Your First Adventure

graystone wrote:

Now I just have to click enough times on the download link to get the errata. It took me a week and dozens of clicks to get lucky and download the screen reader players handbook. If the errata goes as well, I'll get the errata by the time part 2 of the survey comes out... :P

Yeah--what is up? I've re-downloaded twice. Is there a list of the errata somewhere? (Failed Perception Check)

Found it. Unfortunate that they have not fixed the changes in the PDF rulebook document yet, but I can only imagine how hectic things are.

So far, I'm really enjoying 2e.

But why would a Bastard Sword be only Slashing, and a Greatsword versatile? That makes no sense to me...

Balancing :/

Cantriped wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

Please do check!

The 1st level pregen Barbarian's Bastard Sword lists them as Slashing weapons with Two-hand d12 (so as the rulebook but slashing instead of piercing).

I would not make it any harder for Amiri to justify her already very niche weapon choice; you've already had to build an entire totem just around ensuring she could be updated to the new edition. Don't make her suffer proficiency issues all career too!

I personally prefer keeping it martial and not versatile because that lets more types of characters (and Amiri) use it. But if enough playtesters want it to be versatile for both damage types, we can certainly do that and make it exotic; Amiri could get away with having a greatsword if necessary anyway, since she rarely one-hands her weapon.

I'm with you on this- I'd rather have its flexible handedness as something available in martial.

Anyway, the clarifications and fixes are good to have. Thanks, Paizo!

Good to see the insertion of which ability mod applies to spell attacks. My group spent half an hour at last night's session trying to figure out where we were missing it and if we were supposed to infer it.

Also, why not just ditch 'versatile' as a trait and list the weapon damage type as s/p? Are there that many encounters where it matters?

Mbertorch wrote:

But why would a Bastard Sword be only Slashing, and a Greatsword versatile? That makes no sense to me...

Balancing :/

Oww... My immersion hurts. Haha

I'm hoping to see some explanation about magic armor and Resonance Points.
Even after reading that a lot of times (like ten times) is not clear if we need to invest in a magic armor, specially in those that have property runes with an Activation entry.

Is absolutely not clear, and this may be critical to test the Resonance Points subsystem correctly.

(Also: really hopping for some critical update or new rule update for shields. If we can start combate with shield raised, considering that a combat have 3 or 4 rounds, we need to spend an action in 2 or 3 rounds, and this makes no sense for a too small AC bonus, specially one that do not stack with cover, which I can improve to +4 circumstance bonus with the same action that I'd use to raise a shield.)

Draco Bahamut wrote:

Hey, if we already changing things. What about new backgrounds for each phase of the Doomsday Dawn Playtest ?

Two reasons we won't be doing something like this:

1) We want folks to playtest the backgrounds in the playtest rules themselves as well.

2) This is new content, akin to adding more encounters or more story, not fixing rules, and as such is not in the scope of an errata or clarification.

Thank you sir, you are very kind.

I just thought this would be interesting for focusing purposes on the timeframe of the playtests surveys, not only that but a advertizing stunt for the Playtest as whole. One or two new backgrounds couldn´t hurt that much heh ? But I understand and appreciate your answer.

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing. I would recommend in the final version to do a step-by-step Character Creation process, not just with the character stats. My players had problems comprehending the Character Sheets, what the TEML meant, and on choosing Skills - they were trying to choose the Skill Choices, not the Skills themselves.

For that matter, having a trial combat with actual examples would also be helpful so the players have a better idea of how Actions and Reactions work in an actual game setting. The original Pathfinder Rules included such examples.

Now I must add a caveat. My players are lazy. The only reason one player had a character sheet ready was because he contacted me online the night before and we struggled through character creation - and it also took me insisting he needed to download the Pathfinder Playtest rules rather than have me tell him everything. (Seriously. *sigh*) My other two players? They hadn't downloaded the rules either and had no idea what they would do for characters.

I do play online via Roll20 and Discord so it's easy for my players to get distracted by online shiny things. But even so, after we wrapped up the Goblins module (which took barely two hours) it was over two hours of game time of me struggling to figure out the Character Creation rules (as I'd not actually MADE any characters - I only do GMing so character creation isn't quite as important for me) and explain it to people two timezones away. And we ended without having finished the character creation when we called it a night (I'll work with them via e-mail). The fourth player never showed unfortunately, but it probably would have been even more hectic working with building a third character at the same time.

tl;dr - the Character Creation process is not intuitive and can be confusing to new players. Please have a written-out demonstration of the character creation, from stat selection to Ancestry Feats to Class feats, and on down the line. It will make things a lot easier to have examples to show. The same will hold true for combat.

