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
201 to 250 of 660 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Id also add that im fine with the idea of an action needed to restore my two handed grip, or restore that grip? Seems logical and consistent since raining ashield requires a similar action and would be similarly, if not less effort intensive. I can see my character releasing his grip as he openss the door or grabs his potion, his heavy weapons drops nad he then has to raise that heavy weapon and rebalance his grip to swing it successfully again, hence an action.

What about when you first draw your two handed weapon? Is that an action since it requires you to adopt a two handed grip?

I can also see another argument for using the term, or quality “heavy” to describe two handed weapons. This then means you can say, with clarity;

Weapons with the heavy quality require two hands to wield effectively in combat, any character using a heavy weapon must use both hands to wield that weapon. Weapons without the heavy quality may be weilded in one hand (the typcal or normal method) or two handed as the user desires.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:


We're going for flatter math and people are decrying that bonuses won't go as high as in PF1?

Who is "We"? I haven't seen it as a stated design goal. If it's something you're personally campaigning for, please be frank about it.

BPorter wrote:


The power curve can't always go upwards, folks. I for one, relish the idea of tactical, character, and gear variety that PF2 seems to be aiming to achieve.

Yes it can. Yes it should. That's why people prefer Pathfinder over other systems like 4e and 5e.


Cat-thulhu wrote:
Clearly im not understaning what the TAC represents. Can anyone elaborate for me.

TAC represents that the more you spend on specialising in armor the higher your AC is going to be (of any type).

They've removed flat-footed AC by making it -2 to AC (and a -2 to AC that doesn't stack with a flanking bonus). I'd prefer they just remove Touch AC if they can't find a way to make it work better than these rules have.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ecidon wrote:
Who is "We"? I haven't seen it as a stated design goal. If it's something you're personally campaigning for, please be frank about it.

It's pretty clear this is what Paizo are going for. They've removed BAB, different progression of saves for different saves, shield enhancement bonuses and I expect bonuses like weapon training will also be gone. Replacing all that with +level, +proficiency bonus, +item bonus on ALL aspects of the game means the math is flatter. Just as 4e had +1/2 level, Pathfinder 2e is goin to have +level. The result is everyone's bonus to anything is going to be within a specific range which means everyone can contribute in all situations no matter what skills or combat style they've chosen to specailise in. It's why we've got scaling cantrips, they needed to give spellcasters an equivalent of the martial's at-will melee basic attack.

The math will definitely be flatter. The biggest difference between PF2e and 4e's math vs 5e's math is 5e removes the +level/+1/2 level. Otherwise the math will be strikingly similar.

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Ive always thought of TAC as a reflection of maneuvreability and agility in armour. I would think it would work better if light armours had a lower AC bonus, and a higher TAC while heavier armour had the opposite. So leather +2 to both (prob so TAC doesnt exceed therwise +2AC, +5 TAC), chainmail +4AC, +4TAC, plate +8AC, +1TAC. Add in max Dex and you have a lot of variation. Proficiency raining both relects the added maneuvreability you get with training. Depends how important TAC actually is in the final game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

So now that I have had the time to read through again, I'm returning to a thought I've posted before... Why is touch AC still even its own thing? It could easily be handled with Touch AC = 10 + Reflex save bonus + gear bonus. That way it still scales with level, but you don't have the wonky situation where a flippy ninja can evade fireballs, but somehow can't avoid being touched because their touch AC is lower than their Reflex.

Though of course then you can get the worse situation where the ninja's Reflex is also higher than her AC altogether, so she can avoid being touched more easily than being actually hit, despite her armor.

In Pathfinder, Touch AC is the Armour class an attacker needs to hit to touch you.

Has this changed in PF2e? Does "hitting touch AC" differ from "being touched", if Reflex is able to prevent oneself being touched?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cat-thulhu wrote:
Ive always thought of TAC as a reflection of maneuvreability and agility in armour. I would think it would work better if light armours had a lower AC bonus, and a higher TAC while heavier armour had the opposite. So leather +2 to both (prob so TAC doesnt exceed therwise +2AC, +5 TAC), chainmail +4AC, +4TAC, plate +8AC, +1TAC. Add in max Dex and you have a lot of variation. Proficiency raining both relects the added maneuvreability you get with training. Depends how important TAC actually is in the final game.

But then just being naked would somehow give less TAC than armor...


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Cat-thulhu wrote:
Ive always thought of TAC as a reflection of maneuvreability and agility in armour. I would think it would work better if light armours had a lower AC bonus, and a higher TAC while heavier armour had the opposite. So leather +2 to both (prob so TAC doesnt exceed therwise +2AC, +5 TAC), chainmail +4AC, +4TAC, plate +8AC, +1TAC. Add in max Dex and you have a lot of variation. Proficiency raining both relects the added maneuvreability you get with training. Depends how important TAC actually is in the final game.
But then just being naked would somehow give less TAC than armor...

It also makes you invisible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm becoming concerned that the new edition will be too bitsy. This would make it less friendly for newer players.

