Gearing Up!

Friday, May 4, 2018

In Monday's blog, we talked about weapons and all the plentiful options you have when you're picking those. So let's stay in the Equipment chapter for the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook and take a look at armor, other gear, and everything else having to do with items!

Don Your Armor!

Armor's job is to protect you from your enemies' attacks. Your character can have proficiency in light armor, medium armor, or heavy armor (or, in some cases, none of the above). Most classes are only trained in their armor at first, though some martial classes gain better proficiency at higher levels. In Pathfinder First Edition, many types of armor were effectively obsolete because you could just buy a better type, but for Pathfinder Second Edition, we've made a few new adjustments to make each type a little different.

A suit of armor has many of the same statistics as in Pathfinder First Edition, but now each one also gives a bonus to your TAC (Touch Armor Class). For instance, studded leather gives a +2 item bonus to AC and +0 to TAC, whereas a chain shirt gives a +2 item bonus to AC and +1 to TAC, but it is heavier and noisier. That last bit comes from the noisy trait, one of a small number of traits some armors have to reflect their construction and effect on the wearer. Armor also has a Dexterity modifier cap (which limits how much of your Dexterity modifier can apply to your AC); a check penalty that applies to most of your Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based skill checks; a penalty to your Speed; and a Bulk value. You'll balance these variables to pick the armor that's best for you.

As you adventure, you'll find or craft magic armor. Weapons and suits of armor alike can be enhanced with magical potency runes. For weapons, a potency rune gives an item bonus on attack rolls and increases the number of damage dice you roll on attacks with the weapon. For armor, the potency rune increases the armor's item bonuses to your AC and TAC and gives you a bonus to your saving throws! For instance, studded leather with a +3 armor potency rune (a.k.a. +3 studded leather) would give you +5 AC, +3 TAC, and +3 to your saves. You can also upgrade the potency later, etching a +4 armor potency rune onto that armor to increase its bonus. You can even upgrade the potency of specific armor (and weapons) so you can hold on to your celestial armor at higher levels. If you don't wear armor, not to worry! Your bracers of armor give you a bonus to AC, TAC, and your saves without requiring you to clad yourself in a clunky metal box. They might not protect you quite as well, but maybe that trade-off is worth it to your wizard or monk!

Illustrations by Wayne Reynolds

Shield Yourself!

You've probably seen mention of shields in previous blogs, announcements, and broadcast play sessions. To gain the benefits of a shield, you have to spend an action to raise it, which then gives you a bonus to AC and TAC (+1 for a light shield or +2 for a heavy shield) for 1 round. Your character has proficiency in shields just like she does with armor, and when using a shield, you use the lower proficiency rank of your armor or shield to calculate your Armor Class.

Shields don't have potency runes. Instead, you might pick up a shield made of a durable material like adamantine or craft a magic shield that catches arrows, reflects a spell back at its caster, or bites your enemies!

Fill Your Backpack!

The Equipment chapter also includes all sorts of other gear you might want on adventures, from rope to tents to musical instruments to religious symbols. Many of these items are required to perform certain tasks, like thieves' tools. The new system of item quality makes it pretty straightforward to figure out how tools work. For example, you need thieves' tools to pick a lock or disable many traps. Normal thieves' tools let you do this normally, expert-quality tools give you a +1 item bonus on your check, and master-quality tools give you a +2 item bonus on your check. Now what if you get stuck without your tools and need to improvise? Well, if you can scrabble something together, you've created a poor-quality set of tools, which gives you a -2 item penalty (much like the penalty for having an proficiency rank of untrained in a task). The same thing might happen if you had to turn vines into improvised rope or use an empty chest as a drum for an improvised musical instrument!

Take a Load Off!

Not everything you can purchase is adventuring gear. Cinco de Cuatro wouldn't be complete without some luxuries like a bottle of fine wine or renting an extravagant suite! You might even rent an animal to ride about town. Of course, an extravagant lifestyle can have a high cost, and the chapter includes costs of living per week, month, or year so you can accurately budget your lifestyle decisions.

Switch It Up!

One of the squidgy parts of Pathfinder First Edition we wanted to clear up with the redesign is how holding, wielding, and stowing items work, particularly switching how many hands you're using for an item. Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed, or detaching a shield from your arm all require the Interact action. We've codified the rules for many of the basic things you do with items so the other rules interface with them cleanly. That [[A]] code you see there indicates this is an action, and will be a lovely icon in the final rulebook!

[[A]] Interact

Manipulate

You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or do some similar action. You may have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.

The equipment chapter also covers the full rules on item quality and on Bulk, plus a section on how items and Bulk work for creatures of different sizes.

Now you have a basic rundown of the gear in this book. We'll dive deep into magic items at a later date. Looking at what you see here, what sort of useful, peculiar, or silly things do you think your character will spend their silver pieces on?

Logan Bonner
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
451 to 500 of 660 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Logan Bonner wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Why not abstract the whole thing and get rid of it, just like PF2 has already got rid of flat-footed AC? It would be a breeze to fold it into your "regular" AC and make everyone's life easier, since AC is an abstracted concept anyway.
It's an interesting idea! We could do something like giving a +X circumstance bonus to attacks that are supposed to be more accurate in this way and eliminate TAC entirely. It would mean constraining our armor design options, so we'd have to either work on more ways to make those relevant or cut the number of different armors down quite a bit.

