Goblin Squad Member. RPG Superstar 7 Season Star Voter. Organized Play Member. 1,238 posts (1,246 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 4 aliases.
I know I'm the minority on this issue, but I've generally disliked wands primarily being multi-use scrolls and still dislike it in PF2. Too much thematic overlap and generally just makes them better & more expensive scrolls.
As for the specialty wands, I dislike all of the ones which are "cast spell X, but better." The ones which can improve a type of spell are okay - but I kinda wish they were more like the old metamagic rods in that regard and modified spells of a certain type you casted rather than being limited to the single spell it was crafted with.
I actually would not have minded if wands became meta magic wands would have been an interesting way to go with them.
I did not like them in the playtest and still don't. I was fine with how it was used in pf1. They where extra spells slots for a caster to extend what they could do each day but got used up. But I don't think the problem is Wands themselves but the nerfing of magic in general that made wands be so lackluster.
Edit: nerfing might not be the right word. But the design goals of this system for magic led to wands being designed badly IMO.
Well that sucks. They really damaged this spell. I think it should have at least gave your level to stealth even if untrained. Invisibility shouldn't auto win but it should give bonuses to it. Any spellcaster I make will never go out and look for invisiblity unless he has trained stealth.
I do not understand how this is suppose to work. It doesn't add anything to your stealth. The 3 conditions (Hidden, Invisible, and undetected) you "acquire" doesn't seem to help you stealth. So unless you have ranks in stealth it is going to be pretty easily that they can detect you. Especially at higher levels. If I don't use stealth while invisible can I be auto-detected?
I made a 10th level wizard without taking stealth as a trained skill with a dex of 14 so his stealth is a +2. Say I was sneaking into a desert wyverns lair. If the Wyvern is even a little attentive he has a +15 perception to notice I am there. Then DC 11 check to hit me.
Back to the original topic, I'd really like to see the combat feats scale based on proficiency like the skill feats.
EX. when you have cleave, and expert or master in the weapon you use with it, you should automatically get the benefits of great cleave as well, no need for separate feats.
Same thing for double shot becoming triple shot, and knockback becoming awesome blow.
I like this. It opens the fighter/other class that should have access to combat feats to take more styles instead of focusing on 1.
It does just add another somatic action which increases the actions to cast it by 1. You only need the one hand free. Quickening can be used with another meta magic ability and quickening allows you to choose which component you do not want to use. So you can make your spell quite with it by removing the verbal component.
One thing that is interesting is it looks like you can't use more then one meta magic feat that adds the same component to the spell. Quicken Spell is no longer a metamagic feat.
I like the idea of applying damage upgrades to the proficiency of the character. If not this then make it apply to the quality of the weapon instead because weapon quality seems pretty boring right now as the only thing that it gives you is + attack for non magical weapons and how many rune slots this weapon allows.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Is it really a problem? For many, the appeal of PF is the high fantasy magic. There are low magic systems out there that will do the job better and easier.
Forcing rogues to multiclass into fighter is a terrible plan.
Rogues limited to 2d (or having to spend a feat to get better) is a terrible plan.
This is (with a little tweaking) a fine houserule for someone who wants a low magic game, but it should not be core.
It is somewhat a problem as one of the big things was to make magic items "cooler" and adding a +1 Die of damage to a weapon really is not that cool or fun. If the characters that wade into melee are dependent on magic items to stay relevenant it also makes it so that they must continually spend there treasure on those things instead of other magic items that might be more fun or cool.
Magic is not as high fantasy in the playtest because of major nerfs to magic casters and also the inclusion of resonance. The playtest in my opinion (not gotten to high level playing yet but have made my Characters for all the playtest scenarios) for what I have played so far is much lower in magic.
This whole thread is committing a oft-done sin of viewing PF2 through a PF1 lens. This is a different game, and stands alone.
It's a second edition. It's not unreasonable to compare it to what came before and see where it improves upon what the first did or where it's worse.
