Sanvil Trett

Malthraz's page

141 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I think it is far too early to get out loin cloths in a knot over item prices.

Maybe it is really hard to make a true healing potion. Maybe you need unicorn horns and angel tears and you have to spend days grinding up diamond. Maybe it has other effects too.

If it is too expensive, don't buy it.


I think outsourcing spell review may be a good idea. Might also stop some unanticipated consequences from powerful combinations. Sometimes I think some players understand PFe1 better than some of the AP authors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What's this hard copy book you guys keep talking about?


What part of flatter maths makes you think +hit scaling is going happen? It seems highly unlikely. There may be a + to hit, but it seems likely that it will be small and flat.

In terms of good damage. It is just a damage type like any other: slashing, fire, cold iron etc.

Some creature have resistances, like DR or resistances the PFe1 where it takes a flat number off the damage. But now there are also vulnerabilities that adds a flat number on to the damage.

So a devil may have vulnerability good 5, so when the paladin hits them with an attack that does good damage, they take 5 additional points of damage.


I think there will be some recovery mechanics for exploration mode. I don't think there will be spell slot recovery. HP recovery and affliction removal will likely get a look in. I think limited spell point recovery may be possible, but I am leaning towards not being included.


SilverliteSword wrote:


(If that really is the goal, why would a wizard need STR?)

Melee wizard? I think wizards really only want int for DCs and +spell attacks. A wizard using spells to add damage to weapons does not need int.

Stack on str and dex and start slamming foes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaemy wrote:

So I got in a little discussion about what the attack penalties on a Monk would look like, because we got two different interpretations of what Agile Weapons exactly do.

Would the attacks be at 0/-4/-8 (reducing each penalty from -5 to -4), or would they be at 0/-4/-9 (-1 to the normal penalty for that attack)?

I think agile is 0/-4/-8/-10 (with that rare 4th attack). I vaguely recall Mark saying something to this effect in a thread somewhere. It was about 2-3ish weeks ago, but that's all I remember. Hm, I think it was in reference to two weapon fighting and double slice.

The main factor is how many attacks have you made, and then the weapon type you are using. So, the 1st attack you make has no penalty. The 2nd attack you make normally has -5, but if you use an agile weapon it is -4. It does not matter what weapon you used to make the 1st attack.

So, you could use a standard weapon to do the 1st and 2nd attack at 0/-5 then the 3rd attach with the agile weapon would be -8. The 4th attack is -10, because it maxes out at -10.


Well according to Mark, Monk AC is too good. So no worries.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


I have a notions of how I want Monks to be.

I expect that someone out there has different one. As a matter of fact, I expect there to be many of them.

Limiting a whole class to a single playstyle is terrible game design, turning a whole fantasy into a series of levers to be pushed and pulled. We would only get to choose limited inputs, and optimization is the only variant.

Permitting many different playstyles based upon a fantasy would be more akin to giving a blank canvas with a specific set of colors – within a certain range, create what you want. We would get to choose how to realize our fantasy, and what for.

I actually agree with this. However, I think what we are seeing in the play test is the evasion style of Monk. I think there should be other styles, and I think there will be other styles, but for now it has been pushed to fill this combat niche.

So I don't think it is bad game design, it's just limited game design. I think it is unreasonable to expect Paizo to be able to replicate 10 years worth of character development in a single play test release.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:


So a class that is supposed to be a dedicated frontliner can't actually stick around on the frontline. A'ight.

Who said monks are dedicated front liners?

Everything in the design points to them not doing this. Sure they can, but they are at higher risk than a Paladins or Fighters.

They can get +4 AC against ranged. This means that they should often be at range.

They even pick up a free action at high levels for movement.

I am not a big watcher of martial arts films, but of the few I have watched they are often jumping around and breaking distance. Not standing there and taking it.

Although there are characters that so a lot of blocking, these characters are generally a much higher level than their opponent, therefore a much higher AC.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you will find monks are supposed to have low AC because they are supposed to run away with their last action. Remember that they are faster and can double attack as 1 action.

They can dictate range to avoid blows, not high AC. Flying kick in to re-engage if you are feeling ballsy.