I'd have no problem with a smaller list of armors, especially if they'll have traits similar to what weapons apparently now have. This, too, is a remnant of the "good old days" when you (supposedly) needed huge lists of weapons and armor, even though most of them differed in name only. These days most fantasy RPGs have done away with such extensive lists, and I don't think it's hurt them in any way. For example, Dragon Age RPG has only 4-5 different armors (leather, heavy leather, light mail, heavy mail and plate) and it's never been an issue for me.

Having said that, this is what I would keep: leather, studded leather, chain shirt, scale mail, hide armor, chainmail, plate mail and full plate. But I can live with an even more compact list. :)


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

. Wearing multiple sets of magic glasses is pretty easy for a DM to veto.

And my point is: so long as there are limits on how many items of the same type can be worn: there are slots. Everyone saying there aren't any slots have either not thought it through, are more than happy to let silly situations occur like 50 eyepieces at once or are being disingenuous and simply trying to shut down people who are voicing genuine concerns.

I think lots of folks just prefer those “slots” to be based on what a person is physically capable of wearing, rather than arbitrary limits. Only one “slot” for boots makes sense. Only one “slot” for necklaces doesn’t.

So, yeah, “wearing bracers on my ankles” gymnastics aside, most GMs aren’t going to allow you to exceed a certain number of magic items of a certain type, that number is just going to be more variable based on where the item is worn. This is something the developers should keep in mind as they design magic items - magic gloves should be designed with the expectation that they won’t be able to be combined with other magic gloves, while magic rings should be designed with the expectation that they will be able to be combined with up to 9 others, and maybe more at GM discretion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
graystone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
So, somewhat flippant question... Do weapons and armor have "sockets" into which gems inscribed with these power runes are inserted? Gems perhaps given a name in setting, as a classification for "portable object that confers power on another object" because people love naming things? And would this name be "materia"? :3
Materia slots for my equipment WOULD greatly improve my opinion of the new game. ;)
Logan confirmed slots for property runes just a few minutes ago (and that you get more for higher-quality weapons/armor).

SLOTS? OH THANK GOD. This fixes one my major annoyances in game. You find a neat weapon with very good properties and enchantments BUT it is on a weapon that you are not specced into. Think weapon focus or chosen weapons from the Kensai. The ability to switch runes to upgrade your blade is such a grand idea. But I have to ask, how easy is it to switch runes from one item to another? Depending on the weapon prof, does that determine what craft prof you need to transfer?

On another note, dual shields when? Ultimate Turtle build when? Plate armor, two heavy shield. One Boss and one Spiked. Also of note, I love the idea of separating the weapon part of the shield. The idea of upgrading and swapping things really makes me want to make a crafter character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smite Makes Right wrote:
The best in category armor is valid and should remain so because the differences are technological differences. If you can afford full plate, you don't buy banded and trying to make them an even trade off is like making bronze weapons equivalent to iron.

Bronze is not as good as steel, but it is actually better than iron. The only reason people had the incentive to search for an alternative and invent steel was that due to varying reasons, the necessary alloy metals to make good bronze became far more difficult to acquire.

Smite Makes Right wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
To make it less confusing than before where you could have a shield simultaneously enchanted as both a weapon and an armor in the same weapon, we have separated out the shield spikes (for piercing) or boss (for bludgeoning) as weapons that you deal with separately. This incidentally allows you to do a lot more with your shield and to switch out your really nice boss or spikes into a new shield if you find one that's awesome.
Wait. You pluck the spikes or pry the boss off of your shield and plug it into a new one? That's a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

People have torn down temples and ancient cities to build new structures. They would certainly try to recycle the functional parts of an actual magical item into a new one. Doesn't seem silly to me at all. Mechanically, it also solves an issue raised by shields now breaking far more often in PF2 - the investment in a magic shield doesn't have to break along with the shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope they end up changing the name of Runes, especially if the intent is to have them move around. Runes that are etched in (they've specifically said they can be moved by "re-etching") make no sense as something that can be swapped from one weapon to another flavourwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
I hope they end up changing the name of Runes, especially if the intent is to have them move around. Runes that are etched in (they've specifically said they can be moved by "re-etching") make no sense as something that can be swapped from one weapon to another flavourwise.

I dunno, I can totally imagine runes magically untracing from one weapon with a flare of light like a magical arc torch as you transcribe them to the other weapon.

I can also picture them being runestones, or even more likely, rune-etched gems you move from an actual physical socket on one weapon to a socket on the other weapon.

I don't mind the name runes, I think that is more flavorful than and separates them from "enhancement" which is a named bonus type.


@tivadar: I fully accept that my experiences aren't always indicative of the larger community. Hence why I said I'd love to see some statistics  (and no, a couple of people posting in a thread are not statistics).

And you are right. Not many people are complaining about PF2e resembling 4e. What we are starting to see is the same complaints about 4e are starting to get voiced about what the previews reveal and the content sure seems similar to me. But I'll accept people voicing the same complaints any day of the week over people agreeing there are similarities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Correct me if I misread but a character gets no benefit from a carried shield unless they spend one action a turn on it?

I know there are arguments against sword and board fighters but they are the classic template people think of when they think of fighters in fantasy RPG's. making the archetype both bad and excessively complicated to play seems like a bad idea.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I hope they end up changing the name of Runes, especially if the intent is to have them move around. Runes that are etched in (they've specifically said they can be moved by "re-etching") make no sense as something that can be swapped from one weapon to another flavourwise.

I dunno, I can totally imagine runes magically untracing from one weapon with a flare of light like a magical arc torch as you transcribe them to the other weapon.

I can also picture them being runestones, or even more likely, rune-etched gems you move from an actual physical socket on one weapon to a socket on the other weapon.