Addendum: Maybe include an example of Leveling Up in the next PDF Download? After all, we've people who will be creating higher-level characters. I just know that leveling up isn't going to be any easier than character creation was.

they were trying to choose the Skill Choices, not the Skills themselves.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you give an example, please?

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Tangent101 wrote:

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Oh, that's great to hear. I had a first session this week with three players who have just a little PF1 experience, they all found the presentation of character creation to be confusing. (And without the context of having read months of preview blogs I probably would have been kinda lost too!)

Shady Stranger wrote:

Mbertorch wrote:

But why would a Bastard Sword be only Slashing, and a Greatsword versatile? That makes no sense to me...

Balancing :/

Oww... My immersion hurts. Haha

That's not an unfair complaint per se, but I personally feel it should be a secondary consideration to making the various choices fun. If someone wants to use a particular weapon for flavor reasons, it shouldn't be unequivocally worse than another weapon, you know?

The strides Paizo has made towards making various weapons and armor feel distinct but balanced against each other are definitely noteworthy, and the weapon traits in particular seem to be one of the most beloved changes. I think there's gonna be something sacrificed in realism towards that goal, you know?

Erik Mona wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Oh, that's great to hear. I had a first session this week with three players who have just a little PF1 experience, they all found the presentation of character creation to be confusing. (And without the context of having read months of preview blogs I probably would have been kinda lost too!)

Yeah... I walked people through the character creation process, and I found it really straightforward. But I devoured every bit of preview I could get my hands on so I very nearly didn't need to read the rules.

Joe M. wrote:

Erik Mona wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Oh, that's great to hear. I had a first session this week with three players who have just a little PF1 experience, they all found the presentation of character creation to be confusing. (And without the context of having read months of preview blogs I probably would have been kinda lost too!)

Yeah... I walked people through the character creation process, and I found it really straightforward. But I devoured every bit of preview I could get my hands on so I very nearly didn't need to read the rules.

I feel like you, DMW, and a few others could have probably built a (limited to previewed choices) 1st-level character without having the book yet.

Tangent101 wrote:

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Nice to hear that!

If possible, also keep in mind that the gear selection is hard to new players and boring/annoying to experienced players (beyond armor and weapons, everything is boring to have to choose). Since I can remember, this is the worst part ever in character creation.

Since the beggining of PF1 beta (actually, since D&D 3.0), as a GM I always had to create "basic kits" that cost a predefined amout of gp, with a predefined weight, with "all the basic, needy items to survive" to my players buy and "just write down" in their sheets. Otherwise, the character sheets always resulted with a big blank, empty items section.

I personally prefer keeping it martial and not versatile because that lets more types of characters (and Amiri) use it. But if enough playtesters want it to be versatile for both damage types, we can certainly do that and make it exotic; Amiri could get away with having a greatsword if necessary anyway, since she rarely one-hands her weapon.

Please please please keep it martial but slashing (rather than piercing) !

An impassioned plea based purely on bastard swords being my favourite weapon* during decades of live roleplay

* they are also good for retrieving lost D20s from under the sideboard it turns out*

Since you guys seemed amenable to fixing Stealth, any chances Intimidation could get a second look?

Intimidating Glare should not be a feat. It should be a part of the core skill. I get you want languages to be more important but Intimidating Glare being a feat stifles roleplaying. I don't have to speak Goblin in order to scare a few of them witless.

Intimidating Prowess should only require Trained intimidation instead of Expert. It's impossible to actually get at level 2 because you can't get Expert skills until level 3.

Barbarian-specific: Raging Intimidation shouldn't exist either. Demoralize should just gain the rage trait by default, as part of the Rage rules the same way Seek does. As a replacement feat, Raging Intimidation v2 could let Intimidate key off of STR (str-1 because Intimidating prowess exists? or maybe just let it be the "Finesse Striker" of barbarian? Or simple solution I guess: forbid it from comboing with Prowess. idk, try all 3?) while raging, and give Scare To Death for free when its requirements are met. Class feats should do more than give you a couple discounted skill feats.

Frightened should affect attack bonuses to half the amount rounded up (fear 1 or 2 = -1 atk). Otherwise it's only useful if you have a spellcaster in the party, which isn't always a given.

