Wizard

Joe M.'s page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,537 posts. 3 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 13 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,537 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Fuzzypaws wrote:
They mentioned the monk by name in the last blog, and it was supposed to be this past Monday's blog until they changed it at the last second, so 99% Monk for Monday.

^ My thoughts as well.

Silver Crusade

QuidEst wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
...
...

That's what I get for quick posting from my phone. Thanks.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.

The inconsistent naming convention is kinda bugging me. Quickend, and sickend, please!

Silver Crusade

I'm just here to claim credit as (I think) the first to point out this hint. :-P

(Of course, I might be wrong. But I was the first I knew of dang it!)

Anyway, kidding aside, I take this to be pretty unambiguous and I'm very excited for the change.

Silver Crusade

MerlinCross wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Unarmored character options would be awesome.

Have to balance against Magic Armor. Even with the new system, having that extra action/effect/buff/whatever that Magic armor will give is hard to argue against.

Personally feel like Monk could get away with it.

We know there's an unarmored defense proficiency (a recent blog?). I believe it's been strongly implied Monks get to legendary proficiency in it (one of Mark's old posts). I would not be shocked at all if Barbarians got some of that as an option, esp. considering Erik Mona's unarmored Barbarian character in PF1.

Silver Crusade

Unicore wrote:
right, so somatic actions provoking attacks of opportunity seems like a very specific condition. Is the fighter's Attack of Opportunity going to list a whole set of conditions, or will there be a general category of actions that often trigger attack-like reactions?

I'm 99% certain that one of the designers said that the AOO reaction was one of the more common (but not universal) generic reactions that monsters get.

And yeah, concentration could be a thing that might trigger a number of reactions or just be hooked into some broader mechanics in a way that explains this choice, but we just don't have the full picture yet.

So I guess my point, at a high level of generality, was more like:

Given what we've seen so far I would guess that the choice to make Somatic-only spells available to raging Barbs who can cast has something to do with background design principles about spells, components, concentration, etc. It's not just a random choice without consequences or ripple effects. So I'd be curious to hear more from the designers about that choice (it would help us learn more about the larger system), and/or will be curious to evaluate the choice in light of the full playtest rules when we see them.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Re Somatic Components: My understanding is that Somatic components provoke AOOs while Verbal components do not. So Barbarians with spells only at first can use while ragong spells that will provoke. But later might be able to use other spells without provoking by taking extra feats and such. A balance idea, maybe.

I imagine this decision relates to that, and what it might say about the design principles of picking components when designing a spell. But yes, I would love more insight into these decisions, just to understand the playtest design better.

Silver Crusade

Cross-posting because I like this thread:

Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Huh, so Whirlwind Strike is Barbarian-only now?

Well we've previewed Whirlwind Strike for fighter as well, so...

(then again, things have sometimes changed since the preview. For instance, fans of the halfling ancestry would find it wise if they check out the final playtest book for the new cool stuff)

*eyes emoji*

I hope this hint means what I think it means ...

(emphasis added)

Silver Crusade

Rysky wrote:

Can't wait to see the Spirit Totem, also I hope there's a Revenge Totem :3

*forlornly*

Linnorms...

It's a revenge party

a party that ends
with somebody's head on a spike.
It's a revenge party
with your two best friends
it's like a party with revenge is what it's like.

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Huh, so Whirlwind Strike is Barbarian-only now?

Well we've previewed Whirlwind Strike for fighter as well, so...

(then again, things have sometimes changed since the preview. For instance, fans of the halfling ancestry would find it wise if they check out the final playtest book for the new cool stuff)

*eyes emoji*

I hope this hint means what I think it means ...

(emphasis added)

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Zaister wrote:
Similar is not same. I guess, we'll see.
'Similar', 'several ability scores', and the math being perfect if it works exactly the same make for a compelling case for it being pretty close to the same.

See also the comment in the monster blog that monsters could drop ability scores and go with modifiers only because they don't raise their stats like PCs do. Which clearly suggests (to me) that whatever method PCs use to raise stats results in odd scores every now and then.