I don't mind the name runes, I think that is more flavorful than and separates them from "enhancement" which is a named bonus type.

Mainly to me at least, it's a tad confusing if Runes give you magic like buffs/effects and are/aren't magic at the end of the day.

Also Path of Exile is that way.(To expand, Path of Exile and other games I'm sure like Diablo, have slots you put gems/runes/items into to buff them). I'm unsure of the idea of any easily "Slot inable" effects or buffs if at the very least it feels very video gamey to me. And maybe lugging around Runes/Things to make runes, to transfer in and out based on what you fight.

Or a good Scry lets you swap at the start of the day. I dunno.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Markus Hyytinen wrote:
Applying an armor's enchantment bonus to saving throws is brilliant. Bravo!

And so we return to the beginning. People forget that in original D&D armor added bonuses to saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:

Correct me if I misread but a character gets no benefit from a carried shield unless they spend one action a turn on it?

I know there are arguments against sword and board fighters but they are the classic template people think of when they think of fighters in fantasy RPG's. making the archetype both bad and excessively complicated to play seems like a bad idea.

Shields are way better now. If you get hit you get its hardness as DR for a reaction. A sword and board fighter now beats an otherwise equal two-handed one on one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

Thanks, I have been in this forum for years and don't recall seeing that acronym. It appear 415 times in the rule forum, not a big number. Probably it is often used in other sections of the forum.

As a guess, I think that Arcane spell failure will be linked to the level of armor proficiency. So bards with light armor proficiency will have no trouble casting spells in light armor, while wizards will have problems.

No, I mean arcane spell failure was explicitly called out in the Twitch stream as completely not existing, and they'd see if that would lead to a ton of spellcasters blowing feats on armour. At almost exactly 1h into this.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'm not liking the shield thing because it went from 'this is a solid (if typically expensive for the better items)' reusable item to 'this is a chunk of protection that degrades over time even if you use expensive items to make it. Carry ten of whatever your favorite material is, hang the costs'...

...for an item that can either be used as a reaction or action to reduce damage, versus a static increase to AC.

...why would folks bother buying a shield when any cash could be better suited to dumping on armor?

I may be missing something here, like perhaps shields don't degrade when they soak damage or something?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


I'm not liking the shield thing because it went from 'this is a solid (if typically expensive for the better items)' reusable item to 'this is a chunk of protection that degrades over time even if you use expensive items to make it. Carry ten of whatever your favorite material is, hang the costs'...

...for an item that can either be used as a reaction or action to reduce damage, versus a static increase to AC.

...why would folks bother buying a shield when any cash could be better suited to dumping on armor?

I may be missing something here, like perhaps shields don't degrade when they soak damage or something?

I don't think they dent if the damage doesn't beat the shield's hardness... Which is 9 evidently for a wood shield. That's pretty groovy at level 1. One imagines wood shields will hardly be expensive, and I think an adamantine shield will be much more resilient. (Also, the action to raise the shield increases your AC until the next turn, and then the reaction gives you DR if something hits.)

We also don't know how repairing shields will work. Or even buying magic items and armor. We know crafting is significantly easier, and there's some reason to think you won't be spending your money the same way in the blog post. I'm reasonably confident they can make shields cost effective.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I may also be fixated on a certain vibranium/adamantium composite shield used to great effect by a given pop culture hero (depending on how bad the writers are at the time).


Cyouni wrote:
No, I mean arcane spell failure was explicitly called out in the Twitch stream as completely not existing, and they'd see if that would lead to a ton of spellcasters blowing feats on armour. At almost exactly 1h into this.

Haven't seen that, but idea of removing it completely makes me screams NO! Not even just about profusion of Heavy Armor Wizards, but seems like Light Armor would become de facto for everybody. Maybe Fighters/Paladins would get special Armor boosts, but it would make Heavy Armor Clerics or Bards in Light/Medium Armor no longer distinguished in that area.

Now, the current form of ASF% is horrible (wonky extra roll per casting, which feat can reduce but not in such useful way, and people mostly avoid triggering ASF% to begin with). Hand waving a different approach, I think the minute XX% differences per armor are un-necessary, make it a per-tier (Light/Medium/Heavy) thing, at most with special quality that certain specific armors can have to improve performance vs. the norm for their tier (Elven Chain etc). The failure roll per casting is a drag, better to just flat-out bar casting in some tiers of armor. I'd like to see consequences more nuanced re: EFFECT of casting rather than just "can or can't cast", like penalties to DC/effects... A DC penalty could even be doubled (or worse) for purposes of determining Critical Saving Throw Failure (as P1E had AC boosts that applied vs Crit Confirms)

Also, it's apparent alot of uses for CL are going away, what with spell scaling and countering being based on Spell Level. What about Spell Resistance? Would this be refactored to work off Spell Level? Or is CL continuing, just in a much narrower mechanical niche? Seems like if it could be done away with well, that would be preferrable to keeping "orphan" mechanic. But "well" is the key phrase, of course. I don't keep up with all the Twitch stream stuff, has this been mentioned anywhere?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect the Arcane Spell Failure thing is one of the 'more extreme options' they may back off on if enough people dislike it.

Me being me... I'm not objecting to it just yet, so long as a wizard can't just pick up all armor proficiencies by dipping a single level of fighter. I like some arcane casters being able to wear armor without penalties, or even just light armor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Y'know, I'd love to see ASF go away.