And yet that's not what it's doing. It's cherry-picking certain parts so that it can passively-aggressively say "look at what we're losing in PF2".
It in no way attempts to regard the system as a whole, especially given there are things like "Double Slice is now fighter-only", something that's obviously only based on the name and not anything actually related to the abilities being described.
Double slice should be compared to two weapon fighting feat from PF1 and is locked behind fighter or ranger.
I think all of these sides have some interesting and good points, but I can't escape laughing at the fact that Fighters finally are the best at fighting with a wide range of weapons, something people were clamoring for in 1e, and people aren't liking it.
Because this was achieved by taking options away from everyone else.
That's the crux, yes, fighters having their own stuff is great, but to implement that by siphoning off standard abilities to just the fighter is a bit, lazy? Why not some fresh stuff, like fighters have the best saves (harkening back to AD&D), and specialise in weapons/styles, so many ways to go.
I was kinda thinking that the combat feats should still be combat feats and fighters should be able to get more of them then anyone else and have a reduced action cost to the combat feats I.E. Double Slice is 2 actions a fighter that has master weapon proficiency only does 1 action to do. There are a few complications that go with that but I don't see any issues that are huge that can't be fixed with a small Fighter line of text on the combat feats.
Your armor example isn't a great one because there aren't any entries in the treasure tables for cold iron or silver armors.
However, I think your confusion can be cleared up by the following example:
A silver dagger is on the 3rd-level treasure table, even though a dagger is normally a level 0 item. So you'd have to spend your 3rd-level item pick to get a silver dagger, you couldn't just say your 0-level dagger is silver because that technically doesn't change its item level.
You can't actually make a regular dagger silver. The Dagger must be expert quality or better to made from silver
So I see it along the lines that you could get a Silver/Cold Iron +1 Armor as it never goes above 3rd level and have not read anywhere where it says you have to add the levels together or anything like that.
One problem I do see is that the GM could say well the Silver armor is a 3rd level item and then the +1 potency rune is a 3rd level item and you have to get them separately. I personally would not do that but some GM's might especially if they want to restrict more of the treasure coming into the game.
Being "available for everyone" is not a good thing. Sometimes it's better some things are closed off.
For example, Point-Blank Shot was a stone-cold tax feat that everyone wanted to skip, but everyone was burdened with.
Your post doesn't serve to advance a conversation, it seems like griping onto PF1 when, in terms of market share and accessibility, the game needs an update.
Now, a wholly different argument would be saying "hey, without Attacks of Opportunity, a lot of classes don't have an use for reactions, and combat feels like a constant chase", or "I don't have a lot of ways to make a more warrior-like Bard other than Fighter MC, and maybe I just want the dueling talents".
Focusing on what's different between two editions as though as it were inherently bad/good without looking at the system is disingenuous.
First please don't speak for everyone. I liked point-blank shot. The system should allow people to play the styles of characters they want. As it is now I can't play an Elven ranger with a bow as he never will have any options for his bow unless he decides to take fighter dedication. Which means that is a feat tax and because the way the "multi classing" works I am behind on feats in number and in power.
The Recovery Saving Throws rules on 295 say that for attacks rolls from monsters you use a "High" skill DC of the monster's level (Page 337). For a level 1 monster that makes it a DC 14.
What dc did you use for the rogue to get up? I am thinking it should be 11 for the sewer ooze, but I am not sure. It says to use the monsters DC and may include a primary stat. it's a level 1 creature, and the attack stat is +1. So I am curious what you used and if it was easy for the rogue to get up.
K-Ray
yeah I just used DC 11 (Level+10 )
Kennethray wrote:
As far as the range attacks in melee the only thing is that it can set off an Attack of Opportunity if the creature has that reaction.
Though some ranged weapons have a Volley trait that gives them a -2 if they are closer then the listed volley range. Hand crossbow is not one of those.
It's not pretty or fancy but in case anyone wants a portrait layout with a lot more room for equipment and some room for descriptions of things... have at.
Haven't used it yet so I'm sure I'll be making tweaks in the days to come as well.