Add that to the leveling up blog talking starfinder and I think it's very good odds it'll be diminishing returns ability boosts, like Starfinder.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

Um. Im pretty sure they're putting archetypes in, they just havent been previewed/spoiled yet.

In fact the framework theyve shown for pf2.0 is even MORE archetype friendly, as "class feats" are likely gained at the same levels across classes, archetypes an be created that may be applied generally to multiple base classes.

Yes, this is correct. Jason's Game Informer interview discusses archetypes in a decent amount of detail. The OP is misinformed.

Silver Crusade

Dragon78 wrote:

Well I noticed that combat spells like produce flame and shield are cantrips now but are there still utility cantrips like light, mage hand, etc.?

I wonder what other first level spells are cantrips now?

Light is mentioned in the Spells Blog. I don't recall seeing a mention of Mage Hand yet.

Silver Crusade

edduardco wrote:
Looks like the Universalist is still around in PF2, and school opposition is gone

aka, habemus blog

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gunny wrote:
Can you explain how you arrived at 15 missiles if cast as a 9th level spell? I can't figure out the math here.

(1 missile base + (9 - 1)/2 missiles from heighten) * 3 actions

= (1 + 4) * 3
= 5 * 3
= 15 missles

Silver Crusade

Senkon wrote:
How do we know that wiz is the next preview? Share with me this secret well of information plz.

It's from 10 days ago, but see this post upthread.

Joe M. wrote:

Good tidbit about class previews at the very end of last night's Paizo Friday Twitch stream with Mark. Headline: We're pretty much guaranteed to see Wizard this week (or maybe next).

Here's why:

Starting at 1:14:13, Mark reveals that class preview blogs are coordinated with the PaizoCon playtest sessions. There will be 6 Playtest pregens available for play at PaizoCon, and the preview blogs are arranged to cover those 6 classes before the convention.

So far, the blogs have covered: Fighter, Rogue, Alchemist, Cleric, Paladin. Mark says that "you can guess what the sixth one might be."

PaizoCon starts Friday 25 May. So that means Wizard this week or next and one week without a class preview. Wizard for obvious reasons: they aren't going into the big convention without the Fighter-Rogue-Cleric-Wizard quartet. (Also, haven't some of the streamed games featured Wizard characters?)

So I'd guess Wizard this week and no class preview next week as Paizo gears up for the convention.

(Incidentally, at some earlier point in the stream Mark says that we won't see information about the Druid until "much later" but it's not clear to me whether he was exaggerating for effect or whether his comment means what it says on its face.)

Silver Crusade

Wizard!! Very excited to hear about the first Pathfinder class I played.

Silver Crusade

Easy to play & easy to run without getting too bogged down in details & little rules that contradict each other or don't work like similar rules or are scattered piecemeal throughout the book and not built into a coherent system. The efforts to streamline and rationalize the system (e.g., the action system, the "learn it once apply it everywhere" design behind the classes). So I'm pretty encouraged. I'm sure I won't lose the customization and depth of character options that I know & love. But I'd love a system that plays more smoothly at the table.

Silver Crusade

Malk_Content wrote:
Just to add I think the only difference between SF stat ups and PF2E stat ups is they are always going to be +2, rather than Starfinders bizzare diminishing returns. I think generally odd ability scores will be a thing of the past (at which point we ask ourselves why have +2s instead of just +1s and make the modifier be stat-10)

Circling back to our ability score level up specilation from earlier in this thread, did y'all catch this in today's monster blog?

Blog wrote:
You'll also notice the monster gives just its ability score modifiers instead of scores. This lets you make calculations more quickly, and since monsters don't increase their scores the same way PCs do, listing those is unnecessary. Monsters with items also list those up top.

I'm reading this as a hint/evidence that my diminishing-returns-stat-boosts theory might be correct.