Someone might be able to put together a pretty nice Muscle Mage with good armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love characters like Golbez from FF4, or the Green Knight from the Arthurian cycle - heavy armor wizards. I love that it looks like PF2 is making them viable. I somehow doubt it will be problematic powerwise, both because of the opportunity cost of other feats (ie metamagic) that these proficiencies are replacing, and because most mage-enhancing garb is still probably going to be cloth. But it will definitely help those wizards who instead of hanging back with the cowardly archers wade into the thick of it with their touch spells and cones.

And they can easily still say ASF is a thing if wearing armor above your proficiency rating. Wearing brigandine and you didn't even take light armor proficiencies? That's some ASF rolls for you~


Yep, if there is no ASF I'll be more inclined to make a caster, not from the mechanics of having more protection as I don't mind being squishy, but from the awesome visuals!!! Lew Pulsipher's Necromancer that I always loved from the White Dwarf DnD1e scenario The Halls of Tizun Thane doesn't have to be a cleric!!!


Arcane armor training could be more interesting in PF2. Either you have the PF1 variant that cost a extra action that allow you to cast spells, however the greater spells may not be cast due to the additional action cost. Or a passive variant that reduce the chance of arcane spell failure, or that spells have reduced efficiency due to the constrictive nature of armor. Or a mix of the ones above depending on Feats, Class Features, Enchantment, Material or Proficiencies.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Jessex wrote:

Correct me if I misread but a character gets no benefit from a carried shield unless they spend one action a turn on it?

I know there are arguments against sword and board fighters but they are the classic template people think of when they think of fighters in fantasy RPG's. making the archetype both bad and excessively complicated to play seems like a bad idea.

Shields are way better now. If you get hit you get its hardness as DR for a reaction. A sword and board fighter now beats an otherwise equal two-handed one on one.

On the sword and board note: we now know that the Fighter 14th level ability is a flat +2 to reflex saves in very limited circumstances, with it being shield bonus, and enchantments to that not being a thing. Which is an uninspiring ability ti say the least...the casters get to break reality, with more powerful cantrips, and what amounts to free automatic meta magic, the fighter gets to do something that should be maybe a lvl 3 or 4 ability...at 14th....which should be the point where you are nearing Ares or Thor, not that kid out of Dragon Slayer, seriously, given the previews, why are non-casters even in the game? If they despise the classes this much, just remove them, not put out boring, weak previews as trap classes or punishment classes.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Jessex wrote:

Correct me if I misread but a character gets no benefit from a carried shield unless they spend one action a turn on it?

I know there are arguments against sword and board fighters but they are the classic template people think of when they think of fighters in fantasy RPG's. making the archetype both bad and excessively complicated to play seems like a bad idea.

Shields are way better now. If you get hit you get its hardness as DR for a reaction. A sword and board fighter now beats an otherwise equal two-handed one on one.
On the sword and board note: we now know that the Fighter 14th level ability is a flat +2 to reflex saves in very limited circumstances, with it being shield bonus, and enchantments to that not being a thing. Which is an uninspiring ability ti say the least...the casters get to break reality, with more powerful cantrips, and what amounts to free automatic meta magic, the fighter gets to do something that should be maybe a lvl 3 or 4 ability...at 14th....which should be the point where you are nearing Ares or Thor, not that kid out of Dragon Slayer, seriously, given the previews, why are non-casters even in the game? If they despise the classes this much, just remove them, not put out boring, weak previews as trap classes or punishment classes.

Baseline it has been proven they are mathematically better. Now there may be some supbar feats in the tree, which is hopefully something that can be play tested out. We don't know how bad that feat is now though.

For one I think reading that exact line of the preview as "these are the only things it blocks" and not "these are some cool examples of things it blocks" is severely myopic. I could be wrong but I strongly suspect it will add to ANY aoe that allows a Reflex save. We also know that +2 in a system with mucher tighter maths is a way bigger deal than what we are used to. When the bonus difference between the worst and the best character of a given level is at most 17/18 a +2 represent a larger portion of that.

Liberty's Edge

It may also allow you to use your Shield Bonus including Proficiency (instead of your Reflex Save Proficiency), which could be up to +5 total and, depending on wording, might give you Evasion as well (since Master level Reflex Proficiency gives that).

We don't know enough about that Feat to know if it's good or bad. Could go either way, really.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

It may also allow you to use your Shield Bonus including Proficiency (instead of your Reflex Save Proficiency), which could be up to +5 total and, depending on wording, might give you Evasion as well (since Master level Reflex Proficiency gives that).

We don't know enough about that Feat to know if it's good or bad. Could go either way, really.

so it would STILL be 'being that kid out of Dragon Slayer' at lvl 14...it's terrible, it could be +10 and it would still be terrible.


Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Jessex wrote:

Correct me if I misread but a character gets no benefit from a carried shield unless they spend one action a turn on it?

I know there are arguments against sword and board fighters but they are the classic template people think of when they think of fighters in fantasy RPG's. making the archetype both bad and excessively complicated to play seems like a bad idea.

Shields are way better now. If you get hit you get its hardness as DR for a reaction. A sword and board fighter now beats an otherwise equal two-handed one on one.
On the sword and board note: we now know that the Fighter 14th level ability is a flat +2 to reflex saves in very limited circumstances, with it being shield bonus, and enchantments to that not being a thing. Which is an uninspiring ability ti say the least...the casters get to break reality, with more powerful cantrips, and what amounts to free automatic meta magic, the fighter gets to do something that should be maybe a lvl 3 or 4 ability...at 14th....which should be the point where you are nearing Ares or Thor, not that kid out of Dragon Slayer, seriously, given the previews, why are non-casters even in the game? If they despise the classes this much, just remove them, not put out boring, weak previews as trap classes or punishment classes.

