Post Gen Con Update


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I have a whole list of changes (mostly involving Ancestries and Skills, the freasoning behind which are mostly found here for those interested) I'd really like to see, but I don't think Erik meant we should all post a wishlist here.

I personally have absolute faith that the people at Paizo will be able to make all the changes I want to see in the game in the time allotted (most are actually not hard changes to make mechanically, when you get right down to it).

My questions (and occasional worries) are about whether they'll come to the same conclusions I do on what changes are useful and necessary, not whether they are capable of doing so.

I don't think they want a wishlist either (and trust me, mine is pretty big) it's just replying to Eric's question about what we believe needs that major an update, and for me that was Ancestry.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Arutema wrote:
I can't speak for Dekalinder, but I'd rather see resonance removed and HP/healing run on the Starfinder Stamina/Hit Points/Resolve mechanic with 10 minute rests. Is that too sweeping a change if resonance playtests poorly?

Please no stamina - another resource pool runs against the current streamlining intent.


So disappointed to see spoilers outside the GM forums!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:

I don't think it's accurate to suggest that because we don't have time for a months-long playtest of the final draft that there won't be substantive changes to the rules based on player feedback.

What sort of "sweeping changes" are you personally looking for that you doubt there will be time to implement?

Is there any chance at all of getting more time? Delaying the release of the final and taking the time to get it right? I doubt it considering all the business realities around the edition change and release schedule, but it really would help make sure we get the best version of the game possible. My list of changes I want for the final is also long and getting longer. There's the core of a great system here, but basically all the details need a lot of work. And without a second round of testing, any major changes will be largely untested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:

I don't think it's accurate to suggest that because we don't have time for a months-long playtest of the final draft that there won't be substantive changes to the rules based on player feedback.

What sort of "sweeping changes" are you personally looking for that you doubt there will be time to implement?

Off the top of my head - combat and skills. We haven't really dug deep into this, but the former seem watered down while the latter seem too uniform.

One of the topics going around our gaming table is whether Paizo can implement the necessary changes to satisfy its game base, distinguish itself from competitors and improve the fun of the system based on playtest feedback within the time allotted.

We unanimously agreed that pushing back the release of 2.0 is infinitely preferable to putting out an inferior product. We understand that putting together a whole new system like this is a monumental, iterative, risky task on Paizo's part, and we deeply appreciate the effort. At our end, we've suspended our AP campaign until the playtest is over so that we can give the playtest our full attention. Personally, I've probably spent 20+ hours reading the rulebooks, message boards, etc.. in preparation for GMming the playtest next week.

Lastly, I want to conclude by saying that it is because of Paizo's stellar record in game design that we (a) have the strongest optimism that 2.0 can be hammered into a superior produce and (b) have such high standards for 2.0. If this were that "other" company, we would have turned our attention elsewhere long ago.

One last note: my twelve year old loved your part in the Glass Cannon podcast. That podcast is why he wants to play 2e. He made me point you out on the Twitch stream. :D


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:

I don't think it's accurate to suggest that because we don't have time for a months-long playtest of the final draft that there won't be substantive changes to the rules based on player feedback.

What sort of "sweeping changes" are you personally looking for that you doubt there will be time to implement?

While I have a general wishlist here, but even with all my complaints aside or possible fixes to them, the number one priority in my mind (and coincidentally the biggest, sweepiest change I think anyone could suggest) would be pretty much completely restructuring and redesigning class and skill feats. just shucking out all of the class feats that aren't ability-specific (lay on hands or channel energy feats are fine, for example) and making them the general feats they used to be (fighter should be chosen because it can do things above and beyond feat trees, not because it's hogging all the feat trees to itself now), rolling the ability-specific ones together into an actually attractive choice, and then filling the empty class feat slots with actually interesting and useful abilities to choose from instead. things that give characters new options or directions to take, not just making them more competent at their already chosen niche.

on the skill feats side it's largely the same: make skills do all the things they used to do in PF1e and fill in the skill feats with actually interesting effects beyond the scope of the original skill, rather than spending feats to just make it function as it used to.

the sad part is that I'm 100% serious. almost every class feels bad and uninteresting, largely due to a constant drip of dull numeric bonuses or small side abilities.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:


We unanimously agreed that pushing back the release of 2.0 is infinitely preferable to putting out an inferior product.

