Sure, They are removed, but most GMs don't run it that way in my experience. I believe there's an assumption they still exist on many levels. The problem with diagonals giving extra space is your first diagonal counts as 5 feet, and therefore can't be extra space. Seems there is room for clarity if the intent is otherwise.
Wanted to bump this back up to see if we could get some clarity. Moving diagonally seems to be a constant debate and something the remaster hasn’t addressed. Also, I’m not able to find anywhere that calls out “hard corners” in pf2, but it seems many gms use them. Rules as written seem to apply you can move diagonal through two enemies stacked diagonally and just as easily move with an enemy and a wall in a diagonal.
I would love to see a background attached to this in some way. I think my war priest will become a fighter, but he will still follow gorum despite losing power. It’d be nice if the thematic background was “Lost religion”
Well it came up more looking at a wizard that may not have much else to use their reactions on in between turns anyhow so it seemed like it should be allowed. I agree that I’ve definitely ruled you could use it that way. I’m more curious about why they chose to write the rule as though you can’t do that.
Blave wrote:
I think you’re missing my point. You don’t get the chance to crit success and get the +1 bonus against the attack.
In discussing the feat recognize spell, it came up that you can’t use recognize spell if you have it prepared. This doesn’t seem like it would be the intent, and I’m curious if this is the feats actual intent or was it meant to allow the use on prepared spells to potentially get the +1 bonus? specifically
Alex Speidel wrote:
I’ll setup a reminder. Let me contact the right people.
Blakeg wrote:
Probably because you can make new non-enhanced characters and enhanced is only an option
I like bounty 1 as well. I’d suggest looking for anything that is before Bounty 15. There are a few fun ones in there too. Bounty #5 and Bounty #9 bring in some fun things that might be a little easier to jump on and run/play. Also, there’s no need for you to get these perfect, if they want to learn, these have great concepts for it.
So it’s interesting that in most scenarios it seems the Venture Captains are very hands on with the occasional Venture Officers being mentioned as entrants or new recruits. Can we get some mention of the Venture Lieutenants and what they might be doing in some scenarios? Seems it would be more plausible for one of them to be out instead of a captain.
I’m honestly a bit disappointed in the character options after looking forward to this book since it was announced. That being said I don’t play sword and board which is the only archetype in the book. I went to character options before lore so I can’t comment on the full book as I haven’t read all the lore section
Paizo Blog: The Ultimate Game Master Screen Kickstarter to Support Pathfinder & Starfinder Rulesets!
Doug Hahn wrote:
This feels like a party problem, and not a system problem. A single skill feat unlocking a whole path doesn't make a lot of sense, and there really isn't a good way to build a druid as only a healer. The alchemist subclass of Chirurgeon is taking a class feature to build this out. Short of them adding another subclass under druid, I'm not sure how this would make sense. |