Resonance DOES limit magic, make it more special... I like that.
Where does this impression come from? It must be a personal thing because I have never experienced in over 30 years of gaming. In every single group I have played, even if you spend the time to create some history or Flavour, it's "what does it do" and it's either useful and used, or scribbled somewhere and forgotten until an opportunity to offload it arises.
Nobody I know cares that it's "Dragonstar, the mace of Orgood the mighty and lost to time for 400 years" it'll still get scribbled down as "mace +2 - sell".
Having a +2 ring, +1 cloak, +3 Armor, +4 sword is boring and required in PF1... eliminating the need for these +'s allows for a ring of invisibility (does not get ignored), Flaming sword (does not get ignored), etc... "Mace +2 to sell" is the problem... in PF1 you get a Cloak of the Bat for instance you sell it so you can buy a Cloak of Resistance +2 as you MUST have at this level to be effective.
To correct my prior statement, resonance alone does not make magic special... the inherent level bonus in everything is the primary thing eliminating the need for the big six. Resonance just serves to further limit how much of a Christmas tree you're going to be.
I agree that no one cares about "Dragonstar, the mace of Orgood the mighty and lost to time for 400 years" if you're going to make that just a +2 mace. It has to DO something cool.
Graceful Poise negates the "counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. Meaning normally attacks would be, no penalty/-5/-10. Double slice makes it look like this: no penalty(-2 if off-hand isn't agile trait)/-10/-10. two-weapon flurry you get: -8/-5/-10. DS+TWF= no penalty(-2 circumstance)/-10/-10. GP+DS+TWF= no penalty/-8/-10. GP+DS+DS+TWF= no penalty/-5/-10
I might be reading it differently then you, Double slice(DS) with Graceful Poise(GP) is going to be +0/+0/-4 (Graceful Poise says it needs to be an agile weapon). Because of this unless you had haste going u could not use Two-Weapon Flurry(TWF) because to use TWF your attack needs to be a -8 of more. So if you had Haste on you could do DS+GP +0/+0/ strike from haste -4/ TWF at -8/-8.
Sucky thing is TWF won't stack with Agile Grace as you will Never get above a -6.
I am Gming and playing 1 character. We got through 3 rooms. Party consists of Paladin, Cleric, Druid (my character), and Rogue. In spoiler tag will be showing our progress through the adventure. Then I will be giving some thoughts I have had. Also If you notice I might have done something wrong please let me know, I have had issues with finding some of the rules for stuff.
SPOILER:
The rogue was searching the first room and was surprised by the slime and crit'd dropping him instantly. Paladin and Druid ran up laying on hands and healing the rogue. The Cleric cast magic weapon on the rogues hand-crossbow. Rogue gets up from being dropped and shots the slime. We gang up and kill the boss after taking a few bits of dmg from the slime. Rogue loses the dying condition after a few rounds in combat.
The rogue sneaks into the 2nd room and we eventually get into combat where we farely steam roll (really good rolls vs really bad ones) the gobs. Paladin uses lay on hands. Cleric uses a channel to heal the rogue and finds the Ring and Potions. Druid identifies the potion (quick ID).
Rogue sneaks into the Centipede Room takes a sneak Attack (misses) and runs out of the run. Party waits for centipedes to come into the other room (LOL). Still waiting.... Rogue goes back in and is attacked by the Centipedes. Centipedes roll bad only bit the Rogue 3 times. He saves vs the potion everytime. Here is where I could not find any rule about making ranged attacks in melee range. The rest of the group is attacking down the shaft with ranged weapons. Rogue eventually moves back and the paladin wades in and finished the insects off.
So some thoughts:
1. So far through the game Characters seem weaker then normal 1st level 1st edition characters.
2. The organization of the rulebook was difficult to find stuff.
I too was very happy to see the Spell Duelist's Wand/Gloves, and that Wands and Staves in general can be used to perform Somatic Casting Actions for other spells.
