Shining Lights and Dark Stars

By the rules text of the Material Casting action, yes, if all they intend to do with it is use it for a single Material Casting action. You can explicitly retrieve, manipulate, and stow a material or focus component as part of that action.

A holy symbol must be held in one hand to use it, yes. And once you have retrieved it (as part of the Material Casting action), you are in fact holding it in one hand.

EDIT: On the Emblazon Symbol thing: Now that it isn't a feat anymore, is there anything that explicitly says that a shield can't be a holy symbol? Or that you can't, for example, wrap the chain of your holy symbol around your sword so that you can hold both at once?

Like a holy symbol is literally just an image right (being a symbol, the non semiotic properties shouldn't matter)? I never really understood why you couldn't just engrave or paint that same image on your shield and have it work.

Like a holy symbol is literally just an image right (being a symbol, the non semiotic properties shouldn't matter)? I never really understood why you couldn't just engrave or paint that same image on your shield and have it work.

This is a prime example of something being "videogamey". That terms gets thrown around a lot, but there's definitely some truth to it.

It's "videogamey" because in order to gain a mechanical benefit, you should have to spend some kind of resource, even if there's no logical reason preventing you from doing something for free. It's like an invisible wall bounding a play space.

I'm willing to accept a holy symbol having a price instead of just being a simple painting or engraving, such as including the cost of a bottle of holy water as part of consecration as an official empowered emblem of the deity. But that is included in its monetary cost and shouldn't actually cost a meaningful character resource.

By the rules text of the Material Casting action, yes, if all they intend to do with it is use it for a single Material Casting action. You can explicitly retrieve, manipulate, and stow a material or focus component as part of that action.

Thanks for pointing this out. I had no idea. Might help if it was mentioned more clearly in the Cleric section, but it is explicit if you look in the right place.

EDIT: On the Emblazon Symbol thing: Now that it isn't a feat anymore, is there anything that explicitly says that a shield can't be a holy symbol? Or that you can't, for example, wrap the chain of your holy symbol around your sword so that you can hold both at once?

The only thing I see is that it calls out needing a religious symbol or text, and those are both items in the item list. They're not expensive ones, but they're there.

Someone mentioned that a deity's favored weapon should count. That would be a neat way to do it and tie those weapons in better to the Class theme.

By the rules text of the Material Casting action, yes, if all they intend to do with it is use it for a single Material Casting action. You can explicitly retrieve, manipulate, and stow a material or focus component as part of that action.

A holy symbol must be held in one hand to use it, yes. And once you have retrieved it (as part of the Material Casting action), you are in fact holding it in one hand.

EDIT: On the Emblazon Symbol thing: Now that it isn't a feat anymore, is there anything that explicitly says that a shield can't be a holy symbol? Or that you can't, for example, wrap the chain of your holy symbol around your sword so that you can hold both at once?

I'm not sure if I agree with that interpretation. It makes sense for material components that you just grab something out of a bag off your waist for (as the materials are used upon use). The amount of effort to do that is similar to other single actions.

But it makes no sense that a Bard can do all that with a single action but otherwise it takes three actions to retrieve, use, and stow a magical item.

I'm pretty sure that the text calling out "when held" or "while holding" is intended to mean "held beforehand as a separate action". Otherwise it doesn't make sense, nor is there a reason to bring up the "held" status in the text as "can use in place of material components" would be it.

MaxAstro wrote:

By the rules text of the Material Casting action, yes, if all they intend to do with it is use it for a single Material Casting action. You can explicitly retrieve, manipulate, and stow a material or focus component as part of that action.

A holy symbol must be held in one hand to use it, yes. And once you have retrieved it (as part of the Material Casting action), you are in fact holding it in one hand.

EDIT: On the Emblazon Symbol thing: Now that it isn't a feat anymore, is there anything that explicitly says that a shield can't be a holy symbol? Or that you can't, for example, wrap the chain of your holy symbol around your sword so that you can hold both at once?

I'm not sure if I agree with that interpretation. It makes sense for material components that you just grab something out of a bag off your waist for (as the materials are used upon use). The amount of effort to do that is similar to other single actions.

But it makes no sense that a Bard can do all that with a single action but otherwise it takes three actions to retrieve, use, and stow a magical item.

I'm pretty sure that the text calling out "when held" or "while holding" is intended to mean "held beforehand as a separate action". Otherwise it doesn't make sense, nor is there a reason to bring up the "held" status in the text as "can use in place of material components" would be it.

Material Casting says "you retrieve and manipulate either a material spell component or a spell focus ... If you manipulate a focus, it is not spent, and you can stow it again as part of this action if you so choose. "

It then has special sections for Bards, Clerics, and Druids that all amount to the same wording: "If you're holding an appropriate focus, you can replace any material component the spell requires by using the focus. In that case, you don't have to have a free hand to take this action."

If they intend to say "you can only use an instrument/divine focus/primal focus if you were already holding it and the above text about retrieving it doesn't apply", then it really needs to explicitly say that... or even better, reword the whole section to say "If you're a Wizard, these are your rules, if you're a Sorcerer these are your rules, and if you're a Cleric/Bard/Druid, these are your rules."

Brandon Hammond wrote:

Wow... No more core "Paladin?!". Bold! I like it! "Divine Champion" sounds great.

Giving Wizard Quick Prep? I love Wizards, they're my favorite class, but making them more like the Sorcerer in regards to casting doesn't fit right as a "fix" to issues presented. I actually think this makes the wizard more powerful. The reason I took Quick Prep was because it was eminently powerful! Like I said Wizards are my favorite but sorcs should remain the versatile casters. Wouldn't just giving Wizards another spell slot be better?

