kitmehsu's page

If the check is a must, I'd definitely like to see it more connected to int in some way or another and to have it's effect slide down so that it only does nothing on a crit fail. Failure and success now do the current success and crit success while the crit success now let's allies benefit at least from the bonus and maybe a diminished form of studied strike, like 1 point of damage per die, but not solid on that.

Also, it makes little sense to include an example that differs from what the previous text said is typical. So if the text says usually checks using simple dc aren't gated then it stands to reason that the example should be illustrating a common scenario and not an exception.

You have to remember that they still do damage on a miss, so I won't give more than master and if that is give mutagen alchemist a way to get master with some weapons as well.

I just want to point out that the manipulate trait never required an open hand in the playtest

Manipulate You must physically manipulate an item or make

gestures to use this type of action. Creatures without a suitable
appendage cannot perform actions with this trait. Manipulate
actions often trigger reactions.

the only thing that changed was somatic no longer requiring a free hand.

A Storm druid has a 2 FPs (focus points) initially. They get +1 FP from the Wind Caller feat, and another +1 FP from the Invoke Disaster feat, for a total of 4.

However, according to the Druidic Order feature, your focus pool can never hold more than 3 points. Thus, the +1 FP from Invoke Disaster is impossible.

Why does the Invoke Disaster feat increase your FP?

because you if you start off as a non-storm druid, join it's order later by order explorer (which does not include a focus spell or bonus focus point you get from starting in it) you have 2 points with wind caller, then 3 when you get up to invoke disaster

I hope that age of ashes gets the treatment, cause I'm looking to start hellknight hill

L13 (defensive robes expertise):

Wizard: (e)—33AC
Wizard: (l)—34AC

I think your math is off here

Also, I wished canny accumen did something between when you gain Expert normally and when it gave master so it wasn't deadweight for almost half the game in some cases.

well the question on weakness is, do you apply resistance before doubling for a crit? If you do, then you apply weakness first as well. Otherwise, you don't

EDIT: Also, resistance and weakness is in step 3, while the doubling damage, like from a crit, is in step 1. pgs 450-453

If a focus spell wasn't tied to the base classes tradition, then you wouldn't benefit from any increases to the base classes proficiency with that tradition, plus both champions and monks specify that their focus spells are divine, and divine or occult respectively. Since they are the only focus casters that don't have a preexisting spellcasting tradition, they are the only ones that have to specifically specify what tradition the focus spells are.

I really dig 5e's bounded accuracy, as PCs feel less like superheros and more like "realistic" fantasy novel characters that keep tension when even fighting mooks.

I also really like PF2e's system, BECAUSE the PCs feel like superheroes, mowing down the riff-raff while casually humming a jaunty tune.

There is kind of a problem with bounded accuracy, in my opinion: even a commoner can break free of a charm effect from a tenth level PC if they roll well enough. With PF2e's system, that's much less of an issue, since there's not even the chance of a nat 20 being an auto-succeed (although there are no rules in 5e that say nat 20's are auto-succeeds in anything but attacks, but most DMs add it. I want lower level threats to still be threats, yes, but I also want lower level threats to be weak in comparison. It's always a balance, and PF2e leans heavily towards lower level threats being basically worthless.

And the higher numbers just make my eyes swim. It's harder to get a bead on how good something is if they get a bonus just from level.

Maybe a new system could work? Bonuses and penalties versus lower or higher enemies, but with no added level bonus. Like, for every five levels a PC has over an enemy, they get an extra +2 to all attacks and DCs, likewise the enemy gets a penalty.

Just my two copper on the subject.

What you want is either +level/5, +level/3, or what ever rate works for you. It's easier than looking at relative levels and as long as everything uses the same rate, it won't radically change things more than any other variant of +level. Cause if you think of about it, +level to everything is the same as you gain +1/-1 for every level difference between you and the target. (think getting a +6 vs the target getting +7 from level vs taking a -1 penalty due to relative level)

What I find especially weird is if you look at Class Features for Ranger, level 8 is extremely stark but level 11 has Medium Armor Expertise and Juggernaut as well as a General Feat and a Skill Increase.

It almost seems like Wild Stride should have been moved to 8 as well, but then maybe I'm over reading it.

Certainly a weird interaction.

Clases don't get fixed features on even levels, they get a class feat and a skill feat (plus skill increase for rogue, but that's a seperate case) and maybe an ability score boost.

the problem is that powers where always a type of spells, so people didn't like that things that were spells weren't called spells, so they became focus spells instead.

Lord_B wrote:

Force Bolt is not the same as Magic Missile. If you want multiple force darts, instead of 1 force dart that increases in size, you will need to prepare that spell in one of your spell slots.

Force Bolt is the focus spell though. So it will automatically heighten once I've reached a certain level.

