Neith

TheFinish's page

553 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 553 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Davor wrote:


There's nothing about the quality of their experience, other than that their souls don't find peace, and they are single-handedly responsible for preventing the end of existence as they know it. That sounds almost heroic. But yeah, they don't find peace in the afterlife. Question: How many atheists believe in an afterlife? I'd wager not many, and not many with great cause. There's nothing that indicates they are the "lowest of the low" just because they don't find peace. Heck, what domain do the souls of the vast majority of true neutral humanoids go to? What about those souls who were evil in life, turned into slithering muck demons in constant pain and agony that serve the whims of every other powerful evil creature in Hell? Atheists don't seem to have it badly off, relatively.

It does seem that if you're evil, atheism might be a good choice, in a Pascal's Wager kind of sense.

Nah, again, not worshipping someone doesn't mean you don't get judged and sent where you belong. At worst, it takes a bit longer. But a LE atheist is still going to Hell for the most part, just as a CN atheist is still going to the Maelstrom and NG goes to Nirvana. Not worshipping anyone in particular just means you take the non-preferential queue in the river of souls. And that queue doesn't have pretzels. Which is horrible.
It seems to me from the quote you posted above that if you "actively refuse" to become a petitioner after death, you can avoid such judgement indefinitely.

This is also called out as extremely rare, requiring way more than just going "Lol nope". And, to be honest, I've no idea why it's there at all, considering that someone saying "Lol nope" is how we got Urgathoa and Zyphus. So y'know, maybe Pharasma would want to crack down on it.

Then again, an Evil person that goes this way does get rid of the bad part of going to the Evil Planes....but also the good part, where they can attain far more power than they ever had as a mortal. So I guess the Lady O' Graves thinks this is alright, or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samuel Caldwell wrote:


Valid Points. I don't agree with the following statements though.

-Not enough resources. (Say goodbye to all resonance use magic items).
Reasoning: There's a Feat For that.
-Stuff that works on quick Alchemy needs to also work on advanced Alchemy (no reason I can only make debilitating bombs if I make them on the spot as an example)
Reasoning: If you could just spend downtime for a month before an adventure to make infused bombs, well.... you would have a ton of bombs! So many bombs it wouldn't be fair. Especially with these Infused enhancements.
--Bomb focus, and it still doesn't make bombs great, just passable.
Reasoning: Empowered Bombs Fixes this.
-No sustainability (passive bonuses, at will abilities, something)
Reasoning: You are the sustain, if you build right. Especially if they remove the double tax on Potions.
-Craft (Alchemy) has exactly 0 uses for an alchemist.
Reasoning: This is a really helpful downtime activity that if used properly, can give your party an unexpected advantage. Imagine you have a day or two, your goblin alchemist has Junk Tinker, and the rules have been cleared up to allow it to work as intended(Speculation at this point). You could, in theory, make 2 antidotes and 2 antiplagues.

- The feat in question only works for Quick Alchemy. It's nice, but it only solves one problem. The Alchemist still needs Resonance for: Investing, Advanced Alchemy, Magic Item/Consumable Use. It's gonna be tight. And if you need it for the Alchemist to sort of work, it's just a Feat tax.

-He's not asking for downtime crafting to be infused. He's asking, why can't he use the Smoke Bomb feat, or the Debilitating Bomb feat, or the Extend Elixir feat when he uses Advanced Alchemy to make his daily stuff. Like, he spends 1 point of Resonance to make two Smoke Bomb Alchemist Fires. I figure this isn't allowed because the developers think (whether rightly or wrongly) that the effects are too powerful and they don't want the Alchemist to get them in bulk.

- Empowered Bombs doesn't really fix anything since bomb damage is pretty lackluster already due to being base dice with no addons, and Splash Damage being pitiful even with the feat that lets you add Intelligence. If Empowered Bombs affected Persistent Damage, it might be worth it. But it might also be too good. Honestly, Bombs should go back to how they were in PF1 and allow the Alchemist to add Intelligence bonus to damage. Then they'd be fine.

- I think what he means by Craft (Alchemy) being useless is that, until 20th level, stuff you craft doesn't scale in any way, shape or form. Bombs are always level 1, Poisons don't have scaling DC, Elixirs have their normal onset time, etc. And with the crafting rules, you can only brew 4 of an item each time, so why would you bother when Elixirs of Life when they're pretty bad (and they cost Resonance to the user). This goes double if the party has the McHealer Supreme, aka a Positive Energy Channel cleric.


thejeff wrote:
Davor wrote:


There's nothing about the quality of their experience, other than that their souls don't find peace, and they are single-handedly responsible for preventing the end of existence as they know it. That sounds almost heroic. But yeah, they don't find peace in the afterlife. Question: How many atheists believe in an afterlife? I'd wager not many, and not many with great cause. There's nothing that indicates they are the "lowest of the low" just because they don't find peace. Heck, what domain do the souls of the vast majority of true neutral humanoids go to? What about those souls who were evil in life, turned into slithering muck demons in constant pain and agony that serve the whims of every other powerful evil creature in Hell? Atheists don't seem to have it badly off, relatively.

It does seem that if you're evil, atheism might be a good choice, in a Pascal's Wager kind of sense.

Nah, again, not worshipping someone doesn't mean you don't get judged and sent where you belong. At worst, it takes a bit longer. But a LE atheist is still going to Hell for the most part, just as a CN atheist is still going to the Maelstrom and NG goes to Nirvana. Not worshipping anyone in particular just means you take the non-preferential queue in the river of souls. And that queue doesn't have pretzels. Which is horrible.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:

That page 288 thing is also inaccurate. Since, in the Pathfinder universe, your soul's destination is based largely on the being you follow in life, floating adrift in the multiverse makes sense.

Also, since you're just floating adrift, Pharasma might see fit to sacrifice you to hold back the end times. There's an odd kind of honor to it, actually.

I mean, it doesn't matter if you didn't worship anyone, or were atheist, or agnostic, or an animist, or what have you. Pharasma judges you anyway, and you go to the afterlife that most closely matches your Alignment. Only souls that actively reject the metaphysical order and do not become petitioners are left to fade away in the Boneyard.

Relevant parts from the River of Souls article in Planar Adventures:

"Their rejection goes beyond mere atheism or impiety, being a deliberate rejection of the metaphysical order. When given the chance to become petitioners and pass on to other realms, such dissidents actively refuse. Many mortal philosophies teach that all atheist souls meet this end, but in truth, most atheists and agnostics whose souls are judged can experience the full range of afterlives just as adherents of any other belief system do, passing on to the Outer Planes best aligned with their convictions."

"These souls are not transformed into petitioners; instead they are escorted into the Graveyard of Souls beyond Pharasma’s court where they can forget and be forgotten. There, these lost souls wander until they find crypts and crevices where they can eternally brood on the failings of reality. Either willingly or because they lack the capacity to care, these dissenting and broken souls then spend eons gradually dissipating, forever excluded from future travel along the River of Souls. Eventually their memories fade, their personalities dull, and nothing remains but a handful of eternally stagnant quintessence."

