Your First Adventure

On the topic of longswords/greatswords vs the Bastard Sword, I'd be fine keeping the bastard sword at d8/d12, and giving is slashing, versatile (P) as well. The reason for this is simple. The Rakshasa. What does the Rakshasa have to do with this? Well, it's the only creature in the playtest bestiary for which it is better to use piercing than slashing (for comparison there are 8 creatures where slashing is better, and most they're equivalent). To me, that means it's not that the Bastard sword would become the equivalent of both a longsword and a greatsword with no downside, but that there's hardly any upside to choosing a longsword or a greatsword over a Battleaxe or Greataxe, since I expect Sweep to be more commonly in play than fighting Rakshasas. So what I'm seeing is that the problem is that Versatile (P) doesn't do enough, meaning the longsword and greatsword need something else going for them.

I have not yet had a chance to look through the rules updates, but there were a couple of things that I had to get off my chest after playing Doomsday Dawn last night.

The flow of combat was okay, most of the delays were due to not being as familiar with the rules as we are with 1e. Where it really slogged down was searching rooms. The GM had too much to keep track of for all the secret rolls, and ended up having us make the rolls ourselves to speed the process up. On top of that, there was no way to signify that we were taking extra time to check the locations, as there is no more Take 20 rule to cover that situation. So we were left with rolling dice until we got tired of that, then moving on to the next bit of dice rolling, repeat until we got to a combat. It felt very much like we were being penalized for trying to be thorough.

Also, I have a bit of an issue with locks. I played a rogue, and I felt like I could not use my abilities effectively. I like the new mechanic of locks, where you need to get multiple successes to unlock, but I feel like if you need multiple successes then the DCs of each individual success should be lower. I was trained in Thievery, had an 18 in Dexterity, and I rolled a 16 for a final score of 21. In 1e, I would have opened a standard quality lock (DC 20); in 2e, I failed. After the adventure, peeking behind the curtain a little bit, I had a 20% chance to open the lock, a 45% chance of nothing happening, and a 35% chance of critically failing which would break my tools, and no possibility of critically succeeding. This seems unduly difficult. I wouldn't suggest that I should be able to open every lock right away, but if there are multiple successes needed and a risk to the tools that I need, then I feel a lower threshold of success would be warranted. I don't think it would be unreasonable to have the percentages reversed. Doing so would make unlocking the door more attainable for a first level character.

All in all there was fun had by the group, but we all felt that there was too much bogging the game down to be able to get into the game properly. The GM had too much to worry about with all the secret rolls he had to do, the players had no way to speed up exploration without forgoing exploration, and as a rogue I felt less useful than I could have been. I hope that the rules updates, both current and in the future, can address some of my concerns.

i believe this sort of turnaround on a published ruleset is unprecedented and am highly encouraged by Jason and other Paizo people's reactions to the customers' concerns and criticisms.

I had my doubts going in about the new system, but the reaction to issues by Paizo has been swift and it's my belief PF2 will be a product that most are happy with.

I hope the people working on the new edition realize there are a lot of naysayers and doomsayers on the boards who like to say they're done with Paizo, blah, blah but that there a more who are willing to seriously playtest the new edition to make it a great edition.

For those who have a complain, play the game before saying anything about it. You really have no right to criticize or complain unless you've kept up on all the changes being implemented and read. Do your own due diligence before commenting critically; Paizo has been doing a weekly twitch stream which is archived...watch that. Read the blogs; read what others are concerned with.

Also, please just stop comparing it to 1E. If you like 1E (i still do) then stay with it. There's no reason to dump on 2E if you don't like it. Nobody is making you buy it. 2E is a new system.

I work in the world of politics, and I always say if you don't vote, you're removing your right to voice your opinion. Stay informed, try out the game and the rules, and do your best to come at this critically.

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.

Can you tell me where you found the 5th level pregens? I've been looking everywhere for them?

In the downloads section of the playtest page. They were released right after this blog.