Baseline it has been proven they are mathematically better. Now there may be some supbar feats in the tree, which is hopefully something that can be play tested out. We don't know how bad that feat is now though.

For one I think reading that exact line of the preview as "these are the only things it blocks" and not "these are some cool examples of things it blocks" is severely myopic. I could be wrong but I strongly suspect it will add to ANY aoe that allows a Reflex save. We also know that +2 in a system with mucher tighter maths is a way bigger deal than what we are used to. When the bonus difference between the worst and the best character...

so it is just a terrible piece of fluff, utterly uninspiring and got at the same level as Create Demiplane...Seriously, that is the base line. Lvl 14 is masters of own dimensions time, the feat should be able to compete with that

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
so it would STILL be 'being that kid out of Dragon Slayer' at lvl 14...it's terrible, it could be +10 and it would still be terrible.

I disagree about as strongly as is possible. +5 to a Save in a system with math this tight is f*!!ing amazing, and Evasion has always been great.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
so it is just a terrible piece of fluff, utterly uninspiring and got at the same level as Create Demiplane...Seriously, that is the base line. Lvl 14 is masters of own dimensions time, the feat should be able to compete with that

Not every spell or effect is equally impressive conceptually. Other level 7 spells include Mage's Sword, Instant Summons, and Phase Door. None of which are conceptually any more impressive than blocking a fireball with your shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So we've gotten, no matter how powerful this feat is so long as its scope doesn't change it is terrible. Okay.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
So we've gotten, no matter how powerful this feat is so long as its scope doesn't change it is terrible. Okay.

Yes, it is conceptually a 'weak' feat, it feels like an ability that should be innate, 'I use this large thing to stop the fire burning my face off' is instinctive behaviour, not an ability earned by becoming a freaking demi-god lvl hero. (Not that fighters ever actually feel like that, but they SHOULD) this should be the time you drag the great serpent out of it's liar with your bare hands, strangling the life out of the beast, or pull the wings off a demon and beat it to death with them, or challenge the greatest knights of the Courts of the Fae. Not the level you block a fire with an object.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
so it would STILL be 'being that kid out of Dragon Slayer' at lvl 14...it's terrible, it could be +10 and it would still be terrible.

I disagree about as strongly as is possible. +5 to a Save in a system with math this tight is f&$#ing amazing, and Evasion has always been great.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
so it is just a terrible piece of fluff, utterly uninspiring and got at the same level as Create Demiplane...Seriously, that is the base line. Lvl 14 is masters of own dimensions time, the feat should be able to compete with that
Not every spell or effect is equally impressive conceptually. Other level 7 spells include Mage's Sword, Instant Summons, and Phase Door. None of which are conceptually any more impressive than blocking a fireball with your shield.

all of which are vastly better than copying the instinctive 'shield myself from fire with available object' behaviour.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Yes, it is conceptually a 'weak' feat, it feels like an ability that should be innate, 'I use this large thing to stop the fire burning my face off' is instinctive behaviour, not an ability earned by becoming a freaking demi-god lvl hero. (Not that fighters ever actually feel like that, but they SHOULD) this should be the time you drag the great serpent out of it's liar with your bare hands, strangling the life out of the beast, or pull the wings off a demon and beat it to death with them, or challenge the greatest knights of the Courts of the Fae. Not the level you block a fire with an object.

And who says you can't do all that? Indeed, the evidence so far is that you absolutely can, in various ways.

But some people prefer their Fighters a little less epic, conceptually speaking. Some slightly less conceptually impressive, but nevertheless mechanically effective Class Feats thus seem like a good idea so you're not forced to do that sort of thing if you don't want to.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
all of which are vastly better than copying the instinctive 'shield myself from fire with available object' behaviour.

'Make a hole in a door', 'pull an object out of nowhere like a stage magician' and 'this is just like 2nd level spell conceptually' are not conceptually more impressive than that, no.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Yes, it is conceptually a 'weak' feat, it feels like an ability that should be innate, 'I use this large thing to stop the fire burning my face off' is instinctive behaviour, not an ability earned by becoming a freaking demi-god lvl hero. (Not that fighters ever actually feel like that, but they SHOULD) this should be the time you drag the great serpent out of it's liar with your bare hands, strangling the life out of the beast, or pull the wings off a demon and beat it to death with them, or challenge the greatest knights of the Courts of the Fae. Not the level you block a fire with an object.

And who says you can't do all that? Indeed, the evidence so far is that you absolutely can, in various ways.

But some people prefer their Fighters a little less epic, conceptually speaking. Some slightly less conceptually impressive, but nevertheless mechanically effective Class Feats thus seem like a good idea so you're not forced to do that sort of thing if you don't want to.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
all of which are vastly better than copying the instinctive 'shield myself from fire with available object' behaviour.
'Make a hole in a door', 'pull an object out of nowhere like a stage magician' and 'this is just like 2nd level spell conceptually' are not conceptually more impressive than that, no.

'Phase thru an object like an Xmen Mutant' 'Teleport an object across space and time to my hand' and 'Create a blade out of pure force that wields itself, so sharp it can even cut ghosts' Slight difference from 'actually remember instinctive blocking behaviour that even toddlers do' I used to be in the realism camp, until I realised that is why martials are so bad, they aren't playing the same game, no one held back the casters because realism, but it cripples the martial classes.


Lucas Yew wrote:

At least the "adding your levels to your AC" is a vast improvement, for me.

It was always absurd why in the SRD engine only your offenses(BAB) benefited from training(Leveling up), but your defenses(AC) did not.

Your defences (HP and saves) do increase with level.