We were hoping the ability to be especially good at preparing would be seen as more of an interesting/versatility increase, as opposed to a raw power boost, based on the feedback you guys gave us. Of our other ideas, I think the best one we didn't use was customizing your arcane bond from wizard to wizard (something like: amulets give you defensive benefits, staff for the extra spell, etc, with the possibility of adding more in later books) but then that would leave the wizard making two subclass choices as opposed to one for most other characters. Does that strike you as a wizard fan as adding more to the "interesting" factor than the "power" factor?

Just to chime in on this. Mark, Yes I do think Adding things to the Arcane bond to be more interesting. [additionally adding something special for the School of magic would be good too, or perhaps limiting Quick Prep to a spell of your selected school]

I took a look at the changes and only focused on the Ranger.

1. Hunt Target in Exploration mode. I appreciate that Paizo has listened to suggestions that this be made possible. But the trigger should be whenever a Ranger tracks a target, not just when using tracking in Exploration mode. Why? Because the whole mode thing is too formalistic. You're acknowledging that tracking something should trigger Hunt Target, so why limit it to a mode?

2. Hunter Edges Sure, I like the idea of different paths that are somewhat analogous to combat styles except....you juxtaposed a non-combat option. I fundamentally disagree with this approach. Give Rangers three combat option and let them choose one. Then give them three non-combat options and let them choose one.

Stalker does nothing for combat and it's debatable whether it's of any substantive benefit, or rather, it's so context dependent, it's impossible for players to be certain it will actually do anything. Worse, the text says this:

You have additional benefits in outwitting and evading your target.

Except evading one's Hunted Target doesn't make in-game sense. In addition, the game rarely, if ever, rewards the party for avoiding contact with hostiles. Even if you use this to create a scout, individual scouting is so discouraged against, this ability is totally going to be underutilized compared to the others. Look, this is a good choice if it's juxtaposed to other non-combat choices.

Precision As others have mentioned, I don't get Paizo's philosophy with this non-scaling damage modifiers. Why create an ability that gets worse and worse as you level up? At level 1, this is thing is incredibly powerful. By level 8, it's laughable. You'd adding an average of 3.5 points of damage per round (with no accuracy modifier). Sure, it might be be more damage than Flurry, but psychologically, you're getting worse as you are supposed to be getting better.

3. Fundamental problems not addressed.

Hunt Target when not seen This needs to be cleaned up. Paizo needs to add some mechanism where the Ranger can decide what he's choosing to assign as his Target when he's using sounds or tracks. During the playtest, I'd frequently assign a Target sight unseen, only to have that target be a bad choice at the start of combat. If you're allowing Rangers to designate a Hunt Target while tracking or listening, how would the Ranger know which target is his if there are several of the same kind?

Monster Hunters Is still a mess. It's great that HT now triggers a Recall K check. But, the fact that a Ranger is only Trained in Nature and then can use that for all checks at 10th level is nonsensical from a design perspective. You're either compelling a player to invest in the other Knowledge areas early, but having them become pointless later, or, your advocating a player re-spec into them at 10th level. Monster Hunter should allow a Ranger to use Nature for all Recalls. If you're that hung up on it, then only convey the bonus for Nature animals to start. Every 2 levels, let the Ranger choose a Knowledge area that Nature now works for. Ex. At 4th level the Ranger can use Nature on K checks for Arcana as well as Nature. At 6th, Arcana and Occult. etc.

Still no purpose The Ranger still needs purpose. You've totally screwed over the Ranger's skill advantage without giving the Ranger anything to compensate. It's great that other classes are getting more skill, but that's backdoor nerfing the Ranger.

Make tracking a pivot for the class Make tracking do more things and provide a lot more information. Give Rangers a Tracking class ability that makes it clear that Rangers are the Trackers/Guides of Pathfinder. Purpose..the Ranger needs purpose.

Animal companion way too feat intensive You talked about "telling the same stories" in PF2. My PF1 Ranger used ONE feat on his companion and it was integral part of what he does. In PF2, I've got to dedicate my entire build to the Companion and I'm not even an Animal Druid. The companion takes like 7 feats out of 11. That's just ridiculous.

The mess that was Handle Animal and Tricks Since you guys are determined to move forward with Companions for Rangers, You need to spend some serious hours bolstering the whole Command an Animal mechanics. There was way too much table variation in Pathfinder (and I'm talking about PFS) with regards to how Companions work and what they could and could not do. If you want to simplify the game, then improve the consistency with how animals are handled by GMs.

Bring back spells Make spells a standard part of the class. The inability to use wands and scrolls is a huge hit to the Rangers's agency. As others have quipped, the Ranger without spells might was as well just be a Fighter subclass. Spells are what separate the Ranger from any backwoods ruffian. They don't have to be powerful, but they do need to add context driven versatility. More to the point, the Ranger got nothing in place of them. Nothing.

1.6 is not enough of a change to the class to motivate me to do any more playtesting with the class, which means I probably won't touch it again until the final product is done. You've taken three classes: Fighter, Cleric, and Rogue, and improved them. You haven't done that with the Ranger. Class-locking Rapid Shot isn't an improvement on the PF1 Ranger. Annihilating the skill advantage and eliminating spells, unequivocally has made the class weaker.

Zorae wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

By the rules text of the Material Casting action, yes, if all they intend to do with it is use it for a single Material Casting action. You can explicitly retrieve, manipulate, and stow a material or focus component as part of that action.

A holy symbol must be held in one hand to use it, yes. And once you have retrieved it (as part of the Material Casting action), you are in fact holding it in one hand.

EDIT: On the Emblazon Symbol thing: Now that it isn't a feat anymore, is there anything that explicitly says that a shield can't be a holy symbol? Or that you can't, for example, wrap the chain of your holy symbol around your sword so that you can hold both at once?

I'm not sure if I agree with that interpretation. It makes sense for material components that you just grab something out of a bag off your waist for (as the materials are used upon use). The amount of effort to do that is similar to other single actions.

But it makes no sense that a Bard can do all that with a single action but otherwise it takes three actions to retrieve, use, and stow a magical item.

