Shield

Rek Rollington's page

75 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Seelah the human paladin is up.


My group stopped playing Pathfinder 1st edition when D&D5e came out. I’m going to run the playtest with them and I hope it will sway them to 2nd edition. I don’t see any of us playing 1st edition again although I will still listen to it being played as long as the GCP keep playing it.


Roswynn wrote:
Also notice his sudden charge lets him run at speed x2 and attack at the price of just 2 actions, with 1 left to attack again against a mage, or raise shield (and then block) against a warrior. Nothing to laugh at imho.

Everyone can already move twice and attack once at full attack using the new action economy so the feats only function is to reduce it to two actions. Still very useful but we’ve known that since the fighter preview blog.


So Attack of Opportunity doesn’t seem to do anything to spellcasters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Huh. I'd been under the impression that we'd be using the same characters the whole way through Doomsday Dawn, but if I'm understanding this thread right, we'll need to create multiple characters. Do you think it's still feasible to have the same party the whole way through, or would it be better to run it with the different characters for each scenario?

You’ll make 5 characters per player (not including any deaths). The characters you make in the first chapter you get to return to in later chapters after some level jumps. So you won’t be using traditional XP/leveling. The characters you make between these chapters will be a specific level and may have other restrictions (some are designed to stress test specific rules). Story wise it’s designed to be 5 different characters but unless it’s specified in that chapter you could just make 5 fighters if that’s your thing. I would take the opportunity to test a few different options though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, Keith Slashmaster Valeros the Human Fighter is up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Is it just me, or does Kyra not have a Class Feat?...
I don't think spellcasters get class feats at level one, instead they get... spells.

I thought that may have been it so I went back to the blog:

Cleric Playtest Blog wrote:
At 1st level, you might pick Communal healing so when you cast heal to tend to a creature other than yourself, you regain some Hit Points too, or you might take Turn Undead, which forces undead that critically fail their saves against your heal spells to flee from you. (This works great with the 3-action version of heal!) You could also pick Expanded Domain to explore your deity's domains further, gaining the initial power from a different domain than the first one you chose. You can select this feat twice, letting you delve into a maximum of three domains!

So it does seem a class feat is missing here or the blog meant 2nd level.

Getting access to two domains at first level (and therefore more spell points if I recall correctly) could be pretty amazing.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I was concerned when I heard you needed to know a spell at a higher level to cast it there so spontaneous heightening is a relief. But what is the logic behind them not being able to do this all the time? Is it too much of an advantage over a wizard or does it present too many options to a player when selecting which spell to cast?


j b 200 wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
In many other threads where using an action to activate some sort of bonus has been questioned, compared to using the action to make an attack, we've been told "Yeah, but that attack would have been at -10 or -8, so using the action for something else is a good idea."
So, this made me think of something. Who says you have to use your first action of the round to Hunt? Why can't I use actions 1 and 2 to attack normally (or move and attack or whatever combination you want) and then on the "it's not usually worth a swing anyways" action I activate Hunt Target. Now I get the full benefit of the reduced penalty for all three attacks on the first round using it instead of waiting until round 2. How would this affect the math?

The penalties to your second and third attack only kick in after making your first and second attacks respectively. So if you spend your first two actions on something else like moving or using hunt target then use your third action to attack then it takes no penalties.


Charlie Brooks wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the age of Jason's elf barbarian: He is only 54, which is less than half the minimum possible age for an elf barbarian in PF1. I wonder whether age/height/weight are being adjusted in general?

That would be a bigger lore change than just about any other rule change.

I feel as though they hinted at elves' starting age being lowered in one of the blogs where they mentioned an elf "at the ripe old age of 14."

I'm not sure how big a lore change this would really be, since most of the Golarion lore I've seen has been kind of ambiguous on how quickly elves mature. I don't recall any adventure featuring a 70-year-old elf as an adolescent, for example.

I remember Erik mentioning that forlorn elves will be part of the lore mentioned in the playtest. I think the forlorn story fits better when the kids around you outgrow you.


How does a bow fighter and bow ranger compare?