The BAB increasing vs AC not increasing allows a high-level character to consistently be successful at hitting enemies at higher-levels (on lower rolls), in comparison to the character at lower levels.

This is balanced out by increasing the HP of enemies, (and yet their AC is still relevant because of the full-attack penalties).

Naming one aspect of the system and removing it without considering how it works in the first place is deemed unwise.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Customising and differentiating armour could be very easy under the new system if it incorporates save bonuses. Why not have different armors provide different bonus to: AC, TAC, max dex, skill checks, all three saves differently. Having the capacity for dofferemt bonus on fort, reflex and will would add huge variety, although quite how armor adds to will is odd. The enchantments could still improve these from the baseline, so a suit of full plate that adda +3 fort (so +0 ref and will) would be +4fort, +1 will and reflex if enchanted to +1.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
'Phase thru an object like an Xmen Mutant' 'Teleport an object across space and time to my hand' and 'Create a blade out of pure force that wields itself, so sharp it can even cut ghosts' Slight difference from 'actually remember instinctive blocking behaviour that even toddlers do'

Blocking a 20 foot radius blast from effecting you with anything short of a force field is every bit as utterly ridiculous as any of those three options, to be honest. Simply having a shield does not normally let people survive missile launchers at ground zero or similar things.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
I used to be in the realism camp, until I realised that is why martials are so bad, they aren't playing the same game, no one held back the casters because realism, but it cripples the martial classes.

You seem to be having a different discussion than I am. I'm a huge advocate of martials having all sorts of epic and 'unrealistic' options. I'm just also fine with them having some that are a tad less so as long as they're still mechanically good.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mekkis wrote:
Naming one aspect of the system and removing it without considering how it works in the first place is deemed unwise.

That would be unwise. Luckily, based on info from people at Paizo, that's not remotely what they're doing. They are, instead, adjusting the whole system to fit the new paradigm (high level monsters have less HP in PF2 than PF1, for example).


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
'Phase thru an object like an Xmen Mutant' 'Teleport an object across space and time to my hand' and 'Create a blade out of pure force that wields itself, so sharp it can even cut ghosts' Slight difference from 'actually remember instinctive blocking behaviour that even toddlers do'

Blocking a 20 foot radius blast from effecting you with anything short of a force field is every bit as utterly ridiculous as any of those three options, to be honest. Simply having a shield does not normally let people survive missile launchers at ground zero or similar things.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
I used to be in the realism camp, until I realised that is why martials are so bad, they aren't playing the same game, no one held back the casters because realism, but it cripples the martial classes.
You seem to be having a different discussion than I am. I'm a huge advocate of martials having all sorts of epic and 'unrealistic' options. I'm just also fine with them having some that are a tad less so as long as they're still mechanically good.

Except the 'block fire with shield' doesn't prevent it effecting you, it maybe allows you to succeed a save for half damage, which is not worthy of a lvl 14 slot, and it routinely done in the real world with riot shields against petrol bombs for instance. Seriously if it was lvl 4 I would have no problem with it, it is the fact that it is 14th that makes it so grating. 14th should be the crazy end, up to about 8th the realistic and solid end.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


I'm not liking the shield thing because it went from 'this is a solid (if typically expensive for the better items)' reusable item to 'this is a chunk of protection that degrades over time even if you use expensive items to make it. Carry ten of whatever your favorite material is, hang the costs'...

...for an item that can either be used as a reaction or action to reduce damage, versus a static increase to AC.

...why would folks bother buying a shield when any cash could be better suited to dumping on armor?

I may be missing something here, like perhaps shields don't degrade when they soak damage or something?

I don't think they dent if the damage doesn't beat the shield's hardness... Which is 9 evidently for a wood shield. That's pretty groovy at level 1. One imagines wood shields will hardly be expensive, and I think an adamantine shield will be much more resilient. (Also, the action to raise the shield increases your AC until the next turn, and then the reaction gives you DR if something hits.)

We also don't know how repairing shields will work. Or even buying magic items and armor. We know crafting is significantly easier, and there's some reason to think you won't be spending your money the same way in the blog post. I'm reasonably confident they can make shields cost effective.

If mending is still a cantrip and we have enough of them, it will not be a problem. If not, we could do what historical fighters did: maintain our weapons and armor. Take an appropriate craft skill, or the equivalent, and spend some time every day on our equipment.

Even if we don't spend gaming time on that, I hope our character spend the time to cleanse their weapons and armor after a battle and perform basic maintenance during the rest periods.
Armors and weapons (and all other equipment) made of normal materials suffer wear and tear with time and use. Probably our lifestyle cover normal upkeep (the leather armor of the guy paying for a miserable lifestyle probably is badly patched and dirty, that of a character paying for a luxurious lifestyle probably is regularly oiled with special oils and maybe even mended by magic).

Liberty's Edge

Rob Godfrey wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Jessex wrote:

Correct me if I misread but a character gets no benefit from a carried shield unless they spend one action a turn on it?

I know there are arguments against sword and board fighters but they are the classic template people think of when they think of fighters in fantasy RPG's. making the archetype both bad and excessively complicated to play seems like a bad idea.

Shields are way better now. If you get hit you get its hardness as DR for a reaction. A sword and board fighter now beats an otherwise equal two-handed one on one.
On the sword and board note: we now know that the Fighter 14th level ability is a flat +2 to reflex saves in very limited circumstances, with it being shield bonus, and enchantments to that not being a thing. Which is an uninspiring ability ti say the least...the casters get to break reality, with more powerful cantrips, and what amounts to free automatic meta magic, the fighter gets to do something that should be maybe a lvl 3 or 4 ability...at 14th....which should be the point where you are nearing Ares or Thor, not that kid out of Dragon Slayer, seriously, given the previews, why are non-casters even in the game? If they despise the classes this much, just remove them, not put out boring, weak previews as trap classes or punishment classes.