I'm pretty sure that the text calling out "when held" or "while holding" is intended to mean "held beforehand as a separate action". Otherwise it doesn't make sense, nor is there a reason to bring up the "held" status in the text as "can use in place of material components" would be it.

Material Casting says "you retrieve and manipulate either a material spell component or a spell focus ... If you manipulate a focus, it is not spent, and you can stow it again as part of this action if you so choose. "

It then has special sections for Bards, Clerics, and Druids that all amount to the same wording: "If you're holding an appropriate focus, you can replace any material component the spell requires by using the focus. In that case, you don't have to have a free hand to take this action."

That's the point that doesn't make sense. Material Casting requires a free hand to grab a material spell component and then stow it afterwards.

If you're counting the "holding an appropriate focus" as part of that action, then why does it say "you don't have to have a free hand to take this action" ??? There's no way to remove that requirement if you're drawing it as part of the material component. Therefore, the only reason it would need to specify not requiring a free hand is if intended for your hand to be occupied by the focus beforehand. And thus you don't need a free hand.

The change to Barbarian actually sounds really cool. I'll have to see how that plays out.

Tridus wrote:

Material Casting says "you retrieve and manipulate either a material spell component or a spell focus ... If you manipulate a focus, it is not spent, and you can stow it again as part of this action if you so choose. "

It then has special sections for Bards, Clerics, and Druids that all amount to the same wording: "If you're holding an appropriate focus, you can replace any material component the spell requires by using the focus. In that case, you don't have to have a free hand to take this action."

That's the point that doesn't make sense. Material Casting requires a free hand to grab a material spell component and then stow it afterwards.

If you're counting the "holding an appropriate focus" as part of that action, then why does it say "you don't have to have a free hand to take this action" ??? There's no way to remove that requirement if you're drawing it as part of the material component. Therefore, the only reason it would need to specify not requiring a free hand is if intended for your hand to be occupied by the focus beforehand. And thus you don't need a free hand.

Or it means:

Thing is, I don't know what's actually intended here. It would be a good place for a pass to tidy up the wording and be explicit.

Focus on the classes I am most familiar with :

- Barbarian : I do not like that change on Rage rounds. It feels as if taking one of the worst associations with Chaotic (ie, randomness) when the Class is not even carrying any more alignment condition. I suggest focussing on another part of Chaotic : freedom of choice. Give the player the choice to extend the Rage for a given number of rounds with increasing penalties (either in amount or duration, like 1 round, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day) with a maximum number of extra rounds based on CON modifier, and maybe a Fort roll to lessen the penalties if successful if you still want to get some luck involved. But here as a gamble you choose, not as random rolls putting you down as an integral part of your power

- Sorcerer : The gist of the Class is casting the same spell over and over. It is exactly what prepared casters just cannot do with ease. So my advice would be more spell slots. I like the idea of picking from other spell lists, so maybe mix both by choosing a secondary list and you get an additional slot that can only be used with a spell on that list. Heck maybe you could even choose the same list as both primary and secondary to excel at your specialty

Yeah, we were hoping Quick Prep would make the wizard a little more approachable for less experienced players while giving something else fun but not too intimidating to do during a break while treat wounds and repair are going on (there isn't always a new item to identify or the like). Given it was an extremely popular feat choice already,the difference is that the ability is something from the start (and easier for the new player to learn the wizard that way rather than pick it up later on) and it frees up a level 4 feat for something else. Now if people wanted us to abolish or limit Quick Preparation altogether, we hadn't realized that before. Jason has mentioned a potential survey just about updates, so that's something we can ask a broader group to see how many agree.

Keep in mind that the survey asked what we perceived as the strongest feat. It didn't ask whether or not we liked the feat or felt like it was a healthy addition to the class. Quick Preparation felt mandatory because it directly negates a major weakness with the class.

Personally, I'd prefer if prepared casting worked like the arcanist or D&D 5e wizard and have the spontaneous casters (or just the sorcerer) be able to heighten any spell they know.

Eh? Prepared casters can cast the same spell repeatedly just fine. Wizards can find it exceptionally easy (and can do it more).

The Sorcerer's problem is it doesn't have schtick. It's just a weaker version of another class, and being able to choose which class to be inferior to at level 1 isn't a benefit.

Sidenote: Fighters are still more proficient in Bombs than Alchemists. They're about equal but in the highest levels they get Legendary in simple and martial. I think the Alchemist stops at master and never gets Legendary (unless I missed something)

I mean yeah.. fighters are fighters. but I still feel like alchemists should be tied for the best at bomb usage.

Much less the fact I don't think the alchemist can gain an item bonus to bombs.... until what lv 16?
really need some sort of free hand enhancer to bombs. Magical glove weapon or something. I mean that is one of the reasons for resounance right? No slots, so I could have multiple magical glove/wrist items (might look or sound weird)

Well at the least need some sorta item bonus to hit for that. I am not sure if making it some form of potency would be good or not--if it did I"m sure it would only give bonus to the base lesser version die not the higher level versions. Which would help the At Will versions i guess. (but then be kind of off balanace vs the other lines. ) enchantments would be neat though just stylistically

Sidenote: Fighters are still more proficient in Bombs than Alchemists. They're about equal but in the highest levels they get Legendary in simple and martial. I think the Alchemist stops at master and never gets Legendary (unless I missed something)

I mean yeah.. fighters are fighters. but I still feel like alchemists should be tied for the best at bomb usage.