Fighters get a +1 extra to all attacks due to being higher weapon proficiency at most levels. So fighters have +1 advantage on first attack of the round, equal on second and -1 compared to the ranger on 3rd. Rangers have to spend an action per target to get this but also have a +2 bonus over fighters outside the first range increment. Then it comes down to what feats you can add on top


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I don't think it's necessary for every action to be fully explained. It's fine for using a dragon's breath potion to just take two actions and to let the player decide what exactly that means, but specifying that one of those actions involves breathing opens a massive can of worms.

I think it’s fine for that case, it’s a big deep breath to fill your lungs like you were about to blow out a cake full of candles. 2 seconds to do this seems reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing the spell actions has got me doing is thinking about how I would role play them at the table. You can plan it out on your character sheet for each spell.

For heal you can say:
Single action: “I place a healing hand on Valeros’s shoulder and he is healed for *rolls* 6 hit points.”
Two action: “I raise my hand in Valeros’s direction and say “Desna’s light!” and he is healed for *rolls* 6 hit points.
Three actions: “I raise my hand directly into the air, scream “Desna’s light!” and bring my hand down to touch the butterfly symbol on my chest and you are all healed for 4 hit points.”

It might take a bit more prep work and I would try and think of something more clever to say. But if you keep the parts consistent then your group will recongise your spells by your characters words and actions rather then just telling them. Just keep them pretty short or don’t drag out your other actions. “I then loose an arrow at the orc over there *rolls*”.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Well, I remember one thing they confirmed was basically the fact that martial characters have effectively 0 resources, so they can go functionally forever without caring.
HP is a resource. They've spent a significant amount of effort in removing CLW wand spam (whether as a side effect of another goal or as a direct goal itself). I'd be surprised if they then turn around and give everyone free healing.
For clarification, that's one reason that was confirmed as one of their problems with PF1, which they were attempting to fix in 2E.
I don't understand what your trying to communicate here. What was the "problems with PF1"?

Fighters only resource to manage was HP which was cheaply restored each fight by CLW spam which meant fighters entered every battle with full HP while casters got weaker and weaker as they consumed their spells. This made designing encounters difficult because each of them needed to be capable of reducing a fighter from full HP to 0 in a single encounter to be a threat while also considering casters may or may not have any resources left.

If healing is more restricted in PF2 then it can be expected at the end of the day the fighter may be low on HP and the casters are low on spells and a medium level fight could be a good challenge. If we as a playing group can get behind the idea that you don’t need to be at full HP at the start of every combat and the game is balanced around that ideal then we could have more varied encounters and likely a more interesting game.


DFAnton wrote:

So, how exactly would this system work with negatively enchanted items? One of my favorite things to craft in PF1e is a Hood of Deafness/Aphasia. Slip it over the dude's head and he has a constant effect of "I can't hear" or "I can't speak or understand language" with the hood itself applying blindness.

Am I correct in assuming that my (effectively, but not literally) cursed items would simply not function because the target wouldn't choose to resonate with it?

Cursed items like that which you use on someone else could just apply automatically which is the 3rd option mentioned in the blog. So it could work like a magic weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just spit balling here:

What if wands became arcane magic only. Then you can drop wand charges and leave it to resonance pools. The divine have their divine favoured weapons, I don’t think we need to see them holding wands. Staves can still be used for both but keep that max charge or 3 per day.

That leaves healing items to scrolls and potions each still costing a single RP. Make scrolls have level requirements to read so you can price them at points that higher level scrolls are more attractive then lower level scrolls without having to worry about lower level characters buying them. You could even make the scrolls take 2 minutes to read or something to keep them out of combat and keep this kind of healing to “small rests” between combats. That I feel would feel a bit better then the current “I stick you with my low level wand 6 times until you are fully healed”.

Remember the point of the new resonance is that you can’t fully heal between every fight. That’s not designed to lead to shorter days, it’s designed to lead to combats that are less deadly on their own but will stack together to wear a party down. Instead of healing after every fight maybe you only get a few really powerful healing spells so you just heal 2-3 times a day. Changing this behaviour in the players to not waste the healing for very stratch will be tricky and I don’t see how this can be easily balanced between parties with healers and those without.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for the skills, there are certain things locked behind skill ranks so if building a bridge is considered something an inexperienced can’t even attempt they can either lock it behind an expert skill rank or higher item level.