To OP: It's a whole different beast to play a "faithless" character in a setting where faith as we know it isn't really there. The gods do exist, and there's no denying it. You can certainly play a character that considers them unworthy of worship (Rahadoum is basically a country full of people like this), or one that worships something entirely different (like Animists, or the old God-Callers of Sarkoris, who worshipped Eidolons), or someone that worships nothing at all. Those are all fine. That the playtest has an unfortunately inaccurate line about what happens to the souls of those kinds of people doesn't make it correct.

Now, if you want to play a character that just doesn't believe in the gods at all, you can too. They'll be wrong, but that doesn't make them any less valid to play either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
O. N. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...
I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.

You forgot about the shortbows that are somehow at +1 over the Dogslicer.

Oh I was just looking at the Stock Goblin Warrior in the Bestiary, where both are at +6. Not that it makes sense for the shortbow either, at +3 Dex and Level 0 the modifier should be...+3.

None of the statted goblins make sense though, so there's that...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...
I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the inflated to-hit scores are to blame here, most of all. I haven't gone through all the monsters in the bestiary, but it's not just the level 0 Creatures. Every single monster has greatly inflated to-hit scores.

I mean, a Tiger is a Level 4 Creature with +11 to Hit and Strength +5. Level 4 + 5 Strength = +9. Where's it getting the other +2 from? A level 4 optimised Fighter (18 in Attack Stat, +1 weapon potency, Master in his weapon) is looking at a total bonus of 4 (level)+4 (stat)+1 (potency)+2 (Master)= +11. How's a random tiger just as good as a fully optimised fighter of equal level? And this repeats for basically every monster out there.

Without changing that, giving people less Hit Points will just make it far too deadly. It's already pretty deadly as is, particularly if you do not have a Cleric in the party.


That is correct, yes. Being Trained in Unarmored means that, when wearing no armor, you'd just add your Proficiency Modifier to Dex and Base 10. No AC or TAC bonuses apply.

So an 8th level Wizard with Dex 14 would be:

Base 10 + 8 (Trained Proficiency Modifer) + 2 (Dex) = 20

This applies to all classes except the Monk, because they have higher Proficiency than Trained (they start at Expert).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.
That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)

The difference is the PF2 character can be stark naked (or just unarmored) in the bar and be AC 25, still completely untouchable by the ghouls. Meanwhile your PF1 15th level fighter, if stark naked (or just unarmored), only has an AC of 11. And he'd most likely get demolished.
I'll be honest, I like that there's some way to show a character is powerful and skilled beyond just how much magic armor they have. They're just straight better at it (you could argue this should apply to weapon dice too, but that's another thread). The lvl 14 character I made had, naked, a minimum skill bonus +12 and maximum +21. I find that to be perfectly acceptable. He sneaks amazing, and while arcana is not his field, he's seen enough s*~@ to recognize magic when he sees it. A ghoul tries to bit them and they just dodge without thinking about it, because ghouls are chumps. Seems fine to me.

That's fine. I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, just pointing out that there's a glaring difference between systems. Adding level to everything has several implications that have to be taken into account, not all of them good.

I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine treadmill where you face stuff of your level, and maybe one or two below/above. Trying to do a PF1 "APL+4" encounter will just end in a TPK most of the time. And I don't mean big stuff, either.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.
That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)

The difference is the PF2 character can be stark naked (or just unarmored) in the bar and be AC 25, still completely untouchable by the ghouls. Meanwhile your PF1 15th level fighter, if stark naked (or just unarmored), only has an AC of 11. And he'd most likely get demolished.


You can still play NPCs with the normal Dying rules if you want though, there's nothing stopping you. Well, actually, I guess there's no guidelines for what the Stabilise DC is when a PC downs an enemy. You'd have to either ignore that or adjudicate it.

I do agree Dying should have some penalty beyond "You are closer to death" but one has to be careful or it can quickly turn into a downward spiral where once you're downed once you're worse, which makes you easier to down again, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
Bulk needs fixing, or at least the PF1 weights listed in the PF2 rules for those wanting that grounding.

At the very least there's a silver lining. If the worst comes to pass and this doesn't happen, you can still just use the old PF1 Encumbrance rules fine. It's the same stats and the same items, so it shouldn't be a problem. Kinda hard to do in Starfinder since we don't actually have weights for a lot of things, but PF1 to PF2 is really easy.

I mean I'm going to do this if I ever run WHFRP 4th edition since that game also uses a Bulk system. Just use 2nd edition values and you're fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
It's funny how it's you that has to bring up the completely ridiculous example, while Castilliano is just using the bulk system as is. And the bulk system as is turns out to be irredeemably bad.

I made the ridiculous example to make the point, but you don't need to be ridicule for encumbrance to be absurd. It is absurd as it is.

The 24 str character in my example has 233 lb of carrying capacity before any encumbrance. That means he could drop his 2 mile long pole, go to Castillano's armory, and pick 116 short swords, without any encumbrance. If he is willing to accept the penalties for heavy encumbrance, he could carry 349 of them.

He could instead loot 70 boarding pikes, or 34 armchairs. or 149 chairs.

The only thing that precludes him to do something absurd like looting 34 armchairs, is GM judgement. Which is the same thing that could preclude him to loot 200 light shields in a bulk system.

Where is he carrying everything though? Backpacks? Those can carry 2 cubic feet, so not much fitting in there. Sacks? Those hold 1 cubic feet, so even less.

Is he just tying ropes to every item and dragging them with him? I mean, that's hilarious, but more power to him of course.

Meanwhile, in PF2, how much can a backpack hold? 4 Bulk. Ok. So 4 clubs. Or 40 daggers. But can it carry 40 shortswords? Can it carry 40 light shields? The rules say probably not, since:

"Containers can hold the listed amount of bulk, but some items might not fit due to their dimensions"

Ok, so shortswords and light shields are obviously bigger than daggers (but not, apparently, as hard to carry as clubs), so how many can a backpack hold?

The belt pouch is mostly the same in that regard. And we haven't even gotten to Bulk - items and how you can carry as many as you want of them with no repercussions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KageNoRyu wrote:
As there are some situatoins where you can get a skill rank in the same skill during character creation I'm wondering if that means you have to choose different skills each or if taking the same skill twice means you become expert in it?

No, all the Ancestry Feats/Backgrounds are specific in saying you are "Trained in X"; and the Classes can only ever get you Trained, since:

"Additionally, this section indicates the number of skills in which your character is trained. When you choose your character’s class, you also select a number of skills equal to this number; your character gains the trained proficiency rank in those skills."