Here is a suggestion for the Secret Rolls for overworked GMs:

Have the Player roll and record 20 rolls of 1d20 and write it on a piece of paper with their name on it. The GM keeps the piece of paper and when it comes to a Secret Roll they check on the roll (they can also write the Perception stat on the paper and any other stats that might be important for a Secret Roll).

The player thus made the rolls, the GM only has to look something up quickly and can cross it off afterward, and minimal time is taken.

I am quite happy that the Bard gets another starting spell. One plus + one from choice of muse seemed lacking when compared to the Sorcerer.

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

For a melee touch attack, yes.

I misread your question, sorry. No, you don't add the casting stat to touch attacks. It would be proficiency + Str/Dex only, using your proficiency in spellcasting rather than your proficiency in unarmed attacks.

Very excited to see some errata coming out already! The stealth changes are especially appreciated, it makes much more sense this way.

Can you link the errata?

spectrevk wrote:

Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

For a melee touch attack, yes.

And I keep harping on this because they're easy to miss, you can get item bonuses from Spell Duelist Gloves (melee touch) and Spell Duelist Wands (ranged touch).

spectrevk wrote:

Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

For a melee touch attack, yes.

I misread your question, sorry. No, you don't add the casting stat to touch attacks. It would be proficiency + Str/Dex only, using your proficiency in spellcasting rather than your proficiency in unarmed attacks.

I thought the casting stat was added to all spell rolls, and spell attacks use your spell roll.

Thebazilly wrote:

spectrevk wrote:

Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

For a melee touch attack, yes.

I misread your question, sorry. No, you don't add the casting stat to touch attacks. It would be proficiency + Str/Dex only, using your proficiency in spellcasting rather than your proficiency in unarmed attacks.

I thought the casting stat was added to all spell rolls, and spell attacks use your spell roll.

Spell attacks are an attack roll, not a spell roll.

Some spells require you to succeed at an attack roll to affect the target. This is usually because they require you to touch your target, precisely aim a ray, or otherwise make an accurate attack. Any attack you make is part of the spell’s Somatic Casting action.

Usually, such spells require a melee touch attack or a ranged touch attack. In both cases, make an attack roll and compare the result to the target’s TAC. Your proficiency modifier for a spell’s attack roll is the same as your proficiency modifier with spell rolls. Spell attacks are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell. You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and melee touch attacks have the finesse trait (see page 182). On a successful attack, your spell affects the target, and on a failure the spell is lost unless otherwise noted. Spells with a range of “touch” always require a melee touch attack when used against an unwilling target, but not when used on a willing or unconscious target.
Some spells require a normal melee attack or ranged attack instead of a touch attack. These work as described above, but they target AC instead of TAC.

The sentence "Your proficiency modifier for a spell’s attack roll is the same as your proficiency modifier with spell rolls." implies that a spell attack roll and a spell roll are different things.

My interpretation is that ranged spell touches now use (dex) + (spell prof), with melee touches using (dex or str) + (spell prof). But who knows, maybe I'm wrong too.

Then what are spell rolls for? I've yet to see any other situation where the caster has to roll a check to cast a spell. Is this literally just for overcoming spell resistance?

Thebazilly wrote:

spectrevk wrote:

Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

For a melee touch attack, yes.

I misread your question, sorry. No, you don't add the casting stat to touch attacks. It would be proficiency + Str/Dex only, using your proficiency in spellcasting rather than your proficiency in unarmed attacks.

I thought the casting stat was added to all spell rolls, and spell attacks use your spell roll.

A _spell_ MAKING an attack (Spiritual Weapon, Black Tentacles) makes a Spell Roll based on your casting attribute. A _spellcaster_ ATTACKING WITH a spell (Disintegrate, Shocking Grasp) makes an attack roll based on the appropriate attribute (dex or str for melee, dex for ranged). In both cases you use your spellcasting proficiency (expert at 12, master at 16, etc.) as a modifier.

spectrevk wrote:

Thebazilly wrote:

spectrevk wrote:

Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

For a melee touch attack, yes.