That said. I do like the changes to armor, and magical armor as well. I'm also intrigued about Rune mentioned, this leads me to believe that there maybe different kinds of runes. Each changing how the enchantment bonus works.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Unrelated, but if I'm understanding this tweet from Jason correctly, in context of his tweets this week and Erik Mona's comments on last week's Paizo Friday Twitch stream, then it looks like the Playtest book is done! Now we wait ...

Dark Archive

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Ecidon wrote:
Who is "We"? I haven't seen it as a stated design goal. If it's something you're personally campaigning for, please be frank about it.

It's pretty clear this is what Paizo are going for. They've removed BAB, different progression of saves for different saves, shield enhancement bonuses and I expect bonuses like weapon training will also be gone. Replacing all that with +level, +proficiency bonus, +item bonus on ALL aspects of the game means the math is flatter. Just as 4e had +1/2 level, Pathfinder 2e is goin to have +level. The result is everyone's bonus to anything is going to be within a specific range which means everyone can contribute in all situations no matter what skills or combat style they've chosen to specailise in. It's why we've got scaling cantrips, they needed to give spellcasters an equivalent of the martial's at-will melee basic attack.

The math will definitely be flatter. The biggest difference between PF2e and 4e's math vs 5e's math is 5e removes the +level/+1/2 level. Otherwise the math will be strikingly similar.

If Paizo is going for flatter math, and people don't like flatter, why shouldn't they be complaining?

If there was a stated design goal by Paizo claiming that "PF2e should have Flatter Math", then it could be called into question, and brought into discussion.

And if the designers are insistent that that design goal is not going to change, then those who disagree can find another system and stop decrying other parts of a system they won't be using.

Because this hasn't been made clear, people are decrying that Armor bonuses aren't going as high as they are in PF1. They're also decrying the skill bonuses aren't going as high as they are in PF1. I imagine in two weeks' time, they'll decry that save bonuses aren't going as high as they are in PF1.


Well, I liked most of what I've seen here, and the rune stuff seems pretty cool.
However, my biggest problem with this post is: I don't quite have an idea about how proficiency + item quality + magical bonus trio is going to work here, on weapons, armor, shield, tools, etc. and that makes me limited in giving a verdict on this.
Well, perhaps I'll have to wait for the playtest.

On a side note: A silver standard for economy sneaked in the last part. That makes me happy ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, question for you. Just listened to the Twitch feed and they mentioned how to compute AC. Let's compare this to how we compute attacks:
* AC is 10 + Proficiency + Stat + Armor Bonus + (Item Quality/Magic)
* Attack is 1d20 + Proficiency + Stat + (Item Quality/Magic)

I can't see how this doesn't lead to some huge issues. Assuming two characters of the same level, one of whom is progressing offensively, the other defensively, at the same rate, the discrepancy of *Armor Bonus* in defense essentially means that the *FIRST* attack by the offensive guy has a <50% chance to hit the defensive guy, and no chance of +10 critical. After that, it gets worse...

Is there some part of this equation I'm missing here... This seems fundamentally broken. I was assuming that AC might be 5 + Armor + ... to account for the extra addition here, but if it's not, I can't see how this works out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:


But then just being naked...

Now we are talking sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malthraz wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:


But then just being naked...
Now we are talking sense.

Maybe your butt can get a potency/property runes! I know my monk wants body slots! ;)


Diego Rossi wrote:
Tectorman wrote:

Okay, so Bracers of Armor will presumably be covering the magical enhancement bonus for the Monk that potency runes are applying to conventional armors. Presumably, the Monk will have a class feat/feature allowing him to protect himself unarmored to the same-ish extent that regular armor provides. So how will he be getting the potency rune equivalents for his unarmed attacks? Provided by items like prayer beads or hand wraps? An innate class feature?

Also, one thing I really didn't like was how certain magical effects were consigned to armor. For example, Glamored is a really nifty little enchantment just for the sake of being able to easily illustrate how you want your character to look. Unless you're a Monk. With the exception of a very obscure non-armor magic item hidden away in an Eberron book, there was no way to achieve this same level of aesthetic customization for a Monk character.

Is there anyway we can have an armor-filler type of outfit? Something that armor-based magic effects can be applied to but otherwise doesn't provide an armor benefit at all?

Hat of disguise?

"You make yourself—including clothing, armor, weapons, and equipment—look different. You can seem 1 foot shorter or taller, thin, fat, or in between. You cannot change your creature type (although you can appear as another subtype). Otherwise, the extent of the apparent change is up to you. You could add or obscure a minor feature or look like an entirely different person or gender."

For 1,800 gp you can slightly change your appearance (add a mole to your calf, as an example) and completely redo your dress.

The description for the Hat of Disguise also says essentially that the hat can be changed into another something worn on the head as part of the disguise. I never read that as "including no headwear of any kind", and that's the kind of aesthetic freedom I'm looking for. Glamored assumes the end result is still something looking like clothing but makes no other assumptions AFAIK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Is there some part of this equation I'm missing here... This seems fundamentally broken. I was assuming that AC might be 5 + Armor + ... to account for the extra addition here, but if it's not, I can't see how this works out.