Always this complaint(eye roll).

Are you aware that in PF2 every character will be able to use rituals if he raise the appropriate skills high enough? The example was a monk using a ritual of Raise Dead. Isn't that the kind of ability of alter reality that you want?
Sure, it will cost resources. But any ability will cost resources, it is a matter of how you use them.
"Scaling cantrips": at the expense of less spells and, from what was said, they will not be on par with the caster highest level spells. At the same time it seem that low level spell slot will lose their utility fairly rapidly.
A reaction to get a +2 in reflex save is uninspiring? Well, AFAIK, the shield spells will be a reaction and provide a +2 AC. I don't see the difference. Sure, you get it at level 14, but before that you get a reaction to reduce the incoming damage of a blow by the Dr of your shield.
The fighter have received several boosts and downgrades, the spellcasters seem to have received less boosts and more downgrades in comparison.

Naturally it is all "seem" as we are still in a pre-playtesting phase and we are still missing plenty of information.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Jessex wrote:

Correct me if I misread but a character gets no benefit from a carried shield unless they spend one action a turn on it?

I know there are arguments against sword and board fighters but they are the classic template people think of when they think of fighters in fantasy RPG's. making the archetype both bad and excessively complicated to play seems like a bad idea.

Shields are way better now. If you get hit you get its hardness as DR for a reaction. A sword and board fighter now beats an otherwise equal two-handed one on one.
On the sword and board note: we now know that the Fighter 14th level ability is a flat +2 to reflex saves in very limited circumstances, with it being shield bonus, and enchantments to that not being a thing. Which is an uninspiring ability ti say the least...the casters get to break reality, with more powerful cantrips, and what amounts to free automatic meta magic, the fighter gets to do something that should be maybe a lvl 3 or 4 ability...at 14th....which should be the point where you are nearing Ares or Thor, not that kid out of Dragon Slayer, seriously, given the previews, why are non-casters even in the game? If they despise the classes this much, just remove them, not put out boring, weak previews as trap classes or punishment classes.

Always this complaint(eye roll).

Are you aware that in PF2 every character will be able to use rituals if he raise the appropriate skills high enough? The example was a monk using a ritual of Raise Dead. Isn't that the kind of ability of alter reality that you want?
Sure, it will cost resources. But any ability will cost resources, it is a matter of how you use them.
"Scaling cantrips": at the expense of less spells and, from what was said, they will not be on par with the caster highest level spells. At the same time it seem that low level spell slot will lose their utility fairly rapidly.
A reaction to get a +2 in reflex save is...

A reaction to get +2 reflex to by doing something that untrained people do instinctively is not an interesting level 14 ability, it just is not fun, it doesn't feel like a great heroic feat, it is meh at best. I want to cut anything that lives, not because of magic but because of the raw power of hate, or pull flyers from the sky, or anything Ares or Thor could pull, that is level 14, cutting holes into another dimension like the Planar Champion used to, that is proper end game power, striking an extra planar creature in such a way it cannot teleport away again, high level, breaking spells and enchantments like Conan (that's about lvl 8-10) . Rituals? No not interesting, not exciting, sorry.

Liberty's Edge

Rob Godfrey wrote:
Except the 'block fire with shield' doesn't prevent it effecting you, it maybe allows you to succeed a save for half damage, which is not worthy of a lvl 14 slot, and it routinely done in the real world with riot shields against petrol bombs for instance. Seriously if it was lvl 4 I would have no problem with it, it is the fact that it is 14th that makes it so grating. 14th should be the crazy end, up to about 8th the realistic and solid end.

Not if it, as I suggest above, provides you with your Shield Proficiency to Reflex Save as well. At 14th level that'd almost certainly give you thje equivalent of evasion and at least a +4 bonus, which would make you very likely to succeed and thus be utterly unscathed.

Which was sort of my whole point. If it just gives a +2 it's fairly crappy, but we don't know that's all it does.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Except the 'block fire with shield' doesn't prevent it effecting you, it maybe allows you to succeed a save for half damage, which is not worthy of a lvl 14 slot, and it routinely done in the real world with riot shields against petrol bombs for instance. Seriously if it was lvl 4 I would have no problem with it, it is the fact that it is 14th that makes it so grating. 14th should be the crazy end, up to about 8th the realistic and solid end.

Not if it, as I suggest above, provides you with your Shield Proficiency to Reflex Save as well. At 14th level that'd almost certainly give you thje equivalent of evasion and at least a +4 bonus, which would make you very likely to succeed and thus be utterly unscathed.

Which was sort of my whole point. If it just gives a +2 it's fairly crappy, but we don't know that's all it does.

But saving isn't emerging unscathed, it's reducing the damage. Well unless you make it by an insane amount.


Having reread the fighter blog, it certainly seems like all you get is the +2. But these blogs aren't rules text; hopefully you do get more than that.

I'm a little curious what a class focused on their armor is going to look like. It occurs to me that the rune system might provide an interesting avenue for such a class. If theres a class ability to apply temporary runes to a set of armor or weapons, on top of what's already on them, it could be interesting to play.

Wouldn't feel much like a paladin ability though. More like a 3.5 artificer. So I'm curious what direction the armor focused class, whatever class it winds up being, takes.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
But saving isn't emerging unscathed, it's reducing the damage. Well unless you make it by an insane amount.