Silver Crusade

Saint Bernard wrote:
I am hoping the next blog is a class review of the druid.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you shouldnt get your hopes up for hearing about the druid anytime soon. Quoting my post upthread on last week's twitch stream with Mark:

Quote:
Incidentally, at some earlier point in the stream Mark says that we won't see information about the Druid until "much later" but it's not clear to me whether he was exaggerating for effect or whether his comment means what it says on its face.

Silver Crusade

No mention I know of. Monday's blog is Wizards, I'd ask there if the blog doesn't mention. But honestly I expect this'll work just like it did in PF1.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, Kobold Cleaver et Al who are handling this convo. You're doing a great job and I appreciate you raising the concern.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
The multiattack options take enough actions to prevent using them more than once per round.

I didn't see it mentioned just how many actions it would take.

Still for bosses might want to bump that number up. Maybe.

Mark’s post, previous page. Mariliths probably shouldn’t get to blenderize somebody twice, make two more attacks, and raise their AC.

Specifically, this post:

Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Question: What are the action costs for these options? Do they all use all 3 actions?
They are activities that use enough of her actions that she can only pick one to perform.

Mark's being cute here, but this suggests that each of the multiattack options described uses at least 2 actions. They might all be 2, all be 3, or some mix—but as long as they're all at least 2 then Mark's statement is true.

Silver Crusade

Captain Morgan wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

Monsters today, and more detail on Friday:

Blog wrote:
tune in on Friday as Logan goes through an example monster in detail and shows how we made the statblock easier to reference!

Which means Wizards on Monday, just in time for PaizoCon and fitting the every-other-week pattern we've been seeing for class reveals since the Rogue.

Am I the only one who would kill to see an actual stat block, or be still my beating heart, a character sheet?

No. I'm really hoping that the 'tune in' message means that we'll see a full statblock.

Silver Crusade

Blog wrote:
To close off, many people have been wondering how in the world we handle creatures with many heads, like the hydra, or arms, like the marilith or hekatonkheires, in the 3-action system. Such creatures have unique abilities to use their attacks in tandem in different ways. For instance, a marilith has three options for her six blades. She can make a focused assault on one enemy, which can deal a massive amount of damage on a hit, and deals damage for a single longsword even on a failure (but not a critical failure). Alternatively, she can spin about like a whirlwind of blades, attacking up to six different creatures with her swords. Finally, she can just attack twice and use the other blades to parry, giving her a killer AC for 1 round.

Question: What are the action costs for these options? Do they all use all 3 actions?

Maybe I'm missing it, but it really isn't obvious to me from the text. Which left me with the weird feeling that the blog doesn't answer the very question it sets up here (i.e., 'how in the world we handle [multiattack] in the 3-action system').

Silver Crusade

edduardco wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
I would expect the opposite: I'd be surprised if they dropped a very controversial blog right before the convention. But if the Wizard is pretty much what we expect, no big surprises, I could see why it might feel like a good one to drop next week.
You are probably right, I have not accounted for convention dates

I hadn't thought of it either until Mark brought it up in Friday's Twitch stream.

Silver Crusade

I would expect the opposite: I'd be surprised if they dropped a very controversial blog right before the convention. But if the Wizard is pretty much what we expect, no big surprises, I could see why it might feel like a good one to drop next week.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
Another week without Wizard preview, I was baffled that Paladin got first

That does seem a bit odd. If I had to speculate, I'd guess that since the blogs are timed relative to PaizoCon they didn't want to drop their most controversial blog the week of the convention.

I know they get super busy with the convention, and I imagine it's a lot easier to deal with Paladin when not so distracted (while also gives time for the immediate blowup to calm down a bit).

So Paladin timing might have been determined by: (1) needing to get the Cleric out first for context (especially Anathema); (2) needing to get Paladin plenty in advance of PaizoCon for the reasons above.

All guesswork, of course, but it sounds like a plausible story to me.