So no stacking Class with Background/Ancestry to get Expert.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

One issue with Bulk is that if you define Bulk w/ any rigor, then you may as well use weight. If you define Bulk loosely, you get variance on what should be cut & dried situations.
Can I lift him/the grate/the jiggly mcguffin?
That seems a minimal level of continuity for a game system to address. Dragging or carrying an ally is a common event, yet unaddressed. Right now, the "Shove" maneuver is the best way to move them, except awkward due to Fort saves.
My main issue is that awkward discontinuity keep arising, such as when pillaging an armory. The armory raid should be a litmus test for encumbrance systems.
"No, I couldn't lift another longsword."
"Well, take these 9 shortswords instead."
"Ok, sure."
I'd imagine merchants would make hilts detachable because it'd be a lot easier to transport 2 L objects than 1 B. Reassemble upon arrival....

You can ridicule any system you want, if you try to break the boundaries, because no system will ever be as good at simulating reality as reality itself.

For example, I have a character with str 24. How long can be the pole I carry in my backpack? If it's thin enough, can I carry a 2 mile long pole? If so, can I put a knife in one point, and have a 2mile reach? Can I use my 2 mile pole to deliver messages to people in the nearby village? I mean, I can lift that amount of pounds. So, why not? What do you mean with "a GM will rule against that"?

It's funny how it's you that has to bring up the completely ridiculous example, while Castilliano is just using the bulk system as is. And the bulk system as is turns out to be irredeemably bad.

The system tells me a Light Mace, a Light Shield, a Javelin and a Potion are all equally hard for someone to carry, whether by weight or because of a combination of weight and other factors. It tells me that carrying ten Light Shields is as hard as carrying a Club. That a Club is just as hard to carry as a Bastard Sword. That a Longbow (whether composite or not) is just as hard to carry as any polearm, or a greataxe, or a greatsword.

And this just goes on and on and on. A casual glance at the bulk rules and the assigned bulk for items should be all that's enough for someone to realise it's all out of whack.

And the variable weight-to-bulk translation makes it hard to define how hard it is to carry someone. Or to get loot that's not normal (Ancient tapestries, a solid gold decanter, the chair of First Emperor Taldaris, or what have you.).

It's good at simplifying encumbrance for gear, and it basically fails at everything else.


Jason S wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
No, if you get hit while you're Unconcious you "[...]apply the same effects as if you has been knocked out by that damage"

Yikes. Thanks for pointing that out again, sorry Fuzzy!

TheFinish wrote:
- If non-lethal, they don't gain Dying and go back to one hit point -> Hilariously, this also applies. You can, per RAW, slap and adventurer with your nonlethal fist to heal them back to 1 Hit Point.

I wonder if that was intended?

I'm pretty sure it isn't intended, but it is a pretty funny side effect of the rules as they are written now. Probably something that should be fixed before release, but it's not something major.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
Dαedαlus wrote:

Here’s my problem with the “Resonance fixes Cha as a dump stat!” arguement.

There is no such thing as a dump stat in PF2. Unless you’re a dwarf (which should be naturally decent at magic items anyway from a lore perspective) or decide to willingly handicap yourself, you’ll never have a CHA modifier in the negatives. And you definitely won’t gain anything from a lower score.

"Charisma is a dump stat" oversimplifies the issue. In Pathfinder 2nd Edition without a general use for Charisma, the dump stat problem will be that if Charisma is not 16 or 18, then it will be 8 or 10. We will never see Charisma 12 or 14.

In Pathfinder 1st Edition, Charisma is an all-or-nothing stat. No-one accuses bards, sorcerers, or oracles of dumping Charisma because it is their primary casting stat. Paladins get plenty of benefit from Charisma. And some rogues like to play the party face, i.e., the person who talks with good Bluff or Diplomacy checks to smooth interactions with townsfolk and rulers.

But social skills are the only use for Charisma in PF1 outside of class features. And usually only one person needs to be good at social skills. The problem arises with a group bluff, like the party traveling in disguise as merchants. One good bluffer and three terrible bluffers are a recipe for accidental disclosure, because often a guard or stablehand has a good reason to talk to the wrong person. Likewise for Diplomacy in a socially risky situation. "You said WHAT to the ambassador's wife?!"

My social adventures would go more smoothly if the party had a few medium-Charisma characters with CHA 12 or 14. They would be good enough to continue the deception or diplomacy without being good enough to start the deception or diplomacy. They could talk to townsfolk and gather informaton due to reasons that are not related to being extremely charming, "I have a Blacksmith background, so I will talk to the town blacksmith."

Instead, if my players are not playing the party face, their...

I mean, in PF1, Charisma 12/14 means...basically nothing. If your characters didn't invest in the appropiate skills, they're still useless. If they're all trying to bluff, then a +1/+2 won't mean a thing, they're still fishing for a high number on the roll. So I'm not entirely sure what you mean, honestly.

You could leave Charisma at 10 or even 08 and still be good at social skills as long as you invested in them. But if you didn't invest in them you'd never be good at it, not even passable, no matter what your Charisma was.

And this is mostly still true in PF2, by the way. Without resonance there's really not a lot of incentive to take your Charisma above 10. Going Trained in the skills is probably a good idea because you get rid of the -2, but even at mid levels an Untrained Cha 10 guy is throwing +8 at the relevant uses. And of the Charisma related skills, only Deception and Performance have a Trained Only use. And Performance's Trained Use is just substituting for Lore to earn money.

So the party face still has incentive to keep the skill up (mostly a few of the feats), but the rest? They have even less incentive than before. The skill goes up no matter what they do. No reason to ever bother with it, or Charisma, beyond Resonance.


As far as I know, you are correct: If you roll, and get a 17/18 in a score where you must add an Increase (which means Ancestry, and Class, and maybe Background) then you can put that increase in another ability score of your choice. Or, if you rolled a 17, you put the increase in the 17, and that makes it 18.

Not sure what your "rules lawyers" are arguing for though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fumarole wrote:

Sneaking successfully means you can start combat undetected. Even if you don't beat them in initiative opponents would either not attack you at all or have to spend actions detecting you. Either one is to the benefit of you. If you act first and choose to attack, your foe is flat-footed to you. In this system every advantage you can get to your rolls is huge.

Rulebook page 317 wrote:

Sneaking

You attempt a Stealth check to avoid notice while moving at half your travel Speed, unless you have an ability to move at full Speed while Sneaking. If you’re Sneaking at an encounter’s start, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check as part of your initiative roll, both to determine initiative order and to see if the enemies notice you.

They're only Flat-Footed if you're a Rogue, or have Surprise Attack from Rogue Multiclassing. If you do not, well...

"If you do anything else, you become seen just before you act. For instance, if you attack a creature you’re unseen by, that creature is not flatfooted against that attack."

Which means, if they win Initiative, even if you're Unseen, the moment you try to capitalise on it you become Seen (unless you're under 4th level Invisibility) and they're not Flat-Footed.

Stealth and Initiative rules in PF2 are pretty borked. There's no way to ambush or snipe effectively.