Much less the fact I don't think the alchemist can gain an item bonus to bombs.... until what lv 16?
really need some sort of free hand enhancer to bombs. Magical glove weapon or something. I mean that is one of the reasons for resounance right? No slots, so I could have multiple magical glove/wrist items (might look or sound weird)

Well at the least need some sorta item bonus to hit for that. I am not sure if making it some form of potency would be good or not--if it did I"m sure it would only give bonus to the base lesser version die not the higher level versions. Which would help the At Will versions i guess. (but then be kind of off balanace vs the other lines. ) enchantments would be neat though just stylistically

well, currently bombers can't even craft mutagens... (i hope this is a typo, although the lack of an official answer so far is disturbing)

but if they can (once again) craft mutagens, quicksilver mutagen gives that +item bonus to ranged attack that bombers 10000000% require to even be in the same leage as an sort of character in the game.

Sidenote: Fighters are still more proficient in Bombs than Alchemists. They're about equal but in the highest levels they get Legendary in simple and martial. I think the Alchemist stops at master and never gets Legendary (unless I missed something)

I mean yeah.. fighters are fighters. but I still feel like alchemists should be tied for the best at bomb usage.

Much less the fact I don't think the alchemist can gain an item bonus to bombs.... until what lv 16?
really need some sort of free hand enhancer to bombs. Magical glove weapon or something. I mean that is one of the reasons for resounance right? No slots, so I could have multiple magical glove/wrist items (might look or sound weird)

Well at the least need some sorta item bonus to hit for that. I am not sure if making it some form of potency would be good or not--if it did I"m sure it would only give bonus to the base lesser version die not the higher level versions. Which would help the At Will versions i guess. (but then be kind of off balanace vs the other lines. ) enchantments would be neat though just stylistically

You can get an Item bonus to ranged attacks with a Quicksilver Mutagen, and since the Alchemist no longer gets an Item Bonus to attack rolls it should stack now. Greater Alchemist's Goggles are available starting at Level 16 (17 with the character creation rules), but only provide a +2 bonus so the Mutagen is a lot stronger at that point. The associated penalty stings, but this update basically handed Bomber Alchemists a total +2 attack bonus over what they had before, which is pretty great.

The Sorcerer's problem is it doesn't have schtick. It's just a weaker version of another class, and being able to choose which class to be inferior to at level 1 isn't a benefit.

Yes, the Sorcerer seems to have lost its way from 3rd Ed/PF to 5th Ed (all classes use 3rd Ed's Spirit Shaman's slots deal) and the Playtest. I am not sure what their shtick should now be, in 5th Ed it's metamagic, but that is a bit lacklustre, not so thrilling. Also, being forced to be dragon-boy if you are not a Wild Mage is annoying (I like the Wild Mage, but not really a Sorcerer, to me).

Zwordsman wrote:

Sidenote: Fighters are still more proficient in Bombs than Alchemists. They're about equal but in the highest levels they get Legendary in simple and martial. I think the Alchemist stops at master and never gets Legendary (unless I missed something)

I mean yeah.. fighters are fighters. but I still feel like alchemists should be tied for the best at bomb usage.

Much less the fact I don't think the alchemist can gain an item bonus to bombs.... until what lv 16?
really need some sort of free hand enhancer to bombs. Magical glove weapon or something. I mean that is one of the reasons for resounance right? No slots, so I could have multiple magical glove/wrist items (might look or sound weird)

Well at the least need some sorta item bonus to hit for that. I am not sure if making it some form of potency would be good or not--if it did I"m sure it would only give bonus to the base lesser version die not the higher level versions. Which would help the At Will versions i guess. (but then be kind of off balanace vs the other lines. ) enchantments would be neat though just stylistically

You can get an Item bonus to ranged attacks with a Quicksilver Mutagen, and since the Alchemist no longer gets an Item Bonus to attack rolls it should stack now. Greater Alchemist's Goggles are available starting at Level 16 (17 with the character creation rules), but only provide a +2 bonus so the Mutagen is a lot stronger at that point. The associated penalty stings, but this update basically handed Bomber Alchemists a total +2 attack bonus over what they had before, which is pretty great.

as of 1.6, Bombers can't make quicksilvers though^^

The issue with clerics is not that they have too much healing, it is that in combat healing feels almost mandatory given monster accuracy and damage output. Severely reducing the channel pool without addressing monster math doesnt change the mandatory nature of in combat healing, it just means clerics end up having to prepare more heal spells in their vey limited spell slots.

Joy, we are back to 1e/2e with clerics as required heal bots. I forsee this being a bit of a disaster in PFS given the random nature of such groups.

The issue with clerics is not that they have too much healing, it is that in combat healing feels almost mandatory given monster accuracy and damage output. Severely reducing the channel pool without addressing monster math doesnt change the mandatory nature of in combat healing, it just means clerics end up having to prepare more heal spells in their vey limited spell slots.

Joy, we are back to 1e/2e with clerics as required heal bots. I forsee this being a bit of a disaster in PFS given the random nature of such groups.

we do know that monster math are wrong atm and they will be changed for release though (just not for playtesting)

so we can expect a decrease in damage.

as for having to use slots for heal, that's no different from an alternative healer having to do so already, especially in a pfs-style scenario of randoms where you are not even guaranteed a cleric healer but might have a sorcerer or an alchemist or etc

well, currently bombers can't even craft mutagens... (i hope this is a typo, although the lack of an official answer so far is disturbing)

but if they can (once again) craft mutagens, quicksilver mutagen gives that +item bonus to ranged attack that bombers 10000000% require to even be in the same leage as an sort of character in the game.

I can't check right now.

shroudb wrote:

well, currently bombers can't even craft mutagens... (i hope this is a typo, although the lack of an official answer so far is disturbing)

but if they can (once again) craft mutagens, quicksilver mutagen gives that +item bonus to ranged attack that bombers 10000000% require to even be in the same leage as an sort of character in the game.

I can't check right now.

I thought that they could Adv Alchemy any recipe they have in their formula book. So the main issue was getting the Uncommon Recipes. Or is there another one that cropped up from accidents?
Granted getting an uncommon one is a problem, with the vague sort of stipulations involved in access to that.

they removed the level 5 class ability that granted access to the Mutagens.

instead, mutagenic now gets it at level 1, and the rest... never.