I misread your question, sorry. No, you don't add the casting stat to touch attacks. It would be proficiency + Str/Dex only, using your proficiency in spellcasting rather than your proficiency in unarmed attacks.

I thought the casting stat was added to all spell rolls, and spell attacks use your spell roll.

A spell MAKING an attack (Spiritual Weapon, Black Tentacles) makes a Spell Roll based on your casting attribute. An attack WITH a spell (Disintegrate, Shocking Grasp) makes an attack roll based on the appropriate attribute (dex or str for melee, dex for ranged).

Correct. Spell rolls are also used sometimes for Dispelling or Countering.

Why was it CRITICAL to change Druids from having 4 skills to 3? Casters are already at a disadvantage in this iteration.

Why was it CRITICAL to change Druids from having 4 skills to 3? Casters are already at a disadvantage in this iteration.

They still get more skills than the fighter, since they're trained in whatever their order's signature skill is, and they get equal free skill choices as the fighter. And they also get, you know, spells. Sorry if I'm not weeping for casters in this edition.

Can we please get a clarification on how much damage a deadly weapon deals on a crit?

The question, that came up, was wether the additional damage replaces the normal additonal damage on a crit or if it is in additon.

Can we please get a clarification on how much damage a deadly weapon deals on a crit?

** spoiler omitted **

The question, that came up, was wether the additional damage replaces the normal additonal damage on a crit or if it is in additon.

YingYanck: The “deadly” die is *in addition* to double the normal damage.

So Mersiel’s “rapier +5 (1d6+4 piercing); deadly 1d8, disarm, finesse” would deal 2d6+8+1d8 on a successful crit.

Master or Legendary weapons would be 2d6+8+2d8 or 2d6+8+3d8, respectively. (All else being equal.)

The quoted text seems to have a typo.

I would like to make a suggestion. The Tag "Multiclass" should really become something else. Because even when you read the tag, it sounds like You now have multiple classes. I.e. if I take the Fighter's dedication feat I am now a multiclass of (base)+fighter. And, if I have the prereqs I could take a class feat from any of them. (and the fighter's dedication feat that nets you class feat of 1/2 is there to because of the dedication 3 feat restriction before another dedication).
i.e. i could take a generic fighters feat, like the shield ones, once i was of level. Or with rogue, i could take scouts weapon later on. Just none of them counted as dedication feats--meaning you lost the benefits associated with going further down the lines (such as the extra HP via the fighters one)

because I'm rather certain you aren't meant to..
Though I honestly think that would be rather amazing if you could and make for really fluid and terribly interseting builds.

but I know more than 6 people who have read it and thought they counted as that other class as well. and that the balance point, was there were plenty of feats that you could not take because you didn't have a base skill. (like how Twist the Knife wouldn't work because you never get more than 1 dice of sneak attack. or how you could never take debilitating strike. brutal finish because almost no one outside fighter gets master weapons and such.)
So it might be worth changing the word, or taking out that tag entirely.

It would be easy to take it out, and then include a line under Dedication explaination that states "you can not take the dedication feat of the same name as your class" which would solve and function the same.. and allow you to cut out a lot of words.

Well. i'm sure ya'll have more plans down the line for the tag though. but I would consider altering it, or adding a line about the fact you don't count as another class.
(cause class feats, and most classes, only require you be of that class in order to take them)

I would like to make a suggestion. The Tag "Multiclass" should really become something else. Because even when you read the tag, it sounds like You now have multiple classes.

Really? I hadn't read it that way. None of the Multiclass Archetype Dedications say anything about you gaining the "Fighter" or "Cleric" traits (which are needed to meet the prerequisites for Fighter and Cleric class feats). That is they include archetype feats to convert your class's feats into the multiclass's feats. Needing to be twice the level for multiclass feats is a balancing measure.

Makes sense. but I've seen it come up a few times.
It was mostly folks who are new to systems in general. so they probably are more used to the actual meaning of the world "multiclass" like in games, than the tags in this one.