Silver Crusade

Quote:
From animated objects to zombies, from the lowliest kobold to the mighty jabberwock, the Pathfinder Playtest Bestiary includes over 250 different monsters

This is pretty exciting. For some reason I was expecting a much narrower Playtest Bestiary. Glad to hear we'll have a lot to play with.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monsters today, and more detail on Friday:

Blog wrote:
tune in on Friday as Logan goes through an example monster in detail and shows how we made the statblock easier to reference!

Which means Wizards on Monday, just in time for PaizoCon and fitting the every-other-week pattern we've been seeing for class reveals since the Rogue.

Silver Crusade

dragonhunterq wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Yes

Cool, that's good to know. It seemed like the actual ability score thing shouldn't really have been that big a deal.

I can't blame you for being salty that we are losing spells per day though. Who doesn't want to be throwing spells around willy nilly? I think it may be necessary for the health of the game, and hopefully powers offset this a little in practice. But this is one of the few things I look at where I am like "Yeah, that's gonna sting for some people."

I'll have to say my initial response to that little snippet was less than welcoming, I have had to actively remind myself that - a) We don't have a full picture of what (if any) other powers casters may have and b) expectations are going to be different.

One of the things I'm interested in playtesting will be how "the adventuring day" feels in the playtest rules. I think it was the Game Informer interview where Jason was talking something about that. I think he said it would be one of the focuses of the playtest adventure,or at least a segment of it, throwing different types of days at the players and seeing how it feels in the new rules.

Silver Crusade

QuidEst wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
So what is this about the "power"..I mean spell pool growing?
Somewhere in the Cleric or Domain thread it was mentioned that when you select a new power (e.g., buy into a domain's advanced power), you got extra spell points as well. And I thought Mark mentioned that in the Twitch stream as part of explaining Paladin casting. That Paladins not only get really cool powers (as he reiterated here) but that the high Charisma and extra spell points each time you take. new power meant that you shouldn't be hurting for spell points. Or something like that.
I think the gist was more that Paladin powers (spells) are cheap. Ones that might cost another class Two spell points cost only one, and they tend to be on par with top level spells, rather than the usual standard of “better than cantrips, worse than top-level spells”.

Okay, I went back to check what I was thinking of. The discussion of Paladin spellcasting starts at 46:22 in the Twitch stream. The specific part I was thinking of starts around 49:07. Here's a rough transcript. You'll see that the main point is what Mark reiterated above, but there was the passing mention of getting more spell points, which for some reason stuck in my mind.

Mark wrote:
. . . The way we handle it, actually—we buff up the Paladin spells by giving them really badass spells. They're still mostly Paladin-only, like they were in first edition, right—the Paladin had some that everybody could cast that they were getting and then these other ones that were secretly better that were Paladin-only—we just made them powers. And you just get a pretty robust spell point pool for a Paladin. They get some things that cost 1 spell point that sometimes other classes probably would have had to honestly pay 2 spell points for an ability that good. So they have an efficient pool. It almost makes the Paladins into super spontaneous casters. Because any spell you've got you can cast with your spell point pool, and it's always growing when you get new powers. So that lets us give you cooler powers right away . . .

Silver Crusade

Dragon78 wrote:
So what is this about the "power"..I mean spell pool growing?

Somewhere in the Cleric or Domain thread it was mentioned that when you select a new power (e.g., buy into a domain's advanced power), you got extra spell points as well. And I thought Mark mentioned that in the Twitch stream as part of explaining Paladin casting. That Paladins not only get really cool powers (as he reiterated here) but that the high Charisma and extra spell points each time you take. new power meant that you shouldn't be hurting for spell points. Or something like that.

Silver Crusade

Captain Morgan wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
*Groan* You are going to make me dig through the Paladin threads, because now I know interesting mechanics are being discussed and not just circular arguments about alignment.

Spare yourself! Just scroll through Mark Seifter's recent posts instead.

Friday's Twitch stream with Mark also had some material, including discussion of the righteous ally feature and confirmation that Paladin spellcasting is all via spellpoints rather than Vancian (but they get a lot of really cool abilities and tons of spell points so they're kind of "super spontaneous casters").