Sidenote: Fighters are still more proficient in Bombs than Alchemists. They're about equal but in the highest levels they get Legendary in simple and martial. I think the Alchemist stops at master and never gets Legendary (unless I missed something)

I mean yeah.. fighters are fighters. but I still feel like alchemists should be tied for the best at bomb usage.

Much less the fact I don't think the alchemist can gain an item bonus to bombs.... until what lv 16?
really need some sort of free hand enhancer to bombs. Magical glove weapon or something. I mean that is one of the reasons for resounance right? No slots, so I could have multiple magical glove/wrist items (might look or sound weird)

Well at the least need some sorta item bonus to hit for that. I am not sure if making it some form of potency would be good or not--if it did I"m sure it would only give bonus to the base lesser version die not the higher level versions. Which would help the At Will versions i guess. (but then be kind of off balanace vs the other lines. ) enchantments would be neat though just stylistically

The same problem exists with Fighter vs. Monk with Unarmed Attacks and Monk Weapons in general, for NO GOOD REASON, Fighters general "Trained to the Max in ALL Weapons" shtick really encroaches thematically in a VERY poor way when compared to other Classes. I have NO problem whatsoever with a Fighter being Legendary in 2-4 Weapon Groups, but instead they simply get a blanket that covers all Simple & Martial Weapons which includes Bombs, Natural Attacks (Sorry Druids), and Unarmed Strike.

I GET that Fighters are SUPPOSED to be highly rewarded for Weapon Training, that makes sense, however it is beyond the pale for the system to dictate that Characters who focus exclusively on a given Weapon or Feature are simply put, inferior (Even with Identical Gear and Stats) to a Fighter. Sure they won't get those bonuses other Classes get, but that's not the POINT, effectiveness should be SIDE-EFFECT of the classifications for Training, and all basic run of the mill Fighters get at Level 3 what it takes Monk 13 Levels to Achieve, Bomber Alchemist also gets this at 13, & Druid will NEVER accomplish for Natural Attacks.

Let me be clear, I don't really care about the mechanical difference, simply the idea that the ONLY Legendary Weapons Users in Pathfinder 2E will be Fighters.

Zwordsman wrote:

Sidenote: Fighters are still more proficient in Bombs than Alchemists. They're about equal but in the highest levels they get Legendary in simple and martial. I think the Alchemist stops at master and never gets Legendary (unless I missed something)

I mean yeah.. fighters are fighters. but I still feel like alchemists should be tied for the best at bomb usage.

Much less the fact I don't think the alchemist can gain an item bonus to bombs.... until what lv 16?
really need some sort of free hand enhancer to bombs. Magical glove weapon or something. I mean that is one of the reasons for resounance right? No slots, so I could have multiple magical glove/wrist items (might look or sound weird)

Well at the least need some sorta item bonus to hit for that. I am not sure if making it some form of potency would be good or not--if it did I"m sure it would only give bonus to the base lesser version die not the higher level versions. Which would help the At Will versions i guess. (but then be kind of off balanace vs the other lines. ) enchantments would be neat though just stylistically

The same problem exists with Fighter vs. Monk with Unarmed Attacks and Monk Weapons in general, for NO GOOD REASON, Fighters general "Trained to the Max in ALL Weapons" shtick really encroaches thematically in a VERY poor way when compared to other Classes. I have NO problem whatsoever with a Fighter being Legendary in 2-4 Weapon Groups, but instead they simply get a blanket that covers all Simple & Martial Weapons which includes Bombs, Natural Attacks (Sorry Druids), and Unarmed Strike.

I GET that Fighters are SUPPOSED to be highly rewarded for Weapon Training, that makes sense, however it is beyond the pale for the system to dictate that Characters who focus exclusively on a given Weapon or Feature are simply put, inferior (Even with Identical Gear and Stats) to a Fighter. Sure they won't get those bonuses other Classes get, but that's not the POINT, effectiveness should be SIDE-EFFECT...

Yeah, it's a big problem. It's fine for a Fighter to be able to pick a weapon group and go to Legend in it, but certain other focused classes should also be able to go to Legend in their niche. Monks should definitely go to Legend in unarmed. Bomb alchemists should go to Legend in bombs.

I like the feel of this update. There are still places to improve (let's brainstorm on the sorcerer), but for the most part classes are looking really good. I especially like the Rage change adding a bit of chance and danger.

I wasn't sure I would like an expansion of paladins, but I really like the thought that went into the codes and powers. Many months ago I advocated for mobility abilities on the CG Liberator. I was thinking lay on hands powers, but changing the reaction does so much more. A free Step action in response to an attack can do a lot for your ally.

I was less sure about NG paladins, and I usually advocated for a four-corners approach. But, my halfling paladin of Shelyn would do beautifully as a Redeemer paladin. I'm impressed the designers came up with a mechanical option that exemplifies the alignment so well.

I think people are forgetting that Paizo has already admitted that the playtest’s enemies are pretty overtuned and meant to be punishing. With them adjusting the math so that these enemies either hit less often or hit for less damage, the cleric’s in combat healing may not need to be as keyed up as it currently is.

Ah. That lv 5 thing is indeed an issue for Alchemists. In general I really quite dislike the "uncommon" thing so far. I do think Alchemists should be able to bypass the rarity issues as a base class effect (regardless of your study).

But I also think Alchemist's should be able to branch out of their study more. The best thing about Alchemists to me, were how "variable" tthey were. They weren't amazing at anything (which was a problem) but they could attempt many things. I like the idea of them being very good at their chosen study. But. still able to do some of the other stuff still without the awkward restrictions like mutagen.

Honestly. I like the idea of them having 3-4 legendary weapon groups. and then the Potency on weapons being instead related to the character.
that way.. a fighter actually could switch weapons to another "specialty" of some sort.