In general this playtest has a lot of like terms or terms that have common meanings that don't have that meaning in the system.
Sort of like how the variety of different feat types caused some annoyance with older players or some confusion with other folks during the previews.

If we're trying to cut off issues now, I think it is agood idea to point out werid hiccups like that. A lot of people who playtest are folks who have played tons of other RPs. but for new people, or people who are mostly video gamers? There are terms that confuse.

I'm kind of surprised it hasn't come up, but what about non-rogues getting dex to damage? I do think rogues should get it for free whereas all others have to pay for it, but I noticed Agile is no longer a weapon property and multiclassing rogue can't grab it. Considering how important Bulk is, and the fact that even a dex-based character can't abuse point buy and race to dump strength to like 5, I'm not sure allowing dex to damage would break the game. Any thoughts on introducing it in the final version, or maybe at some point in the future?

I'm kind of surprised it hasn't come up, but what about non-rogues getting dex to damage? I do think rogues should get it for free whereas all others have to pay for it, but I noticed Agile is no longer a weapon property and multiclassing rogue can't grab it. Considering how important Bulk is, and the fact that even a dex-based character can't abuse point buy and race to dump strength to like 5, I'm not sure allowing dex to damage would break the game. Any thoughts on introducing it in the final version, or maybe at some point in the future?

I know that dex to damage can be a bit contentious. Basically it kind of makes Dex the One True Stat. Use it to hit with a finesse or ranged weapon, use it for damage with dex to damage, use it for AC, for Reflex Saves and for acrobatics, stealth and thievery skills. So you can just ignore Strength. Strength on the other hand is only used for attack for melee weapons, damage, carrying capacity and the athletics skill. Dex is already more versatile, dex to damage makes strength almost a non-issue for dex builds.

Although your stat bonuses to damage really don't seem to matter as much as they do in PF1. So it might not be a big deal to add it as a feat.

I know that dex to damage can be a bit contentious.

Yeah, I know all of the reasons why people are hesitant about it, but at least in PF1 the number of hoops you had to jump through made it a non-issue (unless you were talking mythic, but mythic was busted out the gates anyway).

Really. No character in any of my games ever took dex to damage and proceeded to break the game with it. They were actually frequently underwhelming. When I learned finesse was a weapon trait in PF2, I was excited. Then I downloaded the book and found 0 ways to add dex to that without being a rogue. With traditional multiclassing out the window, there's no way to do it.

Although your stat bonuses to damage really don't seem to matter as much as they do in PF1. So it might not be a big deal to add it as a feat.

And yeah, reasons to oppose it in PF2 are even less than in PF1, and not everyone wants to play a rogue to play a dex fighter. More to the point, with magic weapons multiplying damage dice, the larger dice on strength weapons matter a lot more than the dice difference did in PF1 (which was essentially flat damage plus some dice for most late game characters). I'm not saying to do dex to damage for ranged options, by the way, that does start to get a little crazy, think the 1/2 stat is a possibly good balance point (it might threaten to be underwhelming at higher levels, but that remains to be seen by playtesting (I'm running two groups through, first one starts this Sunday, I'll be posting notes).

spectrevk wrote:

Thebazilly wrote:

spectrevk wrote:

Quote:

Page 197—In the Spells chapter, in the Spell Attacks section,

paizo.com, Spectre VK <jcadle@gmail.com>, Aug 14, 2018
in the second paragraph, at the beginning of the fifth sentence, add “You add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to these attacks as normal, and”

Does this mean that a spell attack is now (proficiency) + (casting stat) + (dex or str)?

For a melee touch attack, yes.

I misread your question, sorry. No, you don't add the casting stat to touch attacks. It would be proficiency + Str/Dex only, using your proficiency in spellcasting rather than your proficiency in unarmed attacks.

I thought the casting stat was added to all spell rolls, and spell attacks use your spell roll.