Personally I'm hoping for more tactical methods to lower AC. Dashing up to somebody in full plate and whacking them right away might not work out like normal, but solid team work and good planning could help a lot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
1of1 wrote:

So, uhhh... Icons. I can read words instantly by passing my eyes over them, but colorful abstract shapes are confusing and aren't really helpful for me.

[[ICON]] Interact Manipulate sounds like it's going to be a bit of a headache to look at, but I guess it's an efficient use of space. Meh.

Yeah, I'd rather have a word than an icon that I have to keep looking up the meaning.


Don Your Armor! wrote:
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.

I'm glad to see that the design philosophy of making equipment not obsoleting each other carried over from the weapons onto armors. I like it when each equipment option presents reasons for picking one over the other beyond the concept of "they cost most because they are just better". I can't wait to see what other traits were developed for armors and how they'll affect my choices.

I also like the new naming convention for magically enhancing armor. Calling armor enhancements "potency runes" might be a minor thing int he grand scheme of things, but the wording does invoke a nice image.

Shield Yourself! wrote:
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!

I didnt' realize it before until mentioned here, but since shields can't have potency runes, but can be magical, I guess this means that magical enhancements from PF1 have been split between one type that is solely for numerical bonuses (aka the potency runes) and another type that provides other magical effects? Will we be getting more info on magical effects and magic item crafting any time soon for more explanation?

Fill Your Backpack! wrote:
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!

Another minor thing that was already well understood in PF1, but nice to see explicit in PF2 is that the item quality mechanic makes it easy to determine the effects of an improvised use of an item for reasons beyond its normal purpose.

Take a Load Off! wrote:
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.

I greatly appreciated details on non-adventuring items in PF1. Having trade goods and services statted out helped made it easy to quickly provide costs to my players when they went on to do non-adventuring stuff. I hope they'll still be just as detailed in PF2 as they were in PF1. Have you come up with any new ideas for these types of items in PF2?

Switch It Up! wrote:

[[A]] Interact

[b]Manipulate[/b
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.

Nice to see this explicitly stated. Now what other actions are coming forth?

I hope Bulk is (somehow) better handled in PF2 than it was in Starfinder. I'm on the fence on the concept. On the one hand, I can appreciate it's more easier to group items in weight classes and count them up that way. On the other hand, I feel a Bulk number doesn't clearly portray mass and volume of an object; the number feels vague and arbitrary that doesn't immediately conceptualized based off a real life framework. If you told me that a bedroll weighs 5 lbs., I can immediately understand how my character would feel carrying it because I can go and carry something that weighs 5 lbs in real life, but if you told me a bedroll is 2 bulk, I don't immediately get that feel of how cumbersome this item is. In Starfinder, there were weapons (certain rifles) that had different bulk values that I would have thought would've been the same, so I could never get a sense of what Bulk represents. I am also sadden at losing a bit of the simulationist side of the game over something that I felt never was a problem in the first place.

I also hope "L" is replaced with "0.1". I'm already adding up numbers, don't bring letters into it. 10 L = 1 bulk anyways, so why not just label those items as "0.1" bulk and keep it consistent? It's an unnecessary mental conversion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cat-thulhu wrote:
Im not sure i now understand TAC, i wouldve thought lighter armour would add more? TAC bonuses higher on lighter armour, a medium with equivilent bonuses, heavy armours with lower TAC bonuses. Clearly im not understaning what the TAC represents. Can anyone elaborate for me.

I think it's the same concept, but the execution differs a little. Part of the issue was touch that Touch AC is a good concept that didn't always make sense across the board. There are some things that where completely ignoring armor made sense. Shocking Grasp bypassing full plate is pretty intuitive-- the metal conducts the electricity. Acid Arrow, and on the other hand, would probably have it's effect reduced by having more layers of armor between you and the acid. Meanwhile, Inflict Moderate Wounds is a touch attack that basically directly targets someone's life force. Why does their armor count as touching "them" for that purpose, let alone their shield? On the other hand natural armor might make a creature less conductive for Shocking Grasp but still counts as touching the creature itself.

Touch AC sounds like it going from Shocking Grasp vs metal armor as it's base assumption to something closer to Acid Arrow vs Armor as a barrier to the flesh, or providing a degree of insulation against Inflict Spells. This might be a shift because the alchemist is now in core and bombs will be used across classes. Most of the bomb items would probably have SOME reduction from varying types of armor. On the other hand, maybe large natural armor bonuses won't add to touch AC as much. Whoooooo knoooows

Silver Crusade

graystone wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:


But then just being naked...
Now we are talking sense.
Maybe your butt can get a potency/property runes! I know my monk wants body slots! ;)

I think you mean body shots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

Okay, question for you. Just listened to the Twitch feed and they mentioned how to compute AC. Let's compare this to how we compute attacks:

* AC is 10 + Proficiency + Stat + Armor Bonus + (Item Quality/Magic)
* Attack is 1d20 + Proficiency + Stat + (Item Quality/Magic)

I can't see how this doesn't lead to some huge issues. Assuming two characters of the same level, one of whom is progressing offensively, the other defensively, at the same rate, the discrepancy of *Armor Bonus* in defense essentially means that the *FIRST* attack by the offensive guy has a <50% chance to hit the defensive guy, and no chance of +10 critical. After that, it gets worse...