I love the idea of a fighter with legendary skill in one handed swords, spears, slings and idk.. maces or something. and have a different weapon they use depending on the enemy. but money and potency just completely obliterates that concept.

I don't explicit dislike the idea that fighters can be masters of bombs.. i dislike that the alchemist simply will never be as good as them.
but ya'kno

I'm also the one who wants a General feat at specific levels to enable your character to get to Master level profiency with their weapons in general. Just not nearly as fast as a fighter.

Honestly the fighter's feats all seem (mostly) tasty enough that I dont' view the fighter as just having better profiency as their scthick. I think they have enough weapon tricks of the trade that the profiency is relatively neglibile in the scheme of things.
Just they should get their chosen groups faster than other classes could access theirs through (a hopefully someday made) general feat

I took a look at the changes and only focused on the Ranger.

1. Hunt Target in Exploration mode. I appreciate that Paizo has listened to suggestions that this be made possible. But the trigger should be whenever a Ranger tracks a target, not just when using tracking in Exploration mode. Why? Because the whole mode thing is too formalistic. You're acknowledging that tracking something should trigger Hunt Target, so why limit it to a mode?

2. Hunter Edges Sure, I like the idea of different paths that are somewhat analogous to combat styles except....you juxtaposed a non-combat option. I fundamentally disagree with this approach. Give Rangers three combat option and let them choose one. Then give them three non-combat options and let them choose one.

Stalker does nothing for combat and it's debatable whether it's of any substantive benefit, or rather, it's so context dependent, it's impossible for players to be certain it will actually do anything. Worse, the text says this:

Quote:

You have additional benefits in outwitting and evading your target.

Except evading one's Hunted Target doesn't make in-game sense. In addition, the game rarely, if ever, rewards the party for avoiding contact with hostiles. Even if you use this to create a scout, individual scouting is so discouraged against, this ability is totally going to be underutilized compared to the others. Look, this is a good choice if it's juxtaposed to other non-combat choices.

Precision As others have mentioned, I don't get Paizo's philosophy with this non-scaling damage modifiers. Why create an ability that gets worse and worse as you level up? At level 1, this is thing is incredibly powerful. By level 8, it's laughable. You'd adding an average of 3.5 points of damage per round (with no accuracy modifier). Sure, it might be be more damage than Flurry, but psychologically, you're getting worse as you are supposed to be getting better.

3. Fundamental...

Just wanted to say you are my favorite person. Ranger being a worse fighter or druid in PF2 has made me immensely sad and you hit every nail on the head with these points.

i think that bloodline powers should be mandatory. also bloodline heightening should be mandatory (it's so essential that everyone will pick it). give the sorcerer one or two more feat.

Barbarians: The new method of rage is... finicky. I preferred the old style, or something along the lines of what The Raven Black suggested – have it be more about choice and risk, choosing to take greater penalties for extended rage. Firstly, as far as emotional volatility goes, not every barbarian is a mindless, raving thug while in a rage. What about those of us who enjoyed playing barbarians whose rage was a dangerous stillness and mono-focus on the battle? Secondly, I do not feel that a rage prematurely ending due to a bad die roll brings any more fun to the game than it being a flat 3 rounds.

Bard: I heartily disagree with the move to make bards even more restricted. Not many other classes have their feat progression basically chosen for them by their first-level path option. They already have one of the lowest number of feat options in the game. I advocated removing those restrictions entirely, and I continue to do so.

Wizard: The reason the wizard is uninteresting is that there is nothing new about them, and there can't be anything new with them, because they are based around the schools of magic... and there is a finite number of schools. In 1E, it was hard to come up with new archetypes for wizard – and most of them were not terribly good. The way to make a wizard interesting would probably be to remove their primary concept from the association with the schools of magic. Wizards should be able specialize in a particular school if they want to, but I really think their 'paths' should be more thematic – Battle Mage, Blood Caster, Pactbound Wizard, Psychic, Shadow Adept, or something along those lines. They need some sort of flavor that can be easily expanded upon in later publications.

Bard: I heartily disagree with the move to make bards even more restricted.

As near as I can tell, this doesn't actually change anything about the Bard. The muses give bonus feats at first level and those bonus feats end up being the prerequisites for other stuff over time. All they did was change the prerequisite from being the first level feat to being that muse type. Since the new multifaceted muse thing gives a level 1 feat for free, it's a total wash in terms of requirements and just changes the terminology.

N N 959 wrote:

stuff

Just wanted to say you are my favorite person. Ranger being a worse fighter or druid in PF2 has made me immensely sad and you hit every nail on the head with these points.

I'm glad my issues are resonating with other players. Mark Seifter doesn't seem to want to participate in a discussion about Rangers on the forums, but at least someone at Paizo is listening.

For reasons I can't understand, Paizo nerfed Rangers pretty hard, especially when it comes to utility and versatility. One of the biggest problems with Rangers in PF1 was that the whole tracking and outdoor thing was under-leveraged. Tracking could be so more useful and beneficial in and out of combat, but WotC didn't formalize it. Worse, Paizo nerfed tracking when they reduced the information conveyed. Why? Why not allow tracking an animal to provide a lot of useful information and/or pre-combat benefits?

Another major issue I've had is the loss of spells. There is a vocal minority of posters on the forums who clamor for spells to be removed. I suspect the main reason is that spells for a Ranger in PF1 where poorly implemented. You got like so few spells and you have to choose it in advance? What? Naturally people felt that getting rid of spells for something more useful.

The fix is to give the Ranger spontaneous casting from the entire list. You're still only getting one spell, but now you have a LOT more versatility and can actually use so many of the spells that were simply to situational to prepare in advance. Instead, Paizo got rid of spells and give the class nothing. Why? The Ranger was never overpowered with spells. How is the Ranger better without spells? I simply don't get it.

Nicolas Paradise wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

stuff

Just wanted to say you are my favorite person. Ranger being a worse fighter or druid in PF2 has made me immensely sad and you hit every nail on the head with these points.