A _spell_ MAKING an attack (Spiritual Weapon, Black Tentacles) makes a Spell Roll based on your casting attribute. A _spellcaster_ ATTACKING WITH a spell (Disintegrate, Shocking Grasp) makes an attack roll based on the appropriate attribute (dex or str for melee, dex for ranged). In both cases you use your spellcasting proficiency (expert at 12, master at 16, etc.) as a modifier.

I gotta say, that feels needlessly complex. Attacking with a spell and making a spell attack feel like they should be the same thing, but I guess not?

I'm kind of surprised it hasn't come up, but what about non-rogues getting dex to damage?

I've been thoroughly convinced by the "Dex One True Stat" argument. (I'm already increasingly afraid of INT becoming irrelevant for non-wizards, but that's off topic.) But this seems like the perfect thing to test. What if during one of these weekly updates there was a change to give Fighter/Ranger a dex-to-damage feat, and then 2 weeks later change it back, with it explicitly noted that it was an experimental change and you didn't have to use it in your games? I feel like not having an "Experimental" branch in the update sheets is a missed opportunity. But on the other hand they have every reason not to since multiple versions of the same game would dilute their playtest feedback. It's tough to say.

(I'm already increasingly afraid of INT becoming irrelevant for non-wizards, but that's off topic.)

Actually kind of relevant. The bird flew the coop a while ago. A spellcaster okay with not using spells with attack rolls could always kind of drop anything but their casting stat, and the fact that many attack roll spells are touch-based means that any boosts to other stats were entirely optional to the point where it was like "I just got a 90k payday... I guess I could slap a dex +2 onto my +4 con belt..."

Single Attribute Dependent (SAD) vs Multiple Attribute Dependent (MAD) (forgive me if you're already familiar with the terms) has always been a subject of debate. Part of why spellcasters are so dreadfully powerful is because they could do the former, and martials were often shackled with the latter, and any move toward reducing the number of attributes they needed to be successful was a good step up for them. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "Okay, a dex fighter needs dex and con" when a wizard gets away with "just int and maybe con." At that point you've got a primary stat, a secondary stat, and further stat boosts to terts is basically gravy. Nice to have, yeah (and I do appreciate that PF2 is so generous with stat boosts), but hardly necessary.

But this seems like the perfect thing to test. What if during one of these weekly updates there was a change to give Fighter/Ranger a dex-to-damage feat, and then 2 weeks later change it back, with it explicitly noted that it was an experimental change and you didn't have to use it in your games? I feel like not having an "Experimental" branch in the update sheets is a missed opportunity. But on the other hand they have every reason not to since multiple versions of the same game would dilute their playtest feedback. It's tough to say.

That said, I do like the sound of this. You could maybe ask in the open survey about whether experimental rules were used, and if so which ones, and how did they feel.

Wowie wrote:

(I'm already increasingly afraid of INT becoming irrelevant for non-wizards, but that's off topic.)

Actually kind of relevant. The bird flew the coop a while ago. A spellcaster okay with not using spells with attack rolls could always kind of drop anything but their casting stat, and the fact that many attack roll spells are touch-based means that any boosts to other stats were entirely optional to the point where it was like "I just got a 90k payday... I guess I could slap a dex +2 onto my +4 con belt..."

Single Attribute Dependent (SAD) vs Multiple Attribute Dependent (MAD) (forgive me if you're already familiar with the terms) has always been a subject of debate. Part of why spellcasters are so dreadfully powerful is because they could do the former, and martials were often shackled with the latter, and any move toward reducing the number of attributes they needed to be successful was a good step up for them. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "Okay, a dex fighter needs dex and con" when a wizard gets away with "just int and maybe con." At that point you've got a primary stat, a secondary stat, and further stat boosts to terts is basically gravy. Nice to have, yeah (and I do appreciate that PF2 is so generous with stat boosts), but hardly necessary.