Jason S wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
No, you do increase your dying condition (unless the attack was nonlethal), because of the part I bolded above.

The section you just quoted was going from positive hp to 0. Yes, your dying increases. But if the person is already at 0, this isn't the case. I suppose it's the case when you're at 1 and still unconscious? This part of the rules is not very clear.

The section I quoted was directly from what happens when you get hit when you're unconscious. And in that case your recovery DC on increases if the new creature hitting you is tougher.

This shows the rules are not clear, it's better to be unconscious at 0 than it is to be unconscious and at 1 hp.

I also still don't like how they treat hitting an unconscious PC. It should at least increase your dying by 1. In PF1 you'd be dead.

No, if you get hit while you're Unconcious you "[...]apply the same effects as if you has been knocked out by that damage"

You're a Fighter, at 5 HP. You get hit for 6 HP. You're now at 0. What does this do?

- You're Unconcious.
- Move Initiative.
- Gain Dying 1; or add 1 to the Dying condition if you already had the Dying Condition.
- If the attack was non-lethal, no Dying, but you go back to 1 Hit Point.

So our Fighter is now at 0 HP, Unconcious, has moved his Initiative, and has Dying 1.

He gets hit, again. Per the rules, we apply the same effects as what happened the first time, because we treat this attack as if it has knocked him out.

- He's Unconcious -> This doesn't change).
- He moves Initiative -> This does change and would move his Initiative again, before the creature that struck him while he was unconcious.
- He gains Dying 1; or +1 Dying -> This also changes, since the Fighter is already Dying 1, they'd be Dying 2.
- If non-lethal, they don't gain Dying and go back to one hit point -> Hilariously, this also applies. You can, per RAW, slap and adventurer with your nonlethal fist to heal them back to 1 Hit Point.

So, after the second strike, our Fighter is still Unconcious, his Initiative has moved again, and he's at Dying 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luceon wrote:

Does anyone like resonance and why?

I like it.

It's abstractly the new UMD. It causes munchkins to get upset. They are so use to dump stating Charisma, now you can't just throw away charisma so easily. The designers made it so every ability is pretty well balanced and sacrificing certain abilities has interesting repercussions.

You know, except for Strength. Oh, and Intelligence. Strength is basically completely useless for some classes (I'm looking at you, Rogue); and Intelligence is the de-facto dump stat* since it does bloody nothing after first level.

Also, Resonance isn't the new UMD. Trick Magic Item is the new UMD. Resonance is just a patch-job because the designers didn't like people spamming CLW wands.

*Dump Stat in the PF2 "Why would I ever raise this?" sense, not the PF1 "I'll lower this in point buy to get a better stat elsewhere" sense.


The Narration wrote:
If that includes giving other people authorization to rob tombs, then that kind of blows the whole premise of the Mummy's Mask AP out of the water.

Man, I hadn't even thought about this but you're right, how does Mummy's Mask opening premise work with this Anathema...

And Pharasma also has "desecrate a corpse" as Anathema. Does that include looting them? I mean, under most definitions desecration includes looting, amongst other things.

I forsee these Anathema (amongst others, looking at you Desna and Torag) to give us just as many "Does X Fall" threads as we had with Paladins back in the day.


Spywerd wrote:
Thats exactly my point though friend, why wouldn't you want to reduce the cost? Otherwise you're spending four days you don't have to if the GM is nice and has a friendly local Alchemist shop.

Because you may not be in a place with a friendly Alchemist shop? Or a shop at all? Also, AFAIK Uncommon Alchemical Items (ie, Mutagens and...Sleep Poison) aren't for sale either.

That and to be honest, crafting Alchemical items in downtime is, for an Alchemist at least, mostly worthless. Crafted items don't have the Infused trait, which means most (if not all) of the special Alchemist Class Features/Feats don't apply to them. You can't use Empower Bombs with a batch of Alchemist fire you crafted (or bought), so they're always level 1 bombs. You can't use Fast Onset or Extend Elixir with bought/crafted Elixirs, etc.

And as a last point, Crafting is one of those "Bad at low levels, very good at mid to high levels". By level 10, an Alchemist that's Master in Crafting can churn out a batch of 4 of any level 1 bomb for half price in 3 days, 2 if they Critically Succeed. Of course, the bombs are basically worthless to them as we just explained, but they can do it.


Spywerd wrote:

Hello! Overall I'm really liking the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Playtest so far. Everything I've read is really solid and fun. However I came across my first concern that I think could warrant some discussion today. That concern is the crafting rules. It doesn't seem particularly useful to craft items right now.

Tier 1 Elixir of Life (@Level One)
30sp to Buy
15sp, 15 Days to Craft + 4 Days Base

Tier 2 Elixir of Life (@Level Four)
120sp to Buy
60sp, 12 Days to Craft + 4 Days Base

If you choose to work a trade during downtime instead of craft you can earn the same amount that you'd spend on crafting in the same amount of time.

Working a Trade (@Level One)
19 Days, 20sp?

Working a Trade (@Level Four)
15 Days, 65sp?

So if you're in a city with an alchemist, even if you can craft it there seems to be no real reason to if your GM is nice. You earn more in the same amount of time and can buy it for the same cost. Don't make much sense to me.

You're also talking a lot of downtime for a very small amount of healing. 1d8 | 3d6? I mean you get four in a batch, but that is a lot of days for such a small amount of healing items. HP is much higher in this edition so it seems questionable to me.

Given the amount of time it takes to craft an item it seems like you'd just want to buy it at full cost. Which is still better than crafting it at full cost because crafting takes 4 days. Meanwhile a nice GM is going to have the Alchemist's shop fully stocked.

I think these numbers might could use a second look. What does everyone else think?

Loving the playtest. Happy gaming everyone!

Why do you have such long crafting times listed for the Elixirs? Alchemical Items, like all items, just take 4 days to craft, as long as you meet the level requirements. And you can create them in batches of up to 4, as long as you pay the cost up front.

The only way you'd take that long to make them is if you wanted to reduce the cost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AldoDraca wrote:

Beyond that, I'm not seeing the problem that everyone is talking about with Alchemists. Their resonance is based off their key ability INT, which if you're trying to stack the cards right, would give you 5 resonance at the first level, which is more than most every other character so far except maybe Sorcerers - See "Studied Resonance". Use of Elixirs and Creation of their Alchemy items is the only actual uses of Resonance so far for them, which I as a GM would assume that an Alchemist already has a stock made up of items as making a batch costs only 1 RP and makes multiple items based on downtime creation (like with the new downtime crafting mechanics, which if it is in downtime it's not costing you RP). Are all elixirs just for your alchemist? Are they making 15 items a day? Are they trying to carry 30 different alchemy items for 3 bulk? Bombs and mutagens don't cost RP to use, so I'm confused as to why people are saying Alchemists are limited here.