Everybody. Paizo included, agree on that.

The hard part is to agree in what does that mean. An inferior product in your tastes might be the perfect sweet spot of somebody else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Could you please release the pregens?
Thank you!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:

completely restructuring and redesigning class and skill feats. just shucking out all of the class feats that aren't ability-specific (lay on hands or channel energy feats are fine, for example) and making them the general feats they used to be (fighter should be chosen because it can do things above and beyond feat trees, not because it's hogging all the feat trees to itself now)

...
on the skill feats side it's largely the same: make skills do all the things they used to do in PF1e and fill in the skill feats with actually interesting effects beyond the scope of the original skill, rather than spending feats to just make it function as it used to.

I'm going to back up this viewpoint, just to provide reassurance that it's not hyperbole or an outlier.

I feel that class feats are far too silo'd, general feats are lackluster, many skill feats are unsatisfying, and utilizing the multiclass system is a requirement for too many simple builds.

I *really* feel prerequisiteless class feats need to be freely selectable by any class (or with very minor gating like a 12 in that class's key ability score). As it stands, 2E is too close to one of my biggest phobias: weapon choice = class choice. That concept would be dead if every class had access to feat choices to boost any fighting style.

Skill feats like Recognize Spell should be a free action available to anyone expert in the relevant skill. Same with pickpocketing and a few others.


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


We unanimously agreed that pushing back the release of 2.0 is infinitely preferable to putting out an inferior product.

Everybody. Paizo included, agree on that.

The hard part is to agree in what does that mean. An inferior product in your tastes might be the perfect sweet spot of somebody else.

while I haven't seen any threads on that, I 100% agree: the playtest round ending, months of radio silence, and then being presented with a "fixed" system that is still broken or subpar is my absolute worst-case situation, and I for one am more than willing to wait however long it takes to fully iron out any issues and make 10,000% sure there aren't any new or lingering breakages between the basic system and the updated/fixed features.

I want 2e to be the best it can possibly be, especially if this is going to be the future of pathfinder (and hopefully my gaming group!).

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

From my point of view, what AndIMustMask describes is exactly what happened with Starfinder. The playtest ended, and some sweeping changes were made at the last minute. The final game that came out was deeply flawed. The problem with Starship DCs has been well-documented and patched, but there are others. The ones that bothers me the most is DCs scaling as CR×1.5 in general, coupled with the ability to get bonuses to skills being harder than in Pathfinder, meant that only those who completely focus on those skills are able to keep up with level-appropriate challenges, and it's a trap to invest a skill point in a skill every 2-3 levels.

This is actually relevant. I suspect that Starfinder's DC scaling and the limitation of bonuses (everything is an Insight bonus) were both reactions to Pathfinder having the problem that people could get ridiculously high bonuses in a small number of skills and just stomp any challenge to that skill. Starfinder overreacted by both increasing the DCs and limiting the ability to get skill bonuses. It still is OK if you focus on the skill and put all your resources into it; you won't crush them as you do in Pathfinder, but you can keep up. But it means that if you treat it as a secondary skill, you go from having a reasonable chance at beating a level-appropriate challenge to no challenge.

The PFS2 playtest then is a reaction too far in the other direction. Everybody gets a +1/level in every skill. Everybody is able to keep up with having a chance at passing every level-appropriate challenge, whether they invest in the skill or not. From a skills point of view, characters are being increasingly homogenized. Yes, I get that skill unlocks is what is supposed to make training different now, but that doesn't change the fact that basic skill uses that might increase with level (like sneaking past a high-level perceptive foe) remain equally accessible to everybody, and being trained in it makes hardly any difference.