Wowie wrote:

But this seems like the perfect thing to test. What if during one of these weekly updates there was a change to give Fighter/Ranger a dex-to-damage feat, and then 2 weeks later change it back, with it explicitly noted that it was an experimental change and you didn't have to use it in your games? I feel like not having an "Experimental" branch in the update sheets is a missed opportunity. But on the other hand they have every reason not to since multiple versions of the same game would dilute their playtest feedback. It's tough to say.

That said, I do like the sound of this. You could maybe ask in the open survey about whether experimental rules were used, and if so which ones, and how...

I recall seeing one game try to fix this by tying the ability used for DC, etc. to the school of the spell being cast. Worked ok for the most part, and was a neat idea.

I know that dex to damage can be a bit contentious. Basically it kind of makes Dex the One True Stat. Use it to hit with a finesse or ranged weapon, use it for damage with dex to damage, use it for AC, for Reflex Saves and for acrobatics, stealth and thievery skills. So you can just ignore Strength. Strength on the other hand is only used for attack for melee weapons, damage, carrying capacity and the athletics skill. Dex is already more versatile, dex to damage makes strength almost a non-issue for dex builds.

If that was the concern, then why give it to the rogue for free? It lets them dump STR without any repurcussions in a way no other martial can. (And they're arguably the ones that need it least, because they're supposed to be using sneak attack to keep their damage competitive.)

I would be okay with not having options for Dex-to-damage; I would be sad for the Dex fighters and rangers, but I would understand why they would not want to let you ignore the consequences of dumping a stat. I would also be okay with it being available to anyone (or at least appropriate classes) as a feat, because I figure there should be a cost for dumping STR and a feat seems like a fair one. It being free for one class and denied to all the others I'm not so okay with.

Seeing these responses and thinking about it more,makes me think dex to damage wouldn't really a big issue in PF2, so I'm inclined to support it's return as a feat anyone can take. The die is now the main thing for damage as opposed to PF1 where it was the bonuses. Also the way attribute increases work, you no longer have to focus on a single stat, so just having Dex is less of an issue there too. So yeah, its return probably wouldn't be a big deal.

I liked it in PF1, but there was a point where I did several characters in a row who never bothered with strength at all. My halfling-swashbuckler was pretty crazy with his damage, but the dex damage wasn't the biggest part, it certainly helped but it was more from Precise Strike giving level to damage.

If that was the concern, then why give it to the rogue for free? It lets them dump STR without any repurcussions in a way no other martial can. (And they're arguably the ones that need it least, because they're supposed to be using sneak attack to keep their damage competitive.)

I would be okay with not having options for Dex-to-damage; I would be sad for the Dex fighters and rangers, but I would understand why they would not want to let you ignore the consequences of dumping a stat. I would also be okay with it being available to anyone (or at least appropriate classes) as a feat, because I figure there should be a cost for dumping STR and a feat seems like a fair one. It being free for one class and denied to all the others I'm not so okay with.

The drawback for the rogue is that he gets to use Dex to damage only with a agile or finesse one handed melee weapon -> 1d6 base damage.

There is already some discussion regarding class feats being locked too tightly to one, or very select few classes (see Charge only being available to Fighter and Barbarian). I expect that we will see at least a Rogue archetype dedication feat that gets Dex to damage out there.

I could also see a general feat requiring WIS 14 to gain DEX to damage, with the same restrictions as the rogue has (agile or finesse one handed melee weapon), but that's just something that came to mind when pondering the options

Doktor Weasel wrote:

I know that dex to damage can be a bit contentious. Basically it kind of makes Dex the One True Stat. Use it to hit with a finesse or ranged weapon, use it for damage with dex to damage, use it for AC, for Reflex Saves and for acrobatics, stealth and thievery skills. So you can just ignore Strength. Strength on the other hand is only used for attack for melee weapons, damage, carrying capacity and the athletics skill. Dex is already more versatile, dex to damage makes strength almost a non-issue for dex builds.

If that was the concern, then why give it to the rogue for free? It lets them dump STR without any repurcussions in a way no other martial can. (And they're arguably the ones that need it least, because they're supposed to be using sneak attack to keep their damage competitive.)