I suspect its because after the first few levels, buying/crafting stuff sort of doesn't really work. A lot of the Alchemist Class Feats and Class Features (like Empower Bombs, Fast Onset, Extend Elixir, etc) only work with items that have the Infused tag. That means items the Alchemist created with Advanced Alchemy/Quick Alchemy. Sure, the Alchemist can craft bombs during downtime, but they'll always be 1st level bombs, aka mostly useless as you go along.

Furthermore, a lot of Alchemist Class Feats (like all the Bomb Feats) require that the Alchemist use Quick Alchemy, thereby expending Resonance.

So an Alchemist needs Resonance for:

- Making Infused items at the start of the day. And while 1 RP gives you two items of a kind, you're juggling Bombs, Elixirs and, later on, Mutagens.
- Using Quick Alchemy during the day for his other Class Feats, like Powerful Alchemy, Smoke Bomb, etc.
- Investing magic items, like everyone else.
- Using any items/consumables they might want to use (like a Cloak of Elvenkind and such), like everyone else.

I haven't yet played an Alchemist or seen one in play (my group read through the document and had no interest in playing PF2, sadly), but I can see why they'd have problems even with using INT for calculating Resonance.

EDIT: Just wanted to add

"Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It's actually worse, because now classes like Fighters and Rogues can't use items like Wands or Scrolls anymore, whereas before, if they were trained enough, it was at least fairly possible to do so. Now? "Fighter wants to use Wand of CLW," "Fat chance, next!"
Quote:

They actually can, with Trick Magic Item. Which is basically UMD, except subdivided into 4 Skills now. And the DC is up to GM. And Critical Failure means no more trying to use that item for the day. So, really bad. But hey, it's an option!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't like it, it looks like a patch-job to try and solve the consumable problem, and that just means you now need a Cleric or other dedicated healer. And some of the items that use Resonance (Bag of Holding and Gloves of Storing) are just Resonance drains for no reason.

Also, to everyone saying "No more item slots", read again. ITEM SLOTS ARE STILL HERE. There's 13 of them, in fact. I posted the breakdown in another thread, but basically, aside from rings, it's mostly the same. There's only a few non-ring items that are worn . The vast majority falls into a slot.

Stop saying Resonance got rid of slots. It didn't.

And UMD is still there too, by the way. It's not a skill, but Trick Magic Item is basically UMD, only worse due to the variable DC and the Critical Failure clause.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

The special rules for two weapon fighting come from the definition of agile weapons.

Much like how weapon finesse was handled with the rules for both agile and finesse weapons.

Yeah, but without stuff like Double Slice, or Twin Parry, etc. there's no difference between a guy using a single shortsword and a guy using two shortswords. Heck, the first guy may be better off, he has a free hand to do stuff with.

Having two weapons out is an advantage if: a) Your "main-hand" isn't Agile, so you have a bigger first strike followed by lower MAP from the off hand (say, Longsword/Shortsword) or b) Your weapons have different damage types and that actually matters.

If you're planning on using two of the same weapon you basically gain nothing and lose nothing. It's basically all in the Feats now. Without them you just behave like a PF1 guy with 3 attacks from BAB that switches what weapons they use for each (though you get an advantage from Agile weapons).

When you put it like that, this actually seems like a VERY elegant solution to PF1e twf.

In many ways it encourages the heavier weapon and then a lighter weapon in the offhand which is more accurate to what twf was historically.

In that style, damage wise I don't see an advantage to using the same agile weapon for your main attack, it would always be more advantageous to use a heavier weapon that dealt more damage. You then use the lighter damage so that your penalty to hit on your second and third attacks are not as great.

As characters gain levels and magical weapons inscribed with runes, this becomes even more glaring. A weapon that does 6d8 is going to be far better to use with your primary attack at first than one that does 6d6 (27 avg. vs. 18 avg.).

Does that mean we're going to make everything but heavy blunt/crushing weapons completely ineffective against plate armor? That's also historically accurate.

Or how about giving bows a reload higher than 0? Also historically accurate.

Besides, there's a very prominent martial arts from the Phillipines (Eskrima) that uses dual sticks/dual daggers. Not to mention the most iconic dual wielder in all of DnD is probably Drizzt, and he uses twin scimitars. Then again he's a Ranger, so he'd actually get feat support in 2E. You know who else uses two of the same weapon? Harsk. Same deal as Drizzt though.

My point is that this claim of "Two Weapon Fighting totally exists" rings hollow. Yeah, it does exist. Unless you don't want to use two different weapons. Then it doesn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
MelodicCodes wrote:

1. Feats should be "unchained" from classes.

A lot of people have mentioned that, without any form of multiclassing, you cannot have a TWF Rogue(at least one that's meaningfully better than a 1 weapon Rogue). This is silly, and an example of a seeming design oversight but it highlights a bigger issue.

No one else has responded to this particular claim, so I figure I will.

In Pathfinder 2.0 you don’t need feats to TWF. Thar be a lot of people on these boards who think you need double slice to TWF, but that isn’t true. My guess is that these people went off looking for the feat that would let them TWF, saw that only fighters and rangers got it, and were understandably upset.

What these people missed is that the reason characters have to TWF is not in their class feats, but in the chapter on equipment. Specifically, ‘agile’ weapons tend to be worse than their less agile counterparts, but in return get an accuracy buff on the iterative attacks. Specifically addressing the claim that a rogue using one weapon is as good as one using two, this is demonstrably false. A rogue using nought but a rapier does 1d6 base damage, and has the disarm and deadly weapon traits available to them. A rogue using a rapier and a shortsword has all the same benefits, but also gains +1 to hit with their second attack, and +2 to hit with their third attack.

Though, as far as choice in sidearm goes, I actually prefer the dagger to the shortsword. Slightly less damage on those iterative attacks, but another weapon property to play with, and a ranged option to boot.

TL;DR

TWF rogues are stronker than their one-weapon counterparts, and my playtest character uses a rapier and a dagger.

We should all strive to make a conscious effort not to jump to conclusions about the new system, because many of the old system’s problems have been solved in a manner most elegant but also a manner hidden out of immediate sight in the properties of weapons and the descriptions of skills. We all need...

A guy using a single shortsword, or two shortswords, or a shortsword and a dagger, or any combination of Agile weapons sees absolutely no difference whatsoever.

So yes, a Rogue using one weapon is as good as a Rogue using two in most cases. If you want to make someone who uses two of the same weapon (two rapiers, two shortswords, two daggers, etc) you're basically just wasting money in the off hand.


master_marshmallow wrote:

The special rules for two weapon fighting come from the definition of agile weapons.

Much like how weapon finesse was handled with the rules for both agile and finesse weapons.

Yeah, but without stuff like Double Slice, or Twin Parry, etc. there's no difference between a guy using a single shortsword and a guy using two shortswords. Heck, the first guy may be better off, he has a free hand to do stuff with.