The flaws are reactions to each other. A short playtest may give a chance to figure out that the "fixed" systems have flaws, but not to then test to make sure that the "fixes to the fixes" don't themselves have flaws. Pendulums swing back and forth. Something is overpowered; nerf it. Was the nerf too string? Mitigate the nerf. My observation is that one iteration has not been enough for Pathfinder/Starfinder to reach a reasonable balance.

PF1: Characters can find combinations to get some skill bonuses to ridiculous levels.

Starfinder: If you don't put a skill point in a skill every level and make sure that things like ability boosts and class choices go to that skill, you are pretty much wasting any skill points you put in any skill.

PF2: Everybody automatically gets a lot better at basic uses of every skill. For most important things, all you need is Trained; it doesn't matter if your character chooses to invest in that skill.

If the designers decide that the balance of dislike for the +1/level is enough to fix it, what will the next system be? Will it be tuned right? If not, a single playtest cycle gives a chance to fix it. The result will be something like Starfinder, where some core systems are quite out of whack.


Erik Mona wrote:

I don't think it's accurate to suggest that because we don't have time for a months-long playtest of the final draft that there won't be substantive changes to the rules based on player feedback.

What sort of "sweeping changes" are you personally looking for that you doubt there will be time to implement?

I wrote this post, hope any of you guys can give it a read.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Zi Mishkal wrote:


We unanimously agreed that pushing back the release of 2.0 is infinitely preferable to putting out an inferior product.

Everybody. Paizo included, agree on that.

The hard part is to agree in what does that mean. An inferior product in your tastes might be the perfect sweet spot of somebody else.

I have to believe that, as adults (even those of us not chronologically adult) we can come to a consensus as to what is good design based on Paizo's intent for this system and keep that apart from our personal preferences for the 2.0 game.

If we can't reach that reasonable goal then the playtest is doomed to fail before it even starts.


Mantriel wrote:

Could you please release the pregens?

Thank you!

This, please!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to get rid of Dents, because I feel it's just another (needless) thing to keep track of, something I think most people will tend to either ignore or forget during combats. And the whole Hardness vs. Dents is written in such an obscure way in the rulebook that there are entire threads devoted to discussing how it works! Why would you even use a magical shield in combat if it's bound to be destroyed? Why would you want to invest precious feats on it?

Another thing is goblins; I don't think they belong in the core rulebook, regardless of what plans Paizo has for them.

Alchemists seem really weak, and some playtesters have reported that they also feel that way. If they don't immediately gain access to bombs, I think alchemists should at least gain their Int bonus on splash damage with alchemical items.

The action icons are confusing and it's hard to tell at a glance how many actions something will take. Plus the icon is larger than the font (headlines), and to me that looks really weird. A smaller icon might work better?

Weapons seem really GREAT, I love the changes to them! Traits and critical specializations are fantastic! My only (very minor) gripe is with the bastard sword; IMO it should inflict *slashing* damage, and d10 damage with two hands (d8/d12 makes it superior to the greatsword!).

(By the way, most monsters seem *far* more interesting than their PF1 counterparts! Having said that, Bestiary's layout is awful and the statblocks themselves are painful to read, but I really, really love what you've done with monster abilities!)


While not a super huge issue: what uh, what happened to sunder?

Dark Archive

In think ancestries are a fantastic concept, it's just sad that there are superior choices (dwarves, for example) when it comes to ancestry feats. And, boy, there are some really bad feats in the book, for dwarves as well! For example, it's a no-brainer to pick +2 on saves vs. magic or applying critical specialization effects over +1 circumstance bonus on a number of rolls vs. giants. I'd prefer rerolls over +X bonuses anyway, but can't these at least scale up a bit with levels?

IMO the same thing goes for class feats as well; when I created a dwarven fighter, I did not hesitate to pick Sudden Charge as my 1st level feat. At a quick glance Furious Focus and Power Attack seem like good feats, but I feel they're actually trap choices (or maybe I'm missing something here?).