I'm glad my issues are resonating with other players. Mark Seifter doesn't seem to want to participate in a discussion about Rangers on the forums, but at least someone at Paizo is listening.

For reasons I can't understand, Paizo nerfed Rangers pretty hard, especially when it comes to utility and versatility. One of the biggest problems with Rangers in PF1 was that the whole tracking and outdoor thing was under-leveraged. Tracking could be so more useful and beneficial in and out of combat, but WotC didn't formalize it. Worse, Paizo nerfed tracking when they reduced the information conveyed. Why? Why not allow tracking an animal to provide a lot of useful information and/or pre-combat benefits?

Another major issue I've had is the loss of spells. There is a vocal minority of posters on the forums who clamor for spells to be removed. I suspect the main reason is that spells for a Ranger in PF1 where poorly implemented. You got like so few spells and you have to choose it in advance? What? Naturally people felt that getting rid of spells for something more useful.

The fix is to give the Ranger spontaneous casting from the entire list. You're still only getting one spell, but now you have a LOT more versatility and can actually use so many of the spells that were simply to situational to prepare in advance. Instead, Paizo got rid of spells and give the class nothing. Why? The Ranger was never overpowered with spells. How is the Ranger better without spells? I simply don't get it.

One of the ways I play Ranger in PF1 and even in 3.5 is to grab the opposite feats to what the combat style grants. That way I feel like the martial equivalent of what the bard is to casters. In fact thinking of Iconic Rangers like Strider and Drizt and maybe a little bit of Tanis, they always feel like they can do anything they need to do just not quite as good as someone more focused at it. Strider could hit any target just as good as legolas but not as many times. He could trow down just as hard as Borimir just not against an army alone. He can charm animals like an Elf but maybe not ride the Lord of the Forest like Thranduil.

I was actually talking about this with a friend who doesn't play hybrids in PF1 because he feels Why play a Ranger when I can play a fighter and do it better if I want to be martial or a druid if I want to be naturey. Where as I would rather be really good at being a martial but also have something to do out of combat, like track, hunt provide food and gather intel from my surroundings. Have my AC talk with animals of its kind to learn about the enemy hideout. Send a pet bird out to scout when a noise is heard in the distance and speak with it to find out that a group of enemies are on our tail.

With the removal or spells and the lack of fighting styles(and the complete destruction of useful AC's) in PF2 I am more inclined to have my friends mentality. I will just play a fighter. At least there I have cool Stances, Opens and Pushes to play with. I am still not sold on the new druid but at least the storm druid makes caster focused druids doable instead of wishing you had a cleric or Wizard.

i think that bloodline powers should be mandatory. also bloodline heightening should be mandatory (it's so essential that everyone will pick it). give the sorcerer one or two more feat.

Bloodline heightening isn't mandatory or essential. For several bloodlines (particularly aberrant and fey) its outright awful.

Several of the others have issues because the majority of their spells can only be heightened to certain levels. Draconic can heighten fear to 3rd, and resist energy. After that, nothing is relevant for heightening until 14th level.

Bloodline powers are almost all garbage. I've no idea why you'd want to return them to mandatory status.

poisons not being wasted on a miss should be baseline for everyone.

it makes no sense to have something doing absolutely nothing both on a miss AND on a save. It drops success rate to below 30% (around 20-25 depending on level) while still wasting something that's about equal to a full spell slot.

Poisoner's 13th level ability should be something to up the DC of the poisons akin to expert/master/legendary spellcasting proficiency because monster saves from this point and on ASSUME those increases and that leaves poison DCs in the dust

Poisoner Alchemists probably also probably need better proficiency in weapons to be able to deliver that poison. As it is, they'll be whiffing a lot, and wasting a lot of poison in the process (hopefully that idea that poison is wasted on a miss goes away, it's terrible and nonsensical). Although this would oddly make them better combat characters. I'm not sure what workarounds are possible, but something needs to be done about their hit chance. The ability to apply contact poison in combat is pretty useless, because very few fights last the 10 rounds for the onset to take effect. Injested poisons are likewise useless in combat because of even longer onsets even if you do manage to administer them. So it's still just injury and inhalation poisons that you'll get any combat use out of. Perpetual Infusions are pretty terrible due to the fact that it's just low-level items that will be useless at your level. For the poisoner Alchemist, you just get some poisons that nobody will fail their saves against. Overall the poisoner seems rather weak, even compared to the terribly weak alchemist as a whole.

Cognita wrote:

I've had a lot of respect to Paizo, and for Pathfinder: I came because it wasn't 4E, and I stayed for the APs.

But if the conclusion y'all arrived at from the playtest is that parties need LESS access to healing (nerfing cleric channel energy?!) then I really don't know what to say.

As others note it's more that they have an overabundance of it as compared to everyone else. I've literally never seen a Cleric prepare more than one or two low level healing spells. Channel just does it all. Always.

And that was true even before you could get unlimited out of combat healing via Treat Wounds (which you can now).

Now, it can definitely be argued that they should be powered up elsewhere (better Domain Powers leap to mind, along with improvements to the kinda weak Divine Spell List), but the healing was a bit excessive.

Personally, I think they took it a tad far, and it should be 1 + Cha rather than the current 0 + Cha, but 3 + Cha was definitely too much.

But should clerics have to prepare heal? They don't in PF1 with the ability to replace any spell slot with a Cure spell. Given the limited spell slots and the need to heighten, I'd say no. They should be able to dedicate their spells to other things than being a heal-bot and let them count on channel exclusively for healing. 3 + Cha might be too much, but I agree. They took it too far 2 + Cha would be more preference, but 1 + Cha is better than just straight Cha.