Wah-pah-pah!

Really nice design concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Malthraz wrote:

I deny that playing a pimp is necessarily edgy or juvenile. Al Swearengen from HBO's Deadwood is arguably one of the best characters in fiction. I can imagine a very good campaign set around a gold find that draws heavily from this show.

However, I don't think you need specific rules for prostitution or slavery. I think the down time rules would cover it well enough.

Well I feel like this is one of these things where if you have a player who you know to be a really thoughtful and taleted roleplayer and they come to you with a detailed plan and associated character arc, you don't have to say "no."

But one of the strengths of something like Pathfinder is that you can play it with randos. I've played some great RPGs that you literally cannot run with randos (like C:tL which is literally a game about being an abuse survivor), but Pathfinder and its kind are things where you don't have to know your players super-well.

So I think in contexts where you don't know your players really well, we should not encourage them to try to push these particular boundaries.

You are certainly correct that Paizo should be careful when including more adult content. Definitely a lot of pitfalls and potential to cause people to be uncomfortable, when all they really wanted to do was play heroes in search of adventure.


Rysky wrote:
Can we not compare slavery and sex work like it's the same thing?

Please point to a single post made in this thread that was indicating it is the same thing.


Tayoyo wrote:
I hope that prostitutes are still hireable in PF2, because they're the cheapest form of labour in PF1 and very useful for building an army. They also work well with a bag of holding as you can fit plenty inside of them and release thousands of them armed with spears whenever you get in a fight. Strength in numbers :)

They should at least be trained in spear handling. Some should be expert and master level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
This is the sort of thing that puts new players off rather than brings them in. I cant think of a single thing in my experience that has put more potential first time rpg players off than a GM or other player getting creepy about RP slaves and prostitution.
And very little behavior puts the tabletop RPG community in a poorer light than players getting indignant about "why can't I play a slaver/pimp/drug dealer" or some other bit of edgy juvenalia.

I deny that playing a pimp is necessarily edgy or juvenile. Al Swearengen from HBO's Deadwood is arguably one of the best characters in fiction. I can imagine a very good campaign set around a gold find that draws heavily from this show.

However, I don't think you need specific rules for prostitution or slavery. I think the down time rules would cover it well enough.


We know that if you are inflicted with hampered 1, and then again with hampered 1, they do not stack and you stay at 1.

What we do not know is if there are hampered +1 effects.

It seems likely that there will be enervated +1 effects, so that you can negative level someone to death.

Also stunned and dazed may be replaced by slowed 2 or 3. I suspect that conditions that stop you from having a turn will be very rare now. That is the whole point of these varying levels of success and conditions having a sliding scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like it. A lot of this has already been hinted at. Definitely some good new information.

Very good to get more information on barbarian fatigue. I think it is very good from a tactical choice perspective.

I like the way quicken works. While there is a bit more overhead for tracking the type of action that you can use with the bonus, this stops some overpowered options.

I think the various levels of conditions is the best element. Also some automatic recovery for fear is great.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Who would have expected so much rage in the barbarian thread?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

HERE AM BARBARIAN!

I really like the unlimited rage and fatigue mechanic.

Totem abilities sound fantastic. I really like the anathema element, and the fact that you have an option to ignore it.

Very distinct from the other martial classes. Being able to SMASH just from being full of rage rather than honed martial skill is a really nice feature.

There are also some nice buff, debuff utility and some almost magical abilities.

It also seems like the award for taking the most damage is very likely going to be claimed by the Barbarian, because well, they can take it.

Really great job with this class.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I think people seem to neglect lifting capacity when trying to figure out how realistic the game world is.

A level 1 barbarian with 20 str. can lift 700 lbs. overhead when raging. That is 119 lbs. over the official world record for a clean and jerk (581 lbs.) and very likely 100 lbs. higher than the maximum weight a human has ever lifted.

At level 1 characters are already doing the impossible.


thflame wrote:
Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

The shield rules make absolute sense. It doesn't take 0 effort to use a shield even if it is easy. The basic measure of effort in PF2 is 1 action. Therefore, 1 action is a perfectly reasonable cost to use a shield, as long as the math works out, which it seems it will with the info we have so far.