AndIMustMask wrote:
While not a super huge issue: what uh, what happened to sunder?

Hopefully that gets answered in one of the many Shield Block threads (I know I brought it up already there). Currently, Shield block is the only interaction with Item Damage in the rules, which is why i think it's related.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

And I wish PF2 will get rid of TAC; it's a concept that (IMO) serves no purpose. I think a circumstance bonus on attack rolls with incorporeal and touch attacks vs. regular AC does it better and simplifies combat. Maybe all suits of armor should instead gain more traits?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asgetrion wrote:
And I wish PF2 will get rid of TAC; it's a concept that (IMO) serves no purpose. I think a circumstance bonus on attack rolls with incorporeal and touch attacks vs. regular AC does it better and simplifies combat. Maybe all suits of armor should instead gain more traits?

Agreed. I looked through the bestiary and touch AC seems to be pretty much always somewhere between 0 and 2 lower than normal AC. I'm not at all convinced that the difference is worth the hassle.

Just give a +1 to all touch attacks and the effect is almost identical.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm still digging my way through the rules, and our first playtest is this weekend here, but I wanted to thank you for your posts letting us know you're listening and providing answers and clarifications.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the TAC. A plain bonus works well enough in 99% of situations, so I'm not sure if it is worth the effort for the other 1%


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm the opposite direction on TAC. Not that I want it kept, but I think the difference between contact and penetration should be adjudicated. I really wish they'd gone all in on the armor as DR system - not necessarily exactly as previously done - but built into the new system. It's sort of a bummer that they leaned a little toward it with the shield mechanics - which sort of just complicates the entire issue.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!
We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;)

Although apparently, I make dream visits now. I had 4 different people at Gen Con tell me that they had me show up at game tables in their dreams, telling them about rules or sending them into peril...

Not sure what to make about that...

I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
As another aside, please do not post additional rules questions in this thread. Create new threads in the appropriate forums please.

Better yet, look to see if there's already a thread discussing your question in the appropriate forum, and after reading it, post there if you have anything to add.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

also, to not be a complete downer to the devs, i do want to say i really like the sort of "build your own class" approach that y'all appear to be taking in 2e!

Paizo Employee Designer

18 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Great to hear, would also be nice to know what type of interaction we'll be getting with the developers through the playtest!
We will be posting here and sometimes in other forums as well as providing larger blog updates, Twitch Friday events, and so on. We will not be giving our or home phone numbers nor conducting home visits. ;)

Although apparently, I make dream visits now. I had 4 different people at Gen Con tell me that they had me show up at game tables in their dreams, telling them about rules or sending them into peril...

Not sure what to make about that...

I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.

Come with me, and you'll be, in a world of pure imagination...With encounters, downtime, and exploration.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.
Come with me, and you'll be, in a world of pure imagination...With encounters, downtime, and exploration.

Now that I've imagined Mark with that hat, I can't imagine him NOT with that hat.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.
Come with me, and you'll be, in a world of pure imagination...With encounters, downtime, and exploration.
Now that I've imagined Mark with that hat, I can't imagine him NOT with that hat.

Walking around without it is now out of character and should be discouraged.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.
Come with me, and you'll be, in a world of pure imagination...With encounters, downtime, and exploration.
Now that I've imagined Mark with that hat, I can't imagine him NOT with that hat.

Clearly he needs to get that hat then.


Cyrad wrote:
I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.

That might be for the best. Because as well as the musical numbers, you'd have all the other tour participants being maimed or killed by horrible situations based upon their own sins. Someone tries to sneak a peak at an upcoming book and gets eaten by layout goblins, or stomped by the Golem. Although I suppose the boat-ride would probably be pretty much the same.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Hi all,

Can we avoid putting anything adventure related in here?

I flagged Maxim Nikolaev's post that while I think was well intentioned it should be at least hidden by a spoiler tag or discussed elsewhere (DM feedback).