I'm annoyed at intimidate for the same reason everyone else was annoyed at stealth: It seems unnecessarily restricted and unrealistic. The best character for intimidate actually seems to be a sorcerer (high cha+immediately follow up with a SoS spell)... And I'm not even a barbarian main, I'm more of a wizard guy myself. I feel bad for my muscle buddies. :3

----------

On the topic of character creation, there should be an example of how a fully bulked out character works in the equipment section. People are misinterpreting how backpacks and light bulk work (I'm not one of them but I can see how it happens). The ideal example character would be almost encumbered.

Adventurer's kits for each class should be in core too, instead of having to wait for "ultimate equipment 2". It makes creating a character so much easier and so much faster it's not even funny. It'd also help PF2 be more newbie-friendly, which seems like a major design goal.

----------

Re: Weapon traits. Weapon traits are one of the best things about PF2. But yes, Bastard Swords being slashing-only crushes my immersion (or does it slash it?). The volley trait bothers me as well, I'm in the "remove Volley and give shortbows Agile to keep them competitive" camp, but then I realize that Shurikens are the "Agile ranged weapon". Maybe just shorten Volley to something reasonable, like 30-35 feet so archers can at least sit on the same battlemat? I feel like we can find a balance between "realism", "balance" and "fun". :)

Erik Mona wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Nice to hear that!

If possible, also keep in mind that the gear selection is hard to new players and boring/annoying to experienced players (beyond armor and weapons, everything is boring to have to choose). Since I can remember, this is the worst part ever in character creation.

Since the beggining of PF1 beta (actually, since D&D 3.0), as a GM I always had to create "basic kits" that cost a predefined amout of gp, with a predefined weight, with "all the basic, needy items to survive" to my players buy and "just write down" in their sheets. Otherwise, the character sheets always resulted with a big blank, empty items section.

Yes!!! x1000.

Tangent101 wrote:

they were trying to choose the Skill Choices, not the Skills themselves.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you give an example, please?

Choosing "Tumble Through" instead of "Acrobatics" for a Skill.

Is there a way to submit commentary about vauge sections of the book - like the section on Perception in exploration under PP 331(PDF)?

It cites two examples, but then does the party have to make ONE or TWO
perception checks at the DC to get info about a hazard or secret door.

I can see maybe a check to notice something is out of place, and then a check at a lower DC to get details?

The alchemist erratum isn't doing what we had hoped (we were trying to clarify that you definitely do get 8, since people weren't sure between 4 and 8). This will be reflected in the next errata update!

"We apologize for the fault in the rulebook. Those responsible for sacking those who have been sacked have just been sacked."

Incidentally, clarification on how Advanced Alchemy works (the pre-gen Alchemist confirmed for me that you CAN use it multiple times at the start of the day!) would be nice, as would the Alchemist's Tools requirement for using Quick Alchemy, as the aforementioned Level 1 pre-gen character simply doesn't have them. At all. And the Level 5 version has it stowed, which would defeat the purpose of requiring it for Quick Alchemy.

If the issue is leaving a niche for the great sword, why not just give Bastard Swords versatile but drop the damage die for 2 hands to 1d10?

On Intimidation: I haven't formed a strong opinion yet on all the stuff Wowie brought up, though I do kind of agree Barbarians shouldn't need a feat to use it. HOWEVER, I will point out Demoralize is waaaay stronger this edition. It plays so much better with the new action economy than the old one, and a critical success makes them flee without any feat or archetype investment. Like most mind affecting stuff, it does need some limitations on who it works on to prevent it from dominating.

But on a related note, I think the Intimidating Strike feat has a typo. I am pretty sure the last sentence is supposed to read "The target is frightened 1 and becomes flat-footed until the end of your next turn." But that "next" got left out, and debuffing an enemy until the end of your current turn seems rather hard to make use of, especially when you used up two of your actions doing it.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Joe M. wrote:

Erik Mona wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

Oh, that's great to hear. I had a first session this week with three players who have just a little PF1 experience, they all found the presentation of character creation to be confusing. (And without the context of having read months of preview blogs I probably would have been kinda lost too!)

Yeah... I walked people through the character creation process, and I found it really straightforward. But I devoured every bit of preview I could get my hands on so I very nearly didn't need to read the rules.

I feel like you, DMW, and a few others could have probably built a (limited to previewed choices) 1st-level character without having the book yet.

I'll admit I kind of skipped reading most of the character creation chapter, haha. I *think* I had most of the basics down before Jason's twitch stream, in fact. It helps that the new ability score generation was one of the most exciting things about the new game for me.