Don't mistake 'Doesn't make sense to me' with 'doesn't make sense to anyone'.

Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all.

Do you do HEMA? I have only done a small amount, but I have watched the guys (generally) that do and they seems to put a lot of effort into using their shield effectively.

Although I do think they could have some passive bonus. A shield that is hanging out on your arm is going to be more effective than no shield at all.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

What? No mention of Legendary Seduce?! How in the nine levels of hell does a Bard even function in this edition?

Great stuff.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Oh, it's a nightmare for a PC group, I totally agree. But that's not a world building issue. It becomes a world building issue if it's a nightmare for the local militia as well...and it isn't. It's ugly, but the Redcap's gonna die and do so quickly.

With 10 people making full attacks with bows with a +5 (a pretty crappy local militia, actually), you're gonna get a crit and three hits a round or so. Assuming cold iron arrows (not hard to get) that's gonna be 46 damage or so to the Redcap in round 1, followed by death in round 2.

Can the Redcap kill one 1st level foe a round, maybe two if it gets lucky? Absolutely. But the militia is gonna outnumber the Redcap by enough to absorb the losses and still bring it down and, if they have a healer, most of the people brought...

Roger roger. Yeah, I think a well trained and disciplined militia will be able to take a redcap in favourable circumstances. This assume that everyone is set up and ready, and the redcap just charges in. Possible, not likely. Stealth +13, Int 16. I think they will over come the little bastard, but hit and run tactic at dusk, in the woods would be a hard fight.

We do not know that much about cold iron in PFe2, but you may be right about it being easy to get hold of.

I accept that the majority of high level classes will be hanging out in town, but they should not fight as effectively as hardened group of adventurers. Not going to help smaller villages and hamlets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Malthraz wrote:
The +1 just means that a 5 or so level make things super dangerous. Turning the chance of successes into the chance of critical failure. It shrinks the encounter range that players can safely engage. Because players need to be defeating or successfully evading the vast majority of encounters to have an ongoing game, it makes the GM's job harder.
The math doesn't really bear you out too well here. AC goes up a bit quicker, but not a whole lot at low to mid levels (Redcaps have an AC 20 at 5th level, while 1st level folks can easily have +4 or +5 to hit, and AC...

I think the maths does bear it out. A redcap is only +4 level above a party of level 1, yet it has +13 on it's scythe attack. It is going to be critting 25% of the time with it's first attack against AC of 18.

That's 4d10+4 (I think). 2d10 for the scythe, 1d10 for deadly, 1d10 for crit (or 2d10?), is the strength added twice on a crit? So, 4d10+4 or 4d10+8 or 5d10+4 or 5d10+8, help me out. Anyway, adventurers are going to be dying even with 4d10+4 (average 26 damage crits are not nice).

Standard hit is still 2d10+4 for 15. That's still pretty brutal.

With deadly cleave there is going to be another attack when he downs someone, and he will.
Even the boot attack is fairly nasty if it wants to move and attack.

I think +5 to attack looks likely for martial characters at level 1. That means they only hit 25% of the time against AC 20. With 1d12+4 damage per successful attack it is going to be hard to outpace the fast healing 10. Sure they can knock the hat off, but adventurers are going to be dead in this encounter and it is only level +4.

If they have cold iron, and controls spells they might get lucky, but the damage output on this little bastards is really strong vs. level 1 adventurers.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonstriker wrote:

Yeah, I think upon rereading my post it ended up being more directly targeted at Malthruz than I intended. Only the first two sentences were a direct response to him, the rest was a much more general statement.

Sorry, Malthruz.

I did not take it personally. I hope I did not come across as one of those ultra-negative posters that seems to infest these forums (especially the paizo blog threads). I really wish they would have an open mind and stop dragging the tone down. It is a minority, but I find their attitude immature and very disappointing.

The +1 is absolutely a design decision that Paizo are making, and I really respect the time and effort they are putting into PFe2. I am very excited. I just wanted to start a thread to discuss something I have concerns about. Get some good insight from other posters. Maybe make some suggestions.