Most of the skills in the game benefit if everyone in the party can attempt them. It’s not much fun if you are the only one who can sneak through an area or swim across the river. Often if you can’t do it as a group then you can’t do it. Now being good (expert, master? I don’t recall) at sneaking allows you to help your party sneak so you can lead your party past whatever you wanted to avoid.


If they need 3 to hit AC then 13 or higher is a crit so it’s 40% chance of crit on the first swing and a 90% chance to hit. On a second attack it’s 15% chance to crit and 65% to hit and on the 3rd attack is 5% crit and 40% chance to hit.

For the caster needing 13 to hit they would only have the 5% chance to crit, 40% hit on the first attack, 15% chance to hit on the second and would only hit on a natural 20 on the 3rd.

So on the first attack the fighter is over 2x likely to hit and 8x likely to crit then a caster and by the third is 8x likely to hit.

We’ve often been told the 3rd attack is not going to be bad enough to make a fighter consider doing something more productive like raise a shield or re-position but that would be the starting point of a caster. It’s too big of a gap. Give them their first attack as good as a fighters second attack and at least they can get one semi-good hit in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:


If they didn't change the mathematics from Pathfinder, the four degrees of success would be really good. It would allow DCs to be spread out more and make encounter design more interesting. It would reward PCs who invested heavily in certain aspects of their characters.

They couldn’t do four degrees of success without overhauling the maths. If they kept the current -10 to + 10 range then those old bonuses would mean at higher levels some characters would automatically critical succeed while others automatically critically failed because the difference between characters was vastly more then 20. If you change the -10 +10 to something else like -20 to +20 then the d20 has much less impact on the result and you still have the auto succeed and fail between the party.

Mekkis wrote:


It would make martial characters more quadratic in their damage output, and makes critical focus feats more attractive. Suddenly the fact that they have +16 against the opponent's AC18 is meaningful, even if they aren't able to take iterative attacks.

Unless you are fighting something lower level you are always going to want extra to-hit to get those crits. I’m not sure if you are aware that level isn’t just added to Attack, it’s also added to AC. So it’s your modifier and weapon proficiency and item/spell bonuses that will make all the difference in a fight.

Mekkis wrote:


It would reward characters who are able to stack conditions on their enemies. Why shouldn't a rogue attacking a flat-footed, prone, flanked enemy have a higher chance to pull off a critical than attacking one who is merely flat-footed?

This I agree with, it’s a bit like advantage in 5E where you can advantage for 5 reasons and disadvantage for 1 so they all cancel out. +6 may be too OP but maybe +2 for prone or flanked but +3 for prone AND flanked and +4 total for prone, flanked and otherwise flat footed.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
TeCoolMage wrote:
Since spells lose efficiency if you don't use the maximum amount of actions
This part is actually not true of most spells. Spells like Magic Missile or Heal that use a variable number of actions are the exception rather than the rule.

Heal doesn’t even lose efficiency but is more situational. One action and two action heal are the same healing but gives you a little bit more range then most movement speeds. The 3rd action going to depend on if you have 2 or more people nearby that need healing (or undead that need slaying) because it’s always going to be d8’s behind the single target spell.

Magic missile on the other hand does seem like a waste to use anything less then 3 actions. This mechanic would be really fun on a cantrip as it wouldn’t be as harsh if you wanted to trade 1/3rd of the damage for a move or interact action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the level stuff it helps remembering that level just represents experience. A level 3 item? That just requires a more experienced crafter or is expected to be found in the hands of a more experienced character then a level one character. Much like the old skill rank requirements required your character to be sufficiently skilled before taking that prestige class.

As for the maths, if you aren’t rebuilding the system from the ground up why even make another edition. I think they have done a good job explaining why they wanted to start over. The adventures can be converted on the fly but all the class, race and feat options will have to stay locked in PF1 until they are updated in future books. It’ll be interesting to see the pace in which they release those classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Resonance blog for Monday! From the end of the archetype blog “And come back on Monday for a massive blog that I am sure will resonate with many of you!”