I'm advising my Players to be very careful about reading anything until we finish Chapter 1.

Thanks.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Colette Brunel wrote:
Can alchemists still use Advanced Alchemy only for common formulas?
I am going to have to get back to you on that, check with design intent when I am back in the office tomorrow.

Was this question ever answered?


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.
Come with me, and you'll be, in a world of pure imagination...With encounters, downtime, and exploration.
Now that I've imagined Mark with that hat, I can't imagine him NOT with that hat.

Please, PaizoCon, next year! :)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.
Come with me, and you'll be, in a world of pure imagination...With encounters, downtime, and exploration.
Now that I've imagined Mark with that hat, I can't imagine him NOT with that hat.
Clearly he needs to get that hat then.

It can be his for around $720,000. I'll put up $5—who else is in?


Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I once dreamt of Mark Seifter dressed as Willy Wonka taking me on a fantastic tour of the Paizo office. Sadly, the dream ended before it got to the catchy musical numbers.
Come with me, and you'll be, in a world of pure imagination...With encounters, downtime, and exploration.
Now that I've imagined Mark with that hat, I can't imagine him NOT with that hat.
Clearly he needs to get that hat then.
It can be his for around $720,000. I'll put up $5—who else is in?

Not the original, but a lot cheaper and fairly close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was in response to various posts.. but I decided not to quote any of them cause it just felt like clutter....

On the topic of Alchemists.

I do feel they should take a step back from Bombs, and should be allowed to craft many other things using their skills.

Such as.. snares.
Allowing snares and most things via the formula would allow a viable nitch for them. if theyr'e suppose to be the mundane tool user, make it go full tilt on it..

Plus, things like snares and alchemical items are just so expensive they'll never honestly see use. They're listed.. in terms of gold. Some of those items are worth more a quarter or more of the starting funds.
Ranger does boost the.. sorta. not really.. so just.. let the alchemist be the item master. Allow for creating any formula item with the time limit effect. Well not any, like.. it would be squiffy if they could daily make a plate armour that just falls apart at night or something..

anywho.. I do like a lot of the design concepts in this. I do feel like maybe its missing a rather large chunk of stuff and this playtest is testing for specific factors. Like a double blind test.

well looking forward to things. cause I really do like the idea behidn this alchemist. I dont' find it overly weak.. but I do find damage an issue--because there are so many utility alchemical items I ~want~ to have every day. and those compete with my actual combat ability.. which is sad


Question:
Is light from a light spell or a lantern supposed to just stop after 20ft of bright light or does it extend into dim?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DerCed wrote:
Virellius wrote:
My party defeated Drakus in a SINGLE round. :/ THey didn't even realize it was the 'boss'.
If the party had 4 members, they would need to dish out 10 damage each. So the rolled really well and/or critted?

While not on that enemy - A monk at my table today belted out a whopping nat 17 (with bard/flank that was a crit) followed by a nat 20 on a flurry to hit for a whopping 25 damage at level 1, so a couple nice rolls can turn the tide.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
... please do not post additional rules questions in this thread. Create new threads in the appropriate forums please.
Better yet, look to see if there's already a thread discussing your question in the appropriate forum, and after reading it, post there if you have anything to add.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arutema wrote:
I can't speak for Dekalinder, but I'd rather see resonance removed and HP/healing run on the Starfinder Stamina/Hit Points/Resolve mechanic with 10 minute rests. Is that too sweeping a change if resonance playtests poorly?

No.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:


No.

Please allow me to clarify.

I actually do think it would be pretty difficult to switch over to Stamina/Hit Points/Resolve for this, which is not something I've personally seen a lot of requests for.

We went into the playtest knowing that Resonance would need significant playtesting and likely some strong revision, so I think it's actually very likely that those rules will see changes before the final version of the game.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Arutema wrote:
I can't speak for Dekalinder, but I'd rather see resonance removed and HP/healing run on the Starfinder Stamina/Hit Points/Resolve mechanic with 10 minute rests. Is that too sweeping a change if resonance playtests poorly?