A lot of us are here because we want to contribute to what is shaping up as the best fantasy RP to date.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

From a world-building perspective specifically, unless they radically change the level demographics, which seems unlikely, this isn't as big a problem as you make it out to be.

I mean, when only slightly less than 1 in 1000 people is 9th-10th level and there are at least a couple 15th level or higher people for every 100,000, there are enough high level people in the setting to pretty effectively defend most civilized areas from even high level threats.

It means that these people exist, not that they are necessarily on hand to defend the city. They might be in a dungeon trying to get some loot, meanwhile the pyrohydra has set fire to a local village and eaten everyone.

I am not trying to argue that the +1 scaling is game breaking. More that it enhances problems with having a world that has an appropriate number of challenges at your level for you to encounter and defeat so you can level up. Then having another number of appropriate challenges +1 within adventure range. The treadmill is bad, so a system succeeds if it makes it easy for GMs to create adventures that feel immersive and genuine.

The +1 just means that a 5 or so level make things super dangerous. Turning the chance of successes into the chance of critical failure. It shrinks the encounter range that players can safely engage. Because players need to be defeating or successfully evade the vast majority of encounters to have an ongoing game, it makes the GM's job harder.

Also, on the flip side, high level characters (especially if teleport exists) can essentially drain the world of mid level encounters. It seems that you can defeat encounters 5 levels below you without using any resources. Maybe 1 resonance or 1 spell point for an area heal.

I think it is something worth thinking about and discussing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John John wrote:
Malthraz wrote:

It is also partly about the strange coincidence that adventures always seems to be lucky enough to face encounters +/-3 the level. With the +1 scaling, an encounter 3 levels above you now is very dangerous, whereas with less extreme scaling it is not so dangerous.

With reduced scaling there are far more encounters that could be considered challenging. With the standard +1 scaling things have to be far more fine tuned for the party, which I find breaks the suspension of disbelief.

Sorry, I don't want to spam your posts and say the same thing to boot, but isn't this the case with pathfinder 1.0?

Yeah, I think it is also a bit of a problem in PFe1, but I think the +1 scaling makes this problem worse.


It is also partly about the strange coincidence that adventures always seems to be lucky enough to face encounters +/-3 the level. With the +1 scaling, an encounter 3 levels above you now is very dangerous, whereas with less extreme scaling it is not so dangerous.

With reduced scaling there are far more encounters that could be considered challenging. With the standard +1 scaling things have to be far more fine tuned for the party, which I find breaks the suspension of disbelief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the direction of the new system a lot. A lot, a lot. Many issues I have with the old system have been addressed in some fashion. However, the +1 to almost everything each level does give me (and several others) cause for concern.

I deny there is a treadmill. If everything is leveling up at the same rate you are (did anyone played Elder Scrolls IV, disaster!), then you have a poor DM with incredibly poor world and encounter design. The fault does not lie with the system.

My concern is the steep power scaling from the +1 per level. Any monster that is a challenge for a part of level 10 adventures, is going to be brutally dangerous for the general populace. This makes world design more difficult. Now, this scaling is not such a bad thing if you want high powered heroic fantasy where adventures are the populace's only hope, but if you prefer a grittier game then it does not really work.

However the way PFe2 has been designed, such that it is very streamlined, presents and obvious solution. Decrease the speed of scaling. Rather than +1 every level, +1 could happen every two levels. Then the power difference between level 5 creatures and level 10 creatures becomes much closer. Level 10 creatures are still going to be deadly for the general populace, but a militia of low level characters could possibly hold one off, rather than be totally destroyed by them. +1 every second level also means that the other bonuses (stats, equipment, magic) become more significant.

So, I think there is definitely legitimate concerns regarding the scaling, but I also think the system has been designed very well and so presents an elegant solution. Heroic fantasy games should play with the standard scaling, but it is very easy mechanically, to tone it down for grittier fantasy.


JulianW wrote:

Pathfinder maths quiz...

Students should attempt all questions
In all cases show your workings.

1) Anne's fighter has BAB +1, strength 18 and is using a masterwork greataxe. She is fighting a monster with AC 20 and 15 hit points. She wants to kill it as quickly as possible. Should she use power attack or not?