In PF2, if you have a Master level Proficiency in Reflex Saves and Save successfully you're completely unscathed (ie: successful saves count as critical successes). The same as Evasion in PF1.

Which is what I've been suggesting as a very real possibility for the Saving Shield thing since my first post on the subject.


Its still a lackbuster ability for level 14, by the time this comes online the dragon/caster have other more effective ways to deal with you than a mere reflex based spell.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Except the 'block fire with shield' doesn't prevent it effecting you, it maybe allows you to succeed a save for half damage, which is not worthy of a lvl 14 slot, and it routinely done in the real world with riot shields against petrol bombs for instance. Seriously if it was lvl 4 I would have no problem with it, it is the fact that it is 14th that makes it so grating. 14th should be the crazy end, up to about 8th the realistic and solid end.

I would be greatly surprised if alchemist's fire (petrol bombs) isn't against your touch AC, meaning that your shield now helps against it as long as you have it raised, no feats necessary.

And the +2 not only allows you to succeed against that fireball, it also decreases your chance of critically failing (double damage) the Reflex save and increases your chance of critically succeeding it (no damage).

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
A reaction to get +2 reflex to by doing something that untrained people do instinctively is not an interesting level 14 ability, it just is not fun, it doesn't feel like a great heroic feat, it is meh at best. I want to cut anything that lives, not because of magic but because of the raw power of hate, or pull flyers from the sky, or anything Ares or Thor could pull, that is level 14, cutting holes into another dimension like the Planar Champion used to, that is proper end game power, striking an extra planar creature in such a way it cannot teleport away again, high level, breaking spells and enchantments like Conan (that's about lvl 8-10) . Rituals? No not interesting, not exciting, sorry.

14th level is not "end game", it is 2/3 of end game. If slightly less than Thor is what you wan to for 2/3 of the game, what do you want for level 20? To be able to smash Thor in a round?

And our characters kill dragons routinely at level 14. That isn't exciting?
Probably for you isn't, as it has been done for decades in the game. Well, after the third time you have killed the serpent Midgar, it will still be exciting? Or it will be "Still some of the same, how boring"?

Liberty's Edge

Dracoknight wrote:
Its still a lackbuster ability for level 14, by the time this comes online the dragon/caster have other more effective ways to deal with you than a mere reflex based spell.

Really? Point us to the published 2ed Pathfinder spell that do that. Or we are speaking of 1st ed spells that will "surely and without a change be ported over to punish the poor fighter"?

Let's see what a 6th level spell do in PF2:

Quote:

Vampiric Exsanguination Spell 6

Death, Necromancy, Negative
Casting Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting
Area 30-foot cone

You draw life force from creatures and send it into your outstretched arms. You deal 10d6 negative damage to all living creatures in the area. As long as at least one creature in the area takes damage, you also gain half that many temporary Hit Points. You lose any remaining temporary Hit Points after 1 minute.
Success Half damage.
Critical Success No damage.
Failure Full damage.
Critical Failure Double damage.

Heightened (+2) Increase the damage by 3d6.

10d6 in a cone near you, with a nice effect that could give you 1/2 of the damage you did to the more damaged foe in temporary Hit Points.

Well, in PF1 Dragon's Breath do potentially more damage, has more versatility and lack the temporary hit point feature. It is a 4th level spell.

Vampiric Exsanguination don't seem something so impressive for something that you can do once in a day at level 11.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
'Phase thru an object like an Xmen Mutant' 'Teleport an object across space and time to my hand' and 'Create a blade out of pure force that wields itself, so sharp it can even cut ghosts' Slight difference from 'actually remember instinctive blocking behaviour that even toddlers do'

Blocking a 20 foot radius blast from effecting you with anything short of a force field is every bit as utterly ridiculous as any of those three options, to be honest. Simply having a shield does not normally let people survive missile launchers at ground zero or similar things.

Rob Godfrey wrote:
I used to be in the realism camp, until I realised that is why martials are so bad, they aren't playing the same game, no one held back the casters because realism, but it cripples the martial classes.
You seem to be having a different discussion than I am. I'm a huge advocate of martials having all sorts of epic and 'unrealistic' options. I'm just also fine with them having some that are a tad less so as long as they're still mechanically good.
Except the 'block fire with shield' doesn't prevent it effecting you, it maybe allows you to succeed a save for half damage, which is not worthy of a lvl 14 slot

It actually reduces the odds of you taking double damage by 10%, the odds of you taking full damage by 10% and increases the chance you take 0 damage by 10%. Unless of course you also have Master Reflexes at which point every success means 0 damage.

As for Riot shields vs small explosives. That is equivalent of Tower Shields (which likely give you a bigger bonus) vs low level effects (anyone can make and toss a petrol bomb) so yeah a level 14 fighter with the feat is very likely to get the 0 damage Critical Success.

Liberty's Edge

Dracoknight wrote:
Its still a lackbuster ability for level 14, by the time this comes online the dragon/caster have other more effective ways to deal with you than a mere reflex based spell.

I'm pretty sure just about everyone would take a Feat (or Talent, or whatever) in PF1 that gave +4 Reflex Saves and Evasion. That's an absurd bonus for a single Class Ability.

Now, even if this is true it's not quite brokenly good because it requires you to have spent an action on your shield to use, but if you're a shield based character you're pretty much gonna do that as often as you can anyway.

Now, it could also just be a +2, which would, IMO, be a bit lackluster, but my whole point is that we don't know.

101 to 150 of 660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Gearing Up! All Messageboards