On the other hand, A Spell Duelists Wand or Gloves appears to be one of the only ways to leverage an Item Bonus on direct-attack spells and cantrips. Which effectively means Blaster Casters need one or both of them as Invested Pseudo-Weapons... On second thought I'm not so happy the Spell Duelist's Wand and Gloves require Investment, and they can only be activated once per day.
I would prefer the Spell-Duelist's Wand & Gloves either not require Investment (on the grounds that superior quality weapons and weapon potency runes don't require Investment, and these are functionally similar) or not be limited to a single use per day (given that it's usage is still naturally limited by the character's maximum resonance). Note that doing both would assuredly be overpowered, and that of the two I prefer the latter, despite there being a better argument for the former. It just feels like it better fulfills the 'fantasy' of being a wand-wielder.
\
I could be wrong but I thought the 1/day was for the spell not the + to attack. But yeah the + to attack should not cost a resonance point.
I can see Teleport being GM fiat because it's capable of breaking a scenario, in the same way that some Detect spells can derail a detective story. If the GM wants the PCs to make a difficult journey across the Crown of the World and face a horde of Frost Giants, or sneak past a besieging army to bring the McGuffin that'll rescue the city, he doesn't want them to teleport straight past it. Booooring.
I will say that I would rather them not exclude a spell like Teleport for story reasons but make a spell or ritual that counters it. For Example Redirect Teleportation could be a ritual spell that sends the players to somewhere else maybe even putting them in a little tougher spot but it puts them where the story wants them to go.
Also one major hamper on Teleportation is that you still need to know where you are going and scrying does not help you in getting to know an area enough to teleport anymore.
So I was and am very much against resonance for wands or consumables (I will be using resonance during my playtesting). But wanted to Call attention to the Spell Dueling Wand. It is a wand that is not just a spell in a can. It gives you a bonus to ranged touch attacks for your spells. I very much like this is the way I think wands should go. Focusing your power as you cast spells.
I hope we get more interesting wands in the future that adjust your spells as you cast them!
1 1/2 hours for my Dwarven Cleric and I'm extremely disappointed how the character turned out. For all the talk about making Dwarves even dwarfier in PF2, he's not nearly as dwarfy as a 10 minute PFOriginal creation.
Where are you seeing the cost of 1 resonance to open? I see the Invested trait which means you spend a point at the beginning of the day (invest an item activity) to use for the whole day.
they lost finger of death to clerics, Planar ally spells, legend lore, stone to flesh (ironically they kept flesh to stone), Locate object, ethereal juant, overwhelming presence, wail of the banshee.
trap the soul looks like it became bind soul and they lost that too.
Making a 20th level wizard and noticed that they lost a lot of spells and was wondering why. If it is because the essences then you really need to go back to the drawing board because I do not see why spells that where wizard spells before had to be taken from them.
I'll take a look at the HLO Pathfinder Playtest demo online but I doubt they will have anything like the GM tools that Hero Lab Classic has, so there's no point in having all my players use it if they don't want to.
At least Lone Wolf hasn't actually starting charging for server access for the people who have the Starfinder packages (which is consistent with the early history of Realm Works).
I also worry that the 4-tiiers of success could slow down play, we'll see soon enough!
I agree and in some cases feels like the power fantasy has been greatly reduced by it.
Right on, what do you mean by power fantasy?
I am just hoping that the spells that use the 4 saves feel the power fantasy of the spell. Power fantasy meaning that a spell do what it suppose to do. If the spell only does what it should do on a critical failure it is only doing what it should be doing 5% of the time. I.E. Phantasmal Killer will only kill 5% of the time because the failiure is a little dmg and then a debuff. Critical Failure is possible death. The power fantasy of phantasmal killer is that an illusion is sent to kill you if the killer does not kill almost ever then it is not fulfilling the power fantasy.
remember that critical failure is failing teh DC by 10 or more (OR) rolling a natural 1. with the usual amount of DC amping specialization in casters, that should be more than a 5% chance, but yes, that certainly would nerf many effects that were previously very good (see: reliable).
the whole system adds a lot of instability to magic in general, and i could see it causing casters to specialize even more heavily into no-save spells (if such things still exist in 2.0) if you only get the "actual/intended" effect of a spell if the enemy crit-fails.
i'm not sure all spells will be like that, however--i mostly see the save-or-suck/lose/die spells getting that treatment, with critfails on otehr spells being a bigger whammy than intended (taking double damage, adding secondary statuses on top, etc)
The main reason I say 5% is because with the way they tightened up the math it seems to be that most challenges that are around your level the rolls stay around 10 for to hits and saves.