I like that humans get no set bonuses or penalties as it makes them viable for every class and as some people can only imagine role playing humans it makes the game more inclusive.

That said, we still need a blog to cover things like what kind of feats do humans get etc


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If wands were infinite they would need to really increase the price because otherwise you could just buy a wand of every utility spell then there’s almost no point in spells known.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
I’m pretty sure all abilities point will be in twos. So if you are starting a stat at 18 you can raise it to 20 at lvl20. There’s no signs so far there will be any odd-number ability scores, especially since ability drain and damage are gone.
Strong indications have been made that you can somehow get odd scores, and the math works out pretty much only if the cap on 20th level characters' stats is 22 before magic items. The two together combined with the commentary mentioning Starfinder's Ability Increases is pretty compelling evidence that it's only +1 if you're increasing a stat that's already 18+.

Logan just posted today in the Monk thread that a character that starts with a 18 & 16 could have 19 & 18 at 5th level and 20 & 19 at 10th which makes you absolutely correct.


Blave wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Fighter:

10+Con HP
Aggressive Shield: Whenever you shield block, you push the enemy back 5 ft or make the enemy flat footed for 1 round. Enemies choice.
Enemy's choice is interesting change to norm of 3.x/PRPG. Wonder if this type of thing will be more common.

Considering how resistant Paizo is to letting you reposition enemies into danger zones or off cliff edges, this may be their compromise. Instead of having several extra lines of text in every forced movement ability telling the player not to have fun, they make it enemy's choice.

Usually someone will choose to become flat footed rather than fall off a ledge, but if they can mitigate falling and the alternative is a round of full attacks from the party circling around them, well. Falling may be preferable. Likewise they may choose to be moved back into a firepit if it won't actually faze them.

I actually see it as more of defensive/tanking ability. Remember you can't take 5ft-steps in the middle of a full-attack anymore. So if they try to attack you more than once, blocking with your shield will either deny them their next attack because they have to close the distance again or make them an easier target for your retaliation.

Good thinking, so it makes them choose between being flat footed for a round or using an action to move back. That’s pretty useful and makes the previous choice of taking the shield block feat and using your action to raise the shield and reaction to absorb the blow more worthwhile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don’t get the hate on using imperial for fantasy. I grew up using the metric system and never use the imperial system in real life but it gives D&D and Pathfinder a nice old world feel.


Crayon wrote:
The Feats the PCs gained upon Levelling didn't seem to come up much which means we should be able to excise them from the game with relative ease. :)

Leveling up is +1 to almost everything and select new feats. If you drop feats from the game you aren’t really progressing. Maybe if you were only doing one shots that lasted 1-3 levels you could get away with this but higher level play should need feats.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Feats- Reach Spell: Add Somatic component to any spell, making it reach 30 ft. Touch--> Range

Can a spell have multiple Somatic components, or does this feat just not apply to spells that have one already?

P.S. Thanks for writing all that up for us!

I do not think spells have multiple Somatic components. And here's why... The Cleric took the similar feat called Healing Hands. It seemed to basically "Power Up" or overlap the verbal casting aspect of the Heal spell. Every time he casted Heal, he added an extra 1d8 of healing. That's what I think was going on there, and similarly what the Wizard did when he casted Reach "Detect Magic".

You're Welcome!!

Based on listening to GCP playing curse of everflame the extra 1d8 was indeed coming from an extra action. So he had the normal choices of one action 1d8+4 melee, two action 1d8+4 ranged and 3 action burst of 4 healing but also gained two action 2d8+4 melee and three action 2d8+4 ranged.


Yolande d'Bar wrote:
Why would total defense be gone?