Having two weapons out is an advantage if: a) Your "main-hand" isn't Agile, so you have a bigger first strike followed by lower MAP from the off hand (say, Longsword/Shortsword) or b) Your weapons have different damage types and that actually matters.

If you're planning on using two of the same weapon you basically gain nothing and lose nothing. It's basically all in the Feats now. Without them you just behave like a PF1 guy with 3 attacks from BAB that switches what weapons they use for each (though you get an advantage from Agile weapons).


BlackPhx wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Double Slice trades your secondary attack [or MAP-5(4 with agile weapons) attack] for another primary (or no MAP) with an off hand weapon.

The off hand must be agile, or it becomes -2, and you only apply resistance once after combining both attacks.

I guess I am getting hung up on double slice which apparently by every ones answers so far is a combination of the two weapon fighting and double slice feats rolled together and unless you have the double slice feat you can not really fight with two weapons. Which really sucks for rogues.

The wording on double slice where it says "This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty" is what is confusing me. It would imply that both attacks of the double slice are calculated at the -5 MAP.

No, because Double Slice states:

"Make one Strike (see page 308) with each of your two melee weapons, each at your current multiple attack penalty. The second Strike takes a –2 circumstance penalty if it’s made with a weapon that doesn’t have the agile trait (see page 182)."

So, if Double Slice is your first Strike in a round, your current multiple attack penalty is 0. If you use Double Slice after you do one Strike, your current multiple attack penalty would be -5 for a non-Agile weapon and -4 for an Agile weapon. The wording at the end of Double Slice just means any strike after a Double Slice, no matter when you did the double slice, suffers the Multiple Attack Penalty of a 3rd Strike (so -10, or -8 for Agile).


John Ryan 783 wrote:

So, universal empowerment makes it so all your bombs are invested, but the section on bombs says you don't need to activate them. Which leads me to believe they don't require resonance, seeing as from what I can tell investment just means don't use resonance, I can tell what the first half of this ability does?

1) Bombs cost resonance?

2) It needs an errata?

Neither. Universal Empowerment makes any bomb or mutagen the alchemist picks up count as Infused, not Invested. They're different things.

Normally bombs and mutagens only count as Infused if the Alchemist creates them with Advanced Alchemy or Quick Alchemy. But the 20th level Feat changes things.

For example, Empower Bombs only works with Infused bombs. If an Alchemist buys bombs from a shop, they're not Infused, so Empower Bombs doesn't work with them. But with Universal Empowerment, they do, so an Alchemist can stock up on bombs they crafted/bought and they'll be just as powerful as those they make with Advanced Alchemy/Quick Alchemy.

Similarly, as willuwontu pointed out, certain feats only work on Infused versions of certain items, which means they wouldn't work on stuff you buy or craft normally. But with Universal Empowerment, they do.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

As a specific example in Simulationist vs Gamist, consider Raistlin. Undoubtably he's a high level wizard. How do you think he would fare against a group of low level fighters without using his magic? Or, if you'd like something more modern, Kvothe without his magic against any group of guards...

That has nothing to do with simulationism vs gamism, but with the kind of story those books are telling, and how wizards are in those books. I'm pretty confident Gandalf can beat 20 goblins using a staff. He can stale a combat against a Balrog, after all. Geralt of Rivia is another example of a wizard who probably can beat a lot of low level fighters into a bloody pulp using his hands. In Wh40k, a chaos sorcerer will spank those guards. If we widen the genre a bit, Jedi will do as well, even naked and without light saber.

Just wanted to say, Geralt of Rivia isn't a wizard by any stretch of the imagination (and certainly not by Pathfinder standards, or the standards of his own universe); a Chaos Sorcerer would beat them because he's a 7 foot tall supersoldier in power armor (assuming a Chaos Space Marine) or get completely obliterated (assuming a human sorcerer); and Jedi got slaughtered by mooks even with lightsabers.

Plus, PF2 is an evolution of PF1, so you'd need to look at those stories. And you won't find a PF1 story about an unarmed, magic-less wizard beating up twenty 1st level fighters. Because it didn't happen.

It can totally happen now though. The numbers are just incredibly skewed by level, it isn't even funny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I advocated for just this before the playtest dropped. "Power Points" are what we should use if those points are used to activate something called "Powers". Even if the Powers are a special kind of Spell.

Thus, Cantrips are at-will, you use Spell Slots for Spells, and Power Points for powers. Boom, much simpler.

And I agree, they should be separated. Ideally they should be in the Class Feat section, instead of writing a gazillion variations of "You can use X Power for Y Power Points." as a feat. But if you can't do that, then please, please, separate them from normal spells.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
You know what, I think it would just be easier if clerics are limited to their god/goddess' alignment only. Because it is hard to justify why ZK would get LN clerics but Asmodeus not and in all fairness it makes more sense to just go "you have to be the alignment of the deity you worship"

I wholeheartedly agree. But that stance does make it tough to get a lot of variation and choice in for clerics, since we can't list the full 350 or so deities active in the Pathfinder setting in the Core Rules.

As for justifying why one deity has more wide-reaching alignment options for their clerics than other deities, I don't think it's hard to justify those at all, and in fact that really gives an important and interesting way to expand on different deities' personalities. Asmodeus in this case becomes an "exemplar" of rigid pure no-holds-barred lawful evil, whereas Zon-Kuthon becomes a more permissive, less strict version of lawful evil that DOES allow for different expressions of worship. Helps make the two deities more separate and less of "He's the LE one who's about burning Hell and he's the LE one who's about shadowy Hell."

But you guys at Paizo did a terrific job differentiating the philosophies of both of these deities in PF1. They were never "This guy's about fiery hell" and "These guy's about shadowy hell". Making Asmodeus LE only (and robbing him of nuance) doesn't really add anything, it just substracts.

I'm not entirely against the idea of these revisions, but some of them just don't click for me. The ZK/Asmodeus dichotomy is one. Rovagug/Lamashtu is another (I mean, Rovagug allows NE, but Lamashtu doesn't? Why?).

The biggest offender in my eyes is Pharasma though. A True Neutral goddess supposedly above it all, playing no favorites except for hating everybody who creates undead....yet she does not have CN and NE worshippers? That just means she does play favorites, with Law and Good.


Luca Bancone wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Luca Bancone wrote:
I have found nothing about it in the manual, can't you use it anymore?
With the new action economy there's not a real need for specific Two-Weapon Fighting Rules. However, there's Fighter/Ranger Feats for enhancing Two-Weapon Fighting.

I don't know, with "double slice" it seems the only difference is your second strike use the same penality of the first one, then the third counts as third.

that means your attacks are 0, 0, -10, instead of 0, -5, -10

it doesn't give to you an extra attack anymore and that was the peculiarity of the two weapon fighting styile.

Well, it combines the damage, which is good for beating Resistances (though bad for taking advantage of Weaknesses.). Still, having two attacks at your highest bonus is an advantage, and a definite one.