Shady Stranger wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

I guess lowering the Two-handed damage to d10 could be an option, as well? And perhaps add another trait to the Longsword to make it an attractive choice to avoid picking the Bastard Sword over it, all the time. Agile, maybe? Though, I guess Agile wouldn't make very much sense on a Longsword, hmm...

Yeah, longsword is doing fine overall with what it has. We don't want to unbalance it compared to the other one-handed weapons. The answer has to come from the bastard sword itself.

As others have suggested, I also think d8 Slashing (two-hand d10) might fix the problem. Or maybe it needs still another weapon trait? I don't think it needs to be versatile, but IMO it's definitely a slashing weapon.

EDIT: All in all you guys have done absolutely fantastic work on weapons; they've never been this exciting to use in D&D, and finally the damage is about "right" (i.e. a single damage die for all weapons). I'd definitely want to play a heavy pick wielder now! :)

Monk's Flurry of Blows as first action of the round. 2 attacks at full bonus or one attack at full bonus then one attack at base -5?

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

I guess lowering the Two-handed damage to d10 could be an option, as well? And perhaps add another trait to the Longsword to make it an attractive choice to avoid picking the Bastard Sword over it, all the time. Agile, maybe? Though, I guess Agile wouldn't make very much sense on a Longsword, hmm...

Yeah, longsword is doing fine overall with what it has. We don't want to unbalance it compared to the other one-handed weapons. The answer has to come from the bastard sword itself.

As others have suggested, I also think d8 Slashing (two-hand d10) might fix the problem. Or maybe it needs still another weapon trait? I don't think it needs to be versatile, but IMO it's definitely a slashing weapon.

EDIT: All in all you guys have done absolutely fantastic work on weapons; they've never been this exciting to use in D&D, and finally the damage is about "right" (i.e. a single damage die for all weapons). I'd definitely want to play a heavy pick wielder now! :)

If we wanted to use a lower damage die, it would need to be d6 (two-hand d10) or it's still strictly better than longswords, as others discerned earlier in the thread. I would also not like to have it down that low because it makes the bastard sword significantly worse than other martial weapons if you don't heavily leverage the handedness swap. If it just loses versatile and the one-hand and two-hand damage are equal to the longsword and the greatsword respectively, the ability to switch handedness can really shine; other than the versatile not being around, it's basically a longsword or a greatsword, whichever you need right now, rather than a lower-damage version.

On Intimidation: I haven't formed a strong opinion yet on all the stuff Wowie brought up, though I do kind of agree Barbarians shouldn't need a feat to use it. HOWEVER, I will point out Demoralize is waaaay stronger this edition. It plays so much better with the new action economy than the old one, and a critical success makes them flee without any feat or archetype investment. Like most mind affecting stuff, it does need some limitations on who it works on to prevent it from dominating.

Huh, point taken. I suppose I'll have to play a barb myself and see how well it works out. At minimum, Demoralize should be natively part of the Rage actions, that part just seems silly.

Captain Morgan wrote:

On Intimidation: I haven't formed a strong opinion yet on all the stuff Wowie brought up, though I do kind of agree Barbarians shouldn't need a feat to use it. HOWEVER, I will point out Demoralize is waaaay stronger this edition. It plays so much better with the new action economy than the old one, and a critical success makes them flee without any feat or archetype investment. Like most mind affecting stuff, it does need some limitations on who it works on to prevent it from dominating.

Huh, point taken. I suppose I'll have to play a barb myself and see how well it works out. At minimum, Demoralize should be natively part of the Rage actions, that part just seems silly.

My gut agrees with you on that point. But I'll also point out this bumps up against this issue of how scaring people works in this game. It honestly feels a little weird to say you are scarier when you stop and taunt people than when you just continue to relentlessly attack with devastating effect. Which means you really need to be leveraging your charisma when you use the Demoralize action, which does admittedly seem hard to do while you are raging.

What I'm saying is if you think too hard about it you will either wind up finding a justification or scratching your head at how intimidating works in the first place.

If the issue is leaving a niche for the great sword, why not just give Bastard Swords versatile but drop the damage die for 2 hands to 1d10?

This seems to be the best option to me. Not just for preserving the greatsword's niche, but also because it doesn't make any sense that the compromise weapon is just as good as the weapons it's a compromise of. It's just as good one handed as a longsword and just as good two handed as a greatsword, so why bother with either of the others? Higher price seems to be all. Of course this does still leave the concern that it might replace the longsword. And dropping it's one handed damage down to 1d6 doesn't make sense, it's bigger and longer than a longsword. And versatile really does fit, they were used for both thrusts and cuts quite a bit. Taking it out on a cut and thrust weapon simply for balance seems wrongheaded.