Is there some part of this equation I'm missing here... This seems fundamentally broken. I was assuming that AC might be 5 + Armor + ... to account for the extra addition here, but if it's not, I can't see how this works out.

Yes, I was thinking about this too. Obviously we don't know the whole math (as in how many "+" you can get to either of them), but assuming the two guys are exactly the same in Str/Dex, then (assuming Level 10, STR/DEX 14) you have:

Attacker: 1d20+10 (level) + 2 (Str)= 1d20+12
Defender: 10+10 (Level)+2 (Dex)= 22

So the attacker only hits a naked defender 55% of the time (10+) and crits 5% of the time (20), but never fumbles. If you start adding armor the numbers go down for the attacker, and shields make it even worse (perhaps expalining why shields now require actions).

It also means enemies of a lower level than you get stomped and enemies of a higher level will stomp you right back. If you do the same but make the defender 3 levels higher (so, a Hard encounter by PF1 standards) you get:

Attacker: 1d20+12
Defender: 10+13+2= 25

So now the attacker only hits 40% of the time, never crits, and fumbles 15% of the time. And again, armor/shields just makes the divide worse. Conversely, when the defender counterattacks, they hit 70% of the time, Crit 20% of the time, and never fumble.

If level adds to AC, as long as you use Armor that makes use of your full Dexterity bonus (or provides an AC bonus that exceeds your full Dexterity Bonus, if it limits your Dex bonus), you'll always be ahead of the curve. The only time this doesn't happen against an equally levelled and trained oponent is if you are using armor whose AC bonus is equal to or lower than your Dexterity bonus while also limiting you to using less than your max Dex bonus to AC (or if there's armor that maes your Dex bonus negative). And even then you can use a shield to compensate.

With numbers like this it's no wonder there's a way for fighters to get damage on an enemy if they miss...

The Exchange

Catharsis wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:
I also do not like that shields do not get rune bumps to their AC, so a shield is just a +1 or +2 throughout your career.
A +2 bonus to AC is a big deal in PF2 math and remains that way throughout the game.

How do you figure? Its virtually nothing unless PF2 math assumes bounded accuracy which they have said is not the case. I just see a feat such as two weapon defense making shields a poor choice and that is not good.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Interesting i guess. The kind of blog i cant judge really without numbers and the rest of the system to compare things.

The concept of more customizable armor is nice, but if they are really so different we wont all just pick the one who gives the highest bonus of the category only time will tell.

Im also wondering which skill is now based on CON.

Perhaps some sort of Health/Resistance or Endurance/Fitness skill, used to resist disease and recover vitality.

Hopefully not the Concentration skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talek & Luna wrote:


How do you figure? Its virtually nothing unless PF2 math assumes bounded accuracy which they have said is not the case. I just see a feat such as two weapon defense making shields a poor choice and that is not good.

Likely to do with the way Crits work in PF2. +10 AC excess or a nat 20 roll. That +2 is small only at a quick glance.


Gregg Reece wrote:
graystone wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:


But then just being naked...
Now we are talking sense.
Maybe your butt can get a potency/property runes! I know my monk wants body slots! ;)
I think you mean body shots.

My drunken monk wants both. ;)


Talek & Luna wrote:
Elghinn Lightbringer wrote:
Just because magical armor now adds bonuses to saves and AC, plus touch AC, does not mean that there isn't still rings of protections for wizards, or cloaks of resistance either. I think there will be options to be able to customize your character with different configurations of items to meet your item needs. However there may still be the restrictions of can't being able to combine like bonuses. The nice thing is that is gives armor wearers a free cloak and ring slot to use instead of worrying about rings of prot and cloaks of resistance. What I'd like to see is the possibility of enchanting any item (perhaps at a higher cost than the standard item) with any enchantment you want. So, a helm of resistance, a ring of true seeing, a cloak of water walking, or boots of protection +3. Mind you, it is nice being able to assume the general uses of a particular item via their slot (movement for boots, etc). We'll see what they do. They'll make changes, but will also want to keep things as familiar to PF1E as possible so its not a total relearn of everything.
Sorry but they stated they are removing rings & cloaks of protection. Bracers of Armor are still in the game but this is a huge drop off the cliff unless they make the chance of bracers show up around the same time you get low grade magical armor. This was never the case in 3.0/3.5 or pathfinder. Bracers of armor were ridiculously expensive for what they did.

Then I am sad, because that limits not expands the possibilities in the game.


Oh, sorry guys. I had a "taking a break to be stupid" moment a while ago, but after re-reading stuff, I get it now.
Good stuff, really liked it! Perhaps the magical shield could get buffed up, but other than that, it's cool ^^


Deadmanwalking wrote:
They've made it very clear that bonuses of the same type will never stack in PF2. So those bonuses don't stack.