I think it’s to make using a shield stand out more.


edduardco wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
edduardco wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
edduardco wrote:

Wow PF2 really went hard on caster, I will check the playtest but looks like PF2 is not going to be do it me

Some people like playing things that aren't casters without feeling like they've made a mistake because casters always do their job better.
Is that martials cannot have niece things without taking something from casters?
What was taken away from casters in this instance? Haste already doesn't allow you to cast two spells a round with it. Giving wizards a method in which they can do that is boosting them, not nerfing them.
I never said Haste alowed casting extra spells. But that ability seems to imply quicken spell is gone

Quicken spell is not a condition it’s metamagic and I’m pretty sure it’s been mentioned as in the game. However, given the rest of the metamagic feats are used by adding extra actions I’m not sure what quicken is going to cost. Higher spell slot?


Most races only move 20 or 25 feet per round so should only be moving 60-75 feet rather then 90. Elves are the only core race to get 30 and I think they have an ancestry feat for an extra 5 feat so they will be really jetting around the map. Do we know if heavy armour or high bulk slows speed down?

An elf with a bow should do a pretty good job kiting a melee character. The melee character would want sudden charge just to get a shot in.


Maybe the icon should be use alongside the words: [AAA] 3 Actions
Hopefully it doesn’t take up too much extra space and blow out the books page count but it would allow the icon for quick glance while also work for electronic readers and those who don’t like to remember icons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tholomyes wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Meophist wrote:
I remember reading that 18 ability score represents peak human performance, the equivalent of an Olympian for the physical scores. This means that once you have 20 or higher ability score, the character is superhuman, and this doesn't require the use of any in-world magic.

This hasn't been stated anywhere in regards to PF2, at least not to my knowledge.

I will note that evidence suggests you can have a 19 by level 5, but can't hit 20 until level 10.

I’m pretty sure all abilities point will be in twos. So if you are starting a stat at 18 you can raise it to 20 at lvl20. There’s no signs so far there will be any odd-number ability scores, especially since ability drain and damage are gone.

In one of the blog posts they mentioned using Starfinder as a guide, and in starfinder, when you get an ability score boost, it's +2, unless the score would be raised above 18, in which case it's +1

Edit: This is where it was stated.

Quote:
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.

And from the Starfinder SRD:

Quote:
Every 5 levels (at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels), you get to increase and customize your ability scores. Each time you reach one of these level thresholds, choose four of your ability scores to increase. If that ability score is 17 or higher (excluding any ability increases from personal upgrades), it increases permanently by 1. If it’s 16 or lower, it increases permanently by 2. You can’t apply more than one of these increases to the same ability score at a given level, but unlike at 1st
...

I think the 17 or higher rule may have gone as one of the mentioned tweaks. The core part that remains is you get 4 ability scores to boost. This will lead to some high ability scores but if magic boosts are more limited and levels are being applied to all checks anyway I can see how having higher modifiers would be good.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Meophist wrote:
I remember reading that 18 ability score represents peak human performance, the equivalent of an Olympian for the physical scores. This means that once you have 20 or higher ability score, the character is superhuman, and this doesn't require the use of any in-world magic.

This hasn't been stated anywhere in regards to PF2, at least not to my knowledge.

I will note that evidence suggests you can have a 19 by level 5, but can't hit 20 until level 10.

I’m pretty sure all abilities point will be in twos. So if you are starting a stat at 18 you can raise it to 20 at lvl20. There’s no signs so far there will be any odd-number ability scores, especially since ability drain and damage are gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Dragonstriker wrote:


Huh? Where did I say you did? Don’t try and strawman me.
Also, you’ve ignored point 2, repeatedly. Try again.

Strawman you? Please. I was responding to Combat Monster specifically saying to me -- "I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to dissuade Paizo from including stuff you don't like when the simple answer is to not use it if you and your table don't want it."

Since you said "Combat Mnster’s post was in response to yours saying exactly what you’ve accused him of.", that would seem to indicate that was why you were calling me a hypocrite (VERY classy, by the way).

As for ignoring point #2 --- from my first post in this thread:
"Note: if Legendary floats your boat, good for you. It kills enthusiasm for me, however, so I really don't need the "then you must of have been playing PF1 wrong" crap."

And

from my 2nd post in this thread:

Tangent101 wrote:
There is another way around that, BPorter. Just end leveling before it hits Legendary levels.