How about a new trait? Maybe something like Awkward: While using this weapon one handed, your attack penalty for the second attack is -6 while for the third and later attacks it's -12. Like a reverse agile, but only applies on one handed attacks. This might be too much of a nerf though.

So this would make bastard sword 1d8 S, Two-Hand D10, Versatile P, Awkward.

Wait, Greatswords are slashing and versatile piercing? I always imagined they'd be more along the lines of dealing slashing AND bludgeoning at the same time. Have you seen the size of the swords that anime and video game characters wield? Those things won't just cut you, but break your bones as well.

That should be the niche of Greatswords, combining slashing and bludgeoning with massive damage.

Asgetrion wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

So, the bastard sword is still piercing damage only?

I was positivly sure that was an honest mistake, now it seems just like another one of the weird design choices

The 5th level Barbarian pregen indicates Bastard Swords are actually Slashing, with Versatile P and Two-Hand d12.

So is the Bastard Sword just straight up better than the Greasword then, since you can one-hand the Bastard Sword, as well?

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

I guess lowering the Two-handed damage to d10 could be an option, as well? And perhaps add another trait to the Longsword to make it an attractive choice to avoid picking the Bastard Sword over it, all the time. Agile, maybe? Though, I guess Agile wouldn't make very much sense on a Longsword, hmm...

Yeah, longsword is doing fine overall with what it has. We don't want to unbalance it compared to the other one-handed weapons. The answer has to come from the bastard sword itself.

As others have suggested, I also think d8 Slashing (two-hand d10) might fix the problem. Or maybe it needs still another weapon trait? I don't think it needs to be versatile, but IMO it's definitely a slashing weapon.

EDIT: All in all you guys have done absolutely fantastic work on weapons; they've never been this exciting to use in D&D, and finally the damage is about "right" (i.e. a single damage die for all weapons). I'd definitely want to play a heavy pick wielder now! :)

If we wanted to use a...

If we're trying to be realistic then a bastard sword should probably be slightly worse when wielded in one hand than an arming sword (aka a PF/fantasy novel longsword).

I don't know if the system has enough options that make use of one vs 2 hands to model it well, but the big advantage of a bastard sword is indeed the versatility of switching back and forth between the different grips.

Do the rules exist so we could make bastard swords slashing if wielded in one hand, and versatile P if two-handed?

At least, that's my mental image of how one fights one-handed with a sword which is larger than an arming sword.

That is the plan starting with Part 2

What about those who still need to run Part 1? Should we incorporate the errata and just make sure to put a note on the surveys?

Just to clarify, at what point should we bring up details related to flavor over function? For example, I think that Pharasma, as the impartial judge of the dead, should have no issues with her clerics channeling negative energy. Should I wait to voice this and similar concerns until after the playtest is over, or should I bring such ideas up immediately?

And before I get flooded with comments disagreeing with my views on Pharasma, I base this idea on what negative energy *is* according to 1e lore. It isn't inherently connected to creating abominations that walk the line between life and death, so Pharasma shouldn't object to it.

Sorry to submit multiple posts, but I would also like to express something that I've seen addressed multiple times. I would like for the "background" portion of character creation to be more flexible. My recommendation, which of course may be problematic in a way that I have failed to realize, is to make it explicitly legal to design your own background. Give a list of lore feats and direction on how to create one's background, and let players go wild. Something like "Additionally, you can create your own background that differs from the examples given. Simply select two ability boosts, a bonus skill feat, and a lore skill." I think this would help alleviate some concerns that 2e is removing roleplaying options in a way that mimics the most recent edition of the major competing tabletop RPG (censored for copyright reasons).

+++++ ^This. I'd love a background with Multilingual so I don't have to sacrifice character stats to start with my extra fluff languages, but there isn't one. In the end only having a preselected set of backgrounds is a straitjacket. At least include a sidebar for home games. :)

Loving the Playtest. We're recording it all and will be updating our podcast from next week with everything, even when we're being dim. Session Zero and character creation was good fun. Can't wait for it all to kick off next week.

Going back to my last post on the Bastard Sword:

I do think that 1d6/1d10 damage would be a good way to model it in PF while leaving the Longsword and Greatsword their higher die to represent their being specialized for being used one or two handed.