Fighters and Rangers also both get Twin Parry, Twin Riposte. Fighters can also get Improved Twin Riposte, Two Weapon Flurry and Twin Paragon. All of those work with and enhance the use of two weapons. That's what I meant by saying those classes get feats for enhancing Two-Weapon Fighting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:

They had to lower the math in order to make the Crit Success and Crit Fail option more fluid within the system. Cause before anybody getting - 10 or lower past a certain point was fairly impossible. Now because of static gain and small increases those small increases matter more. They also changed a lot of Failures to not exactly be detrimental.

Let's examine simply climbing a cliff.

Climb (Athletics)
Let's say that a lvl 3 Fighter (+8 Ath) Rogue (+5 Ath) and Wizard (+3) are trying to Climb a cliff side. In the book it says a cliff side is generally a DC 15 to Climb. Let's say the cliff is 30ft tall. They all have to succeed 6 climb checks to move up the cliff going 5 feet a round. Although on a crit success they move up half their speed, which could depend on the armor their wearing and all that but we're just going to assume they're unarmored.

The Fighter
The Fighter with their +8 (+3 lvl, +4 str and +1 expert) succeeds on a roll of 7 and can only crit fail on a Nat 1. He also can Crit Succeed on a roll of 20-17. So they has a 20% chance of going much faster and needing less checks and only a 5% chance of falling. If he fails he just doesn't move at all.

The Rogue
With a +5 (+3 lvl, +2 str) they succeed on a roll of 15 can only crit succeed on a 20 and can crit fail on a 1.

The Wizard with his +3 (+3 lvl) can succeed on a roll of 12 can only crit succeed on a 20 and is the only one who can actually crit fail more than once with a roll of 1 and 2.

Now that's for the base DC if it was any higher the Rogue and Wizard would be in even more danger because of their lower bonus while the Fighter would only start to be in more danger once the DC hit 19 or higher. The bonus is not that huge with the fighter having only 5 more than the wizard and only 3 more than the rogue. Also if either the rogue or wizard weren't trained in Athletics then that would be a further minus 2 which would make them even more likely to crit fail and thus fall to their deaths the higher they get.

At higher...

I mean, compared to PF1, where your 3rd level Fighter just uses Take 10, scales the cliff, then throws down a rope so the other guys only need to meet DC 5 to scale it, I don't really see it as a nice addition.

Proficiency and the removing of Take 10/20 in their original form (Assurance exists, but it isn't very good) has made characters (especially low level characters) much less reliable at jobs they're supposed to be good at. And this is made worse by the fact that you always have a chance to fail, no matter what. It's not fun to be the guy with +14 Athletics that fails to scale the cliff on a 1 just because the rules say so, even though I met the DC.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
For what its worth, resonance isn't just about wands, but also about getting rid of slots, and allowing characters to deck themselves out in whatever equipment they want. But if you get rid of slots, you are going to need to some sort of way to limit the amount of magic a character can deck themselves out in.

Resonance didn't ger rid of slots though. Slots are still there, they just aren't called out as prominently.

Slots in PF2 (in order of appearance!):

- Eyepiece
- Belt
- Shoes
- Bracers
- Armor
- Cloak
- Collar
- Circlet
- Mask
- Garment
- Gloves
- Headwear
- Backpack

There's also Barding and Horseshoes, though those are just re-naming Armor and Shoes for Animals. For those counting, that's 13 slots, vs PF1s 14. They got rid of Rings, and changed others around, but it's mostly the same.

In fact, in the Playtest, there's only 7 non-ring worn items that don't fall into one of these slots: Anklets of Alacrity, Armbands of Athleticism, Brooch of Shielding, Han of the Mage, Necklace of Fireballs, Third Eye and Whisper of the First Lie.

That's it. Slotted Items far outnumber slot-less worn items. To claim Resonance got rid of Slots is not true.


Yossarian wrote:

You mean this Quick Identification feat?

You take only 10 minutes when using Identify Magic to determine the properties of an item, ongoing effect, or location, rather than 1 hour. If you’re an expert, it takes 5 minutes; if you’re a master, it takes 1 minute; and if you’re legendary, it takes 3 rounds

Unless i'm missing something (i could be), quick identification just takes down the time, but not to anything you could do in a battle.

.

Damn, I meant Quick Recognition. I got them mixed up. My bad.


Yossarian wrote:

The big change to me seems to be:

Recognize Spell - Feat:
The GM rolls a secret Arcana, Nature, Occultism, or Religion check, whichever corresponds to the tradition of the spell being cast. If you’re not trained in the skill, you can’t get a result better than failure

Spellcraft was one skill to recognise any spell. Now you only recognise spells from the tradition that you have the appropriate of the four skills for.

I like that change.

Using a reaction is harsh though. Perhaps it's better off as a free action with the trigger: someone / something seen by you starts casting a spell.

Upgrading it so that the test is a Free Action (once per round, at least) is the idea behind the Quick Identification Feat.

But honestly, since Counterspell is a Reaction too that just means Quick Identification is a must-have if you want to play a counter-spelling guy.


dpirate wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
It's a Skill Feat called "Recognize Spell", which lets you use a Reaction to try and Identify a spell being cast with one of the relevant skills.
But is there a way to get that feat at lvl 1? So in essence you need to adventure in order to recognize spells you cast every day lol.

The only way I know of is to be Human, and use your 1st level Ancestry Feat to take General Training. That lets you get any 1st level General Feat, so as long as you're Trained in either Arcana, Nature, Occultism or Religion, you can then get Recognize Spell.


It's a Skill Feat called "Recognize Spell", which lets you use a Reaction to try and Identify a spell being cast with one of the relevant skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:

You're right.

I guess that implies that when you block with a shield it blocks all the incoming damage of that attack? And the only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not the shield survives the experience.

I've honestly no idea, hence why I started this thread. I think the idea is for the Shield and the Fighter to take the same damage, post Hardness.

So you got Heavy Steel (Hardness 5) and you get hit for 10. You Shield Block. Shield reduces damage by 5. Then both Shield and Fighter take 5 Damage (which is enough to Dent the shield).

That's what makes the most sense, I think, but the wording is a mess and could use a lot of revision. Or at least, a sidebar with an example.


Yossarian wrote:

On p175 Item damage: "If an item takes damage equal to its hardness it takes a Dent."

So, since the shield took 6 points of damage, equal to its hardness, it gets one Dent.

I agree with most of what you said, but this is actually contradicted later on in the paragraph:

"For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents"

That tells us that, despite bad wording, it should be damage equal to it's Hardness after we've already factored in Hardness. Otherwise, the example listed would take 3 dents, not 2.

For a Light Shield with Hardness 3 to only take 2 dents from 10 damage, it has to be first reduced by Hardness to 7.