Me: That is my hope but I have a sneaking suspicion that the rogue and potentially other mechanisms may introduce Legendary at earlier levels. Capping a campaign at Level 15, no problem (save for closing off later AP installments), having to cap a campaign at level 10 or sooner, the math starts to shift towards "not worth the trouble".

How do either of those statements ignore "point #2"? Or did you just skip 90% of the thread and go straight to threadcrapping on me?

Point #2 was referring to Mark’s post:

Mark Seifter wrote:


Just tell them they can't raise a skill to legendary rank, even when they hit 15th. They can still use the skill rank increases to get another master skill and another expert instead, and then the whole group wins if they aren't into legendary skill feats :)

This seems a lot better suggestion then the ones you replied to as this doesn’t stop you playing at lvl15 but also allows your players to keep using their skill rank and feat increases. I would suggest you still let Fighters get legendary in weapons and Paladins in armour since they are class abilities which to my knowledge doesn’t do anything mythical.


bargleslayer wrote:
Can we just call it "Using a Shield" instead of "Raising a shield"? Because if my opponent raises a shield and leaves it up I'm taking out a leg.

“Ready a shield” might be a good mix of the two.


Tangent101 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Do the Trained Skills automatically become Expert Skills and then Master Skills (and finally Legendary), meaning that a Level 18 character would, in this scenario, have six Legendary skills?
No. At 3rd level, you get a Skill Rank. You can spend it to make one of those 6 skills Expert, then at 5th you could make a different one Expert. At 7th, you could take one of those two to Master or pick a third to make Expert, and so on and so forth, upping one skill every two levels.

We get Skill Ranks every level. We get Skill Feats every Even level. We get Class Feats every odd level. And there's Ancestry and General Feats mixed in there as well but I think it's every five levels? Without the actual rules before me, I'm going off of what blogs mentioned in passing weeks ago so I'm not 100% sure on that.

So what's this about another form of Skill Ranks? I do not remember reading about them.

I think I see where the confusion is coming from. You are thinking of “adding your level” to every check to mean you put a skill rank every level. Your skill rank is Untrained (-2), Trained (0), Expert (+1), Master (+2) & Legandary (+3). You get skill rank increases to one skill every odd level starting level 3.

When making a skill check you then use your rank + level + mod.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

Easy recipe to become legendary with every skill:
100 Push-Ups!
100 Sit-Ups!
100 Squats!
10KM Running!
Every! Single! Day!


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
No, skill rank increases are what you use to increase your skill rank.

Is this going to be the sort of thing where we're going to need to read the actual playtest document in order to get a good understanding of?

Since right now I kinda wish I knew how many skill ranks I start with, how these advance, and how these are spent, and what intelligence actually does but I imagine it might not be something that can be done succinctly.

Since I feel kind of lost in this skill stuff since I don't really have a handle on "how many things can I be good at and how good can I be at them." I do foresee a lot of rogues in my future though.

I think we’ve got almost everything we need via various blogs and replies on forums.

A fighter at first level can choose 3 skills + Int mod to be trained in.
At 2nd level and every even level after you gain skill feat which are what are described here. You may, instead of taking one of these feats instead take a skill from untrained to trained (but not further).
From 3rd level and every even level you can increase one skill up one level so you can make one of your existing skills expert or choose another skill to go untrained to trained. There are level restrictions like legendary skill increases require lvl15 so you can only make 3 skills legandary (lvl15,17,19). The other requirement is that to rank a skill into a master (and therefore legendary) it has to be a class skill or something similar.

That’s just for a fighter, but most classes work the same they just start with a different number of skills. Rogues are the exception as they gain skill feats AND increases every time they level up rather then just odds and even. So they can have 6 legendary skills.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
So, that has 18 skills. You can't read what they are, but that almost certainly makes my deduced skill list accurate and complete (ignore the part at the bottom, we now know that Sense Motive is part of Perception and Profession is a facet of Lore). Assuming they left room for two Lore skills, anyway (which seems likely).

Know Direction has added the video to youtube at 1080p. The small text is still a little hard to read but I can confirm your list is spot on and Lore is indeed there twice.