Ok, so Power Attack looks like a winner.

The chance of killing a monster (assumed to be -1 HP) on the first round is approximately 10% with a normal hit and almost 16% with power attack.

The chance of killing a monster (assumed to be -1 HP) at least by the second round (so, 1 or 2 round) is approximately 25% for a normal attack and approximately 31% for power attack.

Most of the difference comes from the likelihood of doing 16 HP of damage with 1d12+. The normal attack is only +6 (1.5xStr), whereas power attack is +9 (1x5x Str + 3PA).

The normal attack is 14% more likely to hit, but the power attack is almost 100% more likely to kill with one blow.

The difference in effectiveness between normal attacks and power attacks decreases on the second round, because 2 hits with a normal attack almost always kills, where two hits with power attack has a lot of wasted damage from overkill.

So, power attack is king in this situation.

Interestingly, the Power Attack would benefit from having a great sword, as the 2d6+9 is actually more likely to kill than a great axe. Whereas, the normal attack should stick with the great axe as 1d12+6 is better than 2d6+6.

Finally, when the monster AC goes up to 25, then normal attack just pulls ahead of power attack. Of course, this is a very tough foe. Maybe you should run away.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really, really like these changes to the skill system. It looks like a great way to customise your character and distinguish yourself from other characters in the party.

I really like the Legendary Medic skill feat, I think this a great ability to have access through skills alone. It also opens up some fantastic options for NPCs as well.

The stealth stuff looks amazing. Being able to be in two modes at once (stealth + other) in exploration mode sounds like on hell of a good perk.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
I'm obviously going to have to wait and see the actual spell selection and monster selection when the books come out, but my line in the sand is that if a blaster has to keep upgrading to higher level spells to be effective, so should a controller. If at 13th level a controller can be just peachy locking down and beating level-appropriate enemies with 2nd and 3rd tier control spells, and gets to use all their higher level slots for amazing utility and buffs, while the 13th level blaster has to lean heavily into 5th-7th tier attack spells and doesn't get the same versatility as the controller... that's a problem. And I think that's what a lot of people are trying to express concern about, one way or another.

This is only a problem if you think that mages should be able to be primarily damage dealers. A lot of people think they should, I am not convinced.

I think that there should be options for damage, but I think the key role for casters is buffing, utility, control and disabling. This is probably a minority opinion, but I think casters should have to work hard to keep up with damage. They already have so much at their disposal, to give them everything is poor design.


Captain Morgan wrote:


I'm guessing they don't have a limit to spells known per se, but there are certain uncommon spells they can't cast by default. One imagines that still leaves them a pretty hefty sized list to pull from.

I wonder how splat book spells will be treated. You could cut down on power creep if most future spells weren't common.

I really hope this is what is going on. Power creep is such poor game design (good for making money though).


You really don't want to go against the grim reaper with low AC and a low Fort. save.


I like "circles", or "tiers" or something, but it has been "level" for a good long time.

It is not ideal, but most of the people I play with have been playing for 15 years, so they understand spell "level".


Quandary wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
It allows for greater options item-wise. A 20th level item requiring only Trained is possible, for example. And is available to a different subsection of people than a 13th level item requiring Legendary Crafting.

Somebody correct me, but basic magic item crafting feat requirement is gone right?

I don't think that has been revealed. I think if there is something like that, it will be a skill feat. It seems likely that there will be a feat investment requirement to craft magical items, but who knows.

Apparently Deadmanwalking knows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
James Krolak wrote:
To make a single potion or scroll, it takes 4 days no matter what?
It only takes 4 days to create the most powerful item you can currently craft, and potions are typically crafted in batches, where you spend the time but get 4 potions' worth (alchemists can increase the batch size further as well for alchemical items like elixirs).

Batch crafting is great way to implement crafting for those cheaper consumables.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very nice.

I really like that you can smash out magic items quickly if you are rolling in piles of gold, but you can spend your time and compete the magic items and save your precious silver.

It is also good that you cannot make items above your level or proficiency.

I also like that crafting magic items nets you a similar amount of gold as your other down time activities.

