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.
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.
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.
Cross-posting because I like this thread:
Joe M. wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I hope this hint means what I think it means ...
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.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Yes, this is correct. Jason's Game Informer interview discusses archetypes in a decent amount of detail. The OP is misinformed.
Light is mentioned in the Spells Blog. I don't recall seeing a mention of Mage Hand yet.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
Specifically, this post:
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.
Captain Morgan wrote:
No. I'm really hoping that the 'tune in' message means that we'll see a full statblock.
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').
I hadn't thought of it either until Mark brought it up in Friday's Twitch stream.
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.
Monsters today, and more detail on Friday:
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.
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.
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.
. . . 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 . . .
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.
Captain Morgan wrote:
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?)
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.
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."
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.)
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.
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.
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
Yes, that is the new standard method. The Halflings & Gnomes blog does say, however:
(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.)
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?
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?
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.
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
(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):
Ancestry: Dwarf (+Str, Con, Wis; -Cha):
Background: Blacksmith (+Str, Dex):
Class: Fighter (+Str):
Level One (+Str, Dex, Con, Wis):
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).
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.)