I'm not so sure about that. If they made it clear that Bonuses of the Same Type will never stack, then doesn't that mean that something like Haste + Speed Enchantment will never stack because they're both derived from Haste? If so then these will definitely stack because one is a bonus from the quality of the weapon, the other is a bonus from the quality of the enchantment.

After all going by the logic of Quality and Magic qualifying as stacking would mean that Shields can't stack with Armor because they both give a bonus to AC, just like how Quality and Magic both provide bonuses to Attack (presumably.) Besides we also saw in PF 1e that Masterwork and Enhancement Bonuses would stack to hit, so why get rid of something similar in PF 2e?

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Oh, and this is more of a weapon question than armor question, but Logan DID mention it above... I see magic weapons still apply a bonus to hit on top of the bonus damage dice. Can we not? ^^;

You guys have made a big deal about the weapon quality actually providing the attack bonus; i.e., a Legendary-quality, perfectly balanced ultimate longsword getting a +3 bonus to hit. This is great, I love that. Letting the magic bonus be the extra damage is also great, it gives them distinct design space from each other and keeps it simple.

Having both provide a bonus to hit, except they have the same name and so you have to remember / remind players that they don't stack... I thought that was the sort of thing we were trying to get away from here. Not to mention that magic weapons getting a bonus to hit just immediately deprecates the importance and coolness of having a better-crafted weapon.

I'd love to go back to what everyone thought it was, the weapon craft quality being the hit bonus and the magic potency bonus being the damage bonus. It's totally okay for you to express a weapon as a +3 Master Longsword. Really <3

I don't believe we've actually seen an enchanted weapon yet... unless there was one in the Podcasts/Streams that I wasn't aware of, which judging by everyone's confusion... we haven't.

It may very well be that they BOTH add to Attack and Damage. Or perhaps they both contribute to Attack, but Quality provides the flat damage bonus while Potency increases the amount of Dice. Or even Quality just contributes to Attack and Potency only adds damage dice.

I apologize to both of you if there is context that I lack due to not having watched the podcasts/streams yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don´t like what i´m seeing here...

I don´t like Starfinder KAK and TAK and all those stuffs...

I would rather piecemeal armor and AC as DR instead of all of the above options.

Sorry guys, you lost me here.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why in game would a potency rune not apply for a shield? The magic that makes armor protect you better won't work on a shield? If you wore the shield on a belt as a breastplate essentially the rune would work, but if you put it on your arm the rune stops protecting you?

I might understand the math of the system wanting to not have this bonus work on both armor and shields, but don't see why that would actually work. What about if you weren't wearing armor, but used a shield? Still no magic to improve its AC bonus?

Finally, what's the reason for the nomenclature change from enhancement bonus to rune of potency? While I'm fine with rune magic in the game, it does have a different feel than simply "magically" improving armor or weapons. Finally, it adds a syllable and is therefore a bit clunkier to say.


I would love to hear more about what goes into making or placing a rune. I am also curious if this system ties into resonance in any way.

You know what would be interesting and awesome to me? If placing runes was just a ritual anyone could perform with the right skill and it committed resonance to a certain object. Certain magic weapons and armor could just have permanent runes that don’t compete for resonance or just have more slots above what items of that quality might normally be able to acquire. The mind reels~


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
JoelF847 wrote:

Why in game would a potency rune not apply for a shield? The magic that makes armor protect you better won't work on a shield? If you wore the shield on a belt as a breastplate essentially the rune would work, but if you put it on your arm the rune stops protecting you?

I might understand the math of the system wanting to not have this bonus work on both armor and shields, but don't see why that would actually work. What about if you weren't wearing armor, but used a shield? Still no magic to improve its AC bonus?

Finally, what's the reason for the nomenclature change from enhancement bonus to rune of potency? While I'm fine with rune magic in the game, it does have a different feel than simply "magically" improving armor or weapons. Finally, it adds a syllable and is therefore a bit clunkier to say.

I don't actually object to runes not working on shields. Remember, they are boosting your saves in addition to AC and Touch AC. In essence the cloak of resistance and and ring of protection have been absorbed into the armor. That's a lot of magic to cram into something you can just strap to your arm as opposed to wrap your entire body in.

Also, it might be the case that you COULD have a magic shield, but the item bonuses wouldn't stack, so it would be pointless if you already have magic armor. And in that case you normally would always choose armor over the shield, as shields don't offer as much consistency.

Paizo Employee

5 people marked this as a favorite.
ParcelRod wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:


How do you figure? Its virtually nothing unless PF2 math assumes bounded accuracy which they have said is not the case. I just see a feat such as two weapon defense making shields a poor choice and that is not good.
Likely to do with the way Crits work in PF2. +10 AC excess or a nat 20 roll. That +2 is small only at a quick glance.