I also worry that the 4-tiiers of success could slow down play, we'll see soon enough!
I agree and in some cases feels like the power fantasy has been greatly reduced by it.
Right on, what do you mean by power fantasy?
I am just hoping that the spells that use the 4 saves feel the power fantasy of the spell. Power fantasy meaning that a spell do what it suppose to do. If the spell only does what it should do on a critical failure it is only doing what it should be doing 5% of the time. I.E. Phantasmal Killer will only kill 5% of the time because the failiure is a little dmg and then a debuff. Critical Failure is possible death. The power fantasy of phantasmal killer is that an illusion is sent to kill you if the killer does not kill almost ever then it is not fulfilling the power fantasy.
Want to use a shield? You have to use an action every single turn in order for your shield to count.
Yeah, this one bothers me, too. I can understand raising the shield once. It would be like drawing a sword or shifting your two-handed sword held aside in one hand to a two-handed fighting grip. But is the fighter so flabby that he can hold the shield for only 6 seconds without conscious effort? It feels like having to draw a sword every turn.
Merisiel in ENWorld took a feat called Nimble Dodge that gives her the same +2 as a shield, but it costs a reaction rather than an action. Valeros wanted the same trick, so he has Reactive Shield, which lets him raise his shield as a reaction in response to a hit or a critical hit. Which is bady worded: does he raise his shield after the shield bonus no longer helps stop the attack or does he back up time to stop the hit retroactively? If the later, can he do it after his player heard the exact attack roll value to judge whether the shield would help or not? He wants to save his reaction for attacks of opportunity, after all.
I will say that raising the shield and shield block are better then merisiel's nimble dodge. 1 action raising shield to interpose against attacks (+2 AC) then if someone hits you you can negate some of its damage. 2 actions for it possibly but that is still more options. Also shields in use don't tend to stay in 1 place and need to be moved into place to counter weapons. I don't necessarily think that you should have to raise it every turn but that is also what they are doing for other classes to with other things like spell casters needing to concentrate costing an action. Raising a shield is you working on concentrating on your shield arm. (The further down that hole I go the less I like it because TWF is my favorite fighting style and it does not look good for it with those thoughts)
Even Reactive shield is better then Nimble dodge as Reactive Shield allows you to raise your shield into position giving you the AC boost after the hit has been confirmed. Allowing you the option of negating the hit or critical.
As for Your GM not letting you know the Numbers he rolls, I am not your GM I can't speak for him but I usually like to roll where everyone can see and then announce the actual to hit number.
Bard looks very strong from its roots. Bard was a good class before now it looks like it just got a huge buff. This is also leading me to be concerned about the balance of PF2.
What should be the price difference for a common spell and a rare spell. is the Rare spell 10x the price of the common spell of the same level?
I'm pretty sure Rare stuff is mostly not for sale. They are the secret trick of this particular guy or small group rather than the sort of thing that gets sold on the open market.
That's sort of the point.
I get that. Rarity usually also imparts a certain value to it. When I asked the question I was assuming there would not be any real mechanical difference in power from normal spells which was confirmed up thread by Mark. When Mark was talking about rarity in the blog he did attach possible value to the rarity when talking about a spell. That is why I asked what the price difference is. I kinda wanted more of a ball park of what we might look at between the different value of common to rare.
Also this opens up another thought if I am a wizard and decide to make up a spell say Flaming missile (a magic missile that deals fire dmg). Does that make this rare/unqiue because I made it up and it is the only one in the world?