Another major issue I've had is the loss of spells. There is a vocal minority of posters on the forums who clamor for spells to be removed. I suspect the main reason is that spells for a Ranger in PF1 where poorly implemented. You got like so few spells and you have to choose it in advance? What? Naturally people felt that getting rid of spells for something more useful.

The fix is to give the Ranger spontaneous casting from the entire list. You're still only getting one spell, but now you have a LOT more versatility and can actually use so many of the spells that were simply to situational to prepare in advance. Instead, Paizo got rid of spells and give the class nothing. Why? The Ranger was never overpowered with spells. How is the Ranger better without spells? I simply don't get it.

I agree with all of that, except I think the Ranger should have a number of spells known from the list, not the entire list.

Another major issue I've had is the loss of spells. There is a vocal minority of posters on the forums who clamor for spells to be removed. I suspect the main reason is that spells for a Ranger in PF1 where poorly implemented. You got like so few spells and you have to choose it in advance? What? Naturally people felt that getting rid of spells for something more useful.

The fix is to give the Ranger spontaneous casting from the entire list. You're still only getting one spell, but now you have a LOT more versatility and can actually use so many of the spells that were simply to situational to prepare in advance. Instead, Paizo got rid of spells and give the class nothing. Why? The Ranger was never overpowered with spells. How is the Ranger better without spells? I simply don't get it.

Ranger spellcasting is in an awkward position due to partial casters having been apparently removed. And the reduction in spell lists means just getting 4 levels of Primal spells would be a bit under-powered. And making them full casters just doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't necessarily mind losing spells by default, considering I didn't use them much other than Lead Blades or Gravity Bow. But they should still be an option for people who like the old feel. I'm just not sure how best to do that with the rearranging of the way spell casting classes are handled. I guess multiclassing with Druid is a possibility to get some of that, but that doesn't feel right to me. Maybe just a very small number of slots. Or a small list of spells like the Domain or Bloodline spells.

Eh? Prepared casters can cast the same spell repeatedly just fine. Wizards can find it exceptionally easy (and can do it more).

The Sorcerer's problem is it doesn't have schtick. It's just a weaker version of another class, and being able to choose which class to be inferior to at level 1 isn't a benefit.

I was not clear in my post. Prepared casters can indeed cast the same spell repeatedly but only as often as the slots where they prepared it. If they prepared it N times but need to cast it more, they are screwed

While the Sorcerer can cast the same spell all day long as long as they have slots to do so

The Sorcerer will never face the situation of "If only I could cast this spell that I know but did not prepare enough times". What they face is "Oops, no slot left"

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(

Good to have some free 1.6 playtesting update. ;)

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(

And why does it take until level 12 to get Expert proficiency in spells? They went way overboard on the nerf casters bandwagon and it really shows up in this type of thing.

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(

Well, they're casters, they can influence both the battlefield and the narrative in unique ways, exclusive to them. Everybody can improve proficiency and take skill/general feats, but only casters can produce a whole gamut of effects AND have versatility in adjusting to the situation. The Rogue can phase through walls at higher levels, neat, Wizards can do that and much more. So it's kind of logical that casters won't get as much access to resources non-casters do.

Good to see much improvement with wild shapes. The new Wild Morph looks very intriguing. However there are still some concerns.

First of all, the pest form. It still lacks utility, despite the big improvements, IMHO. The only thing you can use it for is to crawl and a bit of fly after 4 spell level. Why do not you give it more movement options and senses if it is supposed to be used only for movement and sensing? By the way, the range of scent is still unspecified.

Animal form. Is the shark still unable to breathe underwater? Is that really intended? :-)

I hope you don't mind me mentioning some other spells close to the druid question
Plant form 6 level (heightened) damage did not get more dice, while the damage bonus was reduced.

Balefull polymorph. Unclear, how exactly the target is changed. So I transform a fighter into a frog. Does it still have 20 strength and 22+ AC? What about medium size and speed 25? Can it move or only make will saves?

Shapechange. It is not clear what exactly do we get. I can guess that it just copy the effect of the form spells from before. What benefit does it provide, compared to previous versions (I mean, for 20 lvl Druid)?
So no Monstrocity Form, but what about heightened Dragon Form? Does heightenning to 8 spell level count against the restriction?

Bruno Mares wrote:

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(

And why does it take until level 12 to get Expert proficiency in spells? They went way overboard on the nerf casters bandwagon and it really shows up in this type of thing.

Actually spellcasting proficiency is a nerf to everybody else except the casters.

You see, instead of increasing your chances of success, monsters at those levels (12 and etc) also get a bump in saving throws.

So, for casters, the existence of expert/master/legendary spell proficiency is 100% irrelevant, they still have the same % of success.

For all others, that rely on Class DC/powers, at those levels, they become worse.

Tridus wrote:

Bruno Mares wrote:

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(

And why does it take until level 12 to get Expert proficiency in spells? They went way overboard on the nerf casters bandwagon and it really shows up in this type of thing.

Actually spellcasting proficiency is a nerf to everybody else except the casters.

Well, for wild druid, for example, the importance of spellcasting proficiency is doubtful. I would rather take more wild or other Druid's feats instead. I will probably not cast offensive spells at all.

Tridus wrote:

Bruno Mares wrote:

To Mark and the other devs: Will the spellcasting classes still getting less feats than the other classes? This makes no sense. Everyone gets they proficiencies improving and still get feats, but when spellcasters do they need to "lost/give up" a feat? Too sad... :(

And why does it take until level 12 to get Expert proficiency in spells? They went way overboard on the nerf casters bandwagon and it really shows up in this type of thing.

Actually spellcasting proficiency is a nerf to everybody else except the casters.

You see, instead of increasing your chances of success, monsters at those levels (12 and etc) also get a bump in saving throws.

So, for casters, the existence of expert/master/legendary spell proficiency is 100% irrelevant, they still have the same % of success.

For all others, that rely on Class DC/powers, at those levels, they become worse.

Wow, that's even sillier. I don't even know what to say.