Very much this. With the +/-10 rules, if someone can successfully hit you on an 8, then they have about a 15% chance of getting a critical hit against you, the same as if they were using a rapier in the current system. You raise your shield, suddenly they only crit you on a natural 20 (like turning their rapier into a pointy club) and you get some amount of damage reduction in the event they do hit, which is also now 10% less likely to happen at all. The current system is stuffed with stackable static modifiers that distort the value of small bonuses, but a new system with a tighter math framework makes those bonuses consistently relevant across the life of the game without creating a numerical arms race.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Weapons and armor getting potency runes but shields not seems very arbitrary to me.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

Why in game would a potency rune not apply for a shield? The magic that makes armor protect you better won't work on a shield? If you wore the shield on a belt as a breastplate essentially the rune would work, but if you put it on your arm the rune stops protecting you?

I might understand the math of the system wanting to not have this bonus work on both armor and shields, but don't see why that would actually work. What about if you weren't wearing armor, but used a shield? Still no magic to improve its AC bonus?

Finally, what's the reason for the nomenclature change from enhancement bonus to rune of potency? While I'm fine with rune magic in the game, it does have a different feel than simply "magically" improving armor or weapons. Finally, it adds a syllable and is therefore a bit clunkier to say.

I don't actually object to runes not working on shields. Remember, they are boosting your saves in addition to AC and Touch AC. In essence the cloak of resistance and and ring of protection have been absorbed into the armor. That's a lot of magic to cram into something you can just strap to your arm as opposed to wrap your entire body in.

Also, it might be the case that you COULD have a magic shield, but the item bonuses wouldn't stack, so it would be pointless if you already have magic armor. And in that case you normally would always choose armor over the shield, as shields don't offer as much consistency.

When you wake up from a random encounter at night, having a magic shield which improveds your armor class is much more helpful than full plate that's magical but takes 5 minutes to put on.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I don't think it is currently possible in the playtest rules for a character who is at least trained in both armor and shields to have a worse proficiency from shields because abilities that give you really good proficiencies with armor tend to always raise your proficiency with shields.

To be frank, this right here is why I've been so unimpressed with these preview blogs.

Information like the above from Mark is *incredibly* relevant in having any understanding of the system going forward, and will directly relate to how excited or apprehensive I am about the upcoming rules...
And it's nowhere to be found in the blog itself.

For instance, if I have a character with Legendary Shield Prof., Regular Armor Prof., and a Light Shield, then using my shield will actually *decrease* my AC (+3 Prof bonus goes down to +0 Prof bonus, and is only offset by the +1 Shield, for a net loss of 2 AC.)
Unless it doesn't work like that. Is it even possibly to have Legendary Prof. with Shields and Regular Prof. with Armor? Are they guaranteed to be closer to one another based on the options you pick and the wording of the Proficiencies themselves?

We don't know, and the blogs aren't telling. =\

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
now EVERY wizard or monk is forced to wear bracers of armor instead of any other bracers type. IMO, you've concensed the big 6 into the big 2 and those 2 are even MORE important to have then the 6 and less made it less possible to work without them.

Item slots are no longer a thing per se. They've said you can't wear two pairs of boots or similar illogical things, but I'm not sure if multiple bracers qualify.

Tectorman wrote:
Okay, so Bracers of Armor will presumably be covering the magical enhancement bonus for the Monk that potency runes are applying to conventional armors. Presumably, the Monk will have a class feat/feature allowing him to protect himself unarmored to the same-ish extent that regular armor provides. So how will he be getting the potency rune equivalents for his unarmed attacks? Provided by items like prayer beads or hand wraps? An innate class feature?

Mark Seifter implied we'll get a magic item (which would cost the same as a magic weapon). I'd personally bet on an Amulet of Mighty Fists for continuity since there's little reason to change that.

Serum wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Joe M. wrote:
I wonder how these two item bonuses (weapon quality + potency rune) interact.
They've made it very clear that bonuses of the same type will never stack in PF2. So those bonuses don't stack.

This just seems redundant, though. Why bother with making a high quality weapon that you need to add a potency rune to, when you could just have a poor quality weapon and get the same final result? Surely the proper solution should be that weapon quality gives an attack bonus only and weapon potency only gives bonus damage?

Or does weapon quality also give bonus damage, so this is an either/or situation?

I suspect slotting in a potency rune has a certain minimum quality requirement for the item you're slotting it into.

Leviathantamer wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
They've made it very clear that bonuses of the same type will never stack in PF2. So those bonuses don't stack.
I'm not so sure about that. If they made it clear that Bonuses of the Same Type will never stack, then doesn't that mean that something like Haste + Speed Enchantment will never stack because they're both derived from Haste? If so then these will definitely stack because one is a bonus from the quality of the weapon, the other is a bonus from the quality of the enchantment.

When talking about 'type' they've clearly indicated that they mean it in the mechanical sense. Two item bonuses would thus never stack. If they wanted them to stack one would need to be a different bonus type.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't read or heard anything about the test rules other than what's been posted on this blog, but I'll say this much: if Paizo's goal for PF2 is to streamline the game and make it smoother, it seems to be failing so far. I read the posts here and it seems like there's twice as much to do for combat alone than in PF1. It could take you 5 minutes to figure out how to take a swing at a goblin and have it strike back. X action for this, Y action for this, Z action for this.