And AFAIK there's no way to add more Dents to an item. It's 2 max and then completely obliterated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luceon wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Flaming Duck wrote:
As an aside: I'm not seeing anything on threatening the second diagonal. Has the 5-foot teleport returned?

Yup, they kept diagonal movement as it was in PF1 but didn't change this, so the second diagonal is 15ft away and not threatened, allowing for a step without provoking.

Of course, in PF1 they had to do a whole clarification on this that was kind of dumb to say that moving from the 2nd to the 1st diagonal did provoke even though the second diagonal isn't threatened, instead of doing the old 3.0 and just letting Reach weapons threaten those squares.

I hope they actually change the wording this time.

That clarification is a good thing and makes tons of sense, metric tons of sense, they need to keep that clarification, otherwise GMs like me will cheese the s+@! out of you reach fighters.

BTW I'm 100% in favor of no more doughnut of death.

The clarification would be entirely unneeded if they just kept the old language that Reach weapons threaten the second diagonal even though it's technically 15ft away.

That is a much simpler solution than a wordy explanation that runs contrary to the normal Threat/AoO rules put in there just so a Reach weapon can AoO someone coming in from the second diagonal but not actually threaten that square.

Especially considering the explanation is nowhere in PF2 at the moment, so right now, per RAW, you can approach anyone with AoO and a Reach weapon through the second diagonal and be perfectly fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrunkWolf wrote:

I hear you. I wanted to build a dual wielding rogue but didn’t see any low level feat or trait that can help my build. Perhaps I need to read more about multi-classing with fighter or ranger to get the double slice feat but that seems like a slow, inefficient and out of character progression (dont need to train in heavy armor to learn to dual wield).

The Double Slice does provide some good value though. It basically allows you to make 2 attacks at your full attack bonus (no multiple attacking penalty of -5 on your 2nd attack). It is not clear if you get additional damage (“combine the attacks’ damage and then add any other applicable ehancements”), but it is nice to unify the damage for calculating weakness and resistances.

Normally you would only have a 3rd attack at a -10. But if you spend a hero point, I guess you can have a 3rd and 4th attack, both at -10. Using two agile weapons would come in handy here as you would be trading the 0/0/-10/-10 penalties for 0/0/-8/-8 when spending your hero points. Too bad these seem to be awarded less frequently. Perhaps there is a more advanced feat that does something similar that I haven’t read yet.

The thing is though, you get the lessened penalties by just using an Agile weapon, it doesn't need to be off-hand or anything. A guy with two daggers and a guy with a rapier both get the same penalties in the end.

Two-Weapon Fighting is now just the domain of class feats, and only Fighters/Rangers get those (Fighters more than Rangers), which means if you want a TWF Rogue you're out of luck, better Multiclass. And that's just really bad design.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
epicmusic42 wrote:
Now, I imagine that what Battle Medic is intended to mean I essentially Administer First Aid at a higher DC. Though a clarification that that's what I'm doing would be appreciated. (Now as someone who enjoys getting into the nitty gritty realism of fantasy settings, I would prefer it if those hit points were fully temporary in a you lose an equal number in half n hour if you don't get proper healing kind of way, but I digress).

There might be a rules interaction that prevented them from saying that. It would have to be worded very carefully to both keep you form using that first aid action to heal HP more than once per day, but not simultaneously lock out the ability to use first aid normally on the same day.

Also, that tent full of naked medics patching up an army is called a mobile army surgical hospital unit. There was a long running TV show in the 80s about one, And a movie before that. I'm absolutely amused that something like THAT is unrealistic, but a single cleric patching up everyone is apparently more believable.

Yeah but the "naked" medics patching an army had, you know, tools and supplies and such. A guy with Battle Medic doesn't even need healer's tools (unlike someone using Administer First Aid), he just heals you by touching you.

I mean if Administer First Aid requires supplies, surely something that heals even more would also require supplies? At least, that's how I understand OP's position.


Nekome wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
Your numbers of spells known as a bard is always equal to your number of spells you can cast.

This seems to say it can be higher:

Page 64, Spell Repertoire wrote:
Though you gain them at the same rate, your spell slots and spell repertoire are separate. If a feat or other ability adds a spell to your spell repertoire, it wouldn’t give you another spell slot, and vice versa.
So you learn a spell every time you gain a slot by leveling, but you might be able to increase the number of spells you can know by other means (though there don't appear to be any available in the playtest rulebook).

There is at least one way I found: the Esoteric Scholar Class Feat (for Bards). I don't think Sorcerers get anything similar though.

But to answer the OP: every odd level (3,5,7, etc) you get 2 Spells Known of the new level you can cast (so two 2nd level spells at character level 3; two 3rd level spells at character level 5; etc) and at every even level (2,4,6, etc) you get 1 Spell Known of the highest level you can currently cast (so one 1st level spell at character level 2; one 2nd level spell at character level 4; etc)


23 people marked this as a favorite.

The playtest rulebook is incredibly lacking in options and what we get tremendously generic though. The classes are also incredibly pidgeonholed. Here's just three things I tried to make, but couldnt:

- A barbarian specialising in Thrown weapons. But it turns out Rage no longer applies to them, and I don't get Quick Draw and the Barbarian gets nothing to aid ranged combat, at all.
- A bow ranger. Yes, a bloody bow using ranger. You get absolutely no feat support until 18th level (Impossible Volley), and while Distracting Shot favors the Bow, all the other feats are equally useful to both bow and crossbow. Oh, but there's two feats (Crossbow Ace, Running Reload) that favor the Crossbow over the Bow. Guess I know what direction the devs want me to go....
- A rogue that uses a spear as their main weapon. Just...just that. To try and make a sort of tribal hunter. But...nope. Sneak Attack doesn't work with Spears, nor does Finesse Striker. So....my two first level class features, completely useless because I dared pick a spear.

I could make all three of these in PF1 Core out of the box, and while the first one might've been sub-par, I could actually, y'know, make it in the first place.

I could probably make them in PF2 if I wanted to as well...by multiclassing the first two into Fighter for the relevant feats. Can't do anything about the third though, I'm stuck there.

But if you still have doubts, just look at all the stuff that used to be general feats anyone could take, but are now class locked. Fighter is the worst offender, but Metamagic feats are another good example.


Thravion wrote:

As I said before do not take it by the book. You are definitely right with the wording. The shield would never get dented.

The intention is different and the wording has to be changed. Paladinosaurs Version is the most logic.

I mean, I can, but this a playtest. I'm not asking "How do I fix this?" I'm saying "This doesn't work at all as written and should be changed as soon as possible. And if it is supposed to work like this, how does it actually work?"

Unfortunately there's no FAQ button, for some reason, so I guess I'll just wait for a survey.


No dice rolls, no. It's always a set amount + Constitution modifer. You can still reverse engineer it though, because it's just the maximum number for the dice they had in PF1 (Wizards had d6, they get 6; Fighters had d10, they get 10; etc)

1 to 50 of 553 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>