It's less that you have tons of Spell Points and more that each Spell Point goes a really long way for a paladin. Like a paladin can manage to gain powers with a low cost and equal to a top-level spell for a full caster. That's a big deal; most powers are in between a cantrip and a top-level spell for a full caster.
Most Paladins will probably have better than average spell points based on prioritizing charisma, no?

I'd have to go back and listen but I think what I was thinking of was the high charisma + extra spell points when you take a new power so the pool keeps growing. (That's a thing, right? Or is this all a misremembered hash?)

Silver Crusade

glass wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
This might not confirm "all ability boosts are +2" over "ability boosts have diminishing returns."

I could have sworn that they explicitly said that a boost was +2 (and a flaw was -2). Did I misremember?

_
glass.

Not exactly.

There have been statements like, ... grant you an ability boost, which adds +2 to ...

But if there's a diminishing-returns setup like Starfinder, an ability boost applied to a score of 16 or lower is +2 and 17 or higher is +1.

But since all ability boosts in the new standard method for generating stats would be applied to a score of 16 or lower, they would always be +2 when creating a character in the new system.

So the sort of statements you're thinking of could be technically correct but still leave room for diminishing-returns.

Folks upthread have covered lots of reasons to think that it *is* always +2. I'm just being contrary.

Silver Crusade

I'm out & on my phone, so can't relisten right now, but I believe we heard that monsters would be "next week" (not necessarily Monday). And I don't recall hearing anything about blog discussion of building monsters. So if I am remembering correctly, you might need to adjust your expectations. Listen here.

Am I misremembering? Or do you have a different source?

EDIT: I wasn't misremembering. All that's said is "monsters coming next week."

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Quote:
PF2 was a perfect opportunity to drop Companions. Shame it was squandered... :(
While balancing companions can be very difficult, they are an incredibly fun RP addition to have around. And they tend to be incredibly fun for their player, too. It's usually the rest of the party that suffers, and sometimes the DM if balancing encounters becomes harder.

Yeah, companions & summons in PF1 cause a lot of problems with balance, ease of play, and speed of play.

I'll be very interested to push the Playtest rules hard to see how they perform on this.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
*Groan* You are going to make me dig through the Paladin threads, because now I know interesting mechanics are being discussed and not just circular arguments about alignment.

Spare yourself! Just scroll through Mark Seifter's recent posts instead.

Friday's Twitch stream with Mark also had some material, including discussion of the righteous ally feature and confirmation that Paladin spellcasting is all via spellpoints rather than Vancian (but they get a lot of really cool abilities and tons of spell points so they're kind of "super spontaneous casters").

For the twitch stream, to get to the interesting info quickly I'd recommend skipping the first half hour or so since it's all recap of the blog and alignment stuff, and watching at 2x speed.

Silver Crusade

Well, I'd guess Wizard not this week but next, then. Looking back at the blogs, Fighter and Rogue we're one week apart but since then the classes have been every other week. So I'd guess a gap week before Wizard.

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
The difference between my breakdown & DMW's comes from the item bonus, since DMW's breakdown assumes +0 but the gear blog confirms -2 item bonus for an improvised item/weapon (which fits "extremely uninvested").

This is possible. I feel like it's unlikely for a few reasons (no other odd stats anywhere, and many skills not requiring tools, while the example was said in a way that implied it applied to most if not all skills, leap to mind), but it's very possible.

Joe M. wrote:
The trouble is, where would a +18 difference come from? I don't see a route to a +18 difference, but presumably there's gotta be some character option to squeeze out another +1. Which is to say, merely having confirmed a +17-to-+18 difference between very-invested and very-uninvested doesn't securely establish "all ability boosts are +2".
It doesn't. I personally think the lack of diminishing returns is very likely, but there's absolutely no definitive evidence one way or the other.