It would be interesting to see rules for stronghold, but these are quite easy to cook up in the interim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why I am responding to this... but you can't become fully immersed in something that is substantially more dense than you. Viscosity is not the relevant factor.

The human body has a approximate density of 985 kg/m3. Sea water has an approximate density of 1020 kg/m3. That's why we float in sea water, with our body being close to fully immersed.

Lava has an approximate density of 3100 kg/m3. So, we could submerge about 1/3 of our body in lava. We would "float" very very well in lava.

Now, a level 20 Paladin with Bracers of the Merciful Knight can heal themselves for 72 HP per round using only their swift action for Lay on Hands. So, they can hang out in lava for a good minute. You are 20th level, "realism" has well and truly left the building.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Earlier in the thread, Mark Seifter (who's in a position to know) did a 1st level comparison of Power Attack to Double Slice and simply used full Strength Mod on the damage of all attacks.

That's not definitive, but it's good evidence that PF2 works in that way.

I don't think this effects any calculations much at all, but it seems worth noting for clarity and simplicity in regards to future analysis of this sort of thing.

I recall it mentioned (I think in a blog) that the bastard sword does more damage when use in two hands rather than one. I wonder if this is just a 1d8 vs 1d10, or similar rather than a strength based difference.


Yep. Good stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have not found any reference to "light" weapons. Only "agile". From the weapons blog "Agile weapons like the shortsword decrease the penalty for making multiple attacks in a single turn."

Is believe agile it is just a -4/-8, on secondary and tertiary attacks respectively.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems that reading comprehension trumps mathematical ability at the moment.

Power attack and double slice seem well balanced. Good work Mark et al.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that the game is easier to learn because they are streamlining a lot of the processes. For example, the proficiency system is exactly the same for everything. Determining the DCs is the same for everything.

However, I still think that it will takes a fair amount of time to master the system. I think this is a good thing, because it indicates that there is a lot of depth in the game design. This is the main reason I like Pathfinder.

I prefer the emphasis on dice rolling, because 2d6+32 is not as exciting 4d12+12. They do similar damage, but the outcome of the latter is far more dependent on chance.

Having flatter maths makes the system better because it allows for a lot more meaningful choice when building a character and making tactical decisions in combat. I am not sure how they are handling abilities scores, but I think only a +2 from items is a very good improvement.

The heightened spell aspect makes sense from a game balance perspective, but it is certainly a departure from the old way of doing it.

So, I like all (almost all?) of the changes so far. I think that they are streamlining a lot of things, but there will still be a lot of depth because, well, it's Pathfinder.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Lakesidefantasy wrote:
If you need a computer to play the game then it's too complicated.

Or the person has a disability and needs assistance from a computer to overcome their disability and the complexity of the game is fine.


specimen700102 wrote:
The reaper's scythe is also keen and has deadly 3d10, while a redcap's is deadly 1d10 so maybe the keen weapon property increases the number of damage die for deadly and even gives non-deadly weapons deadly.

You have keen eyes.


With trinkets, rituals and potions they may not be too far behind having a full caster.

I think it would be cool to try. Definitely a good stress test for the system.


ChibiNyan wrote:
I thought the maximum amount of Potency runes a weapon could have would be +3... Don't remember where I hears this, but was weeks ago.

I think that is the maximum potency a master quality weapon can have. Legendary can have up to +5.


I think that rangers will probably just have spell points, rather than spells, as the Paladin does.

I think it seems more likely that Sorcerers will just have the arcane list.

I think that Bards are the most likely to get the Occult list. It would be strange if bards became full casters. But it would also be weird if they were not casters at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some very interesting mechanics going on here. Good to see there is an option to keep that shield up. In fact the fighter seems like it has a great deal of depth.

It is good to see some down time spells making an appearance.

Some of the high level Rogue abilities look great.

The Paladin seems to get a lot of good kit. The rework of Retributive Strike and Aura of Justice seems like a good reduction in ridiculous damage.

I am glad there are alignment based vulnerabilities.

Ooooh, ancestry gnome familiar feat. That is good. I mean, I hate gnomes, but this still a great option.

1 to 50 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>