But I guess your saying that separately you can also memorize this as a spell and heighten to whatever is available if you have a spell slot available?

They were talking about preparing magic missile, not force bolt

It might be an attempt at future proofing though I doubt that they would ever release a class that is not at least trained in unarmed

Edit: Notably, I don't think there's any way to get wild morph doing this path. If you chose Wild as your initial druid order with the druid dedication, you can't use Order Magic (4) to pick it up because it tells you to pick an order you selected with Order Explorer (2), and Order Explorer tells you to pick a different druid order than the one you selected. I think this is a feature, though, since it basically says a baseline wild druid can wild shape and morph on top of that form, whereas dabblers in wild shaping can only take basic forms.

You can take the order spell multiclass archetype feat that gives you your chosen order's spell

Alternatively, and IMHO the most likely way it will actually be addressed, they will introduce a travelers alchemist kit that can only be used to make infused items but has a weight of 1 bulk And bring back traveling spellbooks/formula books that only weigh light bulk with half the number of pages.

it also mentions no additional modifiers, so that ability scores not being bonuses isn't relevant

Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks. Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).

Also, toughness plus the dwarf mountain stoutness feat reduces your recovery DC by 4, letting you crit on a 17+ depending on your dying level

also the doubling ring lets you copy runes from one weapon to another, letting you focus on just putting runes on a single weapon

I doubt it since items you craft aren't just half cost, since you spend extra days to reduce the price, you're effectively "earning an income" at a similar rate to the other skills and I don't see players being able to do that at CC.

A few questions about the u armored armor options

First, in the armor alternative sidebar in the armor section, it mentions that bracers of armor have no dex cap, yet the actual block has a dex cap, so which is correct?

If the bracers do have a dex cap, what is the reason to use them over explorers clothes with runes? They have the same bulk and bracers are 8th level so it takes longer to be able to gain them.

Finally, do explorers clothes count as being unarmored for things like monk abilities?

I think that is too narrow of a reading. For example we know for a fact that sneak attack is doubled, yet still uses the "deal extra damage" wording. And the only exception mentioned is that effects from a crit are not doubled due to a crit.

Also flatfooted also has a abilities that key off of having it like rogue sneak attacks so that's likely why that one still nests

For those who are saying math boosters in general feats are wrong, you should look at canny acumen, which boosts either perception or a save to expert and then to master at 17th. So at least on the math improvement front there is precedent

The trick is you are looking it reverse of how the system looks at it. You are looking at "How much XP is fighting three of these monsters worth" while the system is set up for "You gain XP for a moderate encounter that happens to have three of these monsters" basically the monster isn't worthy any XP, the encounter is what is worth the XP.

Think of it this way, you have Monster XP, which is how many monsters a given difficulty allows for but has nothing to do with player XP. It just happens to be that for parties of 4 that monster XP is the same as player XP.

Its much easier to add random hazards and monsters to an encounter than recalculate the xp value of the same encounter for a differing party size

So my group got one of our books and looking through it, I see a confusion point unresolved from the playtest. Certain spells have the Attack Trait but make no mention of any attack roll to be made. This includes Abyssal plague, Chill touch, Death Knell, Ghoulish Cravings, Goblin Pox, Mariner's Curse, Outcastes Curse, Spider Sting, Savor the Sting, Touch of Undeath, and Force Bolt. Each spell makes no mention of making any attack, but has the attack trait and has saving throw (with the exception of force bolt) and is usually touch range. So does the attack trait imply that you have to make an attack? Cause if that is the case, force bolt, which is basically a single magic missile, doesn't make any sense. But on the other hand, spells like spider sting would be automatically dealing piercing damage with no mitigation without any attack rolls.
And if the attack trait makes the spell require an attack roll, should it be a spell attack, since nothing says that spell attacks are the default.

Also, since most a touch spells, I copied out the following from the book on touch spells an attack rolls

"You can usually touch the target automatically, though the spell might specify that the target can attempt a saving throw or that you must attempt a spell attack roll"

Also, if spider sting has the attack trait, probably so should purple worm sting

I think the trick is that it is limited to your hunted prey, so only a preselected creature(or creatures with later feats) can actually trigger it. So it's stronger, but less flexible since you can't switch your prey outside your turn

I think that was sarcastic hyperbole

It might be nice for the general feat to increase your weapon Prof to expert when you get your class bump. But no further. Remember that's wizard actually has to take the feat twice to get martial, since they aren't already trained in all simple weapons.