Yeah. The other thing, of course, is that "it's possible to have a difference of +17 or +18" doesn't preclude from also being true that "it's possible to have a difference of +19 or +20" — which would make diminishing returns much less likely since my breakdown was stretching it already.

We'll see!

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Somebody was complaining about characters of the same value having numbers too similar to each other, and I think Mark said you could get like a +18 difference in modifier. I'll see if I can find it.

He said +17 to +18, actually. And yeah, that was the context.

That does make the 9 point swing between an 8 and a 26, plus the 5 point swing of Proficiency, plus the 3 point swing of Legendary Tools (since this was about skills) which is exactly a 17 point swing.

Mark Seifter wrote:
I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it.

This might not confirm "all ability boosts are +2" over "ability boosts have diminishing returns." Here's an alternative breakdown:

+05 (legendary v. untrained proficiency)
+05 (legendary v. improvised item bonus)
+07 (ability of 22 [+6] v. ability of 8 [-1])
==============================
+17 difference

If ability boosts have diminishing returns like Starfinder, the max ability is 22 (start at 18, then +1 at levels 5/10/15/20). If ability boosts are always +2 the max ability is 26 (start at 18 and then +2x4).

The difference between my breakdown & DMW's comes from the item bonus, since DMW's breakdown assumes +0 but the gear blog confirms -2 item bonus for an improvised item/weapon (which fits "extremely uninvested").

The trouble is, where would a +18 difference come from? I don't see a route to a +18 difference, but presumably there's gotta be some character option to squeeze out another +1. Which is to say, merely having confirmed a +17-to-+18 difference between very-invested and very-uninvested doesn't securely establish "all ability boosts are +2".

(Again, I see all the reasons why that's probably true. I'm just stubbornly invested in this gut feeling that we'll get diminishing-return ability boosts. Honestly part of the reason is probably that opinion seems so universally to the other side. And I would hate to see a situation where everyone "knows" it's one way and then gets really mad if the playtest comes out and shows the other. So I want to keep the very disfavored minority-opinion possibility in folks' minds so they don't get expectations too bound up in the majority-opinion alternative! But, lol, hat's hopeless anyway since folks will be Extremely Mad Online about the playtest no matter what.)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh wow he really does just drop it in there super casual. Great rogue skills, Dan.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I'm not saying all the deductions based on the post are correct, but I can confirm that I did say your extremely high level specialist might have a +17 to +18 edge over the hypothetical character who was extremely uninvested in it. That gap is enormous and covers almost all results on the d20, but at least that's not the gap between two characters both trying to fill that role but one of them is still that far or more ahead, as it often was in PF1.

Thanks, Mark! You're the best.

Silver Crusade

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Somebody was complaining about characters of the same value having numbers too similar to each other, and I think Mark said you could get like a +18 difference in modifier. I'll see if I can find it.

He said +17 to +18, actually. And yeah, that was the context.

That does make the 9 point swing between an 8 and a 26, plus the 5 point swing of Proficiency, plus the 3 point swing of Legendary Tools (since this was about skills) which is exactly a 17 point swing.

I semi-remember those posts but can't find them at the moment. Really wish this website's function to search a user's posts worked. This is exactly the kind of thing it used to be great for.

If anyone does have a link to that post or posts from Mark I'd love to see it.

Silver Crusade

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

Wait, what?

That is how ability scores are arrived at? ABC + level? Um. Yuk?

I mean, anything that makes me yearn for my most detested method, point buy, must be really really yuk. *sigh* Welp, it's going to take some getting used to. At least there seem to be a couple of shapes for these cookies...

Yes, that is the new standard method. The Halflings & Gnomes blog does say, however:

Quote:
(And if you want to roll your ability scores randomly, we have an option for that in the playtest so you can see how that might work, though we prefer for characters used in the playtest to be generated in the standard way.)

Silver Crusade

Aristophanes wrote:
They also said "monsters coming next week". So Wizards on Monday and Monsters on Friday...probably.