Iron_Matt17 wrote:
Rek Rollington wrote:
Outside one guy on YouTube it’s been really hard to find much info from people who played in the play test.
I'm definitely not an expert or anything, but I'm willing to answer any questions. My brother and I played the same Delve 9 times over the weekend. (couldn't get enough!) I played Seelah, Kyra, and Valeros. My bro played Ezren, Fumbus, and Merisiel. So together we got mostly the whole spectrum of the level 1 characters at Paizocon...

Thank you!

Kyra the Cleric. What were her cantrips like? Doesn’t she provide any damage via spells or are clerics still implied to rely a lot weapons? I’m interested in playing an archer cleric in PF2. I know Wizards won’t need their crossbows anymore but hoping cleric mixing it up is still a thing.

Some of the info I’ve found from a player posting a video:
Quick Draw Feat: Lets you draw and strike with a weapon as a single action.
Did you see any other feats that you recall that haven’t been posted on the blog?

Longbows have the Volly Trait which gives them a penalty firing too close which Shortbow doesn’t have which makes them both viable for different situations. I don’t know how too close was, did you happen to see this? Did you see any other cases of weapons having interesting traits we haven’t discussed which makes them play differently?

Is there anything that surprised you with any of the characters?


Outside one guy on YouTube it’s been really hard to find much info from people who played in the play test.


johnlocke90 wrote:


Its not just about PCs. In 1e, you could make the local master crafter 7th level and he could still craft some pretty awesome equipment, just by boosting his bonus high enough to ignore prerequisites.

In 2e, it sounds like the master craftsman also has to be really good at combat.

I think this goes with NPCs and Monsters not being built like PCs in 2E. NPC crafting rules can be different.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Will there be rules or upgrading weapons and armour via crafting? Rather then selling your old greatsword and buying new material to craft a new one could a crafter spend 4 days and re-forge it to a better quality?

Next adventure focused on the undead it would fun using a maulaxe to make quick work of Skeletons and Zombies. Totally inspired by Stormbreaker in Infinity War.


I really feel this system is designed to make blaster casters think more about taking more interesting choices with their low level spells. You can do big damage with your highest spell slots, regular damage with your cantrips which frees up your low level spell slots for some variety since fhere’s point taking low level damaging spells other then maybe a few magic missles for a guaranteed hit to finish a low HP foe.

If I was making a blasting wizard with these rules I think it would have been a more interesting wizard I made when I first started playing 3.5/PF.


Anyone who’s had access to playing a cleric in the play test, how is the cantrips?


Malk_Content wrote:
GRuzom wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:

Every single new piece of information we get makes me hate this more and more.

Why would the death save be harder based on the enemy? And don't say "because the boss hits you harder" because if it's based on the enemy then you could be hit for the same amount of damage and still have a harder save.
Why does stabilizing not stabilize you?
Why are you still unconscious and dying even if the Cleric slaps you with magical healing energy that restores all your HP?
WHY THE FRIGGIN' DEATH SAVES?! THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH NEGATIVE HP! It was simple and easy to understand!
Stabilizing does stabilize you, and once you get healed you are only "dying" in name only, you aren't at any risk of death.
It would be nice if "Dying" meant "dying" - easier for new players to understand (and for an old one like me:-)
I don't mind. Afterall if they made a second condition "Not Dying" (just because I can't think of a word to mean close to dying but not) that was just "If you get to 0HP this Condition instead becomes Dying" is awkward and probably more of a cognitive load than having an expanded Dying condition.

A “Stable” condition should cover it.


Mark, are you able to share with us how the quicken metamagic will work? The rest of the metamagic spells cost extra actions, what will the cost be of reducing the number of actions?


As a player who went from 3.5 to PF to 5E what I’m looking for is a battle system as quick as 5E but who’s character customisation doesn’t end at 3rd level.

The 3-action turn has me very excited for combat. Once players know what they are doing combat turns should move pretty quick and stay that way at all levels. With all the general, race and class feats plus big ability boosts I feel there’s lots of options for every class.

The only other thing I could ask for is better class balance. We’ll have to hope the play test can iron that out where required.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>