I would be okay with not having options for Dex-to-damage; I would be sad for the Dex fighters and rangers, but I would understand why they would not want to let you ignore the consequences of dumping a stat. I would also be okay with it being available to anyone (or at least appropriate classes) as a feat, because I figure there should be a cost for dumping STR and a feat seems like a fair one. It being free for one class and denied to all the others I'm not so okay with.

Because a rogue is forced into Dex.

A rogue that can't disable device is not a rogue (and to an extent, sneak).

Both those are Dex based checks.

So a rogue NEEDS max/extremely high Dex for his "class features" already.

If you also forced him to get str to do damage that would be terrible.

I wouldn't want dex to damage to be locked to multi-class rogue. You're messing with concepts down that road. Much better to make it a level 3 general feat.

(Level 3 so Humans don't just become the premier "dex to damage at level 1" race)

Rogue has a 40% chance to lose Dex to damage, other classes have a 0% chance of gaining it in the final rules.

I Read a lot in my Cellphone. I love that Paizo released a free PDF copy of the playtest. But reading the PDF in a phone is not a cool experience. Could Paizo release an Epub / Mobi / TXT version of the books to I read?

In a previous "pré-release playtest blog entry", it was said that all spell powers are unified, so, a sorcerer / cleric character will use the same source of power to all it's ability.

Reading the book, I noticed that other classes have their own pools. (Bards have their own pool of points instead of spell points).

I wonder if isn't a good idea to make a global point system?

(Bards have their own pool of points instead of spell points)

They look to me like they use Spell Points for their powers like everybody else. Could you point to specific text describing their other pool?

AFAIK the only class that has anything but spell slots and Spell Points is clerics with their channel energy, which was specifically separated from their other pools so they don't feel pressured to save everything for healing.

Okay, did I do a crit fail on my perception somewhere, or has splash damage been clarified in an errata somewhere? About half the threads I see seem to think it hits the target, while the other half doesnt. RAI seems to imply the former, since it would be how the alchemist gets int to damage, but RAW reads more like the latter, unless using some very generous application of inclusive and/or logic.

soulkata wrote:

(Bards have their own pool of points instead of spell points)

They look to me like they use Spell Points for their powers like everybody else. Could you point to specific text describing their other pool?

AFAIK the only class that has anything but spell slots and Spell Points is clerics with their channel energy, which was specifically separated from their other pools so they don't feel pressured to save everything for healing.

Wild druids have separate wild shape uses. I don't know if they call it a pool, but it effectively is one.

They look to me like they use Spell Points for their powers like everybody else. Could you point to specific text describing their other pool?

Allright, is called spell point... But is inside First Compositions section!! :)

AFAIK the only class that has anything but spell slots and Spell Points is clerics with their channel energy, which was specifically separated from their other pools so they don't feel pressured to save everything for healing.

Well, let me re-elaborate this topic. It would not be easier if there is a unified place to talk about Spell Points? Maybe unify with Resonance Point. And give some pools to the other classes?

Right now, we have the following classes with spell point (Being re-described every single time)

* Bards gave the Compositions feature;
* Clerics have the Channel Enery feature;
* Druids have the Druidic Order feature;
* Paladins have the Champion Powers feature;
* Sorcerer have the Bloodline feature;
* Wizards have the Arcane Schools feature;

Then, we have the Alchemist, that use the "Resonance Point"...

And then we have the other classes which, with the exception of the Fighter, lost their point systems that existed in Pathfinder 1. And their point system has added much more depth to the classes.

Finally, my suggestion is to unify the point in a specific system in one place, and make all classes have some use to them.

I think the point is to not gimp multiclassing (every primary feature uses the same resource), but also give every class that uses it their own specialized use of the SP pool (keeping their individual abilities and such). One pool to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them...

The point of making things like Wild Shape and such run on a separate pool from SP is they'd quickly drain your SP if you had them linked with the main pool as mentioned above.

The previous two things said, Alchemists should totally have their own "craft points" pool instead of their main class feature eating all their resonance.