But if that does, the fighter dedication and it's expert weapons feat would need an increase. Probably similar scaling on the dedication and raising the level of the later but letting you get to master profency

I think it doesn't include the book since that's given for free from the class feature the

it is likely wisdom based, is there a sample Ki monk in the book? judging from the alchemist that might give you an idea even if the text is missing

XP is not divided in pf2. Everyone gets the same XP, which is the encounter budget before any modifiers due to additional players. Effectively, players don't gain xp based upon the monsters in the encounter, but rather the encounter's difficulty for the party size and level. So if it was a 80 xp encounter, all players gain 80 xp, even if you had to add in an extra 20 xp of monsters to adjust for a 5th player

If you want to link it to relfex, I say it'd be better to treat your targets reflex DC as the AC (before circumstance and status modifeirs) against the gun's attack roll than making it a reflex save. It's probably the closest thing the system gets to touch ac in flavor (outside of magic, armor doesn't it boost it so it's based upon your raw dex but also tends to have higher profency so it's not radically out of line). That said, I like the idea that guns are similar to bombs in that they deal damage on fail (but not crit fail) and I warn against too high of reload as in most cases the cost is to much as compared to the benefits.

I think it lines up with any classes that had shield profency before

On the topic of alchemist bulk, don't forget the formula book that adds a whole bulk to the formula. It's why I went for bracers over armor in The playtest

I could see it done via a condition, making it binary instead of a pool. So assuming that they combine into a single class, you could have the Daring condition, which many feats and features key off of, then choose a daring drive which adds some basic features to the daring condition and links it to a mental stat (Wis for a grit drive, Charisma for Panache). Maybe even make a special Dare action that makes you daring in exchange for a short term penalty, like taking extra damage or penalties to certain checks until the start of your next turn, so you aren't at the risk of not being able to become daring but still need to weigh the cost to use abilities that require you to lose the condition.

I'd like to see an option for the chiriagon that could be chosen for perpetual infusion that was a temp hp buffer or something that they could actually do something most of the time.

I wonder since bless was already known in some form from the pregen, that is why it wasn't preserved and thus never found

on the topic of slots, there is also the fact that focus (formaly spell points) can be recovered mid day, meaning powers are more reusable as well. So you have cantrips for your defaults, powers for more boring but practical effects and your slots for more potent effects, especially with your highest level slots.

litterally last night I mentioned thinking about converting kingmaker to pf2 for my stream game...

I could see a compromise where a campaign hook is like a background archetypes replacing either the lore, skill feat, skill training(which devs have confirmed are now part of backgrounds) or ability score choices of an existing background. So a mindquake survivor replaces their background lore and skill feat, but keeps the rest from their chosen base background.

I could see there not being a singuler true netrual, but several each championing a unique cause, like say personal perfection where the concerns of alignment are distractions towards the true goal.

Personally, I find looking up rules to be easier in a well tabbed book but looking up options like feats and spells I find easier through digital sites like the play test easy action library

Honestly, it was looking at the monsters in the playtest that really won me over. I've been on 5e for a while and even did some small dev work for some third parties and while I understood their monsters pretty well, they particularly struck me with blandness. I can really see that removing the attacks of opportunity left open the design space for some really cool abilities that changed the mechanical texture in ways that really help break up combat monotony

I wonder if skill boosting magic items will mirror the ability score bonus one by boosting your proficiency one step. So that a magic item makes someone able to perform the skill if incompetent with it, gives a small boon to most characters and nothing for those already legendary with it.

Maybe make it scale by level, but cap it based on proficiency, so a wizard whose trained can only reach +2d while a legendary fighter gets up to +5d. And make it so you use the better of your inherent damge bonus so magic weapons become more important the less martial you are.

I think that there is also a psychological component to why perception is considered to be so vital. It's a fear of missing out. Ignoring traps for the moment, people usually hate feeling like they have missed out on something and perception disproportionately helps counter that feeling. I have had a group once tear a chair to pieces just because they thought it had some secret in it. So often if they are faced with a choice of either taking perception or feeling like they will be not experiencing the entire adventure, they will choose the former, so they made it compete with class features instead of skill choices.

The trick is, trained is the "normal" assumption. Think of it this way, if you don't know how to drive a car, are actually going to try to drive one? So the game assumes that you roll unmodified level cause you are typically doing things you are trained at, and on those ocations where you are, it penalized you for moving outside of your area of basic expertise.
Also, due to the always add level, a +0 modifier has a similar feel to dropping skill points at every rank in a non class skill. Mind you, the math assumption isn't the same, but the feel is similar from the player side.

So to reverse things, do you need the cs/s/f/cf written out for every attack? Cause I see little difference in the standard rules here. If a spell does damage and nothing but damage, there isn't a need to repeat the same info over again. And if it doesn't have just damage, then you put the results which imo is more clear and less likely to be glossed over, since it has a higher signal to noise ratio

Well you could re-calc the exp budget. Say you have a high (80xp) enouncter with a 6 person party. you could treat it as a low (60xp) with +30(15 per extra) for a budget of 90, which is close enough to the base encounter.