No.

Thank goodness. That's one of my least favorite aspects of Starfinder.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

8 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:


For me that's ancestries.

Other stuff need some fixes/changes, but Ancestries are by far the weakest link for me atm.

All races bar none require a lot more "innate" things given from the start (to make you feel like you're actually that race) and Ancestral feats similar to 1st edition Race requirement feats be written for the actual advancement.

I won't speak for the design team, but I will say that this criticism has definitely been heard and I think it's safe to say that they will be addressing it for sure.

Tuning up stuff like this is exactly what the playtest is for.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zi Mishkal wrote:


At our end, we've suspended our AP campaign until the playtest is over so that we can give the playtest our full attention. Personally, I've probably spent 20+ hours reading the rulebooks, message boards, etc.. in preparation for GMming the playtest next week.

We very much appreciate all of the work you and others have put into this playtest!

Zi Mishkal wrote:


One last note: my twelve year old loved your part in the Glass Cannon podcast. That podcast is why he wants to play 2e. He made me point you out on the Twitch stream. :D

Grellun's father (the MAYOR) would be very proud to hear that!


HWalsh wrote:
DerCed wrote:
Virellius wrote:
My party defeated Drakus in a SINGLE round. :/ THey didn't even realize it was the 'boss'.
If the party had 4 members, they would need to dish out 10 damage each. So the rolled really well and/or critted?
While not on that enemy - A monk at my table today belted out a whopping nat 17 (with bard/flank that was a crit) followed by a nat 20 on a flurry to hit for a whopping 25 damage at level 1, so a couple nice rolls can turn the tide.

We had three people. The Rogue got off a sneak attack crit, because Drakus didn't have huge AC, the Barb got off a max damage attack with a great axe, and the sorcerer hit with shocking grasp and his summoned monster got off attacks too. This system makes crits goofy and common.

Silver Crusade

Virellius wrote:
This system makes crits goofy and common.

Ayup. We had a level 1 character doing 6d12 + <something> (a crit was involved. But with True Strike and buffs crits happen a fair bit).

Fortunately, this was AFTER a couple of rounds so it wasn't quite a one hit kill :-)

Mind you, I've very rarely seen anything survive a charging lance hit crit in PF1 either :-).


pauljathome wrote:
Virellius wrote:
This system makes crits goofy and common.

Ayup. We had a level 1 character doing 6d12 + <something> (a crit was involved. But with True Strike and buffs crits happen a fair bit).

Giant Totem barbarian? Using the wrong rules for large weapons?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Arutema wrote:
I can't speak for Dekalinder, but I'd rather see resonance removed and HP/healing run on the Starfinder Stamina/Hit Points/Resolve mechanic with 10 minute rests. Is that too sweeping a change if resonance playtests poorly?

No.

That simple word in this context has to be the best message so far I've seen in this playtest.

The second best message would be the sentence "We've reverted Prestidigitation to its Pathfinder First Edition version", btw. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason Buhlman twitch interview talked about a few things the team are already looking at, based on feedback.

He said that they knew resonance was going to be contentius, they are looking at it, but they have not enough data yet. When they collect more data, they'll act.

I'm confident to say that resonance will not finish the playtest in its current form. I don't know if they remove it, change it enterely, upgrade or downgrade it, add a few tweaks, or what. But this is one of those "pushing the boundaries" things they put in the playtest, to see what happens.

Jason also said they are looking at the first level ancestry feats. In my personal opinion, it makes more sense to frontload ancestry beyond what you would do with, say, a class. Half-elves and Half-orcs aside, you cannot "dip" into another ancestry in the way you multiclass, so there's no risk to frontload a few more stuff into the first levels to give you more feeling of being an elf, while using the rest of the ancestry feats to create some customization between the classes (ie: maybe not every elf practice with longswords, and some do some other stuff)

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Post Gen Con Update All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.