And then the modifiers... OMG! It used to be you have "x" number of attacks at "y" BAB and then your modifiers like STR, enhancement, situational, etc. Now it's like "Ok I have an expert mace with a rune of ass kicking and a level bonus and then the defender has a DEX of whatever and a level difference of whatever and a situational bonus of whatever with runes of save my ass and... oh crap I've lost count!" I mean you cannot possibly tell me this isn't WAY more complex than it is currently.

It also still seems like there will be obviously superior gear set-ups and builds. In the armor example someone did (yes I know they were making up numbers), you could very likely end up with a situation where the fighter says screw the full plate, I'm wearing bracers and pumping DEX. Especially if armors have significant penalties to skills and whatnot.

I'm not a "the sky is falling" personality type and it's very early, but can't say I'm impressed with the armor blog.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So this honestly comes off like you're adding a bunch of rules for the sake of adding a bunch of rules. To an excessive degree. To the point where it seems easier to just not use armor. So you need to either dial it back and make most of this optional. Or adjust it so that it doesn't make ThacO seem like a more appealing system. You really don't need much more then having it add a flat bonus to defense.


BruddaJokka wrote:
So this honestly comes off like you're adding a bunch of rules for the sake of adding a bunch of rules. To an excessive degree. To the point where it seems easier to just not use armor. So you need to either dial it back and make most of this optional. Or adjust it so that it doesn't make ThacO seem like a more appealing system. You really don't need much more then having it add a flat bonus to defense.

^ THIS. Just adding needlessly complex rules for no discernible purpose other than that they can.


The point of a playtest is to throw a Whole Bunch of Things out there, and then see which ones 'stick' and which ones are 'burn before reading'.

Until that is attained, it will definitely seem like there's a lot of complicated stuff out there.


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


The point of a playtest is to throw a Whole Bunch of Things out there, and then see which ones 'stick' and which ones are 'burn before reading'.

Until that is attained, it will definitely seem like there's a lot of complicated stuff out there.

Complicated is one thing, needlessly complicated is another. As someone earlier on this blog mentioned, it seems way too much like Diablo. Every piece of gear now is going to be judged by whether or not it has the ideal prefix and suffix combination. "Man I just got a cool axe, but it's only a +3 of 'minor ass kicking' so I need to keep farming demons until I get a +3 axe of 'major ass kicking."

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BruddaJokka wrote:
So this honestly comes off like you're adding a bunch of rules for the sake of adding a bunch of rules. To an excessive degree. To the point where it seems easier to just not use armor. So you need to either dial it back and make most of this optional. Or adjust it so that it doesn't make ThacO seem like a more appealing system. You really don't need much more then having it add a flat bonus to defense.

I must be missing the part that's different from the current rules to "an excessive degree". Because it appears to me the main change is that Touch AC will now be a thing that actually increases, and that seems like a very good change to me, and certainly not excessive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Mares wrote:
Why change a grip is an action and not a free action? Because it can boost your damage? Is that so good to change a grip from two hands to one hand? Open or close a hand takes the same effort of Strike?!? Why?

Well, it makes some sense if changing the grip includes re-arranging your weapon (to the ground or your shoulder) because you can't really keep holding it in an attack position (as you presumably where, in middle of a fight, if you are caring about tracking and saving single actions) with a single hand.

Instead of picturing a Wizard with a staff touching the ground, imagine one that just swinged his greatsword and now wants to cast a spell immediately after, it makes some sense that he needs to "put the weapon down" while "changing the grip". We will see how all this plays (I'm also a little worried about the full-round-actions to open a door stuff), and maybe it changes after the Playtest.

Leyren wrote:
Blog wrote:
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.

So I can reduce my AC by using a shield?

Can't say I like that.

Well... If you are not proficient with holding a shield, it encumbers you. It makes "some" sense that while just carrying/holding it (and not attempting to use it to block attacks with an action) it lowers your AC.

Fuzzypaws wrote:
Raising a shield should never lower your AC, switching grip should be a free action. Hell, I'm no warrior but I can change grips on an axe or the like in a heartbeat.

Raising a shield is, at maximum, a -2 (from untrained) and a +1/+0 (from presumably the worst shield available) so a net -1. Sounds about right when trying to use a shield in a fight and being completely untrained with how to actually use a shield. You could argue you are blocking your view and movements and that you would have more chances to avoid the attack if you weren't trying to hold on to a shield you never trained for.

And yeah, you are no warrior and can change grips on an axe in a heartbeat (which is already 1 second, or half an action), but can you do so in between attacks, even while the axe is mid-swing, and use the free hand to open a door (or cast a spell) while fighting an orc?
On a side note, this might be just for balancing stuff, so the Dual-Wielders (this includes Shield-Users) don't suck that much, because they DO need to put away their weapon to open a door. Sometimes you need to do things in a balanced gamey way more than a realistic way. I have yet to see a Lv1 stabbing 12 times on a single round (6 secs) with just a knife on one hand, something that can be done IRL.