Thankfully the format of backgrounds is pretty simple, so it's easy to make your own, or for Paizo to make more later. The only real issue is for GMs to accept them. PFS is certainly more restrictive than home games here.

I'd kind of like some way to make them more distinctive and impactful than just a selection of stat boosts, a lore and a skill feet. I'm just not sure how to do that.

I'd kind of like some way to make them more distinctive and impactful than just a selection of stat boosts, a lore and a skill feet. I'm just not sure how to do that

I think about something like themes from Starfinder with level advancement and stuff, but it kinda doesn't fit in the past concept. Background is something that you used to do, but now you are adventurer. Why would your farmer skills suddenly become better?

Amiri could get away with having a greatsword if necessary anyway, since she rarely one-hands her weapon.

From my experience at GenCon, the only time Amiri was one-handing her weapon was when she was taking advantage of her one-handed climbing ability. I'm pretty sure I forgot that changing grip (adding a hand) cost an action, though.

Just to clarify, at what point should we bring up details related to flavor over function? For example, I think that Pharasma, as the impartial judge of the dead, should have no issues with her clerics channeling negative energy. Should I wait to voice this and similar concerns until after the playtest is over, or should I bring such ideas up immediately?

And before I get flooded with comments disagreeing with my views on Pharasma, I base this idea on what negative energy *is* according to 1e lore. It isn't inherently connected to creating abominations that walk the line between life and death, so Pharasma shouldn't object to it.

What negative energy *is* is a method to hurt the living or heal the undead. Neither of these meet Pharasma’s spheres of interest.

Tangent101 wrote:

Jason - small note. The character creation process can be confusing.

I think it's fair to count on a completely revised character creation process based on external and internal playtesting. Not that the RULES will change a ton (though some of them probably will), but the PRESENTATION leaves lots of room for improvement and will be a significant part of the revision process that takes place over the next several months.

It would be great if you made one or more short videos (real people, animated, or anything) that walks you through it. I have to admit it was pretty cumbersome to understand in spots, and I am still not really sure what I am supposed to write in some of the fields. It isn't as bad as going from 2nd ed. to 3rd though, so there is at least that... :)

Cantriped wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

It's supposed to have only one damage type (though seems to me probably would be slashing, would need to check notes further) to prevent it from being slightly but strictly superior to the longsword and greatsword. We could also give it versatile and make it exotic; being a bit more versatile than a martial weapon with its traits but not more damaging is kind of exactly exotic's wheelhouse.

Please do check!

The 1st level pregen Barbarian's Bastard Sword lists them as Slashing weapons with Two-hand d12 (so as the rulebook but slashing instead of piercing).

I would not make it any harder for Amiri to justify her already very niche weapon choice; you've already had to build an entire totem just around ensuring she could be updated to the new edition. Don't make her suffer proficiency issues all career too!

I personally prefer keeping it martial and not versatile because that lets more types of characters (and Amiri) use it. But if enough playtesters want it to be versatile for both damage types, we can certainly do that and make it exotic; Amiri could get away with having a greatsword if necessary anyway, since she rarely one-hands her weapon.

you could also give the great sword reach, which it does have mechanically in the real world.

To tell the truth, I'm disappointed with the errata. There has been numerous issues reported from day 1 that aren't even mentioned in it, what's in it is the very obvious stuff (and not even all of that) that most people I know were already running with already.

In short, I expected more.

To tell the truth, I'm disappointed with the errata. There has been numerous issues reported from day 1 that aren't even mentioned in it, what's in it is the very obvious stuff (and not even all of that) that most people I know were already running with already.

In short, I expected more.

Then I guess you exptected too much?

Anywho, I'm sure more will be done in the future.

shroudb wrote:

To tell the truth, I'm disappointed with the errata. There has been numerous issues reported from day 1 that aren't even mentioned in it, what's in it is the very obvious stuff (and not even all of that) that most people I know were already running with already.

In short, I expected more.

Then I guess you exptected too much?

Anywho, I'm sure more will be done in the future.

Maybe. For both of your sentences.

It's just that the speed seems very slow to me if they want to polish pf2 in 6 months.

Request for the Devs:

Our group is very divided on the interpretation of the Shield Block and Dent rules. Can you give me a couple more examples of what is the bare minimums to get 1 dent or 2 dents and what happens to damage that exceeds the 2 Dent requirement?

Is there a concise list of what the changes are? I’m on mobile at the moment.

Put another one down for clarification on shield block rules. Does the shield reduce the damage to itself as well or does it take the full damage?