka a full round action.

So, can you take a 5-foot step after a teleport/ddoor in PF1?

The best explanation of how PF1 action system was a burning mess compared to PF2 system, by LuniasM (shamelessly stealing instead of linking):

PF1:
You have a Standard, Move, and Swift action on your turn. You can trade a Standard for a Move but not a Move for a Swift, and you can't trade the other direction for either. You can use both a Standard and Move to do a Full-Round Action, but that's different from a 1-Round action which takes your turn and goes off at the start of your next turn assuming you don't get interrupted. You also have Free actions which cost nothing and can be done as many times as you like until your GM begs you to stop, and Non-Actions which aren't the same as Free Actions for some reason. You can also get an Immediate Action during other people's turns, but you only get one and it takes your next turn's Swift Action to do it - don't worry if you forget about that, because I probably will too. You also get one Attack of Opportunity if you're wielding a weapon that triggers based on stuff the enemy does, and you can get more if you take a certain feat, but they're not like Immediate Actions so they cost nothing to use. One of your available actions, the 5' Step, allows you to move 5' if it's the only movement you make during that turn - specifically a Move action to Move, or a Charge, or Run, or Long/High Jump, but not standing up, or being pushed or pulled, or teleporting. Except you can't take actions after you teleport, so remember that. But a 5' Step isn't an action, it's a Non-Action, so...? Oh yeah, you can draw a single weapon as part of a Move action to Move or a Charge, but only if your BAB is +1. Getting an item out is a Move action, but only if it's easily accessible - stuff in your bag takes a Standard. You can Charge as a Standard action if you're limited to just a Standard action, such as during a Surprise Round or when you're Slowed, but you only move half the distance. Some conditions can take away actions, but they vary in what actions get taken away and they're way worse for martial characters than casters. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.

PF2:
You get three Actions, plus occasionally a single Reaction and/or some Free actions that trigger when a specific thing happens. Some classes can get one or two extra Reactions that can only be used for a specific ability. You can never activate more than one Free Action or Reaction off the same trigger. Some special actions called Activities take more than one Action to use. Sometimes you can get a fourth action with the Quickened condition, but that bonus action can only be used for specific things, and the ability that granted it will tell you what it can be used for. Some conditions take away a number of your Actions on your turn, usually either 1 or 2. That's everything.

See the difference in size between those blocks of text? See how many less exceptions and corner cases I have to cover for PF2, whose system I covered almost entirely in that paragraph? Guess which action economy system I, the Eternal GM of my table, prefer.

Zapp wrote:

Official reply here:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs433x4?Meravon-or-Merovan-Pathfinder-2e-AP

Ironically, my own post.

This is as simple as it needed to be.

Seems like it's not that simple after all.

What

I didn't know that the resentment against mixing science fiction with fantasy extended to maps, but here we are.

Free RPG Day adventures are released as free PDF and 5 USD print 30 days after the FRPG Date.

The devs intent with magic item identification was likely to give space for both those GMs who ask you do make a check, those GMs who require you to visit the Wizard's Tower, those who require you to cast some spell to identify and those GMs who just handwave and tell you everything right away unless it's an artefact.

I've played with all these approaches and PF2 gets least in the way of them - I still have nightmares from "Identify Nights" of 3/3.5ed yore when you would spend an entire day casting Identify 30 times. Ugh.

Maybe.

30k bundles!

Soooo...are our timezones ever in any way compatible? :D

Try Dungeon World or Ryuutama for a something that's very different but very similiar to D&D.

Gorbacz wrote:

I'm pretty sure the upcoming Beginner Box will be even more beginner-friendly, not to mention will be free from PF1 BB's biggest issue of being a modified rulest causing you to re-learn things if you want to go "full PF1".

Is it odd that, as someone who has been playing D&D for pushing 38 years, I'm extremely excited for that product?

The only thing odd is that you really should play more non-D&D games, especially newer ones - more perspective is always better for a fresh look at your favourite game, not to mention seeing layouts and book organisation that's totally different from default D&D one :P

As for anticipating PF2BB, that's totally on the spot, I can't wait myself.

So if this is the final bestary, I'd love to see some of the older robots and tech stuff in here. I love my robots and lasers and it would actually fit my friend's current campaign. He's using Starfinder stats for the lasers and other tech stuff.

It's been four days, something is clearly broken. Maybe let's try again:

I HOPE FOR LOTZ OF ROBOTZ WITH LAZORS IN THIS BOOK!

*primes the claymore mine, draws the kukri*

I'm pretty sure the upcoming Beginner Box will be even more beginner-friendly, not to mention will be free from PF1 BB's biggest issue of being a modified rulest causing you to re-learn things if you want to go "full PF1".