Oh really? I missed that. I was half-listening while trying to work on something else. (I'm kind of sick of Paladin stuff so didn't really commit to this one.)

Do you know about where in the stream that was mentioned, so I can go listen to the surrounding discussion and pick up what I missed?

Silver Crusade

Captain Morgan wrote:
Also, I think the number Mark mentioned for modifier differences was 18 of 19. If 5 of that is from Legendary vs untrained proficiency, and 5 is from an item, then the other 8 would need to come from ability scores. +8 would be the difference between a 10 and a 26 in a stat, with 26 being how high 4 ability boosts can get you on a starting 18.

What are you referring to here?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My own guess is that we will see diminishing-returns from the ability boosts, like in Starfinder. Two main reasons:

(1) Diminishing-return ability boosts would help keep the math bounded (max ability score of 22 v. 26 if each ability boost is +2). We've seen other features of the new system that go for more-bounded math so I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case here too.

(2) Diminishing-return ability boosts would interact a bit better with ability scores that start at odd numbers. This might not be a thing for the new standard generation method, but it's something to be expected in games that use alternative stat-generation methods such as rolling.

Maybe I'm wrong, of course. The major problem with this theory is that I have no good explanation for the "tweaks" to the Starfinder system mentioned in the leveling up blog. +2 every time is a pretty good guess for that! But I guess we'll see in August.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.

The current best-guess understanding is that ability scores start at 10 and then are generated in 4 steps:

(1) Ancestry: 3 ability boosts (2 set, 1 free), 1 ability flaw
(2) Background: 2 ability boosts (1 set, 1 free)
(3) Class: 1 ability boost (set)
(4) Level: 4 ability boosts (free)

(Though we expect that humans, half-elves, and half-orcs will get 2 free ability boosts rather than 3 ability boosts and 1 flaw.)

This comes from the various blogs, the stats observed on a level-one playtest pregen, and the comment in the Leveling Up Blog that level-up ability boosts would be like Starfinder and level-one would get the same:

Leveling Up Blog wrote:
You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels. The process might be familiar to those of you who've been playing Starfinder for the last several months! There are, of course, a few tweaks, and we made all ability boosts work the same way instead of being different at 1st level. Learn it once, use it in perpetuity.

My understanding is that Starfinder gives 4 ability boosts every 5 levels, so we expect to have this round out first-level character creation. That would explain all the data we have so far.

***

So if I were creating, say, a completely standard Dwarf who was a Blacksmith and is now a Fighter, that might look like this:

Baseline (straight 10s):
Str 10 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 10

Ancestry: Dwarf (+Str, Con, Wis; -Cha):
Str 12 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8

Background: Blacksmith (+Str, Dex):
Str 14 Dex 12 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8

Class: Fighter (+Str):
Str 16 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8

Level One (+Str, Dex, Con, Wis):
Str 18 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 14 Cha 8

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Good tidbit about class previews at the very end of last night's Paizo Friday Twitch stream with Mark. Headline: We're pretty much guaranteed to see Wizard this week (or maybe next).

Here's why:

Starting at 1:14:13, Mark reveals that class preview blogs are coordinated with the PaizoCon playtest sessions. There will be 6 Playtest pregens available for play at PaizoCon, and the preview blogs are arranged to cover those 6 classes before the convention.

So far, the blogs have covered: Fighter, Rogue, Alchemist, Cleric, Paladin. Mark says that "you can guess what the sixth one might be."

PaizoCon starts Friday 25 May. So that means Wizard this week or next and one week without a class preview. Wizard for obvious reasons: they aren't going into the big convention without the Fighter-Rogue-Cleric-Wizard quartet. (Also, haven't some of the streamed games featured Wizard characters?)

So I'd guess Wizard this week and no class preview next week as Paizo gears up for the convention.

(Incidentally, at some earlier point in the stream Mark says that we won't see information about the Druid until "much later" but it's not clear to me whether he was exaggerating for effect or whether his comment means what it says on its face.)

1 to 50 of 1,537 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>