Okay, did I do a crit fail on my perception somewhere, or has splash damage been clarified in an errata somewhere? About half the threads I see seem to think it hits the target, while the other half doesnt. RAI seems to imply the former, since it would be how the alchemist gets int to damage, but RAW reads more like the latter, unless using some very generous application of inclusive and/or logic.

Nope. Nothing was cleared as of yet. Also.. Can I ask how does raw read like the later? 2 out of 4 spots on splash damage call out dealing splash to the target. 1 is vague. and 1 doesn't mention it anywhere (but does mention the failure note. which I think is where most of the "no it doesn't" comes from) Though I am sure I missed something somewhere. This was just a CTRL F splash trait pdf search a few days ago.

Empower Bombs calls out specifically the target takes splash.
"For instance, if you created a flask of 3rd-level empowered
alchemist’s fire (see page 360), it would deal 2d6 fire damage,
2 persistent fire damage, and 1 splash damage on a hit."
You only roll to hit on the main target, those in the splash radius do not take a roll to hit. So this is only talking about the main target. it explicitly calls out splash damage as part of the damage.

The main splash trait listing says .
"A splash weapon
can deal splash damage in addition to its normal damage. If
an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically
succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target take the
indicated amount of splash damage. On a failure (but not a
critical failure), the target of the attack also takes the splash
damage. Splash damage is not multiplied on a critical hit."

its normal damage does not interact with anyone but the main target. so it can only be talking about the main target there. While it does list "can" which i think is bad word choice, on a miss you do not deal its normal damage. So, I personally can't see any way of reading that except for splash+normal damage on a hit.

the target is also within 5feet of the target. It doesn't say 5ft of square the target is in. so the target counts within the 5ft.. doesn't it?)

Though.. I suppose this discussion isn't really meant for here compared to the...5? other threads going on. Just wanted another POV to the readings~ because more data is more useful, well to a point anyway.

I hope someone does come in and clarify things. removes that "can" and I think also should clarify the failure "on a failure the target still takes splash damage"
and also clarifies what those within 5ft do on a failure or a critical failure.

I think the point is to not gimp multiclassing (every primary feature uses the same resource), but also give every class that uses it their own specialized use of the SP pool (keeping their individual abilities and such). One pool to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them...

The point of making things like Wild Shape and such run on a separate pool from SP is they'd quickly drain your SP if you had them linked with the main pool as mentioned above.

The previous two things said, Alchemists should totally have their own "craft points" pool instead of their main class feature eating all their resonance.

Well, there some interpretation issue here. In the pathfinder 2 multiclassing is gone... So, this leave us with archetypes. In the archetypes description, is said that if the class use Spell Points, these pools are shared for the archetype as well.

So, my suggestion is to instead os describing the same Spell Point system in 6 different classes and 2 archetypes, creating a specific place for it and the book, and make all classes and archetypes under its rules... Ah, and give all classes something to do with it! :)

Rogue has a 40% chance to lose Dex to damage, other classes have a 0% chance of gaining it in the final rules.

Got a source on that?

Also, crunched some numbers, will post once off work.

So, my suggestion is to instead os describing the same Spell Point system in 6 different classes and 2 archetypes, creating a specific place for it and the book, and make all classes and archetypes under its rules... Ah, and give all classes something to do with it! :)

I think the reason they did it this way is to have each class fairly self-contained. So you can just read the section for your class and know what you need. There's already a lot of cross-referencing different pages and sections as is, but I think this was to try to limit that. I can see the merit of both ways. Self-contained classes are simpler with less flipping, but they do eat up page count with redundant information.

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 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.

You're correct that d6 is significantly weaker than it should be.

Doktor Weasel suggested a new trait ('Awkward') that could be applied, which I think would be an elegant way to handle the issue; after all, there are already 'Agile' weapons in the game, why not 'Awkward' or 'Clumsy' as well? So it would look like this: d8 (awkward, two-hand d10, versatile P)