In the end it can be good that players get to choose what they do by those things having some resource impact. Too often players want to do everything, at once, for free, while holding 3 weapons. How many times have we read in books or seen in movies how the protagonist has to use/defend with whatever he is holding because there is no time to draw/change weapons?

Also take in mind 1 Action in PF2 is not as expensive a 1 Action in PF1: not only do you get 3 instead of 2, but the one you don't get to use is always the worst one (the Attack with the higher negative bonus). So that's something too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, our old friend Bracers of Armor AKA forcing monks to forfeit and item slot to benefit from one of their class features, is back. Goody. Why can't we just give Monks and casters "armored robes" that provide a +0 or +1 bonus to AC and call it a day?

I continue to be baffled by shields costing an Action to use, even more so now that it's confirmed that you can't even increase the AC bonus the Shield provides.

Ditto for the ability to add your shield AC to Reflex saves against area blast attacks being gated as a LEVEL 14 Fighter ability. A +2 (at most) highly situational bonus to Reflex saves that costs an action to use is a high level ability that takes 14 levels of training to unlock? Really?

Liberty's Edge

BPorter wrote:
PF2 provides the opportunity to clean up the action economy and codify actions more consistently and suddenly we need free actions so that a character can avoid having to make 1 attack at a one-handed disadvantage?

Free actions are already a thing in PF2. IIRC they can happen even not on your turn

I would be all for having a one-handed disadvantage but I have seen no reference to it yet so it seems that unless you take your Interact action, you just cannot attack with your 2H-weapon

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Oh, our old friend Bracers of Armor AKA forcing monks to forfeit and item slot to benefit from one of their class features, is back. Goody.

To reiterate, item slots no longer exist.


Hello required Magic/Runic armor(Holy zen do you guys just like making similar terms/design ideas? Runes that buff your stats but are/are not Magic? We'll see) I'm not looking forward to my newly saved cash from losing 2 of the six into you. Also how does Resonace work here(Magic armor might not use it but Runic Magic armor well...)

Also neat bit about shields. Err one question. Buckler?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
JoelF847 wrote:


When you wake up from a random encounter at night, having a magic shield which improveds your armor class is much more helpful than full plate that's magical but takes 5 minutes to put on.

I'll grant you that is true, but in most other circumstances the shield requires an action to use and is therefore inferior. And you could accomplish better results by just having a set of rune inscribed light armor pajamas, if shields and weapons are that interchangeable.

Thing is, while shields and armor had a lot of overlap in PF1, they now function extremely differently. If a shield can take armor runes, than why couldn't a belt? The answer is probably whatever reason cloaks were the most effective way to grant resistance bonuses to saves in PF1. It may be arbitrary that shields don't magically function as armor, but I'd say it's no more arbitrary than the old system deciding what sorts of bonuses could go on different parts of your body.

Quote:
I must be missing the part that's different from the current rules to "an excessive degree". Because it appears to me the main change is that Touch AC will now be a thing that actually increases, and that seems like a very good change to me, and certainly not excessive.

QFT. I guess there is that proficiency gets added in there too? But I don't see how this sounds any harder than tracking your armor bonus, your shield bonus, your enhancement to armor bonus, your enhancement to shield bonus, your deflection bonus, your natural armor bonus, possibly a natural armor enhancement bonus, and your dodge bonus. Or having Mage Armor cast on a wizard who already has +1 Bracers of Armor. Or Monk AC scaling.

Quote:

It could take you 5 minutes to figure out how to take a swing at a goblin and have it strike back. X action for this, Y action for this, Z action for this.

And then the modifiers... OMG! It used to be you have "x" number of attacks at "y" BAB and then your modifiers like STR, enhancement, situational, etc. Now it's like "Ok I have an expert mace with a rune of ass kicking and a level bonus and then the defender has a DEX of whatever and a level difference of whatever and a situational bonus of whatever with runes of save my ass and... oh crap I've lost count!" I mean you cannot possibly tell me this isn't WAY more complex than it is currently.

So do you build your character sheets on the fly when you run encounters? Or do you just not believe in writing things down on character sheets? Because you can pre-calculate your attack bonuses in this system just like you did in the old system. It's just a slightly different method of calculating those bonuses. in the old system you added STR + BAB (a value that fluctuated from class to class) + Enhancement bonuses. Now it is STR + Character Level + proficiency modifier + item bonus. That's one new thing to add by default, but you also don't have to sweat figuring out a 3/4 BAB progression or heaven forbid multi-classing between two different 3/4 BAB classes.

Yeah, there will be other things which can change those values in combat, but all signs have pointed to those things being a lot easier to factor in on the fly. Less types of bonuses, flat footed now just being -2 across the board, status conditions directly subtracting from rolls instead of altering your ability scores and forcing you to take additional steps, etc.

201 to 250 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