Seems a little arbitrary. Why can't an alchemist come up with a sleeping poison on his own? How useful are rare spells? If the rare spells are so niche that they will almost never be needed then it is not worth much other then to sell it.
I've got a question about staves, can you cast the spells in them using your spell slots to heighten it higher than the staff casts it at?
Ex: can a 5th level sorcerer use a staff of healing (level 1) to cast heal (level 3) for the cost of an RP and 3rd level spell slot?
Or no because the staff only has heal (level 1)?
Good question.
Also, can prepared casters convert spell slots on the fly with a staff? Like how the PF1 cleric could turn spells into Cure X Wounds? It occurred to me this might not necessarily be the case, as only sorcerers have the flexibility for just spending a generic spell slot on the fly. That would actually be a pretty interesting advantage and would be a nice loot edge compared to wizards finding spell books, assuming sorcerers can't benefit from spellbooks still.
This might answer willuwontu's question
Trinkets and Treasures Blog wrote:
Then you have two options: You can either expend charges from the staff equal to the spell's level (1 charge for heal here) or expend one of your own spells of that level or higher. Yeah, your staff essentially lets you spontaneously cast the spells in it!
It does not confirm about wizards being able to use the staffs for spontaneous casting, but I would assume so.
Doesn't matter if the spell you need isn't one you have learned at the appropriate level or picked as your heighten-able spell for the day.
Wizards have ALWAYS found ways around their prepared limitations.
Utility spells are generally not needed on a time sensitive basis, so preparing a utility spell on the fly is not an issue. If the sorcerer doesn't have the "right spell", he's just up a creek.
And that's why wizards have always been king of utility spells, while sorcerers have been king of common combat spells.
If anything, the sorcerer has a huge advantage with the spells he picks for spontaneous heightening. Take for example dispel magic. If a wizard knows dispel magic, he has to decide whether to use up a top level slot to prepare it since he doesn't know if he'll meet a 10th level spell, a 7th level spell or no spell at all.
A sorcerer just needs to use a 1st level spell known, then spontaneously heighten. If he meets a 10th level spell, he uses a 10th level s!ot, if he finds a 7th level spell , he uses a 7th level slot, but if he doesn't come across any spells, he doesn't use any spells.
What's more, if he meets a 7th level spell, then a 10th level spell, that's no problem. If the wizard faces this, he will most likely use up his dispel magic on the first encounter, and then he's in trouble.
It is very easy to undervalue just how good this kind of effect is until you see it in play. Amusingly, I'm in a chat right now as I type this with a friend (major wizard player in PF1) who is quite convinced that sorcerers now have the advantage over wizards. I think either they're roughly balanced or he's right, personally, but we'll find out in the playtest!
Without seeing the playlets yet I am in agreement with your friend.
To answer the first, they haven't released the rules for wands, only staffs.. but evidently staffs are also charged items. I am presuming they will work similarly. If they don't, then that is going to be even more tracking if different charged items are affected completely differently by resonance points.
To answer the second, I am referring to primary magic tools at this point. The further you get from the warrior, the more complex the tracking goes. Sword? No resonance. Magic cloak of Elvenkind? 1 Resonance to use the ghost sound spell, but you can use it as often as you want all day long without spending more points. Staff or wand? Well, warriors don't use those at all so lets make them use resonance points for every charge used, track charges, and also track recharging when someone picks it up.
Boojum
Other classes can use wands just fine with the appropriate skill feats. Also, we know from the glass cannon playtest that you don't have to attune wands in the same way that you attune a staff. It is also unclear if wands can be recharged at all. I will note that you DO have to attune a cloak of elvenkind and other worn items.
On a related note, I am fine with spellcasters having more complicated magic item options than martial characters. People who play spellcasters have a generally higher tolerance for complexity, after all.
Where did you read that anyone can use wands as long as they have a special skill?
Wishlists and Lists
Wishlists allow you to track products you'd like to buy, or—if you make a wishlist public—to have others buy for you.
